CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

TO THE

TOPIC

1
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF STUDY

CUSTOMER
A customer is the recipient of a good, service, product or idea, obtained from a seller, vendor
or supplier for a monetary or other valuable consideration. In the world of customer service
customers are categorized more often into two classes:

An internal customer

An external customer

The external customer is the ultimate consumer of the company's goods or services, but the
internal customer only facilitates the delivery to the external customer. The internal customer
can be a co-worker within the company, such as a worker in a different department. An
internal customer can be part of an external organization that is intimately linked in with the
company by providing services such as delivery of the goods to the external customer.

Ultimately, an external customer has the option of taking his needs to another company if he
is unsatisfied with the present one, but an internal customer is likely to have a binding contract
to the company.

WHAT IS CUSTOMER SATISFACTION?

Customer satisfaction measures how well the expectations of a customer concerning a product
or service provided by your company have been met.

2
Customer satisfaction is an abstract concept and involves such factors as the quality of the
product, the quality of the service provided, the atmosphere of the location where the product
or service is purchased, and the price of the product or service. Businesses oftenuse customer
satisfaction surveys to gauge customer satisfaction. These surveys are used to gather
information about customer satisfaction.
Typical areas addressed in the surveys include:

Quality of product

Value of product relative to price - a function of quality and price

Time issues, such as product availability, availability of sales assistance, time waiting at
checkout, and delivery time

Atmosphere of store, such as cleanliness, organization, and enjoyable shopping environment

Service personnel issues, such as politeness, attentiveness, and helpfulness

Convenience, such as location, parking, and hours of operation

IMPORTANCE OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

It’s a leading indicator of consumer repurchase intentions and loyalty

It’s a point of differentiation

It reduces customer churn

It increases customer lifetime value

It reduces negative word of mouth

It’s cheaper to retain customers than acquire new ones

Fast food is one of the world’s largest growing food types. India’s fast food industry is
growing by 40% .the multinational segment of Indian fast food industry is up to Rs. 20 billion,
a figure which is expected to zoom more than Rs.30 billion by 2010. In last 6 years, foreign
investment in this sector stood at rs.3600 million which is about one-fourth of total investment

3
made in this sector. Because of the availability of raw material for fast food, global chains are
flooding into the country. The percentage share held by foodservice of total consumer
expenditure on food has increased from a very low base to stand at 2.6% in 2001. Eating at
home remains very much ingrained in Indian culture and changes in eating habits are very
slow moving with barriers to eating out entrenched in certain sectors of Indian society. The
growth in nuclear families, particularly in urban India, exposure to global media and western
cuisine and an increasing number of women joining the workforce have had an impact on
eating out trends.

The main reason behind the success of the multinational chains is their expertise in product
development, sourcing practices, quality standards, service levels and standardized operating
procedures in their restaurants, a strength that they have developed over years of experience
around the world. The home grown chains have in the past few years of competition with the
mnc’s, learnt a few things but there is still a lot of scope for improvement.

*Extract taken from a study of Indian retail food sector

REASONS FOR EMERGENCE

Gender roles:

gender roles are now changing. Females have started working outside. So, they have no time
for their home and cooking food. Fast food is an easy way out because these can be prepared
easily.

Customer sophistication and confidence:

Consumers are becoming more sophisticated now. They do not want to prepare food and
spend their time and energy in house hold works. They are building their confidence more on
‘ready to eat and easy to serve’ kind of foods

Paucity of time:

4
People have no time for cooking. Because of emergence of working women and also number
of other entertainment items. Most of the time either people work or want to enjoy with their
family.

Double income group:

Emergence of double income group leads to increase in disposable income. Now people have
more disposable income so they can spend easily in fast food and other activities.

Large population:

India being a second largest country in terms of population possesses large potential market
for all the products/services. This results into entry of large number of fast food players in the
country. Relaxation in rules and regulations, with the economic liberalization of 1991, most of
the tariff and non tariff barriers from the Indian boundaries are either removed or minimized.
This helped significantly the MNC’s to enter in the country.

*Extract taken from economic reforms in India

5
 MARKET SHARE AND MAJOR PLAYERS

The or g anized piz z a market i n India is w orth Rs.6 0 0 Crore. T he major pl ayers in th e market
are piz z a hut and dominos w hose market share are a round 45% and 35% r espectively.

Other players for m the rest 2 0 %

Branded Pizza Market Share

Others
Pizza Hut
Pizza hut
Dominos
Dominos
Others

Other players mai nly are

• Smokin jo e’s

• Garcia’s

• Papa john’ s

• Us pizza

Th ese players mainly gi v e competi tion to piz z a hut and dominos i n tier I ci ties like
Mu mbai, Ban g alore, Che nnai etc. Th ey do not h ave much presence in tier ii cities

6
MAJOR FORCES SHAPING THE TRAJECTORY OF THE INDUSTRY

New
Entrants

Supplier Industry Buying

Power Competitiors Power

Substitutes

Industry competition

In tier I city like Mumbai, pizza hut and dominos are facing a stiff competition from these
providers (with respect to branded pizzas)

• Pizza corner

• Smokin joe’s

• Us pizza

• Garcia’s

In tier II cities, dominos and pizza hut are still the major players.

