Master Thesis Final

Departament de Comercialització i Investigació de Mercats

Perceived Value dimensions, Customer Satisfaction and

Loyalty in the Fast Food Industry: a cross-cultural study in in

Guatemala, Spain and Germany.

AUTHOR:

Christopher Schlosser

SUPERVISOR:

Martina G. Gallarza, PhD.

Valencia, October 2014

International Master in Business Administration (iMBA)

MASTER THESIS

International Marketing Master Thesis 2013-2014 International Master in Business Administration (iMBA)

2 Christopher Schlosser

Table of Contents

List of Tables…….………………………………………………………... 3

Abstract………………………………………………….......................... 6

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 7

1.1

1.2

1.3

2.

Justification of the selected topic………………………………………..

General objective and sub-objectives…………………………………..

Methodology……………………………………………………………….

Literature Review………………………………………………………….

7

8

9

10

2.1. Fast Food Industry……………………………………………………….. 10

2.1.1. Fast Food Industry in Spain……………………………………… 11

2.1.2. Fast Food Industry in Germany..………………………….......... 14

2.1.3. Fast Food Industry in Guatemala………….……………………. 16

2.2. Customer Relationship Management……………………………......... 18

2.2.1. Perceived Value ……………..…………………………………… 20

2.2.2. Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty….….................................. 25

3. Research Objectives……………………………………...……………… 29

3.1. Research Objectives………………………………….…………............ 29

3.2. Research Questions…………………………………….………............ 30

3.3.

Proposing research hypotheses ………………………..……………...

3.3.1. Efficiency................................................................................

3.3.2. Cleanness...............................................................................

3.3.3. Product Quality.......................................................................

3.3.4. Aesthetics...............................................................................

3.3.5. Perceived Price.......................................................................

3.3.6. Social Status...........................................................................

3.3.7. Facilities..................................................................................

3.3.8. Emotional Value......................................................................

3.3.9. Customer Satisfaction.............................................................

3.3.10. Loyalty...................................................................................

31

31

32

33

34

34

35

36

36

37

37

4. Research Methodology...………………………………………………… 39



4.1. Qualitative Research………………………………………………..........

4.1.1. Focus Group with Fast Food Consumers................................

4.1.2. In depth interview with Fast Food Industry expert...................

39

39

42

4.2. Quantitative Research………………………………….......................... 44

5. Analysis and Results......................................................................... 52

5.1. Guatemala vs. Spain……………………………………………….......... 52

5.2. Spain vs. Germany…..…................................................................... 60

5.3. Guatemala vs. Germany………………………………………………… 66

6. Conclusion………………………………………………...………….…… 77

6.1. Key Findings………………………………………………………………. 77

6.2. Managerial implications………………………………………………….. 79

6.3. Study Limitations and further research………………………………… 80

7. References………………………………………………………………… 83

8. Appendices…….………………………………………………………….. 93

8.1. Appendix A: Focus Group Guide and Summary………...................... 93

8.2. Appendix B: In-depth Interview Guide………………………………….. 97

List of Tables

Table 1. Consumer Foodservice by Independent vs. Chained: 2012…….….. 12

Table 2. Sales in Consumer Foodservice by ―Eat in‖ vs. ―Take-away‖ vs.

―Home Delivery‖: 2012…………………………………………………...

13

Table 3. GBO Company Shares in Chained Consumer Foodservice: 2008-

2012 ……………………………………………………………………….

14

Table 4. Consumer Foodservice by Independent vs. Chained: 2012…….…. 15

Table 5. Sales in Consumer Foodservice by ―Eat in‖ vs. ―Take-away‖ vs.

―Home Delivery‖: 2012…………………………………………………...

15

Table 6. GBO Company Shares in Chained Consumer Foodservice: 2008-

2012………………………………………………………………………..

16

Table 7. Value and perceived value definitions ………………………………... 21



Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Focus group of Guatemalans living in Spain: members' profile........

Online Questionnarie.........................................................................

Guatemalans´ Sample Profile …………………………………….……

40

44

48

Table 11. Spanish Sample Ages …………….……………….…………………… 49

Table 12. Germans´ Sample Ages ……………………………………..…………. 49

Table 13. Scaled Questionnaire Responses, question # 1…............................ 50

Table 14. Scaled Questionnaire Responses, questions # 2, 3, 4……………… 51

Table 15. Comparison of quality between Guatemala and Spain …………..... 53

Table 16. Comparison of efficiency between Guatemala and Spain………...... 53

Table 17. Comparison of pricing between Guatemala and Spain ………..…… 54

Table 18. Comparison of social status between Guatemala and Spain..……… 55

Table 19. Comparison of emotions between Guatemala and Spain………..…. 55

Table 20. Comparison of cleanness between Guatemala and Spain................ 56

Table 21. Comparison of aesthetics between Guatemala and Spain ……….... 57

Table 22. Comparison of facilities between Guatemala and Spain ………….... 57

Table 23. Comparison of satisfaction between Guatemala and Spain …..….... 58

Table 24. Comparison of loyalty between Guatemala and Spain …………….. 59

Table 25. Comparison of quality between Spain and Germany..………….…… 60

Table 26. Comparison of efficiency between Spain and Germany ………….... 61

Table 27. Comparison of pricing between Spain and Germany …………….…. 61

Table 28. Comparison of social status between Spain and Germany ………… 62

Table 29. Comparison of emotions between Spain and Germany …….……… 62

Table 30. Comparison of cleanness between Spain and Germany …………… 63

Table 31. Comparison of aesthetics between Spain and Germany….….…….. 63

Table 32. Comparison of facilities between Spain and Germany ……………… 64

Table 33. Comparison of satisfaction between Spain and Germany..…………. 64

Table 34. Comparison of loyalty between Spain and Germany ...……………... 65

Table 35. Comparison of quality between Guatemala and Germany .………… 66

Table 36. Comparison of efficiency between Guatemala and Germany .…….. 67

Table 37. Comparison of pricing between Guatemala and Germany ………… 67



Table 38. Comparison of social status between Guatemala and Germany ...... 68

Table 39. Comparison of emotions between Guatemala and Germany ……… 69

Table 40. Comparison of cleanness between Guatemala and Germany ...…... 69

Table 41. Comparison of aesthetics between Guatemala and Germany ...…... 70

Table 42. Comparison of facilities between Guatemala and Germany ..……… 70

Table 43. Comparison of satisfaction between Guatemala and Germany ….... 71

Table 44. Comparison of loyalty between Guatemala and Germany.…………. 72

Table 45. Summary of hypotheses of comparisons between Guatemala,

Spain and Germany …….……………………………………………….

73



Abstract

The following Master Thesis explores a comparison on how the performance of

perceived value dimensions, customer satisfaction and loyalty differ in the Fast Food

Industry in Guatemala, Spain and Germany. The research application focuses on the

diversity of thoughts in Fast Food Industry in the mentioned countries. The Master

Thesis is divided into 6 main sections. Firstly, we highlight in the introduction the interest

to study this topic, as well as the main objectives and methodology. Section 2 focuses

on the literature review which includes an investigation of Fast Food Industry in the

analyzed countries, as well as the review of the literature on the customer relationship

management that includes perceived value dimensions and satisfaction and loyalty.

Section 3 contains the empirical research, and explains the research objectives and the

development of the hypotheses. Section 4 highlights the methodology used for

qualitative and quantitative research. Section 5 includes the main results of the

comparison of the three countries. On the basis of the previous work it can be

concluded that in most of the cases these countries differ in the opinion of most of the

value dimensions proposed, as well as the thoughts on satisfaction and loyalty. There is

a considerable difference between cultures and managers should take it into

consideration while internationalizing its company around the world. The concluding

section provides an analysis of these results, an appraisal of the study limitations, and

the recommendations for further research.



1. Introduction

Globalization has been a major issue for companies in the last decades; businesses are

expanding throughout the world, especially Fast Food Restaurants. In order to become

successful and competitive in the international market, companies have to learn about

the different cultures and food habits in their targeted markets (Miele & Murdoch, 2002;

Lee & Ulgado, 1997). They have to satisfy the customer´s needs through diverse forms

in order to get loyal clients. The Fast Food industry offers services that are convenient,

fast and relatively inexpensive; this gives customers an easy access to switch Fast

Food providers and the interesting fact is if they can be loyal at all (Sahagun &

Vasquez-Parraga, 2014). So, companies have to deal with this combination and

perform well in order to be successful. They have to have different approaches

depending on the region they are aiming.

This Master Thesis deals with these issues, as it aims at researching and analyzing

differences on perceived value dimensions, customer satisfaction and loyalty in three

different countries, namely Guatemala, Germany and Spain. The Thesis is divided in six

sections; first the introduction to clarify the main ideas of the study, then the literature

review on both the Fast Food Industry and Consumer Behavior on Relationship

Marketing to analyze the theory and framework of the research, followed by the

research objectives and the methodology of the empirical study, then the results to

prove the proposed hypotheses and a conclusion to analyze the results and express the

final thoughts. This following introduction will provide the reader the justification of the

topic selected, from academic and managerial points of view. Then the general and

specific objectives are being introduced, as well as the methodology of the research.

1.1. Justification of the selected topic

The Fast Food Industry is considered low-switching for customers; it is often rapid,

convenient, and relatively inexpensive (Sahagun & Vasquez-Parraga, 2014). In general

in services marketing, it is assumed that there are different levels that can be analyzed

about the perceived value dimensions for the customers (Gallarza, Gil-Saura &



Holbrook, 2012), such as quality, price, timing and efficiency, which influence the

expectations and leads to impact the satisfaction. Accordingly and based on these

dimensions, the retention of customers has become a key concern for many

businesses, and the approach in each culture is different (Cheung, Murrmann,

Murrmann, & Becker, 2004; Mattila, 2000). Various drivers of loyalty such as

satisfaction, loyalty and commitment have, over time, been studied with the objective to

improve customer retention (Terblanche & Boshoff, 2010). Investigating these topics in

such a competitive industry as Fast Food deserves the attention or managers and

researchers, especially if globalization is taking place.

1.2. General objective and sub-objectives

The general objective of this Master Thesis is to compare the main value dimensions

that influence the purchase behavior of consumers, as well as satisfaction and loyalty in

Fast Food Industry in three different countries: Germany, Guatemala and Spain. As it is

widely acknowledged, there is a vast difference between cultures and regions in the

behavioral intentions of purchase of products, even though globalization is rising (Baek,

Ham & Yang, 2006; Chen, 2000; Li, 2014; Lord, Putrevu, & Zheng, 2006). There are

many differences in culture between each country and it is very interesting to discover

the main ones in this industry, as well as their similitudes.

The first sub-objective of this study is to provide knowledge for managers about the

perceived value dimensions that influence the customers and which ones they

appreciate more in order to become loyal to the company in each of the countries being

analyzed. Managers should focus on these value dimensions in order to get to know

their customers and satisfy their needs. The second sub-objective studies loyalty

behavior in Fast Food Industry through satisfaction, as it is known that the switching

costs are very low in this industry (Sahagun & Vasquez-Parraga, 2014); indeed, it is

very easy for a consumer to switch between suppliers in this industry, because of the

low cost of the products and the large variety of suppliers competing in this market.



1.3. Methodology

After using both professional and academic secondary sources for building the

conceptual framework, the empirical study is composed by a qualitative and a

quantitative research. The qualitative part was formed by one focus group that was held

in Valencia, Spain, which was formed by Spanish speaking people, and one in-depth

interview that was held via email with an expert in the Fast Food Industry in Latin

America, with emphasis in Guatemala. The quantitative research was held via online,

developing an electronic questionnaire that could be sent to people from the three

different countries being investigated. The data was analyzed with SPSS in order to

compare the information of the three countries, T-test method was used to obtain the

significant differences of the results between the countries.



2. Literature review

The following literature review is presented in two different sections; an analysis of the

Fast Food Industry in three different countries (Guatemala, Germany and Spain) and

the importance of Customer Relationship Management in the industry and its effect on

consumers, to verify the comparison of value dimensions, satisfaction and loyalty in the

mentioned countries. In the first section, the Fast Food Industry is defined and some of

the main issues nowadays are explained and then explains the different data and

information found about this industry in Spain, Germany and Guatemala. The second

section includes the definitions and applications of customer relationship management,

the perceived value dimensions, customer satisfaction and loyalty; the relationship

between these factors and how they impact on customers. These dimensions will differ

between the three countries being analyzed, their culture is different, and so the reader

will be able to recognize some of them. According to Hofstede, there are six groups of

dimensions of national culture: Power Distance, Individualism versus Collectivism,

Masculinity versus Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long Term Orientation versus

Short Term Normative Orientation and Indulgence versus Restraint. Comparing Spain

and Germany, it can be seen that Spain has a higher power distance and uncertainty

avoidance in their culture, while Germans have higher individualism and masculinity.

When analyzing Guatemala and Spain, it can be seen that Guatemalans have much

higher power distance and uncertainty avoidance in the culture and Spanish have

higher individualism and masculinity. Lastly comparing Guatemala and Germany, it is

clear that Guatemalans have a much higher power distance and uncertainty avoidance,

while Germans have a higher individualism and masculinity. This shows the reader that

there is a huge difference between Guatemala and both European countries, which will

be supported later on.

2.1. Fast Food Industry

―Eating away from home is becoming increasingly common and visits to Fast Food

Restaurants are growing even more rapidly‖ (Dave, An, Jeffery & Ahluwalia, 2009, p.1).



People have very easy access to Fast Food Restaurants and eating there has

increased over the years. There are many types of foodservice across the world, such

as restaurants, catering, coffee shops and many other setups; the main idea is to offer

any kind of food outside the customer´s home. In this study, the emphasis is on the Fast

Food Industry, especially with well-known restaurant chains in Spain, Guatemala and

Germany. This industry has been growing substantially in the last decades worldwide

and has a very important impact on the behavioral intentions of the consumers.

Fast Food has many definitions; one of them is as follows: ―Fast Food is no longer just

sloppy cheeseburgers and greasy French fries. It is instead being redefined by

consumers who are looking for quick, quality menu items of value in modern dining

rooms throughout the quick-service industry‖ (The New Definition of Fast Food, 2010,

para.1)1. Some of the different quick service restaurants offer burgers, pizzas,

sandwiches, wraps and other types of food. The culture plays a very big role in this

industry, because the big chains of restaurants have to adapt to it in each country. For

example, in Europe they offer alcoholic beverages in the menus and in Latin America

they don´t. It all comes back to the customer´s preferences and culture, the main idea is

to satisfy them and influence in their purchase intentions. Services in the Fast Food

Industry are generally inexpensive, rapid and convenient, making the switching costs of

customers reasonably low; this means that they can easily switch their Fast Food

provider (Sahagun & Vasquez-Parraga, 2014). Quick Service Restaurants are

perceived differently than the rest of restaurants (Mathew & Leitch, 2011), therefore it is

very important to examine these perceptions in the different countries.

2.1.1 Fast Food Industry in Spain

According to Euromonitor International in 2013, over 2012 private labels were gaining

popularity in Spain as a way to save money for the customers; this is very important for

reduced-price items and it is reflected on the consumer Fast Food Market with the

launch of such low-cost items. In the weak economic situation that Spain is living

1 According to APA citation style; this is the citation form for websites for defining the paragraph where the quote

was taken from. From now on, this will be the method for referencing definitions from websites.



nowadays, people are cutting down unnecessary expenditures and choose cheap

leisure activities. Some Quick Service Restaurants like McDonald´s, Burger King and

Telepizza have launched items for only €1 in order to strike this effect, such sales

promotions are vital to especially attract young audience.

In Spain there are a lot of independent outlets, generally family-owned businesses; with

the economic crisis and latest liberalization measures taken by the government, it has

been very difficult or even impossible to compete against the larger chains of

restaurants which benefit from economies of scale (Euromonitor International, 2013).

Table 1 shows the impact of the chained foodservice in Spain in the consumers. In the

Home Delivery/Takeaway category, the chained businesses are approximately 78% of

the market, leaving only a 22% to local or family-owned restaurants. In the Fast Food

Market, the amount of chained and independent businesses is balanced, which gives an

opportunity to local commerce to rise. The big difference and advantage for the

independent restaurants is in the full-service area, where the chained businesses have

only approximately 2% of the market. One example that proves that the chained

restaurants have a huge impact in the Fast Food Industry is with the pizza foodservice,

participating in almost 85% of the market. This data shows that in the Quick Service

Restaurants, the big chains are dominating the market, overcoming the local and family

owned businesses.

Table 1: Consumer Foodservice by Independent vs. Chained: 2012

Outlets Independent Chained Total

Home Delivery/Takeaway 263 951 1,214

Fast Food 2,340 2,517 4,857

Full-Service Restaurants 60,363 1,095 61,458

Pizza Consumer Foodservice 189 1,059 1,248

Source: Euromonitor International from official statistics, trade associations, trade press, company research, trade interviews, trade

sources, 2012

Table 2 indicates the different ways that people consume Fast Food in Spain; in the

Fast Food business, the majorities of consumers prefer takeaways, rather than eat



inside the restaurants and home delivery, which is very low with a 2.4% of preference.

This is the opposite when it comes to full-service restaurants, where almost all

consumers want to enjoy and experience the environment of the physical facility.

Table 2: Sales in Consumer Foodservice by ―Eat in‖ vs. ―Take-away‖ vs. “Home

Delivery‖: 2012

Outlets Eat in Home

Delivery

Take-

Away

Fast Food 22.70% 2.40% 74.90%

Full-Service

Restaurants 96.40% 0.20% 3.40%


sources, 2012

Table 3 enables the reader to appreciate the top ten ranking of chained consumer

foodservice in Spain, which has in the top three Fast Food chains. Approximately 40%

of this industry is dominated by Fast Food Restaurants, which the top two are

international (McDonald´s and Burger King) and the third is a Spanish company

(Telepizza). Both of the international companies are growing each year more, due to

their good marketing strategies and the local company has been struggling to maintain

steady with their market share. From the fourth to tenth position, some of them are local

companies, for example, Pans & Company and 100 Montaditos, as well as international

companies, such as Domino´s Pizza, VIPS and KFC. These international brands are

managed by local groups, which have additional restaurants or coffee shops in their

business portfolio. Most of them have lost share in the market, probably taken off by the

big chains, according to the new trends in this industry.



