7: Influence Of Commercial Operators
The author begins with the assertion that "In many, if not most parts of the world, people are consuming more meals outside of the home than ever before."
(EN: The breadth of this assertion is unacceptable: it is only in certain cultures that people take [or ever took] meals in the home. The single-family home with facilities to store, prepare, and consume food became the norm only in some industrialized nations within the last century, such that "most parts of the world" have not "ever before" or even now consume meals in the home at all. So take this and any other grandiose statements from this author with a grain of salt.)
The increase in the use of commercial food facilities as resulted in a wide range of restaurant formats ranging from convenience to haute cuisine as the market has sought to accommodate the needs and wants of customers. However, the format of a restaurant is the decision of its management and there remains the possibility that there are voids in the marketplace, whether from an insufficient quantity of options to match customer demand for a known format, or from failure to discover a format that is not currently available that would better accommodate customers needs and preferences.
Here, the author backpedals to meditate over whether operators respond to consumer demands or shape consumer demands through marketing. Her intent in this chapter is to explore that argument further, considering the motivations of consumers and those of operators as well as the negotiation between the two in an increasingly competitive environment.
"Eating Out" is not "Dining Out"
A succotash of mismatched statistics is presented to suggest rapid growth in the restaurant industry - outdated statistics that indicate an increase in the "dining out" market in the UK, the increase in fast food sales in Germany, total sales without comparison in the US market, and a reference to "various research reports" from South America, Australia, and Asia. (EN: This continues for a while, and while I don't doubt that restaurant consumption is growing, this is really sloppy research on the author's part, and I expect the intent is to aggrandize the growth.)
It's suggested that as countries industrialize, people perceive themselves to be cash rich and time poor, and the convenience of dining out rather than cooking in the home reflects this. Then, more random mismatched statistics from research.
It's also suggested that cultural perception of the home itself is a factor, as cultures transition from the practice of having dinner parties in the home to that of meeting friends at a restaurant for special occasions.
The industrial notion of a brief "lunch break" that gives workers time to wolf down a quick meal before getting back to the production line, but certainly no time to prepare it or engage in socializing that would make the act of feeding less time-efficient.
There's also evidence the norms of the workplace are spreading to everyday life, as concession sales are growing. At leisure activities such as sporting events or shopping, food is a necessity to address hunger as efficiently as possible before returning to the primary activity.
This form of convenience feeding is more in the nature of "eating out" than "dining out" because the meal is not the attraction, nor considered particularly important
Consumer purchase decisions
In a basic sense, a person is triggered by the recognition of a need to take action - and if that action involves the purchasing of goods and services, they become a prospect. They may consider the options they already know or seek out information about alternative means, before deciding on purchase, then making the purchase, then considering whether the purchase met the need.
In terms of food, a working-day lunch is a low-involvement purchase that focuses on convenience. Satisfying the need in the least amount of time is their primary concern. This is different to the dining decision, where pleasure or esteem factor into the decision and it becomes a more elaborate undertaking.
In that context, the restaurant is weighted by multiple factors, as an entire bundle of benefits. Depending on the importance of the company, whether the person choosing the venue wants them to be pleased or impressed, it can me a medium- to high-involvement purchase.
In order to be successful, a restaurant must carefully consider the factors that customers will take into consideration - to decide on the location, the price, the offerings, and the peripheral qualities of the establishment in such a way that it appeals to a sufficient number of diners.
Food choices for dining out
In terms of the menu, it has generally been the case that customers who dine out are mainly concerned with the quality of food, but "quality" is ephemeral and changes with the fashions. It may involve concerns about food safety, health consciousness, and even political concerns about the origins of ingredients.
The desire for a range of selections has led many restaurants to offer bloated menus of many different dishes rather than a select few. This is tantamount to a shrug, in that an operator who knows his customers should be able to better focus the menu to suit their range of tastes (and that of their guests). At the same time, market research does support the customers' demand for novelty and a desire to try something they do not normally eat, though it's suggested that this influences their choice of venue. This is particularly important to the growth and diversity of ethnic cuisines.