Threat of new entrants

7
With the economic reforms and liberalization, many new entrants also want the revenue of the
200 billion Indian fast food industry.

There are many new entrants in the branded pizza industry some of them are

• Papa john’s pizza

• Us pizza

They have captured a lot of customers with their new style and discount offers. Much young
crowd flock their restaurants and their taste buds are getting modified. Now the new entrants are
also likely to enter the tier ii cities and make their presence. Thus pizza hut and dominos have to
rethink their strategies so as to retain their customers. They have to constantly differentiate their
services from the newer entrants

Substitutes

There are lots of substitutes which are available to choose with respect to the fast food industry
some of them are

• Any restaurant

• Mcdonald’s

• Barista

• Cafe coffee day

• Chinese restaurants ( mainland china)

Largely it depends upon the customers what they want to have. Generally it is assumed that
when people dine outside, they think of having pizza at least 25% of time*. Thus if the brand
recall of a particular company is good, more people will tend to go there.
Higher the quality of food, service, higher will be product recall and sales

8
* This information is obtained from the primary data

Buyer’s bargaining power

Pizza hut and dominos have higher market reach and greater visibility in the market with respect
to the pizza industry and hence they command supplies at lower rate. However their
counterparts, competitors cannot command such lower prices. Thus the muscle power of pizza
hut and dominos is way beyond the others.

Supplier’s growing bargaining power

Supplies till now were not a problem. But with the advent of the rising food costs (raw material
inflation). Suppliers are not ready to supply items at the normal rate. Thus supplier’s muscle
power grew only doe to inflation. Thus the company either has to increase the menu costs or
reduce the operational costs to recover. Failing to do this will make the company into losses or to
lose out in the industry.

Trends in the Indian market

Marketing to children
Fast food outlets in India target children’s as their major customers. They introduce varieties of
things that will attract the children’s attention and by targeting children’s they automatically
target their parents because children’s are always accompanied by their parents. Low level
customer commitment

Because of the large number of food retail outlets and also because of the tendency of customer
to switch from one product to other, this industry faces low level customer commitment.

Attracting different segments of the market

Fast food outlets are introducing varieties of products in order to cater the demands of each and
every segment of the market. They are introducing all categories of product so that people of all
age, sex, class, income group etc can come and become a customer of their food line.

9
The success of fast foods arose from the changes in the economic conditions

1. Many women or both parents now work

2. There are increased numbers of single-parent households

3. Long distances to school and work are common

4. There's often not enough time or opportunity to shop carefully for groceries, or to cook and eat
with one's family. Especially on weekdays, fast food outside the home is the only solution

10
 CHAPTER-2
INDUSTRY PROFILE

11
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE TRENDS

FOOD INDUSTRY

Fast food is the term given to food that can be prepared and served very quickly. While any
meal with low preparation time can be considered to be fast food, typically the term refers to
food sold in a restaurant or store with low quality preparation and served to the customer in a
packaged form for take-out/take-away. Outlets may be stands or kiosks, which may provide no
shelter or seating, or fast food restaurants (also known as quick service restaurants).

Franchise operations which are part of restaurant chains have standardized foodstuffs shipped to
each restaurant from central locations. The capital requirements involved in opening up a fast
food restaurant are relatively low. Restaurants with much higher sit-in ratios, where customers
tend to sit and have their orders brought to them in a seemingly more upscale atmosphere may be
known in some areas as fast casual restaurants.

HISTORY

The concept of ready-cooked food for sale is closely connected with urban development. In
Ancient Rome cities had street stands that sold bread and wine. A fixture of East Asian cities is
the noodle shop. Flatbread and falafel are today ubiquitous in the Middle East. Popular Indian
fast food dishes include vadapav, panipuri and dahivada. In the French-speaking nations of West
Africa, roadside stands in and around the larger cities continue to sell—as they have done for
generations—a range of ready-to-eat, char grilled meat sticks known locally as brochettes.

THE BEGINNING OF FAST FOOD CULTURE

The concept of fast food pops up during 1920s.The 1950s first witnessed their rapid
proliferation. Several factors that contributed to this explosive growth in 50’s were:

America’s love affair with the automobiles.

The construction of a major new highway system.

12
The development of sub-urban communities.

The baby boom subsequent to world war second.

“Fast-food chains initially catered to automobile owners in suburbs.

Fast food outlets are take-away or take-out providers, often with a "drive-through" service
which allows customers to order and pick up food from their cars; but most also have a seating
area in which customers can eat the food on the premises. People eat there more than five times a
week and often, one or more of those five times is at a fast food restaurant. Nearly from its
inception, fast food has been designed to be eaten "on the go", often does not require traditional
cutlery, and is eaten as a finger food. Common menu items at fast food outlets include fish and
chips, sandwiches, patties, hamburgers, fried chicken, French fries, chicken nuggets, tacos, pizza,
hot dogs, and ice cream, although many fast food restaurants offer "slower" foods like chilli,
mashed potatoes, and salads.

