157
1, XX, 2017
Ma ke ing and T ade
DOI: 10.15240/ ul/001/2017-1-011
In oduc ion
In he highly compe i i e es au an indus y,
sa is ying gues s should be he c i ical objec i e
o all businesses ha wish o p ospe and
encou age epea pu chases. Howe e ,
ensu ing p ope quali y in es au an s is limi ed
by a numbe o indus y-speci i c ac o s,
including ola ile demand, small businesses,
in ense compe i ion, he wide ange o ood and
be e age p oduc s o e ed, he insepa abili y
o p oduc ion and consump ion, in angibili y
o se ices, labou -in ensi e p oduc ion, he
impo ance o employees’ a i ude owa ds
gues s and many o he ac o s ha signi i can ly
a ec he le el o o e all se ice quali y.
A c ucial challenge o all es au a eu s oday
is how o p o ide a quali y o e ing ha is no
only compelling o gues s bu also supe io o
ha o business compe i o s. In o de o gain an
ad an ageous edge in his highly compe i i e
en i onmen , he ma ke ing li e a u e has
consis en ly emphasized he impo ance
o ma ke ing o ien a ion as a s a egic ool.
The g owing ecogni ion o he cus ome -
based ma ke ing app oach (i.e., business o
consume ) has sugges ed ha implemen ing
quali y as a ma ke ing ool is he essen ial
elemen in os e ing cus ome ela ionships and
sus ainable ma ke sha e (Wang, Law, Hung,
& Guille , 2014). Unde s anding cus ome s’
needs is he i s s ep in deli e ing quali y
se ices. The bes way o manage cus ome s’
expec a ions is o i nd ou wha hei needs and
wan s a e, s a egize how o mee hem and
implemen hese s a egies in p ac ice. In he
scien i i c li e a u e, he e a e se e al heo e ical
models o explo e cus ome s’ expec a ions and
assess se ice quali y. A e he in oduc ion o
he gene ic SERVQUAL ins umen in 1988 by
Pa asu aman, Zei haml and Be y, he issue
o es au an se ice quali y has ecei ed
conside able c i ical a en ion. Se e al a emp s
ha e been made (Kim, Ng, & Kim, 2009; Sulek
& Hensley, 2004; Vannia ajan, 2009) o imp o e
and de elop speci i c quali y measu emen
echniques sui ed o he needs o he es au an
indus y (e.g., DINESERV, SERVPERF,
CIERM, TANGSERV). All o hese echniques
ocus on speci i c aspec s o se ice deli e y
( echniques a e p esen ed in chap e 1.3). As
ood is he undamen al componen o he dining
expe ience, i undoub edly has a signi i can
impac on gues s’ sa is ac ion (Vannia ajan,
2009). Despi e he impo ance o ood quali y,
some schola s ha e ocused on he se ice
encoun e aspec o se ice quali y (Ayeh &
Chen, 2013; Ed a dsson, 2005; Han, Back,
& Ba e , 2010). Fu he examina ion e eals
ha mos s udies (Andaleeb & Conway, 2006;
Ba be , Goodman, & Goh, 2011; Mosa i &
Ghaedi, 2012; Raajpo , 2002; Voon, 2012) ha e
empi ically in es iga ed he ole o di e en and
speci i c quali y ac o s, such as en i onmen ,
angibles, cleanliness, p ice pe cep ion, and
so o h. One in e es ing i nding ha eme ges
om he compa ison o hese s udies is ha
esea ch esul s a e mu ually inconsis en , as
hey emphasize he impo ance o di e en
quali y ac o s. None heless, no s udy has
de e mined which ma ke ing ac o (7P) is he
mos impo an in assessing he quali y o he
dining expe ience. The e o e, i would be o
academic signi i cance o summa ize he esul s
o di e en s udies and o empi ically in es iga e
he impo ance o di e en ma ke ing ac o s in
assessing he quali y o es au an o e ings.
To i ll his esea ch gap, he cu en s udy
ocuses on se en ma ke ing ac o s (ma ke ing
mix) ha , acco ding o Ko le (2004), o m
he undamen al pa o es au an o e ings.
We assume ha all ma ke ing ac o s ha e
a signi i can impac on gues s’ sa is ac ion as
hey o m an insepa able pa o he dining
expe ience. The pu pose o his a icle is o
A RESTAURANT QUALITY MODEL BASED
ON MARKETING FACTORS
Ma ko Kukanja, Do is Gomezelj Ome zel, Bo is Buko ec
EM_1_2017.indd 157EM_1_2017.indd 157 13.3.2017 16:59:0613.3.2017 16:59:06
158 2017, XX, 1
Ma ke ing a obchod
desc ibe he de elopmen o a ma ke ing-
o ien ed model o measu ing es au an quali y
and o discuss i s p ope ies and po en ial
applica ions. Mo e speci i cally, esea ch
cons uc cla i i ca ion is mainly ela ed o ou
main esea ch ques ion: How do di e en
ma ke ing quali y ac o s in l uence he
assessmen o o e all es au an quali y (7P)
om he gues s’ pe spec i e? We he e o e
hypo hesize:
H1: All se en ma ke ing quali y dimensions
(7P) ha e a s a is ically signi i can in l uence on
gues s’ quali y pe cep ion.