Table 3: GBO Company Shares in Chained Consumer Foodservice: 2008-2012

Company 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

McDonald´s Corp 14.6% 15.7% 17.5% 18.7% 19.3%

Burger King Holdings Inc. 8.9% 9.6% 10.4% 10.6% 10.8%

Telepizza SAU 9.4% 10.0% 9.9% 9.9% 10.1%

Agrolimen S.A. 7.0% 6.1% 5.6% 6.0% 5.6%

Grupo Zena S.A. 5.2% 5.1% 5.1% 4.7% 4.3%

Vips Group 4.6% 4.5% 4.6% 4.4% 4.3%

Heineken NV 5.6% 5.1% 4.7% 4.3% 4.0%

Restalia Grupo de

Eurorestauración SL 1.2% 1.3% 1.6% 2.3% 3.0%

Rodilla Sanchez SL 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0%

Restauravia Food SL 1.7% 1.8% 2.8% 3.1% 2.8%


sources, 2012

2.1.2. Fast Food Industry in Germany

For two years in a row (2011 and 2012) the foodservice market sales has had a small

increase in Germany, even though there has been a decline in outlet numbers through

the years. The economic crisis in Western Europe did not affect that much to this

market sales value (Euromonitor International, 2013). According to Euromonitor

International in a study in 2013, the trends in the consumers in the foodservice industry

indicate that companies in this market have to invest in their business, especially the

outlets, products and services offered by employees; customers are attracted to

appealing, comfortable and modern outlets.

In Germany, the top players in the food service market are the subsidiaries and

franchisees of multinational burger Fast Food Restaurants, such as McDonald´s and

Burger King. The sales in the Fast Food Industry have grown since they were

introduced in this country and it represents almost a third of all the foodservice value

sales in 2012 (Euromonitor International, 2013).



It can be clearly seen on table 4 that in Germany the home delivery/takeaway category

has not that much influence of chained foodservice companies (with approximately 13%

of the market share); the local businesses dominate in this and most of the consumer

foodservice industry. The table shows that in the Fast Food market, full-service

restaurants and in the pizza consumer foodservice market, the local and family-owned

companies dominate the market against the chained enterprises.

Table 4: Consumer Foodservice by Independent vs. Chained: 2012

Outlets Independent Chained Total

Home

Delivery/Takeaway 5140 786 5,926

Fast Food 29,697 7,683 37,380

Full-Service

Restaurants 86,480 914 87,394

Pizza Consumer

Foodservice 18130 851 18,981


sources, 2012

Table 5 shows the reader that according to Euromonitor International, the consumers do

not consider take-away for the foodservice industry. Most of them clearly prefer to eat

inside the facilities of the Fast Food and full-service restaurants.

Table 5: Sales in Consumer Food service by ―Eat in‖ vs. ―Take-away‖ vs. ―Home

Delivery‖: 2012

Outlets Eat in Home

Delivery

Take-

Away

Fast Food 73.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Full-Service

Restaurants 95.4% 4.3% 0.0%


sources, 2012.



Table 6 indicates that McDonald´s and Burger King are dominating the market with

more than 40% of the share; these two international restaurants dominate this market in

the whole world. The first company is growing slowly but steady each year, while Burger

King has declined their participation through the years. This shows us that the Fast

Food Industry dominates the foodservice market. The rest of the brands are local and

foreign food service providers, such as German gas stations and restaurants, as well as

international brands such as KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and Subway. These

international brands are managed by local groups, which have additional businesses in

their portfolio, generally related to foodservice. Most of them have lost share in the

market, probably taken off by the big chains, according to the new trends in this

industry, but trying to increase their market share and be more competitive.

Table 6: GBO Company Shares in Chained Consumer Foodservice: 2008-2012

Company 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

McDonald´s Corp 33.8% 33.9% 34.5% 35.1% 35.1%

Burger King Worldwide Inc. 9.6% 9.2% 8.9% 8.6% 8.7%

Autobahn Tank & Rest GmbH &

Co Kg 7.6% 7.5% 7.3% 7.1% 7.0%

Nordsee GmbH 3.4% 3.5% 3.4% 3.3% 3.2%

Yum! Brands Inc. 1.5% 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 2.1%

SSP Group Ltd 1.7% 2.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1%

Doctor´s Associates Inc. 2.5% 2.7% 2.3% 2.0% 2.0%

Inter Ikea Systems BV 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9%

British Petroleum Co 210.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9%

Pic, The Vapiano AG 0.7% 0.9% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6%


sources, 2012.

2.1.3. Fast Food Industry in Guatemala

Specific data about the Fast Food Industry in Guatemala are very difficult to find,

because there are few studies about this subject, at least from a public institution, and it



is very tough to access the private ones. In the last ten years, there has been a huge

rise of the Fast Food Industry, especially with the franchises from abroad, 85% of these

restaurants are located in the capital, Guatemala City and the rest in the countryside

(Masip, 2008). The most popular restaurants in Guatemala are Pollo Campero,

McDonald´s, Burger King and Los Cebollines; the first and last restaurants are local. As

the reader can see, the main franchises are the same as in Spain and Germany, which

confirms that the globalization is a vital aspect in this industry in most parts of the world.

In the restaurant business in Guatemala, there are 200 franchises operation nationwide

(CentralAmericaData.com, 2011) and are looking for expansion by selling franchises

abroad and locally in the countryside; the market in the capital is stagnant

(CentralAmericaData.com, 2012). This gives businesses an opportunity to expand to

the countryside and face the challenge of centralization of the economy in the city. The

downside is that in the countryside the education level is really low and most of the

population does not know other brands or companies, than the local ones. This is a very

big challenge that companies have to face. Guatemala is the leader in Central America

in generating local franchises; this market grows 15-20% a year in this region (Masip,

2008). A quantitative study published in 2011 by El Periódico (one of the main

newspapers in this country) in Guatemala, shows that most of Guatemalans prefer

chicken as their favorite dish; the second choice is pizza and the third Chinese food.

Other meals as Italian food, hamburgers and seafood are also one of the favorite of the

population; this means that the food preferences are similar to the big global restaurant

chains. The reason for the increase of Fast Food consumption in Guatemala is due to a

cultural issue; it has a lot of influence from the United States of America (El Periódico,

2011).

The second section of the literature review goes through the explanation of the

Customer Relationship Management and its components, which are the perceived

value, customer satisfaction and loyalty in the Fast Food Industry. The reader will be

able to appreciate the relationship, similitudes and differences between them. It is very

important to analyze the service-oriented businesses in this industry, in order to attend



to the satisfaction of the customers, and struggling against the cultural differences

among this industry (Gilbert, Veloutsou, Goode & Moutinho, 2004).

2.2. Customer Relationship Management

―The approach of the Fast Food Market orientation has changed; now businesses are

increasingly focusing on understanding customers‖ (Lanier & Saini, 2008, p.1). It all

started with offering food in a fast and cheap way, now the trend is to focus more on the

customer needs and create value together in order to keep them satisfied and loyal. In

fact, the Fast Food Industry is adopting a more customer-orientated approach. We shall

see in the following paragraphs how the main ideas from both services marketing

management and customer relationship management can be applied to this industry.

Fast Food is considered a hybrid in the continuum of goods and services (Zeithaml and

Bitner, 2003); they offer tangible and intangible products to consumers, in order for

them to enjoy the environment of the restaurant. Value drivers can then be offered,

within this industry, from both tangible and intangible elements (Brady, Robertson &

Cronin, 2001). This explains that customers are requiring every day more attention from

the companies, which have to learn about them and try to satisfy them at all costs. This

is accomplished by working closely with key stakeholders; it is vital to have similar

values and goals (Leidner, 1993). So, the companies have to direct their strategies to

customer satisfaction, analyzing and evaluating their behavior first. As the academia

has clearly stated for the last decade, the study and analysis of service value, quality

and satisfaction issues are the ones that have dominated the services literature in last

decades (Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000). ―The development of service marketing concepts

over the years has evolved in accordance with the philosophy of customer orientation. A

marketing orientation puts the customer at the core of an organization´s purpose and

activity‖ (Gilmore, 2003, p.6). This definition explains that the point of view of companies

is changing to keep customers satisfied and happy and always trying to get more,

instead of focusing only in the company‘s activities and offers.



―Marketing scholars are studying the nature and scope of Customer Relationship

Management and are developing conceptualizations regarding the value and process of

cooperative and collaborative relationships between buyers and sellers‖ (Parvatiyar &

Sheth, 2001, p.2). This creates the understanding of these factors and how they relate

to each other. Customer Relationship Management is defined as ―a comprehensive

strategy and process of acquiring, retaining, and partnering with selective customers to

create superior value for the company and the customer. It involves the integration of

marketing, sales, customer service, and the supply-chain functions of the organization,

to achieve greater efficiencies and effectiveness in delivering customer value‖

(Parvatiyar & Sheth, 2001, p. 5).

Nowadays service-oriented companies need to make emphasis on this area in order to

fulfill the customer´s needs and satisfy them to influence them to repeat the purchase;

this means to persuade their behavioral intentions (Bagozzi, Wong, Abe & Bergami,

2000). This is a very important issue for companies, in order to adapt their customer-

centric strategies to satisfy their needs. The main goal is to develop a close cooperative

and partnering relationships with the customers (Parvatiyar & Sheth, 2001). Customer

Relationship Management seeks to make customers loyal, though satisfaction by

fulfilling the customers perceived value dimensions. Some of these measure the quality

of the offerings, the time spent in the facilities, the physical and psychological

environment of the restaurant, the impact of society and its status and the pricing.

Since the 80s, and mostly during the 90s, researchers have developed Relationship

Marketing, in order to improve the focus on customers, and study the process of the

relationship that businesses have with their customers and other stakeholders

(Palmatier, 2008; Berry, 1995). ―Relationship Marketing is the process of identifying,

developing, maintaining, and terminating relational exchanges with the purpose of

enhancing performance‖ (Palmatier, 2008, p.5). To build relationships with customers

and key stakeholders is necessary for companies in order to achieve long-lasting

relations through commitment and confidence, creating a higher value together and

achieving a competitive advantage to succeed among the market (Jalili, 2008).



Relationship Marketing is to invite, maintain and enhance stakeholder‘s relationships at

a profit, so that the goals and objectives of all parties involved are obtained (Brink &

Berndt, 2008). This is done in order to build better relations with all the parties involved

and to improve them in order to be successful in the future. Jorgensen (2011) explained

that the idea of relationship extended in the different areas, such as service and

consumers, are the result of high interest in relations between the parties. This study

demonstrates the relationship between these factors and how they influence in the

customers purchase decisions.

In order to go deeper into the peculiarities of Customer Relationship Management in the

Fast Food Industry, it is vital to analyze the value that customers perceive when

consuming in a quick service restaurant, in order to fulfill their needs to reach their

satisfaction and try to make them loyal. The following section will explain the three main

concepts underlying Customer Relationship Management (i.e. Perceived value,

customer satisfaction and loyalty) in order for the reader to understand them for the

subsequent research done in this study.

2.2.1. Perceived Value

People can be motivated to go out and eat, most of them are looking for fun, taste and

interactions with others; this gives them experiential value in order to make further

decisions (Park, 2004). Globalization is one of the reasons why cultures are meeting

and their markets are changing to a common culture worldwide; one clear example is

the Fast Food Restaurants (Park, 2004). To understand the marketing relationships

between customers and companies, it is vital to explore the concept of value, which

many authors have been trying to research in the last decades (e.g. Albrecht, 1992;

Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Oliver, 1999; Holbrook, 1999; Gallarza & Gil-Saura, 2006;

Gallarza, Gil-Saura & Arteaga, 2013).

There are many different dimensions of value that customers around the world perceive

from Fast Food Restaurants, this perceived value can be seen from different points of

view in order to evaluate and analyze a product, which derive from food quality, the



service given and many other dimensions. ―The only thing that matters in the new world

of quality is delivering customer value‖ (Albrecht, 1992, p.7). This is focused on what

customers are looking for in order to try to satisfy them. According to Cronin, Brady &

Hult (2000) the quality, service and satisfaction could be related to the behavioral

intention of the customers when purchasing a product. Sweeney and Soutar (2001)

argue that when companies satisfy the needs of the consumers, they deliver value,

which builds a long term relationship with them. Managers of Fast Food Industry

companies should be aware of these value dimensions and to understand them, in

order to achieve market place advantage and gain strength in the industry.

Since more than two decades, researchers have tried to understand the meaning of

perceived value that influence in customer´s decisions; to understand the concept of

value in a better form, some definitions from famous authors are presented:

Table 7: Value and perceived value definitions

Authors Definitions

Zeithaml

(1984)

―The perceived value for money is the evaluation that the consumer

of the value of the product does, based on its price.‖

Zeithaml

(1998:14)

―The perceived value is the global evaluation of the utility of a

product of a consumer, based on the perception of what it obtains for

what it delivers.‖

Rosemberg

(1995:182)

―The value of a product is the sum of all aspects of the merchandise

that seeks to satisfy the needs of the costumer minus the negative

aspects of the article.‖

Guaspari

(1996:9) ―The value is what the customer gets for what it costs‖.

Anderson &

Narus

―The worth in monetary terms of the technical, economical, service

and social benefits that a customer of a company receives in



(1998:54) exchange for the price it pays for the offer of the market.‖

Holbrook

(1999:5)

―I define value for the consumer as an interactive, relative and

preferential experience. Typically, such consumer value refers to the

evaluation of some object by some subject.‖

Oliver

(1999:45)

―The value is a positive function of what we receive and a negative

function of what we sacrifice.‖

Bigné et al.

(2000:75)

―The perceived value could be considered as the global assessment

of what the consumer does with the utility of an exchange

relationship, based on the perceptions of what it receives and gives.‖

Martín et al.

(2004:54)

―The perceived value (service) is the judgment of the customer about

a received service, where all the perceived benefits and sacrifices

about it are simultaneously processed in the customer´s mind, which

leads to a global evaluation of the service provider.‖

Park (2004)

―Consumer values of eating-out can be defined as value consumers

derive from food, service, and restaurants when eating-out.

Consumers pursue these values to satisfy their hunger, and need for

convenience, pleasure, entertainment, social interaction, and the

mood transformation‖

Gallarza, Gil-

Saura &

Holbrook

(2012)

―In a consumer behavior framework, consumer value – often called

´perceived value´- refers to the possession and consumption of

products and services.‖

These definitions lead the reader to understand different points of view of what

perceived value and value mean and also it simplifies the comprehension of the

multidimensionality consumption and experience of the customers (Gallarza, Gil-Saura

& Holbrook, 2011). In order to understand what is the value that customers perceive,



specifically in the Fast Food Industry and to become loyal or to be satisfied, it is

important to go deep in the meaning of the value dimensions. Each of the perceived

value dimensions can show us the different aspects and points of view that customers

have towards this industry and to analyze the impact on the satisfaction and loyalty of

consumers (Gil & Gallarza, 2008). These value dimensions influence in the decisions

that consumers make towards Fast Food Restaurants and are very important for these

companies to know, in order to focus their attention mostly in them, in order to satisfy

their target customers. This decision comes from the consumption experience that

costumers have, instead of the company or brand chosen or in the object purchased

(Holbrook, 1999).

As the literature recognized, there are many value dimensions that can be considered,

such as quality of the service or product, the physical attributes of the offering company

and the feelings that influence the customers towards a product. ―The way that service

quality and meal quality are perceived by local consumers will influence customers

‗satisfaction and consequently their loyalty in the future‖ (Etemad-Sajadi & Rizzuto,

2013, p.781). The quality of the food in the Fast Food Industry is a vital perceived value

that consumers analyze in order to choose among their options of this product. Knutson

(2000) explains that studies have shown that the most important factor that consumers

considered in Fast Food Restaurants was whether their meal was prepared the way

they wanted it. This means that costumers are seeking to satisfy their needs and will try

very hard to get what they want; this is an opportunity for the companies to investigate

and get to know their clients in order to meet these needs. Johns & Pine (2002) state

that costumers view the Fast Food service as a set of characteristics, ascribing different

stages of importance to each characteristic.

Customers are influenced through these dimensions of value, which can lead them to

be satisfied with a product and eventually becoming loyal to the brand or company. The

reader will be explained how the dimensions of value can influence the customers in

order to become satisfied in and the importance of their role to influence the behavior of

consumers. Sweeney and Soutar (2001) explain that the different value dimensions are



inter-related; it means that when a consumer purchases a product, it affects the hedonic

and utilitarian components of consumer behavior and it influences the buyer to choose.

In this sense, and concerning the industry studied, a research made by Park, in 2004,

the results showed that the perceived value dimensions in Korea for the Fast Food

Restaurants were divided in two factors: hedonic and utilitarian. The hedonic value in

this market had a positive correlation with cleanliness, efficiency, mood, quality of food

and the physical facilities. The utilitarian value was centered in pricing, quick service

and sale promotions. The results showed that the hedonic value was more influencing

than the utilitarian for Fast Food consumers in this country. Many authors have debated

on these two components; creating scales and relationships with consumer behavior

and purchase intentions. The underlying process for this dichotomy was proposed long

time ago: Holbrook & Hirschman (1982) already explained that the information

processing point of view of different products were judged with utilitarian criteria; the

performance of it compared to what they expected. Through hedonic criteria, the

products are viewed from the experience of customers of the purchase of it. Batra &

Ahtola (1990) argued that consumers valued hedonic and utilitarian dimensions when

consuming.

The following section will explain the relationship of customer satisfaction and loyalty,

which are the pillar of this research. As stated by Sweeney & Soutar (2001, p.206),

―Perceived value has been widely discussed at a generic level, particularly in the

practitioner literature and can easily be confused with satisfaction‖. This explains that

there have been confusions in the past, but these concepts are dissimilar; perceived

value happens in various stages of a buying process and satisfaction is an evaluation of

the usage of the product. ―The way that service quality and meal quality are perceived

by local consumers will influence customer´s satisfaction and consequently their loyalty

in the future‖ (Etemad-Sajadi & Rizzuto, 2013, p.781). As the reader can realize, these

factors are related and influence in customers decision of purchase. This section will

show the different definitions and characteristics of satisfaction and loyalty, as well as

their influence in the behavior of customers.