VARIANTS

Although fast food often brings to mind traditional American fast food such as hamburgers and
fries, there are many other forms of fast food that enjoy widespread popularity in the West.
Chinese takeaways/takeout restaurants are particularly popular. They normally offer a wide
variety of Asian food which has normally been fried. Most options are some form of noodles,
rice, or meat. Momos and Sushi has seen rapidly rising popularity in recent times. A form of fast
food created in Japan. Pizza is a common fast food category in the United States, with chains
such as Domino's Pizza, Pizza Hut etc. Menus are more limited and standardized than in
traditional pizzerias, and pizza delivery, often with a time commitment, is offered. Fish and chip
shops are a form of fast food popular in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Fish is
battered and then deep fried. The Dutch have their own types of fast food. A Dutch fast food
meal often consists of a portion of French fries.

13
MAJOR PLAYERS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE MARKET
SHARE
1. SUBWAY

Subway is an American fast food restaurant franchise that primarily sells submarine
sandwiches (subs) and salads. It is owned and operated by Doctor's Associates, Inc. Subway is
one of the fastest growing franchises in the world, with 42,673 restaurants in 108 countries and
territories as of September 13, 2014. It is the largest single-brand restaurant chain and the largest
restaurant operator globally.

Subway's international headquarters is in Milford, Connecticut; five regional centres support

Subway's international operations. The regional offices for European franchises are located
in Amsterdam, Netherlands; the Australia and New Zealand locations are supported
from Brisbane, Australia; the Asian locations are supported from offices located in Beirut,
Lebanon, and Singapore; and the Latin America support centre is in Miami, Florida.

2. Pizza hut

In 1996 Pizza hut came to India with adine in restaurant in Bangalore that has special vegetarian
pizzas. In addition to traditional Italian topping, it incorporates Indian favorites such as chicken
tikkas, lamb korma, etc. In its list of innovative toppings, along with pizzas the menu features
appetizers like garlic bread and soups, fresh salads, oven baked pastas and choice f\of ice-cream
sundaes.

In 1997 pizza hut opened a restaurant in the capital’s building bustling M-Block market in
Greater Kailash-I, unlike the existing pizza hut at shanti niketan which is delivery counter for
just pizzas, this is dine-in where the entire menu is available.

3. Domino’s pizza

Domino's Pizza Inc. is a large American pizza restaurant chain founded in 1960. The
corporation is headquartered at the Domino's Farms Office Park in Ann Arbor, Michigan, United
States.

14
It was incorporated in 1995 as the master franchise o Domino’s pizza international inc., of USA.
The first Domino’s pizza store in India opened in January 1996 at New Delhi. Today it has
grown into a countrywide network of over 104 outlets in 30 cities.

Ever since it was established, Domino’s Pizza India has maintained its position of market
leadership with its constant product innovation and maintenance of stringent service standards. It
has established a reputation for being a home delivery specialist capable of delivering pizzas
within 30 minutes. It was the first one to start this facility to customers.

4. Popeyes

Popeyes is an American multinational chain of fried chicken fast food restaurants founded in
1972 in New Orleans, Louisiana. Since 2008, its full brand name is Popeyes Louisiana
Kitchen and it was formerly named Popeyes Chicken & Biscuits and Popeyes Famous Fried
Chicken & Biscuits. It is currently a subsidiary of Restaurant Brands International.

According to a company press release dated June 29, 2007, Popeyes is the second-largest "quick-
service chicken restaurant group, measured by number of units", with more than
2,600 restaurants in more than 40 states and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 30
countries worldwide, after KFC. About thirty locations are company-owned, the rest franchised.

5. Chick Fila

Chick-fil-A, a play on the American English pronunciation of "fillet") is an American fast food
restaurant chain headquartered in the Atlanta district of College Park, Georgia, specializing
in chicken sandwiches.[3][4] Founded in May 1946, it operates more than 2,200 restaurants,
primarily in the United States. The restaurant serves breakfast before transitioning to its lunch
and dinner menu. Chick-fil-A also offers customers catered selections from its menu for special
events. [5] Many of the company's values are influenced by its founder's Southern Baptist
beliefs;[6] all Chick-fil-A restaurants are closed for business on Sundays as well as
on Thanksgiving and Christmas.

15
 Industry Analysis

Analysis of competitor:

It’s a fundamental of business where you have competition along your business. If you want to
overcome your competitor you must have knowledge of that business as much you have your
own. Similarly FOOD competitoris facing considerable competitors in Gujrat area like;

 KFC
 MacDonald’s
 UFC
 Sawad
 AFC
 Domino
 Pizza huts…etc

But here our opportunity is, no one have any branch in Jalal pur Jattan.