Based on Ko le ’s ma ke ing mix s a egic
app oach, Edwa ds (2013) and Sedmak (2011)
highligh ed he impo ance o he o e all quali y
expe ience. Acco ding o hese au ho s, all
quali y ac o s ha e o be conside ed oge he
when e alua ing he es au an expe ience, as
hey all in l uence gues s’ quali y expec a ions
and pe cep ions. The es au an o e ing mus
he e o e be consis en , cohe en and designed
in acco dance wi h gues s’ expec a ions
(Sedmak, 2011). We hypo hesize ha :
H2: Gues s pe cei e he quali y o deli e ed
es au an o e ings as cohe en .
Tes ing hese hypo heses calls o
a li e a u e e iew inqui y in o ecen esea ch
on es au an quali y. Based on a ho ough
li e a u e e iew, a quali y model was de eloped
based on ma ke ing ac o s o measu ing
cus ome s’ pe cep ions o es au an quali y.
In he second pa o he s udy, he model was
empi ically es ed. The o e all s uc u e o he
s udy consis s o ou chap e s, including his
in oduc o y chap e . Chap e one begins by
laying ou he heo e ical dimensions. Chap e
wo is conce ned wi h me hodology – i
desc ibes he gene a ion o model i ems and
p o ides an e alua ion o he model’s eliabili y
and ac o s uc u e. Finally, he conclusion
p esen ed in he las chap e gi es a b ie
summa y and c i ique o he i ndings.
1. Theo e ical Backg ound
1.1 Se ice Quali y
De i ning se ice quali y equi es a speci i c
app oach o quali y measu emen , as i is no
based on gene al objec i i y and measu abili y.
The app oach om he s andpoin o he
cus ome is based on a highly subjec i e
pe spec i e. While a a ie y o de i ni ions
ha e been sugges ed (G ön oos, 1984, 1990;
Lange , 1997; Pa asu aman e al., 1988;
Ree es & Bedna , 1995), his pape is based
on he de i ni ion sugges ed by Pa asu aman,
Zei haml, and Be y (1985), who de i ned
se ice quali y as he abili y o a se ice o ul i l
and exceed gues s’ expec a ions. The common
cha ac e is ic o all se ice quali y de i ni ions
(Pa asu aman e al., 1988; Ree es & Bedna ,
1995; Ryu & Jang, 2007; Van Vae enbe gh,
La i iè e, & Ve mei , 2012) is he consume -
based concep , which makes se ice quali y
a highly subjec i e and ela i e phenomenon
ha di e s based on who is judging he se ice.
In ou s udy, speci i c ma ke ing ac o s in ol ed
in he ma ke ing mix (7P) a e used as key
quali y dimensions.
1.2 Theo e ical Models o Se ice
Quali y
A la ge and g owing body o scien i i c li e a u e
has in es iga ed he heo e ical concep o
se ice quali y. Se e al a emp s ha e been
made o cap u e he essen ial cha ac e is ics
o se ice quali y in heo e ical models. These
models a e especially impo an because
hey p o ide a heo e ical basis o a ious
echniques (ins umen s) o measu ing se ice
quali y. The Ame ican school (Pa asu aman,
Be y, & Zei haml, 1993; Pa asu aman,
Zei haml, & Be y, 1994) is mainly ocused on
iden i ying he c i e ia ha consume s use in
e alua ing he quali y o se ices. Resea che s
ha e con ibu ed a i e-s ep model o se ice
quali y and an ins umen o measu ing se ice
quali y – he SERVQUAL ins umen – in which
hey de i ned i e dimensions o se ice quali y:
Reliabili y, Assu ance, Tangibles, Empa hy,
and Responsi eness. Meanwhile, esea che s
om he Scandina ian school (G ön oos, 1990;
Leh inen & Leh inen, 1991) ha e iden i i ed
wo majo aspec s o se ice quali y: echnical
quali y ( he angible aspec o he quali y) and
unc ional quali y. D awing on an ex ensi e
ange o sou ces, he schola s (Candido &
Mo is, 2000; Lin, Chan, & Tsai, 2009) used
a ious me hods in an a emp o c ea e alid
and o e all-se ice quali y models. Candido
and Mo is (2000) de i ned a new model wi h
14 s eps, bu an in-dep h analysis e ealed
ha he model is mainly based on he i e-s ep
model. O e all, none o hese modi i ed models
EM_1_2017.indd 158EM_1_2017.indd 158 13.3.2017 16:59:0613.3.2017 16:59:06
159
1, XX, 2017
Ma ke ing and T ade
ecei ed a signi i can scien i i c alida ion.