There's a brief note about current trends toward lighter and healthier meals, such that most restaurants must be prepared to provide for guests who have demanding and quirky concerns. Most restaurants must offer vegetarian or even vegan selections to accommodate the more persnickety members of a part of diners.
Food choices for eating out
Eating out is largely a matter of convenience: proximity to the places people will happen to be when hunger strikes (workplaces, shopping areas, hotels, etc.) is the greatest competitive advantage for a venue that offer utility means to be taken on the go.
Aside of distance, speed of service is a considerable factor. Location is only important in that it takes little time to go there, and speed of service can reinforce or undermine the convenience of location. In particular, a worker on a half-hour lunch break does not have time, and a shopper who pauses for a meal may have time but does not want to invest it in a dining experience.
Where there are multiple choices in a given location, consumers then consider secondary factors such as value, menu options, service, and atmosphere. However, it's generally accepted that the eating-out consumer will accept an inferior choice for the sake of convenience, such as a workplace cafeteria or vending machine.
In that sense, the notion of "price" rather than "value" has become a priority for the eating-out market and price promotions can be an effective way for such venues to appeal to more customers.
The nature of supply
On the supply side of the restaurant industry, there has been an increase in the number and variety of suppliers and the marketplace has been increasingly competitive, especially in terms of the midmarket and convenience formats. There has also been consolidation in the industry, with an increase in chain restaurants and the consolidation of existing chains into conglomerates, both on the corporate and franchise levels.
For many chain restaurants, the difference has been in branding. This includes not only fast-food but also chef-branded middle market restaurants as well, and even some luxury restaurants have fallen from grace by opening additional locations.
(EN: In a conservative sense, any restaurant that opens a second branch has fallen from grace - but it would be overly generous to consider a restaurant with a dozen or more branches to still be a luxury venue. Consider that Ruth's Chris now operates over 125 outlets and even Nobu, which gained acclaim only recently, has ballooned to more than 20.)
A "brand" is a combination of elements that distinguishes one provider from others whose product is largely identical. For the customer, brand decreases perceived purchase risk, as they have the expectation (which is normally fulfilled) that there will be consistency in quality. For the producer, a strong brand is the source of customer loyalty and the ability to introduce new products to an audience already familiar with the brand.
There is some mention of the symbolic value of brand, in that a person who has never encountered a brand before has some sense of what it represents from a limited amount of information (the name, logo, and tagline convey a message about the brand's identity). There's also a brief consideration of the relationship between brand and self-image - whether a person selects a brand that's appropriate to their current self-image or their ideal self-image, as well as selecting a brand to create an impression on others.
(EN: This superficial consideration of "brand" carries on for a while and there doesn't seem to be anything original or specific to the restaurant industry, so I'm skipping forward.)
Consumer choice or vendor persuasion?
The author returns to what she perceives to be a dilemma: whether vendors in the industry are serving the independent choices made by the consumer, or whether vendors influence consumer choices. Then, there is a repeat of some of the factors discussed in the article, with particular emphasis on the distinction between eating out (a quick bit that does not involve much thought) and dining out (in which quality, atmosphere, esteem, and other factors are involved).
In the present day, there is a definite trend toward eating out, and in that environment suppliers have little influence on the customer, as the consumer makes a casual choice among what is convenient, quick, and cheap and the elements that a dining establishment leverages to distinguish itself, while not entirely ignored, are regarded as being of little importance. While this remains true there is little opportunity for a vendor to influence consumer tastes.
While dining out has diminished, the few instances in which the consumer invests effort in selecting a venue have gained in their significance if only by virtue of rarity - but the decrease in the consumer base means a decrease in the number of suppliers who can sustainably offer a dining alternative, and the commoditization of consumer tastes (by means of advertising and promotion) limits diversity and experimentation.