Competitive Advantage strategies:

Competitive advantage strategies are now playing a vital role in world wide businesses. These
are very useful to contain or maintain a competitive edge. FOOD competitorwill follow
differentiation strategy, diversification strategy, marketing advantage strategy and geographic
expansion strategy.

 Differentiation strategy:

We are providing high quality food because our mission is

“Our customer health is our profit”

16
 Marketing advantage strategy:

FOOD competitor is providing some services for the first time and has got first
mover advantage.

 Diversification strategy:

It implies that FOOD competitor will expand by new service and high quality food
with the passage of intervals.

 Geographic expansion strategy:

Geographic expansion means to add new places and new disciplines. We start our
business in Jalal Pur Jattan and next target is Gujrat, Kharian, and all over the
Pakistan after 3 years of establishment of our business. Because of, in these area
life style are changed day by day and the reason is that, after establishing of
university of Gujrat, education level will also increase, it would change the
people thinking and in these areas mostly people are in foreign countries.

Description of venture

Products:

 Burger
 Chicken piece
 Hot wings
 Nuggets
 French fries
 Soups
 Drinks, Coffee & tea
 Ice cream, deserts, salad
 Rice, kebab, rolls
 pizzas

17
Size of business:

It’s a small scale business based on partnership between five people with mutually
agreement.
Business share:
CEO (Anum Rafique) 25% share of whole business. Remaining four has equal shares;
 Financial manager (Syeda Um-e-Rubab) 18.5% share
 Marketing Manager (Sehrish Ashraf) 18.75% share
 Operation Manager (Anum Tariq) 18.75% share
 Human resource manager (Syed Anum Nawazish) 18.75% share.
Profit and loss

Profit and loss will be distributed on the basis of their share percentage

Office equipment:

 Computer
 Telephone set
 Office furniture
 Stationery
 Electric fan
 Lights
 Exhaust
 AC
 Printer

Background of entrepreneurs:

Our business is based on partnership and every partner is the student of business administration
in university of Gujrat, it’s our project to develop a business plan as an entrepreneur. We are in
(BBA) 5th semester and before this, we completed different projects in different subjects like
marketing, cost accounting, business ethics and human resource management as well. In

18
marketing we developed a marketing plan in which our product is “date shake”, in business
ethics we developed a business plan on Nestle Company and tell them their ethical issues and
their solutions, and now in this semester we complete our project on activities and functions of
human resource department in PepsiCo.

Production plan

Physical plant

 Area:

The piece of land which is required to organize the whole set up is about 4500 sq feet (1 canal)
for our restaurant.

 Color scheme:

“Every color has meanings”

Our presenting color is pixel organic, because it attractive and show freshness. And it is
sophisticated.

Machinery and equipment

Equipments & machinery used in production house

 Oven
 Potato French fries machine
 Dough mixture
 Food processor
 Frying machine
 Microwave

19
  French fry cutter
 Food cutter
 Sauces
 Cutlery set
 utensil
Names of suppliers of raw material

 Javed Iqbal
 Adil Akbar (paars bakery)
 Waqas Khalid (whole seller)
 Nadeem Butt

Marketing plan

Objective of marketing manager:

According to the marketing manager of FOOD MARKETING that

marketing department has two objectives;

 The first department of FOOD competitor is to create the

awareness and provide the following information to the higher
authorities.
 This department shows the marketing position of the organization.
 This department shows the market share of Fast Food.
 This department gives the suggestion to the higher authorities for the future
improvement.
 This department provides the information about their competitors to the higher
authorities.
 The second basic objective of Marketing Department is that it meets the budget in the
required time span. The marketing department is to promote its products and make the
future plan to live in the budget.

20
Every business needs the information’s about market before going to start. These information’s
will help in achieving the goals and setting targets. There are
different contents for the assessment of any market, which are
given under here:

Market Segmentation:

FOOD competitor will be marketed to people on the basis of

demographic, psychographic and geographic characteristics.

 Behavioral characteristics:

In behavioral aspect they segmented the market on the basis of quality, taste and price.
Following are the different possible segments in this regard.

 Taste conscious
 Quality conscious
 Class conscious
 Combination of price and quality

Major players in fast food are:

• McDonalds’

• KFC

• Pizza hut

• Dominos pizza

• Café coffee day

• Barista

• Subway

21
CHAPTER – 4
REVIEW OF
LITERATURE

22
 MARKETING STRATEGIES FOR CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION
This literature review for Our Food Future has been undertaken in parallel to the public dialogue work
on the programme, being delivered by TNS. The review’s emerging findings have informed the
approach to the dialogue exercises, but the outcomes from those dialogues have not been incorporated
back into this review. As such the review represents the knowledge base from which stakeholders
working on Our Food Future can move forward together.

