Pizza Wars Market Research (AMM)

8/12/2019 Pizza Wars Market Research (AMM)

1/46

PIZZA WARS:

UnderstandingConsumer BehaviorPresented by:

DIXIT KAUSHAL

DIVYA VERMA

SHOBHIT BHATNAGAR


2/46

INTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND | PROBLEM DISCUSSION

2


3/46

BACKGROUND

Quick service restaurants also known as fast foodrestaurants, are defined as food establishments that havelimited service and menu items.

Such restaurants rely on a narrow menu, catering toextremely price sensitive consumers.

QSR falls under organized sector category and arecharacterized as having consumer demands for foods

served quickly and at the right temperature, accurateorders and clean locations.

INTRODUCTION 3


4/46

BACKGROUND (contd)

Indian QSR Industry is emerging very rapidly and it is areflection of the change in the lifestyle, food habits andconsumption pattern of the population.

According to Crisil, Indias quick-service restaurantbusiness will double in just three years, from Rs. 34 billion(US$550m) in the 2012-13 to around Rs. 70 billion in 2015-16.

INTRODUCTION 4


5/46

PROBLEM DISCUSSION

There are several factors which affect an individual

consumersdecision making process.

The problem however is that due to the changingdemographics and entry of new entrants there is no clearset of factors that direct a consumersdecision in regard

to pizza related decisions.

INTRODUCTION 5


6/46

REVIEW OF LITERATUREINDUSTRY OVERVIEW | PIZZA SEGMENT | INFLUENCING FACTORS

6


7/46

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

The industry can be broadly segregated into twosegments viz. organized and unorganized.

The country has about 1.5 million eating outlets and only3,000 of them form the organized segment.

The organized segment due to the huge investments in

the industry is expected to reach about Rs. 22,000 Croresby 2017.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 7


8/46

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (contd)

The Indian restaurant industry can be broadly categorizedinto five major segments:


Segment Brand

Quick Service Restaurants Dominos, KFC, Pizza Hut

Casual Dining Restaurants Yo! China, Sagar Ratna, Haldirams

Cafs Caf Coffee Day, Costa Coffee, Starbucks

Fine Dining Restaurants Mainland China, Sahib Sindh Sultan

Pubs, Bars, Clubs & Lounges Hard Rock Caf, TGIF, Underdoggs


9/46

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW (contd)

Each of the segment is projected to grow rapidly over thecoming years.


4675

2365

12651045 963

21.50%

11.90% 12.30% 12.00%11.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

0500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Quick Service

Restaurants

Casual Dining

Restaurants

Cafes Fine Dining

Restaurants

Pubs, Bars, Clubs &

Lounges

Market share (in Rs. Crore) Expected Growth Rate


10/46

PIZZA SEGMENT

Out of all the QSR brands in the Indian industry 63 percent areforeign brands and rest are Indian brands.

The Indian quick-service market has experienced robust growththroughout the past few years, mostly in metropolitan and tier-Icities.

The Indian organized pizza market is estimated to surge at a CAGR ofmore than 27 percent during 2012-2015.

Factors which affect the popularity of pizza and the quick-servicesegment in general in India include

increasing disposable incomes

faster lifestyles

greater exposure to various global cuisines

a favorable response from younger generations.

10REVIEW OF LITERATURE


11/46

INFLUENCING FACTORS

Hygiene Conditions

Location of the Restaurant

Interior / Ambience of the Restaurant

Value for Money

Variety of the Menu

Speed of Service

Politeness of Staff

Offers and Schemes

11REVIEW OF LITERATURE


13/46

OBJECTIVES

To identify the factors affecting the choice of consumers(Indian youth) for specific fast food category viz. Pizza.

The research seeks to estimate importance of various factorsaffecting the choice of pizza outlets by young Indian consumer.

To study the consumption pattern towards fast foodsparticularly with respect to the frequency of visits and choiceof pizza outlets.

To identify the impact of several factors regarding eating outon consumer purchase decision.

To study consumer perception about two popular pizzaoutlets in National Capital Region (NCR), New Delhi.

METHODOLOGY 13


14/46

PURPOSE

Exploratory research, aims to formulate and define aproblem.

In this study, the purpose was exploratory as it aims tocollect as much as information as possible about aspecific problem.

The study was conducted to get a better insight into the

quick service restaurant industry.

METHODOLOGY 14


15/46


16/46

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Data were collected from three sources:

Students of ITM University, Gurgaon (email)

Customers/shoppers at Ansal Plaza mall, Gurgaon (on the spot)

Friends & family (email and on the spot)

The questionnaire had the following dimensions:

Demographics of the respondent such as age, qualification and status;

Factors affecting selection of pizza outlets;

Comparisons between fast food outlets on various parameters such asservice, speed, price, hygiene, variety, and ambience etc.