2.2.2. Customer Satisfaction and loyalty

―Competition in the Fast Food market is growing and success depends more and more

on customer retention‖ (Etemad-Sajadi & Rizzuto, 2013, p. 781). Companies need to

focus on keeping the most customers as possible and maintain them satisfied at all

costs, in order to keep being competitive in the Food Market. Nowadays the ever-

increasing globalization of products and services leads companies to have to focus their

main objective to satisfying the customers, by searching and investigating their needs,

in order for them to become loyal. In the Fast Food Industry, the customer perceptions

of the service are very important to measure the provider performance (Stank, Goldsby

& Vickery, 1999). When customers are satisfied, there is an emotional response

resulted from a cognitive process of evaluation of the product acquired against the cost

of obtaining it.

As the literature states, ―satisfaction is the consumer´s fulfillment response. It is a

judgment that a product/service feature, or the product or service itself, provided (or is

providing) a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment, including levels of

under-or over fulfillment‖ (Oliver, 2010, p.8). This definition clearly states that

satisfaction is related to the customers ‗point of view, and how they evaluate and

compare the product performance to what they expected. For a customer to be satisfied

and happy, companies have to fulfill their expectations and try to go the extra mile for

them, so that they can return to purchase with them and spread the good word to the

most people as possible. If the customer has positive results from this outcome, only

then, he or she can become loyal to a product, brand or to a company. According to

Smith (2012) when customers have a good experience at a restaurant, they usually

repurchase there. In comparison to other services, in Fast Food Industry, re-purchase is

more likely to happen, after satisfaction, because of the nature of the experience. The

positive assessments influence in customer satisfaction, which leads to loyalty to the

brand or product. Smith argues that customer satisfaction can be measured with four

key dimensions: The first one is about the overall opinion of the customer´s experience

of the product; it is mostly centered on the quality and reliability.



The second key dimension measures loyalty of the customers, which are influenced by

the evaluation of performance of the provider. The third measurement deals with

specific value dimensions that influence in the satisfaction of customers, it tries to

evaluate all the attributes of the product and this way to measure the attitude of

customers towards it. The last dimension is the intention of repurchase, which

summarizes all of the measurements above and conclude if the customer would return

to buy the product. According to Etemad-Sajadi & Rizzuto (2013), consumers

repurchase and speak well of a Fast Food Restaurant with a good image, in the

confidence that will provide a guarantee of high quality products.

The relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty is one of the topics that

many authors have studied and proven to be certain. ―Indeed, consumer loyalty is a pre-

requisite for a successful and profitable business‖ (Etemad-Sajadi & Rizzuto, 2013, p.

781). The main strategies of increasing loyalty in a business are to please customers

and satisfying them at all costs so that they want to continue purchasing, and

obstructing the switching development to other suppliers by increasing the switching

barriers (Picón, Castro & Roldán, 2014). According Grönroos (1982) the perceptions

after the purchasing experience are influenced by the image of the company, so if

consumers obtain a good service, they will robotically have a positive perception of the

brand or company. The willingness of returning and keep on doing business with a

company requires incentives and motivation for customers; this is what loyalty is all

about. “Customer loyalty is viewed as the strength of the relationship between an

individual's relative attitude and repeat patronage. The relationship is seen as mediated

by social norms and situational factors. Cognitive, affective, and conative antecedents

of relative attitude are identified as contributing to loyalty, along with motivational,

perceptual, and behavioral consequences‖ (Dick & Basu, 1994, p.101). To increase

loyalty is a very difficult task that companies nowadays are obliged to work for, by

training their employees and setting clear objectives towards the satisfaction of

customers.



There are three ways to approach the loyalty: behavioral, attitudinal and a combination

of both (Oliver, 1997); the first one means that it emphasizes loyalty as a repeat

purchasing behavior and the attitudinal approach analyzes loyalty as a psychological

state that the customer may reach (Picón, Castro & Roldán, 2014). A combination of

both suggests a repetition of the purchase behavior with the emotional state of the

customers. Etemad-Sajadi & Rizzuto (2013) argue that the majority of consumers who

are loyal, did switch brand recently even if they were satisfied; so in order to become

loyal, customers have to have a high level of satisfaction. To add to this theory, Jones

and Sasser (1995) said that a drop from a customer´s total satisfaction ends being a

major drop in loyalty towards the company.

When a company has loyal customers, it means that probably they have successfully

fulfilled their expectations and maybe more, and have provided them satisfaction related

to their offer, making them repurchase and helping the business attract more customers

by speaking well about them to their known relatives. According to Sahagun & Vasquez-

Parraga (2014) customer loyalty in the Fast Food Industry can be approached as the

consumer behavioral outcome, such as repetition of purchase, and the other approach

focuses on the attitude of the customers, that may have affection towards the company

or brand. But it is also important to mention that not always the loyal customers are

satisfied with the offer provided by the supplier; they might not be satisfied at all, but

they might just be loyal because of the good service that was provided to them. For

example, a customer might be unsatisfied with a product, but will return to purchase in

the near future and be loyal to the company even though he or she was not satisfied. In

this sense, satisfaction and service quality may differ in Fast Food Restaurants.

Picón, Castro & Roldán (2014) argue that satisfaction and the value of the product is the

key determinant of customer loyalty. When customers are loyal, they may give the

perception of wanting to be part of the company, in order to help improve it day by day,

until they can perform in an adequate manner.

As aforementioned, when a customer is satisfied with a product (good or service), he or

she wants to continue purchasing it, because it fulfills his or her needs. Being satisfied



implies that the supplier has convinced the customer through their offer to purchase

their product; they influence the client´s behavior of purchase intention towards their

product so that they can continue purchasing it and spreading the word. According to

Park & Jang (2014) satisfaction is a direct originator of behavioral intentions, for

example, repurchase and switching intentions. When the satisfaction of a customer is

increased, it leads to repurchase intentions as well as reducing the switching intentions

of customers. A real challenge for a company is to know their customers and to reach

their satisfaction towards their product. But having done this, they have to be smart

enough to influence the purchase intentions, in order for them to continue buying for

their business. The difference is that when a company satisfies a customer, it matches

or exceeds their expectations, but influencing in the client´s behavioral intentions is one

of the toughest tasks, because it needs for the companies to completely understand

their customers and predict and anticipate their needs. In the aforementioned work by

Cronin, Brady and Hult (2000) it can be noticed that service quality and perceived value

have influence on behavioral intentions of the customers in a direct and indirect form.

The service quality and service value also leads to customer satisfaction, which leads

us to say that the satisfaction influences customers to an emotional response.



3. Research Objectives

In order to show in a clear form to the reader what the study is all about, it is very

important to mention the general objective and the sub-objectives of the research. They

are focused on the comparison of the influence of loyalty, satisfaction and perceived

value dimensions of the Fast Food Industry in Germany, Guatemala and Spain, and the

impact on them in order to relate them and prove the hypotheses proposed.

3.1. Research objectives

As announced in our introduction, the general objective of this study is to compare the

main factors that influence in the loyalty of the consumers of the Fast Food Industry, in

three different countries: Germany, Guatemala and Spain. There are many differences

in culture between each of these countries and it is very interesting to discover the main

ones in this industry, as well as their similitudes. Even though globalization plays a huge

role in this market, it is fascinating to study the variances among different cultures in

different continents. According to Ghemawat in 2004, the distance between countries in

not only about the geographical dimension, it also influences the culture, politics and

economy. For example, there is a high chance of having similar preferences in two

countries, by having a colony-colonizer relationship, such as Spain and Guatemala.

Another example is if both countries speak the same language; that is the case between

Guatemala and Spain. As Germany, although being geographically closer to Spain,

does not offer such similarities, it will be very interesting to analyze the similitudes of

these three countries.

The first sub-objective of the present work is to provide knowledge for researchers and

managers about the perceived value dimensions that influence the customers and

which ones they appreciate more in order to become loyal to the company in each of

the countries being analyzed. Nowadays, it is vital to get to know the customers in order

to build relationships and influence their behavioral purchase intentions. After analyzing

this study, people interested in the Fast Food Market will be able to have a perspective



of different countries and the impact of customers‘ attitudes towards it, as well as the

values that they appreciate the most in order to become satisfied.

The second sub-objective related to loyalty behavior in Fast Food Industry through

satisfaction, as it is known that the switching costs are very low in this industry

(Sahagun & Vasquez-Parraga, 2014); indeed, it is very easy for a consumer to switch

between suppliers in this industry, because of the low cost of the products and the large

variety of suppliers competing in this market. The understanding of how customers

value consumption experiences derived from the various market offerings is a very

important issue that will be developed in this study, as well as to find out the perception

that the Fast Food Restaurants have about customers and the impact in each one of

them. This will lead to analyze the impact they have on the satisfaction of the

customers. Accordingly, this sub-objective of this study is grounded on the idea that

satisfied customers become loyal customers in the Fast Food Industry.

Having the sub-objectives set and clear, there are some research questions that

accompany them, and are vital to answer them in order to complete the research.

Before starting the study, the first aspect to have clear was the research questions,

which help to guide towards the objectives of an investigation.

3.2. Research questions

In every research different questions may be posted to be answered in order to fully

understand a subject. The main question of this research is which are the perceived

value dimensions that influence the purchase of consumers in the Fast Food

Industry? This question will be the pillar of the qualitative research of this study, which

gives the author a much clearer idea of the different values to investigate. The second

research question is how do these dimensions differ in the customers in the three

studied countries? This question can be answered after analyzing the chosen value

dimensions and hypothesis of each country, and will show how they impact behavior of

the consumers. The third question of this study is: could customers be loyal at all in

this industry? This answer will show the reader if the customers can really be loyal in



this industry, even though the switching costs are low and there a many suppliers

competing on it.

There have been different studies that tried to answer these questions, but to our best

knowledge, never comparing with the three countries we are interested in. In order to

prove the impact of the perceived value dimensions in the loyalty of customers, a set of

hypotheses was developed and will be explained in the following section.

3.3. Proposing research hypotheses

The study focuses on a comparison that includes the perceived value dimensions of

customers, which have effects on customer satisfaction and leads them to become loyal

to a restaurant in the Fast Food Industry in three different countries. The research has

as variables different value dimensions that customers find important in their decisions,

as well as experts in this industry recommend taking into consideration. The overall

outcome of the value dimensions will determine a total value that will be related to the

customer satisfaction and this will determine if the customers are loyal or not.

According to our literature review (Holbrook, 1999; Gallarza & Gil, 2006; Park, 2004;

Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Oliver, 1999; Etemad-Sajadi & Rizzuto, 2013) the following

value dimensions are the most influencing in the Fast Food Industry: efficiency of the

process, cleanness of the physical facilities, quality of the product, aesthetics of the

facilities, price, impact of emotions, the general view of facilities and the influence of

social status. The essence of our study depicts how all of these value dimensions will

give the reader an idea of the strength they have in influencing the customers in order to

become satisfied with the company. As proved by the literature (e.g. Cronin, Brady &

Hult, 2000), being satisfied with the company can make a customer repurchase in the

near future and become loyal to the supplier. The following paragraphs will develop our

approach and justification to each of the value dimensions considered in our research,

and the subsequent hypotheses derived from them.

3.3.1. Efficiency

Time is considered a scarce resource; consumers have to take decisions regarding the

use of their time while purchasing goods and services (Leclerc, Schmitt & Dubé, 1995).



Fast Food Restaurants have operational systems planned to provide their clients with

efficient and responsive services, the perception of the time spent in every culture is

different (Lee & Ulgado, 1997). These issues (time convenience) derive value for the

consumer, and correspond to the dimension of ―efficiency‖ (Holbrook, 1999). As stated

by King & Lawley, (2013, p.100) ―Fast Food Restaurants have efficiency inscribed in

their DNA-not just in the production of food, but at just about every level and function of

the organization‖. These systems comprise three interdependent areas: input,

processing and output. The success of this system is directly associated to the degree

of cooperation and management among these three subsystems (Choudhary, 2011),

and ad what is more important, they do vary from one country to another (Gilbert,

Veloutsou, Goode & Moutinho, 2004). The time spent while waiting for the food is a very

important value that may differ across cultures and that customers evaluate in order to

feel satisfied with a restaurant in the Fast Food Industry, which has its name because of

this. Customers expect to receive a quick service, with quality food and good attention

from the employees and of course at a low price. According to this rationale, we can

post it our first hypothesis, which is:

H1. Perceptions of Efficiency will differ significantly between countries

3.3.2. Cleanness

When customers enter a restaurant, they expect it to be clean and in order; being dirty

and messy will influence in the customer´s perspective of the appearance of the facility.

"Fast Food establishments have a positive record of cleanliness when compared with

other restaurants" (Smith, 2006, p.105). Places where people eat have to demonstrate

hygiene; customers like to eat in a healthy and clean environment. Fast Food Chains

apply the concept of cleanliness in all their restaurants around the world; it is one of the

most important factors of success. (Kotler, Kartajaya, Huan & Liu, 2008; Kara, Kaynak,

Kucukemiroglu, 1995; Park, 2004). It is very important for the administration of these

restaurants to have cleanness policies globally, and processes so that the customers

can feel comfortable while eating their products. According to Cohen and Glover in

2013, the perception of cleanness varies among cultures and family values. "In this



manner, understanding customers‘ expectations or perceptions of restaurant

cleanliness can be essential for successful restaurant management" (Yoo, 2012). For

example, the restrooms have to be clean at all times, it is a fact that customers care

about this. ―The most personal — and most telling — moment that a customer

experiences in a restaurant isn't typically at the table. It's in the restroom‖ (Horovitz,

2013, para.1). This shows the reader that cleanness plays a big role in every type of

restaurant and it influences the behavior of customers. According to this rationale, we

can post it our second hypothesis, which is:

H2. Perceptions of Cleanness will differ significantly between countries

3.3.3. Product Quality

The quality of the food is one of the differentiations that restaurants worldwide have

among them; it is a vital value that customers consider while choosing to which Fast

Food Restaurant to go. In this market, restaurants try to differentiate from the

competitors through the quality of their products. In any service provision, it sounds

obvious that quality leads to service value (Gallarza and Gil, 2006; Cravens, Holland,

Lamb & Moncrieff, 1988; Zeithaml, 1988) but this is even more clear when planning

restoration service (Baraban, & Durocher, 2010) ―The way that service quality and meal

quality are perceived by local consumers will influence customers‘ satisfaction and

consequently their loyalty in the future‖ (Etemad-Sajadi & Rizzuto, 2013, p. 781). The

quality of the food can be measured with standardization; trying to get the same product

every time a customer asks for it in any part of the world (Baek, Ham, Yang, 2006):

same taste, looks and smell (Leidner, 1993). According to Park (2004), the quality of

food was the most important attribute for the Fast Food consumers in Korea. This

proves that customers nowadays are demanding better products and that is a struggle

among competitors in this market in almost all the regions of the world. But, these

customers‘ demands may change across countries, and presents different levels of

expectations (Cheung, Murrmann, Murrmann & Becker, 2004) According to this

rationale, we can post it our third hypothesis, which is:

H3. Perceptions of Food Quality will differ significantly between countries



3.3.4. Aesthetics

In the Fast Food Industry, the aesthetics of the restaurants in every region play a very

big role, not just on the outside, but also on the inside (Witkowski, Ma & Zheng, 2003);

customers want to eat in an appealing environment, not among crowded settings (Kim,

2008) or any uncomfortable atmosphere. The restaurant experience plays a huge role in

this market; the aesthetics have to match costumer‘s needs in order for them to feel

comfortable (Miele & Murdoch, 2002). Each culture has its own perception of aesthetics

in infrastructures, which involves the social influence in it (Fumerton, 1991). When a

restaurant looks attractive on the outside, people are intended to enter it and try it; it

gives a good perception of what the company can offer inside the restaurant. The inside

design is vital in order to make customers feel comfortable and can enjoy their meals.

―The front of the house needs enough space for customers to queue up and place their

orders. Behind the order counter, space needs vary‖ (Baraban & Durocher, 2010, p.18).