The review is itself the product of an extensive and collaborative research programme, led by Andrew
Darnton (AD). The full methodology is detailed in the Annexes to this report, but its different phases
and their extent can be summarised as follows:

i) The Initial Call for Information

The review process began in October 2014, when AD, acting as external advisor to the
Wellcome Trust’s food and drink initiative (now branded ‘The Crunch’) sent out a call for
information to 60 researchers and practitioners working on aspects of the UK food system.
The scope of the call was broad in terms of topics, summed up as evidence on ‘where the UK
public is at’ in terms of food-related perceptions and practices. A relatively tight timeframe
was set (sources since 2010 – although this was not always adhered to by contributors). As
the principal aim of the review was to provide benchmarks to support the development of the
Crunch, and track changes in public engagement over time, the emphasis was on quantitative
data (though not just from surveys). AD was supported in the logging and selection of
sources by Clare Curtis, then of the Wellcome Collection. In total, 101 sources were gathered
from 42 individuals; 60 were selected as the basis of an internal report to the Crunch
programme team and contractors (February 2015).

ii) The Follow-Up Call for Information

As FSA’s ‘Our Food Future’ programme began to take shape in early 2015, it became clear
that the evidence base on the UK public’s relationship with food, and their role in the food

23
 futures agenda, would need to be reviewed (not least, preliminary to the new primary research
which FSA was planning to undertake). The Wellcome Trust agreed to share the assembled
body of evidence with the FSA, and AD was commissioned by FSA to update and then
synthesise the evidence base. Accordingly in August 2015 a second call for information was
sent out, to all 42 individuals who responded to the initial call (they were also sent a copy of
the longlist of 101 sources gathered from the first call). The scope was similarly broad, with
the same timeframe set, although the kinds of data searched for were extended, to include
more qualitative evidence. The second call’s focus was summed up as being on the ‘views
voices and practices of the UK public in relation to food’, now and in future. The call was
left open throughout the rest of 2015, and even into 2016, with participants contributing new
work as it became available, right up to the reporting deadline in February 2016. In total, 76
individuals contributed to this call, and the total set of relevant sources they contributed
across the two calls numbered 131.

iii) The Systematic Study

In November 2015 the FSA resolved to commission a systematic review to supplement the
expert-led calls for information. The aim of the systematic review was to add transparency
and robustness to the review process, and ensure any important gaps had not been left in the
coverage of evidence. Valerie Viehoff at the University of Bonn was commissioned to
undertake the systematic search, using a scope derived from the expertled calls. Accordingly
her search terms were broad, albeit the same timeframe was set, of sources produced since
2010. The search returned 1,307 sources. A set of filtering criteria were then applied, based
on whether the source covered a) the UK b) food, in relation to consumers c) the UK public,
whose ‘views, voices, and practices’ needed to be visible through the source (ie. it included
primary evidence relating to them – although this need not always be new). Applying these
filters to the titles of the sources returned, the selection reduced to 528, which was then
reduced to 94 on reviewing the abstracts of each paper against the three filters. The full text
of each of these sources was then reviewed against the priority topics of the ‘Our Food
Future’ programme (agreed with the FSA and partners’ steering group), with the result that 52
of the systematic sources went forward for final review.

The three strands in this programme of secondary research have been brought together in this single
synthesis review. It is based on the 183 selected sources which in total were gathered via the three

24
routes above. In drafting the report not all those sources were cited (largely due to constraints of
space), while 15 more ‘classics’ were added to provide firm theoretical footings for the commentary.
In the final outcome, this review cites 100 sources; these are listed in the annex at the back of this
report, along with the 183 sources selected in total.

The result of this process is a substantial body of evidence: an inclusive current selection of what
researchers know about the UK public’s relationship with food going forward. An initial observation
is that few of these sources explicitly talk about (or report on) food in the future from the public’s
perspective. As a result, much of this review involves extrapolating the public’s role in food futures
from what we know about their practices and preferences now. It is hoped that the FSA’s Our Food
Future programme, and other work like it, will see the public more fully involved in these questions
from here on.

The Public and Food Future

While ‘food futures’ is beginning to appear as a professional agenda, the future is a dimension which
is missing from public discourses around food. A telling example of this is provided by a ‘social
listening’ study undertaken for the Wellcome Trust (OLR 2014); social listening, whereby researchers
analyse content which has been shared through publicly-accessible social media platforms (largely
Twitter and Facebook), provides an interesting complement to conventional market research methods,
in that, while it is not derived from a representative sample of the public, it analyses discourses which
were created without any researcher inputs (hence there is no chance of leading the public – a constant
risk in areas of low salience and understanding). The OLR study reports that the social media debate
was confined to future foods, was “small in volume and limited in scope”, and that “most of the
people talking about the topic were not seriously engaged with the future of food” (ibid.: 44). They
conclude that “any triggers in debate were drowned out by general noise – mostly around the novelty
of eating insects” adding that such discussion tended to be approached from the perspective of ‘I’m a
Celebrity Get Me Out of Here!’.