16METHODOLOGY


17/46

SAMPLE SELECTION

Sample of the study consisted of youth segment in theage group of 18 to 29 years.

Convenience samples were drawn from Gurgaon & NCRregion.

Due to limited resources and time a total of 108responses could be collected. Out of 108 respondents 98

were valid. Sample Size = 98

17METHODOLOGY


18/46

ANALYSIS

The data were subject to statistical analysis such asdescriptive statistical analysis and frequency distribution.

For scaled data, analysis was conducted by testing meandifference using t-test, and carrying out factor analysis.

To make comparisons of ratings, t-test was applied to

mean scores of two major pizza outlets that are Dominosand Pizza Hut.

18METHODOLOGY


19/46

DATA PRESENTATIONOVERVIEW | PREFERENCES

19


20/46

OVERVIEW

DATA PRESENTATION 20

40.82%

59.18%

Gender of respondents

Female Male


21/46

OVERVIEW (contd)


11

14

16

13

18

76

2 2

4

1

4

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Frequency

Age of Respondents

Age of respondents


22/46


1.02% 5.10%

33.67%

60.20%

Living status of respondents

Living in Joint Family

Married / Living with Partner

Single & Living Alone / Sharing with Friends

Single & Living at Home with Parents

OVERVIEW (contd)


23/46


1

27

31

39

PhD

Post-Graduate

School

Undergraduate

Education level

OVERVIEW (contd)


24/46

OVERVIEW


1

1

1

5

9

81

Business

Other

Self Employed

Professional

Private Service

Student

Occupation


25/46

OVERVIEW


6.12%3.06%

5.10%

8.16%

10.20%

59.18%

8.16%

Monthly household income

Less Than Rs. 10,000 Rs. 10,001Rs. 20,000 Rs. 20,001Rs. 30,000

Rs. 30,001Rs. 40,000 Rs. 40,001Rs. 50,000 More Than Rs. 50,000

Rather Not Say


26/46

OVERVIEW


1

3

4

8

8

11

13

15

17

18

Other

Visting historical places

Playing indoor sports

Going for long drive

Playing outdoor sports

Watching TV

Spending time with family/relatives

Eating out

Spending time with friends

Watching movies

Leisure activities


27/46

PREFERENCES

27DATA PRESENTATION

54.08%40.82%

5.10%

Favorite pizza outlet

Dominos Pizza Hut Others


28/46

PREFERENCES

28DATA PRESENTATION

54.08%

33.67%

8.16%3.06% 1.02%

Preferred mode of buying a pizza

Home delivery Dine - in No preference Pick up / Take out Can't say


29/46

PREFERENCES

29DATA PRESENTATION

79.59%

32.65%

27.55%

68.37%57.14%

66.33%55.10%

43.88%

20.41%

60.20% 66.33%

30.61%

37.76%

31.63%43.88%

47.96%

0.00%7.14% 6.12%

1.02% 5.10% 2.04% 1.02% 8.16%

Hygiene

Conditions

Location of the

Restaurant

Interior /

Ambience of

the Restaurant

Value for

Money

Variety of the

Menu

Speed of

Service

Politeness of

Staff

Offers and

Schemes

Importance of factors regarding eating out

Most Important Important Least Important


30/46

PREFERENCES

30DATA PRESENTATION

11

17

28

42

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

As a complete meal

As a snack

For a get-together / party

To eat something different (than usual)

Reasons for eating pizza


31/46

PREFERENCES

31DATA PRESENTATION

41.84% 42.86%

9.18%

1.02%

44.90% 44.90%

27.55%

9.18%11.22%

9.18%

34.69% 33.67%

0.00% 1.02%4.08% 4.08%0.00%

1.02%

0.00%

6.12%

2.04%1.02%

24.49%

45.92%

Dominos Pizza Hut Papa John's Pizza Vito

Rating for pizza outlets

Excellent Good Ok Bad Poor Can't say


32/46

ANALYSISFACTOR ANALYSIS | COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

32


33/46

ANALYSIS

33ANALYSIS

As a

complete

meal

As a snack

For a get-

together /

party

To eat

something

different

(than usual)

Frequency 7 11 22 30 70

% 7.10% 11.20% 22.40% 30.60% 71.40%

Frequency 2 5 4 9 20

% 2.00% 5.10% 4.10% 9.20% 20.40%

Frequency 1 1 1 3 6

% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 3.10% 6.10%

Frequency 1 0 1 0 2

% 1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 2.00%

Reason for having a pizza

Total

No. of

times (in

one

month)