There are special designs for Fast Food restaurants that help ease the path for

customers, in order to make them feel comfortable and satisfied. But, obviously,

aesthetics do vary across cultures, as aesthetics is one of the main dimensions of

cultures (Keagan & Green. 2013; Miele & Murdoch, 2012; Pearce, Blakely, Witten &

Bartie, 2007), According to this rationale, we can post it our fourth hypothesis, which is:

H4. Perceptions of Aesthetics will differ significantly between countries

3.3.5. Perceived Price

Customers nowadays are aware of the prices of the most popular Fast Food

Restaurants; one of the main strategies used is sale promotion, which has a great

impact on consumers in every country (Lee & Ulgado, 1997; Brady, Robertson &

Cronin, 2001). For example, having ―2 for 1‖ for some days of the week, or price

reductions in several items, contests that customers can participate and win prices, and

price bundles (Yadav & Monroe, 1993) are strategy that almost all restaurants globally

in this industry use. Some customers tend to emphasis more on the value of what they

receive for what they are giving up (Brady, Robertson & Cronin, 2001). Restaurants in



this industry normally increase the product´s benefits while maintaining or decreasing

the price; they communicate this to the customers, in order to persuade them to

purchase their offer. ―Fast Food franchises have long had a love-hate relationship with

dollar menus and other cheapie promotions‖ (Tuttle, 2014, para. 2). This example

clearly states that restaurants compete to try to have the best deals and attract

consumers, even if their earnings will be shortened. The relationship between quality

and value for money play an important role in customer´s purchase intentions (Dodds,

Monroe & Grewal, 1991). As prices are perceptions, personal characteristics affect

them; they vary across cultures (Lee, Ulgado, 1997). According to this rationale, we can

post it our fifth hypothesis, which is:

H5. Perceptions of the value for money will differ significantly between countries

3.3.6. Social Status

Going to a Fast Food Restaurant can be considered a luxury for some cultures or a

place to get together with friends in other; it can be perceived as a social interaction

(Bagozzi, Wong, Abe & Bergami, 2000; Brady, Robertson & Cronin, 2001). The trends,

fashion and lifestyles change very quickly and people have traditions as well, which

some include celebration special occasions in these types of restaurants. ―Fast Food

pervades virtually in all segments of the society including local communities, public

schools, and hospitals. These trends seem to be accompanied by massive advertising

and marketing campaigns‖ (Dave, An, Jeffery & Ahluwalia, 2009, p.1164). This shows

that the marketing communications from these companies influence in the lifestyle of

consumers, persuading their behavioral intentions (Kara, Kaynak & Kucukemiroglu,

1995). The social status perception and the influence of Fast Food Restaurants of it, will

be different in each region and culture (Axelson, 1986; Brady, Robertson & Cronin,

2001). These explanations lead us to our sixth hypothesis, which is:

H6. Perceptions of Social Status will differ significantly between countries



3.3.7. Facilities

The physical facilities in Fast Food Restaurants play a very important role for attracting

customers to consume in their place (Lee & Ulgado, 1997). The structure, aesthetics,

shape, size of each restaurant (Kim, 2008) are related to the segment targeted by the

company; it varies depending on the different cultures and behaviors of people of the

different countries (Sheldon & Fox, 1988). For example, in most of the countries, if they

are targeting kids, the facilities have to be attractive to them, so they can convince their

parents to take them to these places. In the inside of the restaurants, these companies

have to have an adequate technology and design in the function of the facilities;

adapting to the different cultural interpretation in order to please the customers (Kim &

Moon, 2009). According to Lee & Kim in 2014, the design, layout and comfort of the

restaurants has an important attractiveness to customers. ―Once customers enter a

facility, they often observe the interior aesthetics, which is likely to affect their attitudes

toward the facility‖ (Baker, Berry & Parasuraman, 1988, p.35). According to this

rationale, we can post it our seventh hypothesis, which is:

H7. Perceptions of physical Facilities will differ significantly between countries

3.3.8. Emotional Value

Childhood memories and good times with family and friends are some of the emotions

that can play a role in Fast Food Restaurants. These companies try to influence in

customer´s behavioral intentions by creating these moments to their targeted

consumers to motivate them (Batra, 2008; Brady, Robertson & Cronin, 2001), so they

can remember them constantly and think about it; this will make them return to

purchase. ―Emotions and attitudes are the customer´s relatively long-lasting affection

towards an object or an experience, considered a crucial component in developing

customer loyalty‖ (Sahagun & Vasquez-Parraga, 2014). The emotions are perceived

differently among the different regions in the world (Baek, Ham & Yang, 2006); some of

them have a higher influence in the purchase decisions (Chen, 2000; Beldona, Moreo &

Mundhra, 2010) than the other. These explanations lead to the eighth hypothesis:

H8. Perceptions of Emotions will differ significantly between countries



3.3.9. Customer Satisfaction

―In today's ever‐increasing globalization of services and brands, service‐oriented

businesses need to attend to the satisfaction of their customers both domestically and

abroad while transcending unique cultural differences from country to country.‖ (Gilbert,

Veloutsou, Goode & Moutinho, 2004, p. 371) Customers are always looking to be

pleased when they enter a Fast Food Restaurant (Baek, Ham & Yang, 2006; Kim,

2008); these companies have to rely on an excellent service quality to achieve high

customer satisfaction. Managers have to be aware of the cultural differences between

countries that could affect the perception of customers and their satisfaction towards the

products (Cheung, Murrmann, Murrmann & Becker, 2004; Gilbert, Veloutsou, Goode &

Moutinho, 2004; Brady, Robertson & Cronin, 2001; Lee & Ulgado, 1997). ―Customers

may get more satisfaction from the quick and convenient service at Fast Food

Restaurants then from the actual food purchased‖ (Sahagun & Vasquez-Parraga, 2014,

p.169). The service provided by the restaurants has a great influence in the behavior of

customers, such as the attention provided by employees that make clients feel

comfortable. When customers perceive the value dimensions mentioned above, and

they are satisfied through them, they become satisfied. These explanations lead to the

ninth hypothesis:

H9. Satisfaction in Fast Food Restaurants will differ significantly between

countries

3.3.10. Loyalty

When a Fast Food Restaurant has loyal clients, it is because they have achieved

customer satisfaction by fulfilling their expectations (Sahagun & Vasquez-Parraga,

2014). Customers that are satisfied want to keep on purchasing with the same Fast

Food Restaurant; it is gratifying for them. "Measures such as satisfaction, loyalty and

commitment have, over time, been operationalised with the purpose of enhancing

customer retention." (Terblanche, 2006, p.31). Loyalty and the behavior of customers

towards it varies among regions and cultures, managers need to keep their customers

comfortable and happy at all costs, so they have to develop different programs for

accomplishing it, taking into consideration all the regions they control (De Wulf,



Odekerken-Schröder & Iacobucci, 2001). Gallarza, Gil-Saura and Holbrook (2012)

developed a model that states that satisfaction leads to loyalty, including the Restaurant

business service. Repeating patronage and attitude are key elements to measure

loyalty, according to Heiens and Pleshko (2008). ―Therefore, in order to become loyal

and profitable for the company, a customer must be highly satisfied‖ (Etemad-Sajadi &

Rizzuto, 2013, p.782). Knowing this quote, it can be assumed the last hypothesis:

H10. Loyalty in Fast Food Restaurants will differ significantly between countries



4. Research methodology

The purpose of this study was to test the differences, according to cultural differences,

in customers‘ opinions of eight value dimensions, satisfaction and loyalty in Fast Food

Restaurants. The empirical research is composed by a qualitative and a quantitative

research. After introducing the theoretical framework, it is time now to provide primary

data by means of empirical research, both qualitative (focus group and in-depth

interview) and quantitative (on-line survey). By doing this double approach, it was

possible to understand the different points of view of people about Fast Food

Restaurants that have experience living in different countries, especially in the ones

being investigated (wide approach, but not deep); besides, it was also very important to

learn from the expert in this industry some strategies that these type of restaurants use

and their focus towards the segmentation of customers (qualitative approach: deeper

but less wider). One of the strategies that were taken from the in-depth interview was

―Not all the Quick Service Restaurant focuses their marketing strategy on the same

value dimensions. Some focus on quality only, others are pricing only. This will

automatically segregate the segments they will attract.‖ Having the qualitative approach,

it was possible to explore which perceived value dimensions customers appreciate in

order to be satisfied in this industry. To have a clear idea of each of the researches, the

following sections will explain the methodology used for each of them in order to

achieve the results.

4.1. Qualitative Research

The qualitative part was formed by one focus group (see Appendix A) that was held in

Valencia, Spain, which was formed by Spanish speaking people, and an interview that

was held with an expert on this subject via email.

4.1.1. Focus group with Fast Food consumers

For understanding the needs of customer and the Fast Food Industry, a focus group

was conducted including nine persons from Guatemala between ages of 23 and 30

years old that lived in Spain; this way they had experiences of Food Industry in both



countries. A focus group is defined as "an informal discussion among selected

individuals about specific topics relevant to the situation at hand" (Beck, Trombetta &

Share, 1986, p. 73). This is very helpful in order to understand the different points of

view of the targeted audience.

Some of the participants had experience living in Germany as well, so the research

provided more enriched information. The following table shows the profile of each

participant of the focus group:

Table 8: Focus group of Guatemalans living in Spain: members‘ profile

Name Gender Age Background

Nathalie Female 27 Public Relations student

Antonio Male 24 Civil Engineering student

Carlos Male 26 Product Design student

Luis Male 25 Product Design student

Mariandree Female 23 Food Technology student

Daniela Female 27 Medical student

Lineth Female 29 ENT Doctor

Arturo Male 30 ENT Doctor

Diana Female 29 ENT Doctor

The focus group was divided into five sections: the introduction, warm-up period,

question period, summary and thank you/wrap up. In the first section, a brief

introduction was given, which included the background of the topic and the personal

experience of the author. This was made to ―break the ice‖ so that the participants could

start getting comfortable in the process. It also included the general purpose of the

focus group, which was to explain the different perceived value dimensions of the Fast

Food Industry, the satisfaction level and loyalty. This gave the participants a better idea

of where the focus group was aiming at. The warm-up period was basically for getting to

know the participants better through their background and experience; starting with their

names, academic background, work experiences and the different Fast Food

experience they had in different countries. The most important section was the question



period, which included the following seven open questions, which every participant had

to give its opinion:

Which perceived values do you think are important for customers in the Fast

Food Industry?

Do these values influence in the customer´s satisfaction?

Do you think that a satisfied customer is a loyal customer in this industry?

Does the culture affect the perceived value in customers?

Do you think customers can be loyal in the Fast Food Industry? Why, Why not?

Which is the main focus of the restaurants towards customer satisfaction?

Which value dimensions are the most important to satisfy them?

Each of the participants had to answer each question in an honest way and discuss it

with the rest of the group. Each question was provoking a discussion among the

members, in which several issues were covered. In this section the differences in Fast

Food of each country could be seen and compared within them. After this, the summary

section began with the clarification and summary of the topics discussed; the review of

the perceived value dimensions and other considerations and discussions. In this

section the participants could add comments that they forgot to mention and have a

quick feedback of the meeting. The last section was the wrap-up which included the

anonymity reminder to the participants and an appreciation speech for collaborating with

this study. The focus group was recorded with a camera and a recorder device in order

not to miss any part of the discussion. Later on, it could be listened several times to do

the transcription for analyzing the content.

The main discussion points of the focus group were led by the different perceived value

dimensions that influenced customers in the Fast Food Industry, which according to the

participants the most important were cleanness, time and efficiency, quality of the food,

customer service and service recovery and lastly price and sales promotions. For

example, it was mentioned that ―The cleanness is very important, but most of customers

do not see it in the restaurants, it is one of the values that do not matter to people,

especially in the kitchen. But normally I care most about the presentation and aesthetics



of the restaurants.‖ Another point of discussion was the relationship between

satisfaction and loyalty; most of the participants argued that customers can be loyal only

if they are satisfied, they also mentioned that customers can switch suppliers depending

on the price and the most important issue of loyalty in this industry is the service

recovery applied by these companies. A very important discussion between the

contributors was the relationship between culture and the perceived value dimensions in

customers, and it was argued that restaurants have to adapt their offerings to the

different cultures and countries; the globalization plays a big role in the food culture in

each country. For example, ―the culture is a major issue in the Fast Food Industry; in

India they do not eat red meat, so restaurants have to adapt to them with other offers.‖

The last point of argument was the main focus of the Fast Food Restaurants towards

customer satisfaction; in Spain it is the quality, price and advertising, while in

Guatemala it is the customer service and service recovery, price promotions and

advertising. All of these main points were useful for deciding the categories of the

questionnaire and hypotheses.

4.1.2. In depth interview with Fast Food Industry expert

Along with the focus group, an in-depth interview was held with an expert in Quick

Service Restaurants in Guatemala and Latin America (see Appendix B), to have a clear

idea of the issues that these restaurant focus to satisfy the customers. An in-depth

interview digs deeply in every question, establishing a conversation that analyzes every

subject being researched (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2014). This was very important to

obtain, in order to understand a different and experiences point of view of the Fast Food

Industry.

The expert had direct contact with the environment of the Fast Food Industry in different

countries and this interview was necessary for having a clearer picture of the different

value dimensions and the strategy that companies in this market use to fulfill customer´s

needs. The expert has been working for more than 20 years in this industry and has a

lot of international experience in managing this type of restaurants. The interview

included five open questions that were the same as the ones from the focus group, in



order to have different points of view of the answers. The main points given by the

expert were the following (see more information on the in depth interview in Appendix

B):

For the adult market, quality is the most appreciated value that may influence

in the purchase decision and will be impressed by the service and cleanliness

of the restaurants.

Young customers will appreciate the cool places to hang out or the trends of

the youth, as well as sale promotions. Price will be high qualified by

youngsters, too.

Family groups will enjoy playgrounds, birthday party rooms, clowns, and any

kind of entertainment the industry will provide

Delivery is a key value in some markets

Local chains will focus on national / typical products

Once the customers arrive to the location, service will be a key value to watch

in order to keep the segment members coming back.

Cultural customs, including language, can be perceived as negative values in

some cases. But in other cases it affects a lot and the restaurants have to

adapt to them.

Some people who do not speak English will not like to go to a Fast Food

Restaurant with product names in English, because they do not feel

comfortable ordering these items.

Some customers are loyal, but not the main share of the market. The loyalty

will vary if the competition will offer a different or a new value, such as price

and new products.

This interview was made via email, because of the difficult schedule that the expert had.

In this case, we could collect answers from a consumer point of view (focus group) and

from the Restaurants point of view (Interview).

Having a very good idea of the different factors that influence in the Fast Food Industry,

it was time to move forward to the quantitative research, in order to prove the findings of



the qualitative research. In the next section, the quantitative research will be explained,

in order to understand the way that it was held.

4.2. Quantitative Research

The quantitative research was held via online, developing an electronic questionnaire

that could be sent to people from the three different countries being investigated. The

questionnaire was built based on the previous literature review on value dimensions,

alongside with the information gathered from the qualitative phase. The following Table

gives explanation of the different scales used in the questionnaire, and their sources:

Table 9: Online Questionnaire

Perceived value

Park, 2004

1. How important are the following value dimensions for you to consider in a Fast Food Restaurant? / ¿Qué tan importante son los siguientes valores a considerar en un restaurante de comida rápida?

Quality

Park & Jang, 2014

2. Does my favorite Fast Food Restaurant keep good quality in the food / Mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida mantiene buena calidad en la comida

3. The customer attention of the employees is adequate / La atención al cliente de los empleados es adecuada

Gallarza & Gil, 2006

4. Do the employees have the right knowledge and good attitude / Los empleados tienen el conocimiento adecuado y buena actitud hacia mí

5. Do the employees listen carefully to my needs / Los empleados escuchan con detenimiento mis necesidades

6. Are the employees trustworthy and honest / Los empleados son honestos y son dignos de confianza

Time Focus group & interview with

the expert

7. The waiting time of my favorite Fast Food Restaurant is adequate / El tiempo de espera en mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida es adecuado

8. The process of purchase is efficient / El proceso de adquisición de la comida es eficiente

9. I like spending a lot of time in my favorite Fast Food Restaurant / Me gusta pasar mucho tiempo en mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida

Price Gallarza & Gil, 10. The prices of the products of my favorite Fast Food



2006 Restaurant are fair / Los precios de los productos de mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida son justos

Focus group & interview with

the expert

11. The prices of the products are adequate for the quality perceived / Los precios son acordes a la calidad de los productos


12. I perceive the opportunity cost of consuming in my favorite Fast Food Restaurant as adequate / Yo percibo que el costo de oportunidad de consumir en mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida es adecuado

Social Status


13. Going to my favorite Fast Food Restaurant reinforces my belongingness to my social group / Ir a mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida refuerza mi pertenencia a mi grupo social

14. I get to meet new people at my favorite Fast Food Restaurant / Conozco a personas nuevas en mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida

15. I feel socially accepted when I go to my favorite Fast Food Restaurant / Me siento aceptado socialmente cuando voy a mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida

16. The relationship with the other customers has been satisfying / La relación con los otros clientes es satisfactoria

Emotions


the expert

17. I get excited when I go to my favorite Fast Food Restaurant / Me emociono cuando voy a mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida

18. Going to my favorite Fast Food Restaurant reminds me of my childhood / Ir a mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida me recuerda a mi niñez

Park & Jang, 2014

19. I feel happy when I go to my favorite Fast Food Restaurant / Me siento feliz cuando voy a mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida

Cleanness

Lee & Ha Kim, 2014

20. My favorite Fast Food Restaurant has clean restrooms / Mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida tiene limpios los baños


the expert

21. The eating areas are always clean / Las áreas de comida están limpias siempre

22. The counter and food preparation area are always clean / Las áreas de preparación y recepción siempre están limpias

23. The environment of my favorite Fast Food Restaurant is healthy / El ambiente de mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida es sano



Aesthetics

Park, 2004

24. The design of the inside of my favorite Fast Food Restaurant is important / El diseño interior de mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida es importante

25. The design of the outside of my favorite Fast Food Restaurant is important / El diseño exterior de mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida es importante


26. The infrastructure of my favorite Fast Food Restaurant is important / La infraestructura de mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida es importante

Lee & Ha Kim, 2014

27. The lighting of my favorite Fast Food Restaurant is adequate / La iluminación de mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida es adecuada

Facilities

Lee & Ha Kim, 2014

28. The facilities of my favorite Fast Food Restaurant are well designed / La edificación de mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida está bien diseñada

29. There is a lot of space for me to move around / Existe mucho espacio para moverse dentro del restaurante


the expert

30. The parking space is big enough / El parqueo es suficientemente grande

Satisfaction

Sahagun & Vasquez-

Parraga, 2014

31. Employees at my favorite Fast Food Restaurant give me personal attention / Los empleados en mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida me brindan atención personalizada


the expert 32. Employees solve my problems quickly / Los empleados resuelven mis problemas de manera rápida

Sahagun & Vasquez-

Parraga, 2014

33. Employees are interested in hearing my concerns / Los empleados están interesados en escuchar mis preocupaciones

34. The service I receive has worked out as well as I thought it would / El servicio recibido ha sido como lo esperaba

35. This Fast Food Restaurant is exactly what I need / Mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida es exactamente lo que necesito

Loyalty Sahagun & Vasquez-

Parraga, 2014

36. When I get to know a Fast Food Restaurant, I tend to go there more often / Cuando conozco bien un restaurante de comida rápida, tiendo a ir más seguido

37. Client loyalty in Fast Food Restaurants is based on good experiences / La lealtad en restaurantes de comida rápida está basada en buenas experiencias




the expert

38. I feel confident that in my favorite Fast Food Restaurant will always try to treat me fairly / Me siento confiado que en mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida me tratará justamente siempre

39. My favorite Fast Food Restaurants is trustworthy / Mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida es digno de confianza

Sahagun & Vasquez-

Parraga, 2014

40. I consume the same brand of Fast Food, even though there are many brands / Yo consumo la misma marca de comida rápida, aunque existan muchas distintas

Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman,

1996

41. I say positive things about my favorite Fast Food Restaurant to other people / Yo digo cosas positivas de mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida a otras personas

42. I recommend my favorite Fast Food Restaurant to someone who seeks my advice / Yo recomiendo mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida a alguien que busca mi consejo

43. I encourage friends and relatives to eat at my favorite Fast Food Restaurant / Yo aliento a mis amigos y familiares a comer en mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida

44. I consider my favorite Fast Food Restaurant my first choice to buy Fast Food products / Considero a mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida como mi primera opción para comida rápida

45. I want to buy more products of my favorite Fast Food Restaurant in the next few years / Quiero comprar más productos de mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida en los siguientes años


the expert 46. I would go to a competitor that offers better prices / Yo iría con el competidor que mejor precios ofrezca

Zeithaml, Berry & Parasuraman,

1996

47. If the prices increase in my favorite Fast Food Restaurant, I would still go / Aunque los precios incrementen en mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida, iría de todas maneras

48. I would switch to a competitor of I experience a problem with the service / Cambiaría con un competidor si experimento un problema con el servicio de mi restaurante favorito de comida rápida



This online survey had the objective to research about the different opinion of the value

dimensions of consumers from Guatemala, Spain and Germany. It was developed

costless through ―Survey Monkey‖ and sent to a convenience sample of the different

audience from those three countries. For analyzing the data, Survey Monkey has a tool

that analyzes simple data and basic statistics that are helpful for having an idea of the

outcome of the results. For analyzing the results deeply, the computer software SPSS

was needed to crosstab and correlate data, in order to know specifically the impact of

each value dimension on the satisfaction and loyalty of Fast Food consumers in the

desired countries. The final sample size was 366, belonging respectively to Guatemala

(150 respondents and 41% of the final sample), Spain (103 respondents and 28% of the

final sample) and Germany (113 respondents and 31% of the final sample). Description

of the sample profile of the three countries is contained in the three following tables:

Table 10: Guatemalans´ Sample Profile

Age Absolute %

18-25 41 27.30%

26-30 83 55.30%

31-60 26 17.30%

Total 150 100.00%

Gender Absolute %

Male 79 52.70%

Female 71 47.30%

Total 150 100.00%

In Table 10 the reader can appreciate the different range of ages in the sample of the

questionnaire from Guatemala, which indicates that most of the participants were

between the ages of 26 and 30 years old. Then, the second range of people was

between 18 and 25 years old; this indicates that more than 80% of participants were

young (below 30 years old). It also shows that the quantity of men and women was

almost equal, having nearly half of each gender. Most of the participants of Guatemala

were contacted through social media, sending individual messages to them, so they

could participate.