While the food futures agenda among professionals is framed in terms of food security, this language
has no place in public discourse. In an early survey run by TNS for GFS in 2012, respondents were
asked directly whether they had heard of the term ‘global food security’ (GFS 2012a). Around one in

25
ten respondents (13%) said they had, whilst 86% said they had not. Notably, men were significantly
more likely than women (17% vs. 10%) to have heard of the term, as were those in ABC1 socio-
economic grades (18% vs. 8% of C2DEs). However, these response patterns are what one might
expect to any knowledge testing question, and may well over-estimate actual awareness.

That suspicion is reinforced by evidence from qualitative research. Parallel to their survey, the

GFS team commissioned a public dialogue exercise – the first of several, convened by them, Which?,
and by the FSA. In this 2012 exercise (designed with researchers from SPRU at Sussex, and delivered
by TNS), two workshops were held with a cross-section of 44 members of the public, across three
locations (London, Aberystwyth and Edinburgh – see GFS 2012b). The first workshop explored the
public’s current perceptions and framings, before providing factual inputs including scenarios. There
was then a break, during which time participants were asked to visit websites and reflect upon what
they had learnt to date. The second workshop involved more factual inputs, including from selected
experts in person, and from Tim Benton (the GFS Champion) by video. As we shall see repeatedly in
this review, dialogues of this kind provide both research evidence and action-based examples of how
participants respond to particular inputs, such as pieces of evidence or ‘messaging’: as such they are a
popular tool in policy development work – although there is the constant need to scrutinise the
findings to ensure that unprompted and prompted responses are not blurred. In the instance of the
2012 GFS dialogue, the concept of ‘global food security’ was introduced early in the first workshop,
and the researchers report that overall awareness of the phrase was “extremely low” (ibid.: 14).
However, “upon reflection participants had a broad intuitive understanding of what the term implies”
and in particular they associated it with feeding a growing global population; it is notable that climate
change was not reported to be part of their initial intuitions.

The absence of climate change from public understandings is important as it is arguably what injects
the urgency into considerations of global food security – notwithstanding the large feedbacks between
food production and climate change. In the next in what we might call the series of public dialogues –
here, convened by Which? in September 2012, explicitly on the topic of ‘the future of food’, and
based on two-day citizen’s juries in four UK cities – researchers report that participants were
“surprised” at the information from experts that there was an impending crisis in the food system
(Which? 2013: 22). Further, the ‘jurors’ were described as “shocked” to hear of the connections

26
between food, climate change, and price rises, which together were described as bringing this crisis
about. One participant in Cardiff is quoted saying:

“It’s a lot more urgent than you realise and we’re led to believe.”

In early 2014, TNS-BMRB convened two rounds of ‘citizens forum’ events for the Food Standards
Agency, as a part of a programme of research to explore public perceptions, in support of the
forthcoming FSA Strategy 2015-20 (FSA 2014a). The first wave of forums took place in five cities in
England Wales and Northern Ireland, and involved 90 minute discussions to review and respond to
existing research on public perceptions. Following an interval of a few weeks, the five forums were
reconvened, and ‘town hall’ style meetings were held, with participants choosing the topics to be
discussed, before dividing into two parties to debate them, against each other as it were. The three top
topics chosen were affordability and healthy eating, food safety, and fraud and authenticity. However,
other topics such as environmental impact and food security were also kept on the agenda. The
researchers report that “food security was not a top of mind concern for participants” (ibid.: 32). This
seems an understatement; it is striking that when the moderator raised the topic of availability,
participants assumed they were talking about over-, rather than, under-supply of food. “Consumers
tended to raise the negative consequences of having too much choice. There was a perception that
excessive choice in supermarkets was encouraging irresponsible food choices and wasteful practices”
(ibid.: 32).

The most recent in this loose series of dialogues was again undertaken by Which?, when in 2015 they
ran a follow-up exercise to their 2012 juries (in partnership with the Government Office for Science,
and again delivered by TNS-BMRB – see Which? 2015). This time the exercise involved two full-day
workshops, reconvened one week apart; 49 people took part in all, in London, Cardiff and Paisley, and
again they were selected to span diverse subgroups in the UK public. Again, a range of inputs were
provided, including expert testimony; the interim week included a shopping task, informed by
learnings from the first workshop, before the second workshop presented participants with a range of
‘potential solutions’ to the food system challenges and asked them to respond with plans of their own.
Notably there were also a round of follow-up interviews, undertaken two months after the workshops,
to explore lasting effects on participants. In terms of findings, once again, as in 2012, “very few
participants were aware of the challenges facing the food system” (ibid.: 63). Moreover, there was
“considerable surprise” at the level of impact the food system was shown to have on the environment

27
It is informative to take a look at one of the items of stimulus used in the first of the 2015
workshops:

The researchers describe these as “stand-out pieces of information”, and found that they were “generally a
surprise to participants” (ibid.: 20).