Con e sely, se e al au ho s highligh ed he
need o b eak he link be ween he adi ional
Ame ican and Scandina ian schools and
p oposed al e na i e quali y models. Lin e al.
(2009) upg aded he adi ional IPA (Impo ance
Pe o mance Analysis) model and de eloped
a new model called IPGA. The IPGA model
is designed o op imize he use o p oduc ion
esou ces wi h he aim o imp o ing he
quali y o se ices o e ed. Ne e heless, all
hese s udies highligh he need o u u e
de elopmen o se ice quali y managemen .
1.3 Tools o Measu ing Se ice Quali y
In ou s udy, we ocus on ools ( echniques)
ha collec quali y in o ma ion based on
p e-de e mined s anda ds, al hough he
cus ome s’ eedback can also be ob ained by
a numbe o quali a i e echniques. Despi e
he unques ionable signi i cance o quali a i e
echniques, we decided o use quan i a i e
echniques. Some o hese echniques (o en
also e e ed o as models) measu e se ice
quali y basing on he quali y gaps ha occu
as a esul o di e ences be ween gues s’
expec a ions and pe cep ions (SERVQUAL,
DINESERV); some a e one-dimensional
and ocus solely on se ice pe o mance
e alua ion (SERVPERF, Dinese .pe ); some
combine quali y and impo ance measu emen
o di e en se ice ac o s (SERVIMPERF);
some ocus on employees’ esponses o
speci i c c i ical si ua ions (C i ical Inciden
Technique – he ex ended model); and, i nally,
some add ess ex e nal e alua o s (AAA
Diamond, Michelin S a s). The p edominan
quan i a i e measu emen echnique is he
SERVQUAL ins umen (Ma ko ić, Raspo , &
Šega ić, 2012), which measu es quali y basing
on he gap be ween gues s’ expec a ions
and pe cep ions. Acco ding o Aigbedo and
Pa ameswa an (2004), all i e dimensions
o he SERVQUAL ins umen ha e no ye
been ully alida ed. The e o e, he au ho s
p opose addi ional me ics ha would be e
explain he gap be ween expec a ions and
pe cep ions. O he au ho s (Dedeke, 2003;
Jensen & Hansen, 2007; Juwahee , 2004; Ryu,
2005) ha e highligh ed he need o a ailo ed
app oach o se ice quali y measu emen .
Despi e hese c i icisms, howe e , SERVQUAL
emains one o he mos commonly used se ice
quali y measu emen echniques (Ma ko ić e
al., 2012). Inclusion o quali y dimensions in
di e en es au an se ice quali y models is
p esen ed in Table 1.
As can be seen om he able abo e,
speci i c echniques, such as Tangse and
CIERM, ha e mo ed away om he adi ional
RATER dimensions o he SERVQUAL
ins umen . Ou i ndings a e consis en wi h
Dimension
Model
Tangibili y
Reliabili y
Responsi eness
Assu ance
Empa hy
Nu i ional alue
Ing edien s
Food p epa a ion ech-
nique
SERVQUAL x xxxx
DINESERV x xxxx
Dinese .pe x xxxx
Tangse x
CIERM x x x
Sou ce: own
Tab. 1: Inclusion o quali y dimensions in di e en se ice quali y models
EM_1_2017.indd 159EM_1_2017.indd 159 13.3.2017 16:59:0713.3.2017 16:59:07
160 2017, XX, 1
Ma ke ing a obchod
hose o o he s udies (C onin & Taylo , 1994;
Llosa, Chandon, & O singhe , 1998; T ibe &
Snai h, 1998) in sugges ing he necessi y o
mo ing away om hese adi ional dimensions.