1-3

4-6

7-9

More than

10


34/46

ANALYSIS (contd)

It was observed from the data that about 60% of therespondents considered promotional offers

About 60% people also indicated that they regularly eat

pizza at outlets others than their favorite outlet On the promotional front, about 70% of the respondent

were able to recall an advertisement about their favoriteoutlet

30% indicated that they do not eat any other type of fastfood expect for pizza, suggesting that about 1/3rd of thesample has high affinity towards pizza

34METHODOLOGY


35/46

FACTOR ANALYSIS

35ANALYSIS

Major attributes for choosing pizza outlets, data werecollected on seven key attributes of pizza outlets. Theseare:

Data were collected using 5 point Likert type scaleregarding each outlet.

Quality Promotions

Price (or Affordability) Variety

Hygiene Combos

Service


36/46

FACTOR ANALYSIS

36ANALYSIS

Attribute Rating Scores (Mean Standard Error) Mode

Quality 3.96 0.032 4

Variety 3.88 0.033 4

Price 3.55 0.068 4Service 3.52 0.068 4

Promotions 3.54 0.071 4

Combos 3.59 0.058 4

Hygiene 3.86 0.038 4


37/46

FACTOR ANALYSIS (contd)

37ANALYSIS

KMO measure whether the size of the sample is adequate forfactor analysis (KMO should be above 0.50)

Bartletts test is used to test if k samples are from population

with equal variances. It tests that the correlation matrix is anidentity matrix.

The sig. value of 0.000 (< 0.050) signifies that correlations in thedataset are appropriate for factor analysis.

0.628

Approx. Chi-Square 126.7

df 21

Sig. 0.000

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity


38/46

FACTOR ANALYSIS (contd)

38ANALYSIS

1 2 3

Quality 0.441 0.728 -0.118

Variety 0.219 -0.139 0.927

Price 0.631 -0.355 -0.06

Service 0.705 0.295 0.249

Promotions 0.655 -0.539 -0.132

Combos 0.683 -0.342 -0.248

Hygiene 0.538 0.578 -0.062

Total Variance Explained (%) 33.188 21.493 14.58

Cumulative Variance Explained (%) 33.188 54.681 69.261

Component


39/46

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

39ANALYSIS

Dominos Pizza Hut t-values Sig. (2-tailed)

Quality 3.94 0.057 (4) 3.98 0.025 (4) 116.753 0.000

Variety 3.89 0.044 (4) 3.88 0.053 (4) 115.292 0.000

Price 3.75 0.060 (4) 3.33 0.131 (4) 51.699 0.000Service 3.45 0.106 (4) 3.60 0.086 (4) 49.468 0.000

Promotions 3.66 0.089 (4) 3.50 0.107 (4) 52.217 0.000

Combos 3.72 0.062 (4) 3.53 0.088 (4) 69.245 0.000

Hygiene 3.77 0.064 (4) 3.95 0.035 (4) 95.531 0.000


40/46

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONFINDINGS | CONCLUSIONS | IMPLICATIONS | LIMITATIONS

FINDINGS & CONCLUSION 40


41/46

FINDINGS

Dominos is preferred by more number of people

as compared to Pizza Hut.

However more people consider Pizza Hut to beexcellent overall in comparison to Dominos.

Hygiene conditions are the most important

factor.

41FINDINGS & CONCLUSION


42/46

FINDINGS

Most people prefer to consume pizza by home delivery

On the basis of factor analysis:

Product dimension

Quality dimension

Service delivery dimension

Using comparative analysis:

Pizza Hut is rated higher on quality and hygiene

Dominos is rated higher than Pizza Hut on affordability and theschemes and combos offered.



43/46

CONCLUSIONS

Consumer acceptance of food served by pizza outlets iscritically important for the future growth of fast food outlets inany economy.

Though the rating of pizza outlets attributes under studybased on mean score is very high but still consumers eat pizzafrom outlets to eat something different than usual so as toexperience a change.

Comparison of Dominos and Pizza Hut indicates a cleardifference in their mean score of their attributes and eachoutlet has its own strong footing on different attributes.

Based on the analysis and results, we can say that with moreand more acceptability of pizza outlets, changes in life styleand competition among the outlets with respect to product (orfood) quality, price and service are most essential.



44/46

LIMITATIONS

The responses were collected on the basis of conveniencesampling however the sample used aptly represents the

key demographic for pizza outlets viz. 18 29 years.

Due to time constraint further statistically models couldnot be build and only limited analysis could beperformed.



45/46

ANY

QUESTIONS?

45


46/46

THANK YOU

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	shobhit-bhatnagar
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Pizza Wars Market Research (AMM)

Documents