28
 CHAPTER- 4
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY

29
 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To get information about the company’s market strategies in concern with its business
policies and methods.
2. To gain knowledge about the company’s customers’ tastes and preferences and their
opinions regarding the company’s products and services.
3. To get information about what reputation and goodwill the company has developed and
maintained in its past business life.
4. To study about how the company promote its products and services in the market and in
front of its customers.
5. To get information about how the company is fulfilling its social responsibilities towards
the society and the market.
6. Also, to develop personal skills and strengths related to business world.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We have used “Descriptive research design”.

The basis of my research was primary data which I collected from 100 people i.e. sample size in
the service center through “Questionnaire”

Statistical Tool:

Percentage Analysis:

In this study the researcher has used the percentage analyses method. Percentage analyses
are done determine the percentage value for the entire different question used. Percentage used
for making comparison between two or more series of data.

No. of respondents

Percentage % = X 100

Total no. of respondents

30
 Data Collection

The data collection is an important part of research. Without data any research is
impossible.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

1. Primary Data: It is the data which is never gathered before. The data was collected
by interactions with the respondents. Primary Data collection is an important part of
research; here data collection was done through Questionnaire and interviews.
2. Secondary Data: It is the data which is collected already in the past; it can be
collected with the help of secondary source like internet, books, journals, articles
etc. The data regarding MGMD focus sites, their population, already running ueo,
etc was provided to me from company. Also during drafting of report all
information was gathered from articles about company in magazines and from
websites. As KFC is world renowned company so it was not tough to gather
information about this company.

Instruments for Data Collection

One of the most common and famous instrument for data collection is Questionnaire. The
questionnaire was designed so that we can know about their knowledge of Fast Food
particularly about KFC and about starting as our outlet. We also collected information
regarding the hurdles and issues they are facing in starting this business and what they think
about KFC as a user.

Also with questionnaire another instrument used for this research was interview as-

 The low level of respondents, therefore face to face interviews were found suitable
to get reliable information.
 The interview schedule was used because the researcher wanted to collect data with
probing questions.
 Keeping the objective in mind the questions were designed. We use the interview
tool to get their data and response.
31
Method for Data Collection

The method used for data collection was face to face interaction and interviews. During
this project period I visited the rural areas personally and get the data from them
through personal interaction. It was a great experience to talk directly with the villagers
about their business and scope for KFC promotion and business there.

SAMPLE SIZE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

The number of items selected from the universe to represent the universe is called size
of the sample. It was not feasible to cover all the customers going to fast food
restaurants or visiting KFC. For the purpose of this study, a sample of 100 was taken
The sampling technique used for the study is convenience sampling.

SAMPLE UNIT:

Sample is made on the basis of the stratified sampling, in this type of sampling simple random and sub
sample are drawn from different data which are equal some characteristics .the first step in stratified
sampling choosing a strata on the basis of existing information.

Scope of the Study

India is a developing country and Indian consumers spend a larger share of their income on food.
‘Food and Grocery’ is the second-largest segment of the retail industry in India. This retail
segment is expected to accurately reflect the performance of organised retail and hence the scope
of study is limited to organised retail formats with Food and Grocery as the major product
category.

Many factors contribute to a retailer’s overall performance. Literature indicates that retail
performance should be judged on multiple dimensions: based on customer perception, based on

32
operational efficiency, and based on financial performance (Stem Neill and Gregory M. Rose,
2004; Michael and Barton, 2004). The present research study is limited to performance
evaluation of organised retail formats on customer based parameters.

It was only after the partial liberalization in FDI policy for retailing in January 2006 by Foreign
Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) that foreign companies were permitted to own up to 51 per
cent in single-brand retail Joint Ventures (JVs). As a result of liberalization, many foreign and
domestic players have entered the organized retail market in India since 2006. For this reason the
time period of the study is 2006 onwards.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

1. The availability of time factor is said to be limited for the researcher to conduct the study.

2. Since the feedback of the customers was done through Questionnaire major limitation
was unavailability of customers thus leading to highly low success rate.

3. Most of the customers were so furious that they refused to part with any information.

4. The suggestions or arguments given in the report may not hold true for other locations in
India.
5. Because of time constraints and reserve constraints, a mix of convenient sampling and
judgement sampling was used.
6. It is possible that the information supplied by the informants may be incorrect. So, the
study may lack accuracy.

33
 CHAPTER-5
DATA ANALYSIS
AND
INTERPRETATION

34
Q1) Restaurants preferred by customers

Restaurant No. of persons

Preferred

KFC 35

Pizza hut 20

Domino’s 20

Popeyes 15

Chick Fila 10

40
35
30
25
20
35
15
10 20 20
15
5 10
0
KFC Pizza Hut Dominos's Popeyes Chick Fil A

Population

INTERPRETATION

 35 out of 100 persons surveyed preferred KFC over any other restaurant, i.e. 35%.
 20 persons preferred Pizza hut, i.e. 20%.
 20 persons preferred Domino’s, i.e. 20%
 15 persons preferred Popeyes, i.e. 15%
 10 persons preferred Chick Fil A, i.e. 10%
This survey conveys that there is a tough competition between KFC, Pizza hut and Domino’s.