Table 11: Spanish Sample Ages

Age Absolute %

18-25 19 18.40%

26-30 19 18.40%

31-60 65 63.10%

Total 103 100.00%

Gender Absolute %

Male 49 47.60%

Female 54 52.40%

Total 103 100.00%

Table 11 shows the different range of ages in the sample of the questionnaire from

Spain, which indicate that most of the participants were between the ages of 31 and 60

years old. Then, the distribution was equal between the other ranges of age. It also

shows that the quantity of men and women was almost equal, having nearly half of each

gender. Most of the participants were contacted through the Universitat de Valencia and

from social media (Facebook & Internations.org).

Table 12: Germans´ Sample Ages

Age Absolute %

18-25 26 23.00%

26-30 66 58.40%

31-60 21 18.60%

Total 113 100.00%

Gender Absolute %

Male 56 49.60%

Female 57 50.40%

Total 113 100.00%

In Table 12 we can see the different range of ages in the sample of the questionnaire

from Germany, which indicate that most of the participants were between the ages of 26

and 30 years old. Then, the second range of people was between 18 and 25 years old;

this indicates that more than 80% of participants were young (below 30 years old). It

also shows that the quantity of men and women was almost equal, having nearly half of

each gender.



This variety of ages and genders was due the method of collecting samples in three

different countries in a short period of time; the easiest and cheapest way was to

perform it online. So, there was not a high control over the participants, even though

most of the questionnaires were sent individually (especially in Guatemala). For the

other two countries, the fastest way to collect data was to access social media,

receiving help from teachers of the University and other online options such as Erasmus

web pages and other student institutions. But with the amount of samples gathered, the

data was very helpful for analyzing the results and reach the objectives of the research.

The online questionnaire began with an introduction, explaining that the author would

appreciate the participation for a Master Thesis held in Universitat de Valencia. It also

clarified that the goal was to determine the main factors that influenced in the loyalty of

consumers of the Fast Food Industry and in the end an explanation that the answers

would be kept confidential. Then the first question appeared to evaluate which

perceived value dimensions do they consider in a Fast Food Restaurant. The eight

different value dimensions were asked to know the importance of each category and the

participants were given the following choice options:

Table 13: Scaled Questionnaire Responses, question # 1

Choice options

1 - Not important at all

2 - Not important

3 - Neutral

4 - Important

5 - Very important

With the choices presented in table 13, the author could get an idea of the different

perceptions of customers in the studied countries. The second question had the

objective to get to know the honest opinion of different factors that measure the different

value dimensions: quality, time (efficiency), pricing, social status, emotions, cleanness,

aesthetics and facilities. These factors measured attitude in customers with the Likert

scales, as following:



Table 14: Scaled Questionnaire Responses, questions # 2, 3, 4

Choice options

1– Strongly Disagree

2 – Disagree

3 – Neither agree nor disagree

4 – Agree

5 – Strongly Agree

N/A – not applicable

With these answers, it could be seen the importance of each value dimension that the

participants considered for the Fast Food Restaurants. The third question investigated

the impact of satisfaction in customers; it included different factors that measure the

level of satisfaction of consumers, through the scaled choice options shown in Table 14.

Then, the fourth question measured the level of loyalty that customers have with the

Fast Food Restaurants. It also used the choice options of Table 14, in order to

understand if customers are loyal after all. For finishing the questionnaire, the

respondents had to include their ages, gender and the place where they live.



5. Analysis and Results

The T-Test sample method was used for analyzing the comparisons between the three

countries, taking into account the Group Statistics and Independent Sample Test. This

method inspects the distribution of values on one variable between diverse groups or

categories, and then calculates the probability of the difference in the mean from the

sampling error. ―The T-test is a test to see if there was a statistically significant

difference between the mean scores of two groups.‖ (Fitz-Gibbon & Morris, 1987, p.41).

This method demonstrates the objectives and the validity of the hypotheses set in this

study. When the result of the significance of the equality of means is below 0.05, it

means that the value has statistically significant association (Harter & Balakrishnan,

1997). In this research, this means that if this happens, the hypothesis is accepted, but

if it is above 0.05, it is refused (at a 5% level, Similar reasoning can be applied for p

values of 0,01 (1% level) or 0,10 (10 % level)). The following tables will show the results

of each of the comparisons of the perceived value dimensions, satisfaction and loyalty

in Fast Food Restaurants between the three countries being investigated. If a table has

the majority or at least half of the categories accepted, the hypothesis is recognized as

valid. All the results of each category are going to be analyzed and a summary will be

provided at the end, in order to have a global view of the outcome.

5.1. Guatemala vs. Spain

The first countries being analyzed are Guatemala and Spain; two countries very far

away from each other, but with the same native language and some similarities in

culture and religion. In Hofstede´s classification it can be seen that Guatemalans have a

higher power distance and uncertainty avoidance in the culture than the Spanish (The

Hofstede Center, 2014). First the value dimensions are being compared between both

countries, and then the satisfaction and loyalty will be analyzed. Each of the tables will

show the mean of each country, the equality of means of the T-test and if the

hypotheses are accepted or refused. The first table displays the comparison in the value

of quality in the industry of Fast Food Restaurants:



Table 15: Comparison of quality between Guatemala and Spain

H1. Quality

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Spain

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 1

Accepted

t Sig.

How important is quality for you in a Fast

Food Restaurant? 4.52 4.08 4.32 0.000 Accepted

Do they keep good quality in the food? 4.24 4.05 1.71 0.088 Rejected

The customer attention of the employees is

adequate? 4.33 3.94 3.545 0.000 Accepted

Do the employees have the right knowledge

and good attitude 4.24 3.77 4.368 0.000 Accepted

Do the employees listen carefully to my needs 3.91 3.63 2.237 0.026 Accepted

Are the employees trustworthy and honest 3.85 3.86 -0.07 0.944 Rejected

Table 15 shows the main results obtained from the T-test; 4 out of 6 categories differ

significantly from each other in the mean of the results. In this case, Guatemalans have

a higher perception of quality in Fast Food Restaurants than the Spanish. In the other

two categories, people have similar opinions about it. As to these results, we can define

that the hypothesis is accepted between Guatemala and Spain. The next table will show

the comparison of the value dimension efficiency:

Table 16: Comparison of efficiency between Guatemala and Spain

H2. Efficiency

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Spain

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 2

Rejected

t Sig.

How important is timing for you in a Fast Food

Restaurant? 4.61 4.69 -1.004 0.316 Rejected

The waiting time is adequate 4.22 4.02 2.043 0.042 Accepted

The process of purchase is efficient 4.15 4.25 -0.979 0.328 Rejected

I like spending a lot of time there 2.72 2.45 1.936 0.054 Rejected



Table 16 shows the main results obtained from the T-test; 3 out of 4 categories do not

differ significantly from each other in the mean of the results. In this case, Guatemalans

and Spanish have similar opinions about efficiency and time spent in Fast Food

Restaurants. In only one category, people differ in their opinion about it. As to these

results, we can define that the hypothesis is rejected between Guatemala and Spain.

The following table will show the comparison in pricing:

Table 17: Comparison of pricing between Guatemala and Spain

H3. Pricing

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Spain

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 3

Rejected

t Sig.

How important is price for you in a Fast Food

Restaurant? 4.16 4.51 -3.794 0.000 Accepted

The prices of the products are fair 3.59 3.58 0.033 0.974 Rejected

The prices of the products are adequate for

the quality perceived 3.61 3.66 -0.353 0.725 Rejected

I perceive the opportunity cost of consuming

as adequate 3.76 3.80 -0.275 0.783 Rejected

The reader can observe in Table 17 the main results obtained from the T-test; 3 out of 4

categories do not vary significantly from each other in the mean of the results. In this

case, Guatemalans and Spanish have similar perceptions about pricing in Fast Food

Restaurants. In only one category, people diverge in their opinion about it. So, we can

define that the hypothesis is rejected between these countries. The following table will

show the comparison of the value dimension social status:



Table 18: Comparison of social status between Guatemala and Spain

H4. Social Status

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Spain

(mean)

T-test for equality

of means

Hypothesis 4

Accepted t Sig.

How important is social status for you in a

Fast Food Restaurant? 3.00 2.59 2.759 0.006 Accepted

Going there reinforces my belongingness to

my social group 2.46 2.02 2.97 0.003 Accepted

I get to meet new people 1.85 1.43 3.057 0.002 Accepted

I feel socially accepted when I go there 2.80 2.04 3.934 0.000 Accepted

The relationship with the other customers has

been satisfying 3.21 2.86 2.044 0.042 Accepted

Results in Table 18 demonstrate the main results obtained from the T-test; all of the

categories differ significantly from each other in the mean of the results. This means

that Guatemalans and Spanish have dissimilar opinions about social status in Fast

Food Restaurants. Guatemalans take social status more into account than Spanish and

it influences in their decisions. According to these results, we can define that the

hypothesis is accepted between Guatemala and Spain. The following table will show the

comparison of emotions in this market:

Table 19: Comparison of emotions between Guatemala and Spain

H5. Emotions

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Spain

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 5

Accepted

t Sig.

How important are emotions for you in a Fast


I get excited when I go to my favorite Fast

Food Restaurant 2.94 1.80 7.878 0.000 Accepted

Going there reminds me of my childhood 2.93 2.03 4.887 0.000 Accepted

I feel happy when I go to my favorite Fast

Food Restaurant 3.45 2.46 6.621 0.000 Accepted



Table 19 demonstrates the main results obtained from the T-test; all of the categories

differ significantly from each other in the mean of the results. This means that

Guatemalans and Spanish have different opinions about the influence of emotions in

Fast Food Restaurants. According to these results, we can define that the hypothesis is

accepted. The next table will show the comparison of cleanness:

Table 20: Comparison of cleanness between Guatemala and Spain

H6. Cleanness

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Spain

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 6

Accepted

t Sig.

How important is cleanness for you in a Fast

Food Restaurant? 4.81 4.77 0.608 0.544 Rejected

It has clean restrooms 4.03 3.44 3.749 0.000 Accepted

The eating areas are always clean 4.22 3.45 5.277 0.000 Accepted

The counter and food preparation area are

always clean 4.30 3.96 2.782 0.006 Accepted

The environment is healthy 3.93 3.52 3.332 0.001 Accepted

Table 20 shows the main results obtained from the T-test; 4 out of 5 categories diverge

significantly from each other in the mean of the results. This means that Guatemalans

and Spanish have different points of view about cleanness in Fast Food Restaurants. In

only one category, people of both countries have similar thoughts. According to these

results, we can define that the hypothesis is accepted between Guatemala and Spain.

The following table will show the comparison of aesthetics:



Table 21: Comparison of aesthetics between Guatemala and Spain

H7. Aesthetics

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Spain

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 7

Rejected

t Sig.

How important is aesthetics for you in a Fast


The design of the inside is important 3.83 3.95 -1.051 0.294 Rejected

The design of the outside is important 3.74 3.87 -1.111 0.268 Rejected

The infrastructure is important 3.86 3.89 -0.276 0.783 Rejected

The lighting is adequate 3.97 3.96 0.053 0.958 Rejected

Table 21 demonstrates the outcome obtained from the T-test; 4 out of 5 categories do

not vary significantly from each other in the mean of the results. This means that

Guatemalans and Spanish have similar attitudes towards aesthetics in Fast Food

Restaurants. In only one category, people of both countries have different opinions

about it. This means that the hypothesis is rejected between these countries. The

following table will show the comparison of facilities:

Table 22: Comparison of facilities between Guatemala and Spain

H8. Facilities

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Spain

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 8

Rejected

t Sig.

How important are the facilities for you in a

Fast Food Restaurant? 3.87 3.81 0.477 0.634 Rejected

The facilities are well designed 3.85 3.84 0.077 0.938 Rejected

There is a lot of space for me to move around 3.71 3.03 5.348 0.000 Accepted

The parking space is big enough 3.69 3.43 1.67 0.096 Rejected

Table 22 illustrates the key results obtained from the T-test; 3 out of 4 categories do not

fluctuate significantly from each other in the mean of the results. This means that

Guatemalans and Spanish have related attitudes towards the facilities in Fast Food



Restaurants. In only one category, people differ about it. This means that the hypothesis

is rejected between these countries. The next table will show the comparison of

satisfaction in this industry:

Table 23: Comparison of satisfaction between Guatemala and Spain

H9. Satisfaction

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Spain

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 9

Accepted

t Sig.

Employees at my favorite Fast Food

Restaurant give me personal attention 3.65 2.65 7.566 0.000 Accepted

Employees solve my problems quickly 3.93 3.60 2.595 0.010 Accepted

Employees are interested in hearing my

concerns 3.43 2.79 4.305 0.000 Accepted

The service I receive has worked out as well

as I thought it would 4.05 3.93 1.187 0.236 Rejected

This Fast Food Restaurant is exactly what I

need 3.75 3.19 4.344 0.000 Accepted



and Spanish have different perceptions of satisfaction in Fast Food Restaurants. People

from Guatemala are more satisfied in this industry than Spanish. In only one category,

people have similar perceptions about it. This means that the hypothesis is accepted

between Guatemala and Spain. The following table will show the comparison of loyalty

in the Fast Food Industry:



Table 24: Comparison of loyalty between Guatemala and Spain

H10. Loyalty

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Spain

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 10

Accepted

t Sig.

When I get to know a Fast Food Restaurant, I

tend to go there more often 4.26 3.86 3.171 0.002 Accepted

Client loyalty in Fast Food Restaurants is

based on good experiences 4.32 3.98 3.358 0.001 Accepted

I feel confident that my favorite Fast Food

Restaurant will always try to treat me fairly 3.91 3.60 2.756 0.006 Accepted

My favorite Fast Food Restaurant is

trustworthy 3.79 3.63 1.359 0.175 Rejected

I consume the same brand of Fast Food, even

though there are many brands 3.18 3.02 1.084 0.279 Rejected

I say positive things about my favorite Fast

Food Restaurant to other people 3.73 3.06 4.402 0.000 Accepted

I recommend my favorite Fast Food

Restaurant to someone who seeks my advice 3.91 3.24 4.733 0.000 Accepted

I encourage friends and relatives to eat at my

favorite Fast Food Restaurant 3.56 2.74 5.257 0.000 Accepted

I consider my favorite Fast Food Restaurant

my first choice to buy Fast Food products 3.67 3.27 2.756 0.006 Accepted

I want to buy more products of my favorite

Fast Food Restaurant in the next few years 3.67 3.11 4.257 0.000 Accepted

I would go to a competitor that offers better

prices 2.99 2.89 0.647 0.518 Rejected

If the prices increase in my favorite Fast Food

Restaurant, I would still go 3.23 2.66 3.774 0.000 Accepted

I would switch to a competitor if I experience a

problem with the service of my favorite Fast

Food Restaurant

3.77 4.09 -2.409 0.017 Accepted

Table 24 shows the main results obtained from the T-test; 10 out of 13 categories vary


and Spanish have different opinions about loyalty in Fast Food Restaurants. People

from Guatemala believe more in loyalty in this industry than Spanish. In only three

categories, people have similar perceptions about it. This means that the hypothesis is

accepted between these countries.



5.2. Spain vs. Germany

The next countries being analyzed are Spain and Germany, both European countries

with similar characteristics, and many different aspects, such as language and eating

habits. According to Hofstede, Spain has a higher power distance and uncertainty

avoidance in their culture than the Germans. Each of the tables will show the mean of

each country, the equality of means of the T-test and if the hypotheses are accepted or

refused. The following table shows the comparison in quality in the Fast Food Industry:

Table 25: Comparison of quality between Spain and Germany

H1. Quality

Item Spain

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 1

Rejected

t Sig.

