Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

QSR brand value

QSR brand value PurposeThis study aims to examine the quick service restaurant (QSR) differentiation in the minds of consumers, customers and non-customers and addresses the use of absolute measures. The study integrated competitive context and customer vs non-customer perceptions to better understand marketing strategies and the impact on customer value.Design/methodology/approachA conceptual framework is provided with marketing strategy, 7Ps, value positioning and outcomes. A survey instrument to assess perceptions of QSR marketing mix dimensions and leading QSR brands as referents was used. The study used exploratory factor analysis, ANOVA and logistic regression to address research questions.FindingsThe five QSR brands were differentiated by three marketing mix dimensions: quality, convenience and price. Subway and Starbucks customers perceived higher quality than McDonald’s and Burger King. Price separated Starbucks and McDonald’s customers. Overall, QSR customers perceived higher quality and convenience than non-customers. Age group was a predictor of customer membership of QSR overall and McDonald’s.Research limitations/implicationsThe study used participants in Germany and had more respondents identified as McDonald’s customers or referent.Practical implicationsThe quality bundle represents unique resources for each QSR brand. Management teams should use a holistic mindset in considering the quality bundle reputation and how the various attributes support each other.Originality/valueConsumers look to three factors for QSR rather than 7Ps: quality, convenience and price. Relative comparisons of perceptions among brands and between customers vs non-customers provided important contributions for QSR marketing mix factors. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png international Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management Emerald Publishing

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/qsr-brand-value-CNeM1Jen2b
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
0959-6119
DOI
10.1108/IJCHM-06-2015-0300
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

PurposeThis study aims to examine the quick service restaurant (QSR) differentiation in the minds of consumers, customers and non-customers and addresses the use of absolute measures. The study integrated competitive context and customer vs non-customer perceptions to better understand marketing strategies and the impact on customer value.Design/methodology/approachA conceptual framework is provided with marketing strategy, 7Ps, value positioning and outcomes. A survey instrument to assess perceptions of QSR marketing mix dimensions and leading QSR brands as referents was used. The study used exploratory factor analysis, ANOVA and logistic regression to address research questions.FindingsThe five QSR brands were differentiated by three marketing mix dimensions: quality, convenience and price. Subway and Starbucks customers perceived higher quality than McDonald’s and Burger King. Price separated Starbucks and McDonald’s customers. Overall, QSR customers perceived higher quality and convenience than non-customers. Age group was a predictor of customer membership of QSR overall and McDonald’s.Research limitations/implicationsThe study used participants in Germany and had more respondents identified as McDonald’s customers or referent.Practical implicationsThe quality bundle represents unique resources for each QSR brand. Management teams should use a holistic mindset in considering the quality bundle reputation and how the various attributes support each other.Originality/valueConsumers look to three factors for QSR rather than 7Ps: quality, convenience and price. Relative comparisons of perceptions among brands and between customers vs non-customers provided important contributions for QSR marketing mix factors.

Journal

international Journal of Contemporary Hospitality ManagementEmerald Publishing

Published: Jan 9, 2017

There are no references for this article.