35
Q2) How do you find the hospitality of the staff at KFC?

Satisfaction Level No. Of Respondants

Excellent 47
Good 39
Not Good 10
Bad 4
Total 100

Views

4
10

Excellent
47 Good
Not Good
Bad
39

INTERPRETATION

Out of 100 respondants,

 47 people rated the hospitality of KFC as Excellent.

 39 people rated as Good.
 10 people rated as Not Good.
 And 4 people rated it as Bad.

36
Q3) What part of your family income you spend in restaurants?

Proportion of No. of respondants

income
Less than 10% 27

11%-20% 31
21%- 30% 29

More than 30% 13

Total 100

no. of respondants

13 less than 10%

27
11%- 20%
29 21%- 30%
31 more than 30%

INTERPRETATION

When asked to 100 people about how much part of their family income they spend in restaurants,

We found that –

 27 respondants said that they spend less than 10% of their family income in restaurants.
 31 respondants said that they spend 11-20% of their family income in restaurants.
 29 respondants said that they spend 21-30% of their family income in restaurants.
 And, 13 respondants said that they spend more than 30% of their family income in
restaurants.

37
Q4) How many times one visit to a restaurant

INTERPRETATION

Half of the customers visit restaurants only once in a month. At the same time, 10% of the
customers visit restaurants daily.

38
 Q5) Preference of cuisines

INTERPRETATION

Out of all the customers who dine out, 30% of customers prefer having pizzas. Pizza sales have
now grown in the food market and has crossed Chinese cuisine food also which stands with 20%
customer preference.

39
 Q6) Frequency of having pizza

INTERPRETATION

From the data, we can interpret that only 20% of customers have pizza very frequently. (i.e.,
weekly once).At the same time 20% of customers have pizzas very rarely

40
 Q7) Preferred Brand of Pizza

INTERPRETATION

40% of pizza consumers prefer Dominos whereas 60% prefer Pizza Hut

41
 Q8) What is the brand recall of Pizza Hut

INTERPRETATION

Enjoyment and dining experience is the greatest factor that comes into customers mind when
they think about pizza hut. One interesting fact about pizza hut is that 10% customers like the
concept of ringing the bell kept in all pizza hut outlets as a mark of satisfied service and the
stewards all together thanking them

42
 Q9) What is the brand recall of Dominos

INTERPRETATION

Food quality and affordable price is what comes in to the mind of 60% of dominos customers.
The enjoyment and experience factor is lesser here when compared to Pizza Hut.

43
 CHAPTER-6
CONCLUSION &
SUGGESTIONS

44
 Conclusion

1. KFC have the best reputation among the customers of fast food restaurants.
2. There is a large no. of customers among all who visit the most.
3. Maximum customers have given very good and excellent rating to Dominos services.
4. Fast Food is emerging day by day among customers’ tastes and choices.
5. Maximum customers say that Pizza Hut maintains its consistency.
6. Maximum customers find Chick Fila productive measures of effective.

45
 Suggestions

1. To become a more desirable employer KFC should aim to provide better working
conditions, allow the existence of unions, and increase the number of training schemes.
2. There are constant and ongoing social changes in the population. Examples include the
increased health-awareness of society.
3. The fact that KFC will start to sell fresh fruit with the established Chicken Bucket is a
first step towards a menu more suitable to the changed environment.
4. KFC should have learnt from their mistake in China, where children as young as 14 have
been working 16 hour days for as little as $3.

5. On the one hand KFC receives Government money for educating young people, on the
other it encourages the industry to design kitchen equipment that affords less training.

6. KFC should rather concentrate to provide a valuable skill for their people.

46
CHAPTER – 7

ANNEXURE

47
 Biblography
BOOKS
Kotler Philip, Armstrong, Principles of Marketing, 12thed,. Delhi, Pearson Education
Corporation.

Ramaswamy V.S., Namakumari S (2009), Marketing Management- Global perspective

Indian context, 4th ed., New Delhi, Macmillian publishers India ltd.

WEBSITES
www.foodmania.co.in
www.foodfood.com
www.foodpanda.com

MAGAZINES
Forbes India

48
 Questionnaire

1. How often do you visit a Fast Food Restaurant?

Regularly
Sometimes
Rarely
Never

2. What factors you keep in mind while going to a restaurant?

Reputation
Service Quality
Food Quality
Heard Calls

3. What part of your monthly income you spend in restaurants?

Less than 5%
5%-10%
11%-15%
Above 15%

4. How much do you spend at a time visiting food joint?

<200
200-500
501-1000
Above 1000

49
5. Your Favourite cuisine?
Western Junk
Chinese
South Indian
Other

6. Which fast food restaurant do you generally prefer visiting?

KFC
McDonald’s
Subway
Domino’s

7. What is the brand recall of Dominos

Food quality
Enjoyment
Affordable price

8. What is the brand recall of Pizza Hut

Enjoyment
Service bell
Food
Premium price

9. Preferred Brand of Pizza

Domino’s
Pizza hut

50