How important is quality for you in a Fast Food

Restaurant? 4.08 4.02 0.447 0.655 Rejected



adequate? 3.94 3.79 1.283 0.201 Rejected

Do the employees have the right knowledge and

good attitude 3.77 3.65 0.957 0.340 Rejected

Do the employees listen carefully to my needs 3.63 3.59 0.296 0.767 Rejected

Are the employees trustworthy and honest 3.86 3.64 1.370 0.172 Rejected

Table 25 shows the main results obtained from the T-test; all of the categories do not

fluctuate significantly from each other in the mean of the results. This means that

Germans and Spanish have similar thoughts of quality in Fast Food Restaurants. This

means that the hypothesis is rejected between these countries. The following table will

show the comparison of efficiency in the Fast Food Industry:



Table 26: Comparison of efficiency between Spain and Germany

H2. Efficiency

Item Spain

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 2

Accepted

t Sig.


Restaurant? 4.69 3.89 7.003 0.000 Accepted

The waiting time is adequate 4.02 3.89 1.039 0.300 Rejected

The process of purchase is efficient 4.25 3.96 2.549 0.012 Accepted

I like spending a lot of time there 2.45 2.74 -1.965 0.051 Rejected

Table 26 describes the main results obtained from the T-test; 2 out of 4 categories differ

significantly from each other in the mean of the results and the other half has similar

opinions. Germans and Spanish have some similar and some different opinions about

efficiency and time spent in Fast Food Restaurants. As to these results, we can define

that the hypothesis is accepted between Germany and Spain, even though the decision

is split. The next table will show the comparison in pricing:

Table 27: Comparison of pricing between Spain and Germany

H3. Pricing

Item Spain

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 3

Accepted

t Sig.




The prices of the products are adequate for the

quality perceived 3.66 3.68 -0.160 0.873 Rejected

I perceive the opportunity cost of consuming as

adequate 3.80 3.04 5.306 0.000 Accepted


categories vary significantly from each other in the mean of the results. In this case,

Germans and Spanish have both similar and different opinions equally about pricing in



Fast Food Restaurants. So, we can define that the hypothesis is accepted between

Germany and Spain, by having at least half acceptance of the categories. The following

table will show the comparison of social status in this industry:

Table 28: Comparison of social status between Spain and Germany

H4. Social Status

Item Spain

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 4

Accepted

t Sig.

How important is social status for you in a Fast

Food Restaurant? 2.59 2.34 1.787 0.075 Rejected

Going there reinforces my belongingness to my

social group 2.02 2.44 -2.564 0.011 Accepted

I get to meet new people 1.43 2.23 -5.461 0.000 Accepted

I feel socially accepted when I go there 2.04 2.86 -4.044 0.000 Accepted


been satisfying 2.86 2.76 0.628 0.531 Rejected


categories vary significantly from each other in the mean of the results. In this case,

Germans and Spanish have different opinions about social status in Fast Food

Restaurants. In two cases, the opinion of the categories is similar, but we can define

that the hypothesis is accepted between Germany and Spain. The following table will

show the comparison of emotions:

Table 29: Comparison of emotions between Spain and Germany

H5. Emotions

Item Spain

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 5

Accepted

t Sig.



I get excited when I go to my favorite Fast Food

Restaurant 1.80 3.16 -8.658 0.000 Accepted

Going there reminds me of my childhood 2.03 2.68 -3.304 0.001 Accepted

I feel happy when I go to my favorite Fast Food

Restaurant 2.47 3.37 -5.812 0.000 Accepted



The reader can observe in Table 29 the main results obtained from the T-test; all of the

categories differ significantly from each other in the mean of the results. In this case,

Germans and Spanish have different opinions about emotions in Fast Food

Restaurants. We can define that the hypothesis is accepted between Germany and

Spain. The next table will show the comparison of cleanness:

Table 30: Comparison of cleanness between Spain and Germany

H6. Cleanness

Item Spain

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 6

Accepted

t Sig.

How important is cleanness for you in a Fast Food


It has clean restrooms 3.44 3.73 -1.695 0.091 Rejected

The eating areas are always clean 3.45 4.13 -4.209 0.000 Accepted

The counter and food preparation area are always

clean 3.96 4.19 -1.345 0.180 Rejected

The environment is healthy 3.52 4.08 -3.539 0.000 Accepted

Table 30 illustrates the main results obtained from the T-test; 3 out of 5 categories alter

significantly from each other in the mean of the results. The other two have similar

opinions about the subject. We can define that the hypothesis is accepted between

Germany and Spain. The following table will show the comparison of aesthetics:

Table 31: Comparison of aesthetics between Spain and Germany

H7. Aesthetics

Item Spain

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 7

Accepted

t Sig.

How important is aesthetics for you in a Fast Food


The design of the inside is important 3.95 3.16 5.660 0.000 Accepted

The design of the outside is important 3.87 3.39 3.964 0.000 Accepted

The infrastructure is important 3.89 3.54 2.964 0.003 Accepted

The lighting is adequate 3.96 3.67 2.710 0.007 Accepted



Table 31 illustrates the main results obtained from the T-test; all of the categories vary

significantly from each other in the mean of the results. In this case, Germans and

Spanish have different opinions about aesthetics in Fast Food Restaurants We can

define that the hypothesis is accepted between Germany and Spain. The following table

will show the comparison of facilities:

Table 32: Comparison of facilities between Spain and Germany

H8. Facilities

Item Spain

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 8

Rejected

t Sig.

How important are the facilities for you in a Fast



There is a lot of space for me to move around 3.03 3.14 -0.884 0.378 Rejected

The parking space is big enough 3.43 3.54 -0.640 0.523 Rejected


change significantly from each other in the mean of the results. In this case, Germans

and Spanish have mostly the same opinion about the facilities in Fast Food

Restaurants. We can define that the hypothesis is rejected between Germany and

Spain. The following table will show the comparison of satisfaction:

Table 33: Comparison of satisfaction between Spain and Germany

H9. Satisfaction

Item Spain

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 9

Accepted

t Sig.

Employees at my favorite Fast Food Restaurant

give me personal attention 2.65 3.27 -3.948 0.000 Accepted

Employees solve my problems quickly 3.60 3.59 0.064 0.949 Rejected

Employees are interested in hearing my concerns 2.79 3.42 -3.579 0.000 Accepted

The service I receive has worked out as well as I

thought it would 3.93 3.69 2.144 0.033 Accepted

This Fast Food Restaurant is exactly what I need 3.19 3.46 -1.908 0.058 Rejected



Table 33 shows the main results obtained from the T-test; 3 out of 5 categories diverge

significantly from each other in the mean of the results. The other two categories have

similar thoughts. In this case, Germans and Spanish have mostly different opinions

about satisfaction in Fast Food Restaurants. We can define that the hypothesis is

accepted between Germany and Spain. The following table will show the comparison of

loyalty:

Table 34: Comparison of loyalty between Spain and Germany

H10. Loyalty

Item Spain

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 10

Accepted

t Sig.

When I get to know a Fast Food Restaurant, I

tend to go there more often 3.86 3.42 3.034 0.003 Accepted

Client loyalty in Fast Food Restaurants is based

on good experiences 3.98 3.56 3.151 0.002 Accepted



My favorite Fast Food Restaurant is trustworthy 3.63 3.55 0.782 0.435 Rejected

I consume the same brand of Fast Food, even

though there are many brands 3.02 2.86 1.146 0.253 Rejected


Food Restaurant to other people 3.06 3.35 -2.144 0.033 Accepted

I recommend my favorite Fast Food Restaurant

to someone who seeks my advice 3.24 3.36 -0.924 0.357 Rejected

I encourage friends and relatives to eat at my

favorite Fast Food Restaurant 2.74 3.19 -3.012 0.003 Accepted

I consider my favorite Fast Food Restaurant my

first choice to buy Fast Food products 3.27 3.37 -0.768 0.443 Rejected

I want to buy more products of my favorite Fast

Food Restaurant in the next few years 3.11 3.27 -1.160 0.247 Rejected


prices 2.89 3.54 -4.078 0.000 Accepted

If the prices increase in my favorite Fast Food

Restaurant, I would still go 2.67 2.85 -1.167 0.244 Rejected

I would switch to a competitor if I experience a

problem with the service of my favorite Fast

Food Restaurant

4.09 3.24 6.398 0.000 Accepted




significantly from each other in the mean of the results. The other six categories have

similar thoughts. In this case, Germans and Spanish have more different opinions than

similarities about loyalty in Fast Food Restaurants. We can define that the hypothesis is

accepted between these countries.

5.3. Guatemala vs. Germany

The last comparison is between Guatemala and Germany, two countries that have very

few culture facts in common and are geographically very far away from each other. In

Hofstede´s Website (2014) it can be analyzed that Guatemalans have a much higher

power distance and uncertainty avoidance than Germans. Each of the tables will show

the mean of each country, the equality of means of the T-test and if the hypotheses are

accepted or refused. The following table illustrates the comparison of quality:

Table 35: Comparison of quality between Guatemala and Germany

H1. Quality

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 1

Accepted

t Sig.

How important is quality for you in a Fast Food




adequate? 4.33 3.79 5.557 0.000 Accepted

Do the employees have the right knowledge

and good attitude 4.24 3.65 5.958 0.000 Accepted

Do the employees listen carefully to my needs 3.91 3.59 2.769 0.006 Accepted

Are the employees trustworthy and honest 3.85 3.64 1.541 0.124 Rejected


significantly from each other in the mean of the results. In this case, Guatemalans have

a higher perception of quality in Fast Food Restaurants than the Germans. In the other

two categories, people have similar opinions about it. As to these results, we can define



that the hypothesis is accepted between Guatemala and Germany. The following table

will show the comparison of the value dimension efficiency:

Table 36: Comparison of efficiency between Guatemala and Germany

H2. Efficiency

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 2

Accepted

t Sig.



The waiting time is adequate 4.22 3.89 3.340 0.001 Accepted

The process of purchase is efficient 4.15 3.96 1.964 0.051 Rejected

I like spending a lot of time there 2.72 2.74 -0.156 0.876 Rejected

Table 36 explains the main results obtained from the T-test; half of the categories differ

significantly from each other in the mean of the results. The other half has similar

opinions about the subject. As to these results, we can define that the hypothesis is

accepted between Guatemala and Germany, for having at least half of the categories

accepted. The following table will show the comparison of the value dimension pricing:

Table 37: Comparison of pricing between Guatemala and Germany

H3. Pricing

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 3

Accepted

t Sig.




The prices of the products are adequate for

the quality perceived 3.61 3.68 -0.572 0.568 Rejected

I perceive the opportunity cost of consuming

as adequate 3.76 3.04 6.228 0.000 Accepted



Table 37 explains the main results obtained from the T-test; half of the categories

diverge significantly from each other in the mean of the results. The other half has

similar opinions about the pricing in Fast Food Restaurants. As to these results, we can

define that the hypothesis is accepted between Guatemala and Germany, for having at

least half of the categories accepted. The next table will show the comparison of the

value dimension social status:

Table 38: Comparison of social status between Guatemala and Germany

H4. Social Status

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 4

Accepted

t Sig.

How important is social status for you in a Fast


Going there reinforces my belongingness to

my social group 2.46 2.44 0.103 0.918 Rejected

I get to meet new people 1.85 2.23 -2.488 0.013 Accepted

I feel socially accepted when I go there 2.80 2.86 -0.298 0.766 Rejected


been satisfying 3.21 2.76 3.225 0.001 Accepted


significantly from each other in the mean of the results. The other two categories have

similar thoughts. In this case, Guatemalans and Germans have mostly different opinions

about social status in Fast Food Restaurants. We can define that the hypothesis is

accepted between Guatemala and Germany. The following table will show the

comparison of emotions:



Table 39: Comparison of emotions between Guatemala and Germany

H5. Emotions

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 5

Rejected

t Sig.



I get excited when I go to my favorite Fast

Food Restaurant 2.94 3.16 -1.430 0.154 Rejected

Going there reminds me of my childhood 2.93 2.68 1.281 0.201 Rejected

I feel happy when I go to my favorite Fast

Food Restaurant 3.45 3.37 0.576 0.566 Rejected


vary significantly from each other in the mean of the results. In this case, Germans and

Guatemalans have mostly the same opinion about emotions in Fast Food Restaurants.

We can define that the hypothesis is rejected between Germany and Guatemala. The

next table will show the comparison of cleanness:

Table 40: Comparison of cleanness between Guatemala and Germany

H6. Cleanness

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 6

Rejected

t Sig.

How important is cleanness for you in a Fast


It has clean restrooms 4.03 3.73 2.080 0.039 Accepted

The eating areas are always clean 4.22 4.13 0.742 0.459 Rejected

The counter and food preparation area are

always clean 4.30 4.19 0.795 0.457 Rejected

The environment is healthy 3.93 4.08 -1.104 0.271 Rejected


differ significantly from each other in the mean of the results. The other two categories



have different opinions. In this case, Guatemalans and Germans have mostly the same

perception about cleanness in Fast Food Restaurants. We can define that the

hypothesis is rejected between Guatemala and Germany. The following table will show

the comparison of aesthetics:

Table 41: Comparison of aesthetics between Guatemala and Germany

H7. Aesthetics

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 7

Accepted

t Sig.

How important is aesthetics for you in a Fast


The design of the inside is important 3.83 3.16 5.360 0.000 Accepted

The design of the outside is important 3.74 3.39 3.013 0.003 Accepted

The infrastructure is important 3.86 3.54 2.838 0.005 Accepted

The lighting is adequate 3.97 3.67 3.160 0.002 Accepted

Table 41 illustrates the main results obtained from the T-test; all of the categories alter

significantly from each other in the mean of the results. In this case, Germans and

Guatemalans have different opinions about aesthetics in Fast Food Restaurants. We

can define that the hypothesis is accepted between Germany and Guatemala. The next

table will show the comparison of facilities:

Table 42: Comparison of facilities between Guatemala and Germany

H8. Facilities

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 8

Accepted

t Sig.

How important are the facilities for you in a

Fast Food Restaurant? 3.87 3.34 4.151 0.000 Accepted


There is a lot of space for me to move around 3.71 3.14 5.096 0.000 Accepted

The parking space is big enough 3.69 3.54 1.061 0.290 Rejected



Table 42 explains the main results obtained from the T-test; half of the categories vary

significantly from each other in the mean of the results. The other half has similar

opinions about facilities in Fast Food Restaurants. As to these results, we can define

that the hypothesis is accepted between Guatemala and Germany, for having at least

half of the categories accepted. The next table will show the comparison of satisfaction:

Table 43: Comparison of satisfaction between Guatemala and Germany

H9. Satisfaction

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis 9

Accepted

t Sig.

Employees at my favorite Fast Food

Restaurant give me personal attention 3.65 3.27 2.979 0.003 Accepted

Employees solve my problems quickly 3.93 3.59 3.165 0.002 Accepted

Employees are interested in hearing my

concerns 3.43 3.42 0.056 0.955 Rejected

The service I receive has worked out as well as

I thought it would 4.05 3.69 3.955 0.000 Accepted

This Fast Food Restaurant is exactly what I

need 3.75 3.46 2.529 0.012 Accepted


significantly from each other in the mean of the results. The other category has similar

perception between both countries. In this case, Germans and Guatemalans have

mostly different opinions about satisfaction in Fast Food Restaurants. We can define

that the hypothesis is accepted between Germany and Guatemala. The following table

will show the comparison of loyalty:



Table 44: Comparison of loyalty between Guatemala and Germany

H10. Loyalty

Item Guatemala

(mean)

Germany

(mean)

T-test for

equality of

means

Hypothesis10

Accepted

t Sig.

When I get to know a Fast Food Restaurant,

I tend to go there more often 4.26 3.42 7.033 0.000 Accepted

Client loyalty in Fast Food Restaurants is

based on good experiences 4.32 3.56 6.324 0.000 Accepted



My favorite Fast Food Restaurant is

trustworthy 3.79 3.55 2.323 0.021 Accepted

I consume the same brand of Fast Food,

even though there are many brands 3.18 2.86 2.332 0.020 Accepted


Food Restaurant to other people 3.73 3.35 2.840 0.005 Accepted

I recommend my favorite Fast Food

Restaurant to someone who seeks my

advice

3.91 3.36 4.351 0.000 Accepted

I encourage friends and relatives to eat at

my favorite Fast Food restaurant 3.56 3.19 2.721 0.007 Accepted

I consider my favorite Fast Food Restaurant

my first choice to buy Fast Food products 3.67 3.37 2.411 0.017 Accepted

I want to buy more products of my favorite

Fast Food Restaurant in the next few years 3.67 3.27 3.243 0.001 Accepted


prices 2.99 3.54 -3.884 0.000 Accepted

If the prices increase in my favorite Fast

Food Restaurant, I would still go 3.23 2.85 2.743 0.007 Accepted

I would switch to a competitor if I experience

a problem with the service of my favorite

Fast Food Restaurant

3.77 3.24 4.151 0.000 Accepted

Table 44 shows the main results obtained from the T-test; all of the categories differ


perceive loyalty better than the Germans, or at least they believe in loyalty in this

industry. In this case, we can define that the hypothesis is accepted between

Guatemala and Germany.



In order to have a clear picture of all the results, the next table shows the summary of

the status of each hypothesis of the three countries. This will help the reader analyze

the data in a much easier way, as well as to have an idea of the tendency of the results

of the research.

Table 45: Summary of hypotheses of comparisons between Guatemala, Spain and

Germany

Hypotheses summary

Guatemala vs.

Spain Spain vs. Germany

Guatemala vs. Germany

H1. Quality Accepted Rejected Accepted

H2. Efficiency Rejected Accepted Accepted

H3. Pricing Rejected Accepted Accepted

H4. Social status Accepted Accepted Accepted

H5. Emotions Accepted Accepted Rejected

H6. Cleanness Accepted Accepted Rejected

H7. Aesthetics Rejected Accepted Accepted

H8. Facilities Rejected Rejected Accepted

H9. Satisfaction Accepted Accepted Accepted

H10. Loyalty Accepted Accepted Accepted

In this table we can observe the acceptance or rejection of each hypotheses and the

comparison between the countries. The hypotheses of quality, efficiency, pricing,

emotions, cleanness and aesthetics show that 2 out of 3 comparisons each were

accepted and the other rejected. So we can say that these hypotheses are accepted,

because the perceptions of these value dimensions generally differ among the

countries. The hypothesis of social status is accepted, because in every country, people

differ in their perceptions towards this value dimension. The hypothesis of the facilities

is rejected in 2 out of 3 comparisons, so it is rejected globally.

In the 8 different hypotheses of value dimensions, 7 of them were accepted globally,

because they applied for the majority of the cases. The only hypothesis of value

dimension that was rejected was the perception of the facilities in Fast Food

Restaurants. The other two hypotheses were also accepted, by having different

perceptions in all the comparisons. This means that in satisfaction and loyalty, each



country perceives it differently. In order to sum up all the data gathered from the results,

we are analyzing the main differences between the countries:

Guatemala vs. Spain

Quality of Fast Food is perceived better in Guatemala; as well as the customer

attention by employees.

The prices impact more in the purchase decision in Spanish than Guatemalans; it

is a very important factor for them.

Social status and emotions are perceived very differently in these countries;

Guatemalans take it more into consideration than Spanish; even though these

value dimensions are not seen as very influential in their purchase decision.

The Fast Food Restaurants are seen cleaner in Guatemala than in Spain, for

example, the restrooms, eating areas and counter.

The space inside the restaurants is more comfortable for Guatemalans; they

have more space to move around.

The satisfaction level is higher in Guatemala; this is mainly from the result of the

good attention provided by employees.

Guatemalans are more loyal in Fast Food Restaurants than Spanish; they go

there often, get treated fairly, they trust in it and recommend it to people they are

surrounded

Spain vs. Germany

Spanish people perceive better the process of purchase in Fast Food

Restaurants than Germans.

The opportunity cost of consuming in a Fast Food Restaurant is better perceived

in Spain.

Social status is seen as not important in both countries, but Germans tend to take

in more into account when purchasing.

Germans get more excited and happy when the go to a Fast Food Restaurant,

but it is not a critical issue for the purchase decision.



In Germany the environment is felt healthier and the eating areas, restrooms and

counter are cleaner than in Spain.

The design of the inside and outside of the restaurants is more influential for

Spanish consumers.

The employee attention and service received is better perceived in Germany.

German costumers tend to be more loyal then Spanish; they encourage friends

and relatives to consume there by saying positive things about it.

Guatemala vs. Germany

Customer attention is better perceived in Guatemala than Germany; employees

have a better attitude and right knowledge.

The waiting time is seen as adequate by Guatemalans, as well as the opportunity

cost of consuming in Fast Food Restaurants.

Germans get to meet new people in these restaurants, but Guatemalans

perceive that their relationship with the other customers is more satisfying.

The infrastructure, design, lighting and the comfortable space to move around of

the restaurants are more important for Guatemalans in their purchase decision.

Guatemalans are more satisfied with the service and the problem solving of

employees of Fast Food Restaurants than Germans.

It is very clear that Guatemalans are more loyal than Germans in the Fast Food

Industry; they encourage people to go there, go there very often, trust in it and

want to continue to go there in the future.

Comparing to other authors that have done researches about cross cultural differences

in the Fast Food Industry, it can be said that this is the first study that analyzed

Guatemala, Spain and Germany together. It is important to mention that only a few

researches have been done for the Fast Food Industry in Guatemala. There have been

similar studies done, but with other countries for comparison, as well as different value

dimensions used as in this study (Baek, Ham & Yang, 2006; Brady, Robertson &

Cronin, 2001; Etemad-Sajadi & Rizzuto, 2013; Gilbert, Veloutsou, Goode & Moutinho,

2004). There are previous studies that have tried to proof and measure loyalty and



satisfaction in the Fast Food Industry (Sahagun & Vasquez-Parraga, 2014; Gilbert,

Veloutsou, Goode & Moutinho, 2004) which explained that there is loyalty in this

industry and that there is a difference in the cultural behavior of customers.

The following section will conclude the key findings of this research, which will indicate

the main differences of perceptions in the three countries being analyzed and the most

important facts of this research. It will also include the managerial implications, which

will show the most important factors that can be considered from this study to apply in a

managerial environment. Lastly the study limitations will be shown in order to

demonstrate the impact they had on this study, as well as the further research that is

recommended to keep on studying.



6. Conclusion

From this research, we spread our knowledge of the differences of value dimensions

perceptions, satisfaction and loyalty between Guatemala, Germany and Spain; to the

best of our knowledge, it is the first research study that compares these three countries

in the Fast Food Industry. The importance of the combination of these countries can be

seen from cultural points of view, as well as from globalization in the Fast Food Market.

There are a lot of differences in cultures, such as language, food habits and family

values, but the globalization of brands has impacted most nations worldwide. The key

findings and analysis of the results according to the Master Thesis objectives are going

to be shown, as well as the study limitations, and the managerial implications and

further research. This study shows the comparison of eight different value dimensions,

satisfaction and loyalty of these three countries. It is very impressive how people think

differently about these subjects in each country; this means that the cultural aspect of

each country plays a big role in the purchase intention of people.

6.1. Key Findings

The results of this study indicate that 9 out of 10 of the hypotheses were accepted; the

variables researched (i.e. value dimensions, satisfaction and loyalty) do differed among

the three chosen countries. This means that at least in two comparisons of the

countries, the hypothesis was accepted among the different categories that were

measured. The only hypothesis that was rejected was the difference in opinion of the

facilities in Fast Food Restaurants. The rest of the hypotheses showed that there is a

difference in the thoughts of people in different value dimensions, satisfaction and

loyalty. The following key findings were extracted from this research:

The perception of quality is different in Guatemala comparing with Spain and

Germany; Guatemalans have a better perception of product quality in Fast Food

Restaurants, they see these restaurants as high in quality in their offerings.

Germans and Spanish have similar opinions about this subject and they give this

subject importance, but not as much as Guatemalans. This quality includes the

product itself and the service received from employees.



Efficiency and the time spent, the pricing issues and aesthetics in these

restaurants are seen differently in Germany comparing with Spain and

Guatemala; Germans see the time and efficiency as not adequate for what it is

offered, contrary to the price. Guatemalans think that in general these

restaurants are efficient and that the aesthetics are very important in their

behavioral intentions. The design in the interior and outside of the facilities

impacts the behavior of the purchase intention of customers.

In the value dimension of social status, all of the analyzed countries have

different perceptions; Guatemalans take this more into account in their behavioral

purchase intentions than the Germans and Spanish. The categories show that

the Europeans do not give this value dimension importance as Latin American

countries, even though it is not a high influencer in customers.

Emotional Value is not seen as very important among the countries, but they

have different opinions about this value dimension and the influence it has on

their purchase decisions. Most of the participants did not consider that they felt

emotions or childhood memories when purchasing in Fast Food Restaurants.

The cleanness is a very important issue that customers evaluate in Fast Food

Restaurants; Guatemalans and Germans think this is a vital aspect in order for

them to purchase in these restaurants, Spanish think it is very important as well,

but the restaurants are not always very clean. It is normal in most cultures the

eating places have to be incredibly clean in order to look attractive to costumers;

there are only a few regions in the world where it is not considered.

The only hypothesis that was rejected was the importance of the physical

facilities in this industry; most of the countries think that it is not that important

and most of them have the same opinion about it (Hypothesis 8). It clearly

showed that in two comparisons (Spain with Germany and Guatemala) the

hypothesis was rejected; the results showed that the opinion on each category

was mostly similar.

Both satisfaction and loyalty differ in all the countries in their opinion of their

application in Fast Food Restaurants. Guatemalans are more satisfied than



Germans and Spanish and they also are more loyal in this industry, according to

the different categories analyzed. The tendency of Spanish and Germans is that

they are lightly satisfied and loyal in this industry. A lot of people think that they

are not loyal at all, but when diverse categories measure loyalty from different

points of view, it can be seen that they are, even though they do not recognize it.

For Guatemalans, consumers can be loyal in this industry, but for Spanish and

Germans this is not very clear. This could be because of the food culture of these

countries; they still do not support these types of restaurants that much, even

though this is changing.

Guatemalans have a better overall perception of Fast Food Restaurants than the

European countries being analyzed; they recognize this industry as high quality

and excellent customer attention. Spanish and Germans do not recognize this

type of food as high quality or very good customer attention. This could be

because of the socio-economic status of the population or the food culture.

The impact of globalization has influenced consumers all around the world; the

main Fast Food chains have expanded their businesses globally and are

changing the food habits and influencing cultures. So, 90% of the hypotheses

were accepted in this study, which can be said that there is a variance in the

perception of the researched value dimensions between these countries. Most of

these chains adapt their offerings to the customer´s needs and then they study

them so they can try to satisfy them in order to become loyal.

6.2. Managerial implications

One of the objectives of this study is that managers of the Fast Food Industry can use

this research to get to know the different cultural aspects of these countries and the

impact it has on customer´s decisions, so they can learn more about them and offer

them products that can satisfy their needs. The expert of this industry clearly exposed

his knowledge in this subject; he had a very good perception of this market and in the

purchase intentions of customers from different cultures. This was very helpful for

creating the focus group questions as well as the questionnaire. The value dimensions

that demonstrated to be different in the countries analyzed are the ones that managers



have to take into account in order to focus them accordingly to the different regions. The

perception in each country is different, as well as with satisfaction and loyalty. In

Guatemala people tend to be more loyal than in Spain and Germany, so managers

should focus on getting to know the clients more and satisfying them at all costs.

The value dimensions that were the most considered and important for the three

countries were quality of the product, efficiency of the service, the price, cleanness and

aesthetics. The results clearly show that people take them into account when they enter

a Fast Food Restaurant. This should be considered by managers in this industry so they

can improve in these subjects and make customers satisfied, in order for them to

become loyal. Managers should consider the culture in each country when taking

marketing decisions, because people have different thoughts and family values. This

implies that in every segment, people will react differently, so managers have to study

them and focus in their needs.

The globalization of Fast Food Chains around the globe has impacted a lot in food

cultures in different regions. These restaurants are adapting their offerings to people´s

needs; they are diverse in each region. But they are also offering standardized products

and people are responding well to it. Customers feel identified with the restaurants that

offer them something that they can relate with; this will give them confidence to keep on

purchasing and trying new products with this brand. As the reader can see in the

literature review, the top Fast Food Restaurants in the industry of the analyzed

countries are from international chains; they are gaining a lot of strength globally and

are known in almost every part of the world. This means that people are recognizing

them and changing their habits for consuming these types of products.

6.3. Study Limitations and further research

There were many important limitations to this research, according to its academical

nature, so having financial and methodological shortcomings. First, methodologically,

one of the main limitations was the asymmetrical use of secondary information available

for the three countries, due to the lack of information of the Fast Food Industry in

Guatemala; there are not any previous studies of this industry in the mentioned country.



This could happen because of the inefficient education system in this country, as well as

the lack of importance for research companies to analyze Fast Food in a third world

country. The literature review in this section was taken from newspaper articles,

websites and other sources, but there was not a full study with detailed information

about this market, in comparison with Spain and Germany.

Secondly, another limitation of this research was the reach of the questionnaires;

although the final number is relatively high (366) they had to be done via electronic,

because the study was measured in three different countries. The ideal scenario would

be to perform them person-to-person, but this takes a lot of time and in some cases it is

very expensive. So it was difficult to be sure that the participants were answering in an

honest and fair way, but it is the fastest, cheapest and easiest method to handle

questionnaires in different regions in a short period of time. There are many helpful tools

to develop questionnaires and distribute them to the target market that the authors

want, so this helps reaching the desired audience. Thirdly, the statistical procedure

followed to provide valuable information out of the data collected has been limitated to

bidimensional analysis (t test). In this sense, further analyses could have been

undertaken in order to better know relationships and impacts between the value

dimensions theirselves, and between them and customer satisfaction and loyalty.

According to these and other limitations, several areas of future research emerge at the

end of this work. One of the areas that can be further researched is the cultural and

economic aspects that influence in customer behavior; there is a big difference in the

wealth of people of third and first world countries. It is recommended to research the

impact of social and economic influence in the purchase decisions. For example, in

Guatemala, a Fast Food Restaurant is view by the majority of the population as a

luxury; this is because of the vast poverty in the area (most habitants of Guatemala are

poor and uneducated). For countries like Germany and Spain, who are more educated

and have higher levels of economy, these industry is seen generally as cheap and

unhealthy.

Another area of research interest is the cultural food habits of the different regions

around the world and the impact of Fast Food and globalization in it. All countries have



their own food culture and a lot of people have their own personal food habits. With

globalization taking place in the last decades, these habits are changing and are

adapting to the offerings of big global restaurant chains. The question for researching

this subject is how big companies manage to reach almost the entire globe, if they

adapt to them and slowly introduce new products or if these habitants ask and search

for these types of products until they get them.

The impact of health issues in the Fast Food Restaurants has been a major subject in

the last decade; many companies have tried to stop people from eating this type of

food, because it is harmful for consumers. Nowadays people are tending to eat

healthier; Fast Food is seen as unhealthy, so there are many campaigns that convince

people to stop eating there. To counterattack these allegations, companies are offering

healthier products and some of them are changing their processes in order to offer

better products. It would be interesting to investigate how these chains changed or

reacted when the health campaigns started.



7. References

Albrecht, K. (1992). The only thing that matters. Harper; 1st edition. New York.

Anderson, J.C. & Narus, J.A. (1998). ―Business Marketing: understand what

customers value‖. Harvard Business Review Vol. 76 (6) , pp. 53-65

Axelson, M., L. (1986). "The Impact of Culture on Food-Related Behavior."

Annual Review of Nutrition, Vol. 6, pp. 345-363.

Baek, S., Ham, S. & Yang, I. (2006). ―A cross-cultural comparison of Fast Food

Restaurant selection criteria between Korean and Filipino college students‖.

International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 25(4), pp. 683-698

Bagozzi, R., P., Wong, N., Abe, S. & Bergami, M. (2000). "Cultural and

Situational Contingencies and the Theory of Reasoned Action: Application to

Fast Food Restaurant Consumption." Journal of Consumer Psychology. Vol. 9

(2), pp. 97-106

Baker, J., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1988). "The marketing impact of

branch facility design". Journal of Retail Banking, Vol. 10(2), pp.33-42.

Baraban, R., S. & Durocher, J., F. (2010). Successful Restaurant Design. John

Wiley & Sons. New Jersey.

Batra, A. (2008). ―Foreign tourists' motivation and information source(s)

influencing their preference for eating out at ethnic restaurants in Bangkok‖.

International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 9(1), pp. 1-

17

Batra, R. & Ahtola, O., T. (1990). "Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources

of Consumer Attitude". Marketing Letters, Vol. 2(2), pp. 159-170.

Beck, L., C., Trombetta, W., L. & Share, S. (1986). "Using focus group sessions

before decisions are made." North Carolina Medical Journal, Vol. 47(2), pp. 73 –

74.

Beldona, S., Moreo, A., P. & Mundhra, G., D. (2010). ―The role of involvement

and variety-seeking in eating out behaviors.‖ International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22(3), pp. 433-444.



Berry, L., L. (1995). ―Relationship Marketing of Services – Growing Interest,

Emerging Perspectives‖. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Vol. 23,

pp. 236-345.

Bigné, J.E., Moliner, M.A. & Callarisa, L.J. (2000). “El valor y la fidelización de

clientes: propuesta de modelo dinámico de comportamiento”. Revista Europea

de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, Vol. 9 (3), pp. 65-78.

Brady, M., K., Robertson, C., J. & Cronin, J., J. (2001). ―Managing behavioral

intentions in diverse cultural environments: an investigation of service quality,

service value, and satisfaction for American and Ecuadorian fast-food

customers.‖ Journal of International Management. Vol. 7 (2), pp. 129-149.

Brink, A., & Berndt, A. (2008). Relationship Marketing & Customer Relationship

Management. Lansdowne. Juta and Co Ltd.

CentralAmericaData.com. (2012). Guatemalan Food Businesses Looking To

Expand.

Website:http://en.centralamericadata.com/en/article/home/Food_Businesses_no_

Longer_Fit_in_Guatemala

CentralAmericaData.com. (2011). Restaurant Franchises Keep Growing. From

Website:http://en.centralamericadata.com/en/article/home/Restaurant_Franchise

s_Keep_Growing

Chen, J., S. (2000). ―Cross-cultural differences in travel information acquisition

among tourists from three pacific-rim countries‖. Journal of Hospitality and

Tourism Research, Vol. 24(2), pp. 239-251

Cheung, G., W., Murrmann, K., F., Murrmann, S., K. & Becker, C. (2004).

‖Noninvariant measurement versus traditional approaches for studying cultural

differences: A case of service expectations.‖ Journal of Hospitality and Tourism

Research, Vol. 28(4), pp. 375-390

Choudhary, A. (2011). Improving the quality and efficiency of Fast Food

Restaurants. From the Operations & Supply Chain Club, Iim Raipur. Website:

http://opepiimraipur.blogspot.com.es/2011/05/improving-quality-and-efficiency-

of.html



Cohen, N. & Glover, M. (2013). ‗A‘ Is for American Food: Does Culture or

Cleanliness Determine a Restaurant‘s Grade?. From New York Observer. Web

site: http://observer.com/2013/06/a-is-for-american-food-does-culture-or-

cleanliness-determine-a-restaurants-grade/

Cravens, David W., Charles W. Holland, Charles W. Lamb Jr. and William C.

Moncrieff. (1988). ―Marketing‘s Role in Product and Service Quality,‖ Industrial

Marketing Management, Vol. 17, pp. 285–304.

Cronin Jr., J.J, Brady, M.K. & Hult, G.T.M. (2000). "Assessing the Effects of

Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in

Service Environments". Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76, pp. 193-218.

Dave, J., M., An, L., C., Jeffery, R., W., & Ahluwalia, J., S. (2009). Relationship of

Attitudes Toward Fast Food and Frequency of Fast-food Intake in Adults. Obesity

2009, Vol. 17, pp. 1164-1170.

De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G. & Iacobucci, D. (2001). "Investments in

Consumer Relationships: A Cross-Country and Cross-Industry Exploration."

Journal of Marketing. Vol. 65 (4), pp. 33-50.

Dick, A., S. & Basu, K. (1994). "Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated

Conceptual Framework". Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22

(2), pp. 99-113.

Dodds, W., B., Monroe, K., B. & Grewal, D. (1991). ―Effects of Price, Brand, and

Store Information on Buyers ‗Product Evaluations‖. Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 28, pp. 307-19.

El Periódico. (2011). Pollo y pizza, los platillos favoritos de los chapines. From

Web site: http://www.elperiodico.com.gt/es/20110618/economia/196998/

Etemad-Sajadi, R. & Rizzuto, D. (2013). "The antecedents of consumer

satisfaction and loyalty in Fast Food industry: A cross-national comparison

between Chinese and Swiss consumers". International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management. Vol. 30 (7), pp. 780-798

Euromonitor International. (2013). Consumer Foodservice in Spain.

Euromonitor International. (2013). Consumer Foodservice in Germany.



Fitz-Gibbon, C., T. & Morris, L., L. (1987). How to Analyze Data. SAGE

Publications, Inc. USA

Fumerton, P. (1991). Cultural aesthetics: Renaissance Literature and the

Practice of Social Ornament. The University of Chicago Press. USA.

Gallarza, M., G. & Gil-Saura, I. (2006). ―Desarrollo de una escala

multidimensional para medir el valor percibido de una experiencia de servicio‖.

Spanish Journal of Marketing Research ESIC.

Gallarza, M., G., Gil-Saura, I. & Arteaga, F. (2013). "The quality-value-

satisfaction-loyalty chain: relationships and impacts". Tourist Review, Vol. 68 (1),

pp. 3-20.

Gallarza, M., G., Gil-Saura, I. & Holbrook, M.B. (2012). "Customer Value in

Tourism Services; Meaning and Role for a Relationship Marketing Approach". in

Tsiotsou, R. and Goldsmith R.E. (eds) Strategic Marketing in Tourism Services,

Chapter 10, pp. 147-162

Gallarza, M. G., Gil-Saura, I. & Holbrook, M. B. (2011). "The value of value:

Further excursions on the meaning and role of customer value". Journal of

Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 10(4), pp. 179-191.

Ghemawat, P. (2004). "Distance Still Matters, the Hard Reality of Global

Expansion". Harvard Business Review.

Gilbert, G.R., Veloutsou, C, Goode, M.M.H. & Moutinho, L., (2004) "Measuring

customer satisfaction in the Fast Food industry: a cross-national approach".

Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18 (5), pp.371 – 383

Gilmore, A. (2003). Services Marketing and Management. London. SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Grönroos, C. (1982). "A service quality model and its marketing implications".

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 18 (4), pp. 36-44.

Gusapari, J. (1996). ―El valor: competitividad de los 90´‖. Harvard Deusto

Marketing y Ventas, Vol. 12, pp. 8-12.

Harter, H., L. & Balakrishnan, N. (1997). Tables for the Use of Range and

Studentized Range in Test of Hypotheses. CRC Press LLC. USA.



Heiens, R., A. & Pleshko, L., P. (2008). "An Application of the Customer Loyalty

Classification Framework in the Fast Food Hamburger Market". Journal of Food

Products Marketing, Vol. 3 (1), pp. 1-12.

Holbrook, M.B. (1999). Consumer value. A framework for analysis and research.

Ed. Routledge, London.

Holbrook, M.B. & Hirschmann, E., C. (1982). "The Experiential Aspects of

Consumption: Consumption Fantasies, Feelings and Fun". Journal of Consumer


Horovitz, B. (2013). Would you eat in a restaurant with a dirty bathroom? From

USA Today, Website:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/03/dirty-bathrooms-

restaurants-fast-food-mcdonalds-starbucks/2486647/

Jalili, P.P. (2008). The Impact of Customer Relationship Marketing on Market

Performance – a study among Iranian telecommunication service. Master Thesis

– Lulea University of Technology.

Johns, N., Pine, R. (2002). "Consumer behavior in the food service industry: a

review". International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol. 21 (2), pp. 119-

134.

Jones, T., O. & Sasser, W., E. (1995). "Why satisfied customers defect". Harvard

Business Review, November/December, pp. 88-99.

Jorgensen, N. (2001). A contingency model for the company´s use of relationship

building. 17 the IMP Conference.

Kara, A., Kaynak, E. & Kucukemiroglu, O. (1995). "Marketing strategies for

fast‐food restaurants: a customer view", International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 (4), pp.16 - 22.

Keegan, W., J. & Green, M., C. (2013). Global Marketing, Global Edition 7th

edition, Prentice Hall, London, NY.

Kim, D. (2008). ―Customers' responses to crowded restaurant environments:

Cross-cultural differences between American and Chinese‖. Journal of Hospitality

and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 16(1-2), pp. 137-157



Kim, W., G. & Moon, Y., J. (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, Vol. 28 (1), pp.

144-156.

King, D. & Lawley, S. (2013). Organizational Behaviour. Oxford University Press.

Oxford.

Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., Huan, H., D. & Liu, S. (2008). Rethinking Marketing:

Sustainable Market-ing Enterprise in Asia. Pearson. Singapore.

Knutson, B., J. (2000). "College Students and Fast Food: How Students perceive

Restaurant brands". Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol.

200, pp. 41-68.

Lanier & Saini. (2008). "Understanding Consumer Privacy: A Review and Future

Directions". Vancouver. Academy of Marketing Science.

Leclerc, F.; Schmitt, B.H. & Dubé, L. (1995). ―Waiting time and decision making:

is time like money?‖, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22 pp. 110-119.

Lee, S., Y. & Kim, J., H. (2014). "Effects of Servicescape on Perceived Service

Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioral Outcomes in Public Service Facilities".

Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering. Vol. 131.

Lee, M. & Ulgado, F., M. (1997). "Consumer evaluations of fast‐food services: a

cross‐national comparison." Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 11 (1), pp.39 -

52.

Leidner, R. (1993). Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the Routinization of

Everyday Life. The Regents of the University of California. USA.

Li, M. (2014). ―Cross-cultural tourist research: A meta-analysis.‖ Journal of

Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 38(1), pp. 40-77

Lord, K., R., Putrevu, S., & Zheng, S., Y. (2006). ―Cross-border restaurant

patronage: Cultural determinants of perception and satisfaction‖. International

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 6(4), pp. 33-47.

Martín, D.; Barroso, C. & Martín, E. (2004). “El valor percibido de un servicio”.

Spanish Journal of Marketing Research ESIC, Vol. 8 (1), pp. 47-71



Mathew, K. & Leitch, L. (2011). "An Exploratory Examination of Supervisor

Undermining, Employee Involvement Climate, and the Effects on Customer

Perceptions of Service Quality in Quick-Service Restaurants". Journal of

Hospitality & Tourism Research 2013, Vol. 37, pp.29.

Masip, J. (2008). Estudio de Mercado: El Sector de las Franquicias en

Guatemala. Consejería de Economía e Innovación Tecnológica, Comunidad de

Madrid.

Mattila, A., S. (2000). ―The impact of culture and gender on customer evaluations

of service encounters.‖ Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 24(2),

pp. 263-273.

Miele, M., & Murdoch, J. (2002). ―Fast food/slow food: standardizing and

differentiating cultures of food.‖ Globalization, localization and sustainable

livelihoods 2002, pp. 25-41.

Miele, M., & Murdoch, J. (2002). "The Practical Aesthetics of Traditional Cuisines:

Slow Food in Tuscany". Journal of the European Society for Rural Sociology

2002, Vol. 42 (4), pp. 312-328.

Oliver, R.L. (1999). Value as excellence in the consumption experience in

Holbrook, M.B. (ed.) Consumer value. A framework for analysis and research

Rutledge. London, pp. 43-62.

Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New

York. M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Palmatier, R. W. (2008). Relationship Marketing. Marketing Science Institute,

Cambridge.

Park, C. (2004). "Efficient or enjoyable? Consumer values of eating-out and Fast

Food Restaurant consumption in Korea". International Journal of Hospitality

Management. Vol. 30 (1), pp. 87-94.

Park, J. -., & Jang, S. S. (2014). "Why do customers switch? More satiated or

less satisfied". International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 37, pp. 159-

170.



Parvatiyar, A. & Sheth, J., N. (2001). "Customer Relationship Management:

Emerging Practice, Process, and Discipline". Journal of Economic and Social

Research Vol. 3(2) 2001, 2002 Preliminary Issue, pp. 1-34.

Pearce, J., Blakely, T., Witten, K. & Bartie, P. (2007). "Neighborhood Deprivation

and Access to Fast-Food Retailing: A National Study." American Journal of

Preventive Medicine. Vol 32. (5). pp. 375-382.

Picón, A., Castro, I., & Roldán, J. L. (2014). "The relationship between

satisfaction and loyalty: A mediator analysis". Journal of Business Research, Vol.

67(5), pp. 746-751.

Rosemberg, J.M. (1995). Dictionary of retailing and merchandising. National

Retail Federation. John Wiley and Sons. USA

Sahagun, M. A. & Vasquez-Parraga, A.Z. (2014). "Can Fast Food consumers be

loyal customers, if so how? Theory, method and findings". Journal of retailing and

consumer services, Vol. 21, pp. 168-174.

Saura, I. G., & Gallarza, M. G. (2008). "Investigating perceived value from a

marketing viewpoint". [La investigación en valor percibido desde el marketing]

Innovar, Vol. 18(31), pp. 9-18.

Sheldon, P., J. & Fox, M. (1988). "The Role Of Foodservice In Vacation Choice

And Experience: A Cross-Cultural Analysis." Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 27

(2), pp. 9-15

Smith, A. (2006). Encyclopedia of Junk Food and Fast Food. Greenwood Press.

Westport, CT.

Smith, S. (2012). How to Measure Customer Satisfaction: Do You Overlook these

4 Key Customer Satisfaction Measurements? From Q Qualtrics, Q Insights

Customer Satisfaction 101, Website: http://www.qualtrics.com/blog/customer-

satisfaction-measurement/

Stank, T.P., Goldsby, T.J. & Vickery, S.K. (1999). "Effect of service supplier

performance on satisfaction and loyalty of store managers in the Fast Food

Industry". Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 (4), pp. 29–447.



Sweeney, J., C. & Soutar, G., N. (2001). "Consumer perceived value: The

development of a multiple item scale". Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 203-220.

Terblanche, N., S. (2006). "The relationship between customer satisfaction and

loyalty : an application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index in the South

African Fast Food Industry." Journal of the Southern African Institute for

Management Scientists. Vol. 15 (2), pp. 31-42

The Hofstede Center. (2014). Cultural Tools; Country Comparison. Web site:

http://geert-hofstede.com/the-hofstede-centre.html

The New Definition of Fast Food. (2010). From QSR Magazine: Web site:

http://www.qsrmagazine.com/news/new-definition-fast-food

Tuttle, B. (2014). Fast Food Chains Are Desperate to Kill the Dollar Menu. From

Time. Website: http://business.time.com/2014/01/14/fast-food-chains-are-

desperate-to-kill-the-dollar-menu/

Witkowski, T., H., Ma, Y. & Zheng, D. (2003). "Cross‐cultural influences on brand

identity impressions: KFC in China and the United States", Asia Pacific Journal of

Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 15 (1/2), pp.74 - 88.

Yadav, M.S. & Monroe, K., B. (1993). ―How buyers perceive savings in a Bundle

price: an examination of a bundle´s transaction value‖, Journal of Marketing


Yanow, D. & Schwarz-Shea, P. (2014). Interpretation and Method: Empirical

Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. M. E. Sharpe, Inc. USA.

Yoo, S., A. (2012). Customer Perceptions of Restaurant Cleanliness: A Cross

Cultural Study. Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1984) ―Issues in conceptualizing and measuring consumer

response to price‖. Advances in consumer research, Vol. 11, pp. 612-616.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988) ―Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a

means-end model and synthesis of evidence‖. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp.

22.



Zeithaml, V., A., Berry, L., Parasuraman, A. (1996). "The behavioral

consequences of service quality". Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, (2).

Zeithaml, V., A. & Bitner, M., J. (2003). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer

Focus across the Firm. Irwin McGraw-Hill. Boston.



8. Appendices

8.1. Appendix A: Focus Group Guide and Summary

Introduction

Introduction: Background of the topic and personal experience

General Purpose: To understand the different perceived value dimensions of the

Fast Food Industry, the satisfaction level and loyalty.

Warm-up period

Getting to know participants better

Names and background

Question period

Which perceived value dimensions do you think are important for customers in

the Fast Food Industry? For example, quality, time, price, social status,

emotional, aesthetic, etc.

Do they influence in the customer´s satisfaction?

Do you think that a satisfied customer is a loyal customer in the QSR industry?

Does the culture affect the perceived value dimensions in customers?

Do you think customers can be loyal in the Fast Food Industry? Why, Why not?

Which is the main focus of the restaurants towards customer satisfaction? Which

are the most important to satisfy them?

Summary

Clarify and summarize

Review the perceived value dimensions

Other considerations

Thank you / wrap-up

Thank you very much for the valuable information.

Anonymity reminder



Focus Group Summary

Key findings

Perceived values for customers in the Fast Food Industry

Cleanness inside the restaurants

Time and efficiency

Quality of the food

Aesthetics: external and internal design, fashion

Convenience

Customer service and service recovery

Emotions since customers were very young

One of the main focus of fast food restaurants are kids

Price and sales promotions are vital

Relationship between satisfaction and loyalty

Customers can be loyal if they are satisfied, but it is not always like this

The prices and price promotions can make customers change the supplier

Service recovery is key for loyalty

Relationship between culture and perceived values in customers

Restaurants adapt their offers to each culture or country

Globalization plays a big role in the food culture in each country

People in Spain do not like takeaways and home delivery, they like to take their

time to eat

People in Guatemala like home delivery and don´t take much time for eating

The main focus of the restaurants towards customer satisfaction

In Spain: quality, price and advertising

In Guatemala: customer service and service recovery, price promotions and

advertising



Participants

9 young adults between ages of 23 and 30 years old from Guatemala and living in

Valencia participated in the focus group conducted by Christopher Schlosser, a

Master´s student of Universitat de Valencia.

Sample Selection

For the qualitative research there were 9 people selected who participated in the

interview of the focus group. The sample was representative among the people who

have knowledge of the Fast Food Industry in Guatemala and Spain; they were inclusive

of both genders and academics.

Focus Group Results

The following results summarize the data collected from the participants‘ ideas and

thoughts in the focus group, for Spain and Guatemala.

Spain

Bad customer service and do not apply service recovery

The culture demands very good food

Price promotions are vital for the purchase intentions

People are not loyal, they go to the restaurant that has the best offers

Give little priority to takeaway and delivery

Aesthetics are very important as well as convenience

Fast Food Restaurants adapt to Spanish culture

Guatemala

The main focus is customer service and service recovery

Good quality in Fast Food Restaurants

Aesthetics are very important

Have a lot of price promotions and influence a lot in customers



Loyalty goes together with service recovery

Convenience is key in many occasions

There is no strong culinary culture, globalization plays a huge role, as well as

North American influence


8.2. Appendix B: In-depth Interview Guide

The in-depth interview was made to an expert of the Quick Service Restaurants

Industry of Guatemala, having worked for more than 20 years in this industry. This

interview can help the researcher analyze key findings on the qualitative research in

order to develop the hypothesis. The following summary of the interview will give the

reader a glance at the ideas presented by the expert.

Questions:

1. Which perceived value dimensions do you think are important for

customers in the Fast Food Industry? For example, quality, time, price,

social status, emotional, aesthetic, etc)

Different values apply to the different segments of the Fast Food Market:

For the adult market (this means from 35 years old and up), quality is the

most appreciated value that may influence in the purchase decision

Adults will be impressed by the service and cleanliness of the restaurants

Young customers (teenagers and 20-30 years old) will appreciate the cool

places to hang out or the trends of the youth, as well as sale promotions

The social status will be an important item in this group (young customers)

Price will be high qualified by youngsters, too. So it has to be a high value

that businesses have to take care of

Family groups will enjoy playgrounds, birthday party rooms, clowns, and

any kind of entertainment the Quick Service Restaurant industry will

provide

Promotional items (premiums) will attract young members of the families

(ages below 12) and these will influence their parents to do the purchase

If promotional items are attractive enough, the kids will influence greatly in

the choosing decision of a Quick Service Restaurant.

Quality and price are not a big issue in these cases.

Location and convenience are becoming items of great value for this

segment



The working customers that use the Quick Service Restaurant during the

week (very high volume of sales) will decide upon price, service time and

cleanliness.

They would be attracted to frequent customer’s offers and promotions

This is the segment to try to capture at all times

The value they obtain for the price they paid is the decision maker

Delivery is a key value in some markets

Local chains will focus on national / typical products, too.

Not all the Quick Service Restaurant focuses their marketing strategy on the same

value dimensions. Some focus on quality only, others are pricing only. This will

automatically segregate the segments they will attract. The premiums for young kids

are used mainly by the big players in the market (McDonald´s, Burger King and

Wendy´s).

2. Do they influence in the customer´s satisfaction?

These values will attract different segments to the Quick Service Restaurant and

probably will generate customer´s satisfaction. Once the customers arrive to the

location, service will be a key value to watch in order to keep the segment members

coming back.

3. Does the culture affect the perceived value dimensions in customers?

Cultural customs, including language, can be perceived as negative

values in some cases. But in other cases it affects a lot and Quick Service

Restaurant have to adapt to them.

Some people who do not speak English will not like to go to a Quick

Service Restaurant with product names in English because they do not feel

comfortable ordering these items.

Some cultures will enjoy going to an International/American Quick Service

Restaurant for the value of social status.



Some countries consume products that are not sold in the Quick Service

Restaurant (wine and beer). Some chains have added these items to their

menu, some have not.

4. Do you think customers can be loyal in the Fast Food Industry? Why,

Why not?

Some customers are loyal, but not the main share of the market. The loyalty will vary

if the competition will offer a different or a new value, such as price and new

products. A new location could attract customers from other sites.

5. Which is the main focus of the restaurants towards customer

satisfaction? Which value dimensions are the most important to satisfy

them?

Each Quick Service Restaurant will focus their marketing strategy and

customer satisfaction based on the values they think will attract most of

the customers.

Some will focus on pricing, some will choose other values.

Customer service is a must for Quick Service Restaurant

Master Thesis Final

Documents

Transcript of Master Thesis Final