2. Me hodology
2.1 Resea ch P ocess and Sample
Desc ip ion
Following he concep ualiza ion and
ope a ionaliza ion o he se ice quali y cons uc
(see Fig. 1), a 35-i em ins umen o assessing
cus ome pe cep ion o es au an quali y was
o mula ed and empi ically es ed. Al hough in
many ques ionnai es (Ma ko ić e al., 2012)
indi idual quali y ac o s a e subs an i ely
combined o exp ess cha ac e is ics o se e al
ac o s in a single, uni o m quali y ac o (e.g.,
a ac i eness o ca pa ks and su ounding
a eas), in ou s udy we ha e exclusi ely used
one quali y cha ac e is ic o he desc ip ion
o each quali y ac o (see Tab. 2). The le el
o cus ome s’ pe cep ions was measu ed
on a i e-poin Like scale, anging om 1
(s ongly disag ee) o 5 (s ongly ag ee). The
model is based on he pe o mance aspec o
quali y measu emen . In doing so ( ocusing
on pe o mance assessmen ), we suppo he
heo e ical i ndings o se e al au ho s (Abdullah
& Roza io, 2009; Kei h & Simme s, 2011;
Land um, P ybu ok, & Zhang, 2007) whose
wo ks emphasize he impo ance o a one-
dimensional (pe o mance-only) app oach
o measu ing quali y. The ques ionnai e was
p e es ed on en gues s and i e es au an
manage s who we e in i ed o pa icipa e in he
o ma ion o he esea ch ins umen . Based on
hei sugges ions, some mino changes we e
made. Ou s udy was conduc ed om Janua y
o June 2014. The esea ch was pe o med by
en in e iewe s in di e en es au an se ings
in Slo enia – acco ding o he o i cial (na ional)
classi i ca ion he ollowing ypes o es au an s
we e included in he esea ch – “ es a acije”
( o mal – luxu y es au an s); “gos ilne”
(a kind o na ional Inns), and “ok epče alnice”
(in o mal – as ood acili ies, snack ba s and
simila ). A o al o 323 independen ly ope a ed
es au an s we e included in he s udy,
ep esen ing 10% o he popula ion o Slo enia.
The esea ch was conduc ed by di ec
in e iews wi h domes ic cus ome s a e hey
dined in he selec ed es au an s. We ob ained
pe mission om he es au an manage s
be o e in e iewing gues s. In e iewing o en
ook place a he able o , in some cases, in he
es au an lobby be o e gues s` depa u e, as
some manage s did no allow in e iews in he
dining oom. Randomly chosen gues s we e
kindly asked o i ll in he ques ionnai e. Ou o
a o al o 2003 collec ed ques ionnai es, he i nal
analysis is based on 1998 alid ques ionnai es.
In he i s s ep, desc ip i e s a is ics analysis
was used o analyse esponden s’ demog aphic
cha ac e is ics. The majo i y o esponden s
we e an a e age o sligh ly less han 40 yea s
o age, and he sample was composed o
almos equal numbe s o male (49.4%) and
emale gues s (50.6%). The highes numbe o
gues s had comple ed seconda y ( oca ional)
educa ion (47.2%), while 41.5% o gues s had
acqui ed a high school educa ion, 4.9% had
only i nished elemen a y school and 6.3% o
he gues s had ob ained a Mas e ’s deg ee o
PhD. A o al o 14% o gues s we e isi ing he
es au an o he i s ime, while 86% o gues s
had isi ed he es au an h ee o mo e imes.
In addi ion o demog aphic da a, he pu pose
o he isi (as a psychog aphic a iable) was
in oduced in o he s udy. Resul s show ha
mo e han hal (53.9%) o gues s isi ed he
chosen acili y wi h he aim o sa is ying hunge
and hi s (physiological needs). The need o
ea was ollowed by he pu pose o socializing
(27.1%), celeb a ions (9.9%), business meals
(5.2%) and o he pu poses (4.1%).
2.2 Ques ionnai e De elopmen
P oduc (Food)
Nume ous s udies ha e epo ed ha ood
is he mos impo an quali y dimension ha
a ec s bo h he es au an selec ion p ocess
and gues s’ sa is ac ion (Gup a, McLaughlin,
& Gomez, 2007; Sulek & Hensley, 2004;
Vannia ajan, 2009). All hese s udies ou line
a c i ical ole o ood quali y e alua ion
in co ela ion wi h o he quali y ac o s.
Ne e heless, in se e al in e na ional s udies
(Kim e al., 2009; Sulek & Hensley, 2004;
Vannia ajan, 2009), ood was iden i i ed as
he mos impo an quali y dimension. Sulek
and Hensley (2004) p oposed ha he quali y
o ood should be simply de i ned by h ee key
cha ac e is ics: ood sa e y, a ac i eness and
diges ibili y. Based on li e a u e e iew, we used
he ollowing quali y ac o s in ou esea ch
model: o e olume (selec ion o dishes), size
o po ions, as e, appea ance, and pe cep ion
o ood sa e y.
EM_1_2017.indd 160EM_1_2017.indd 160 13.3.2017 16:59:0713.3.2017 16:59:07
161
1, XX, 2017
Ma ke ing and T ade
People
A la ge olume o published s udies (Andaleeb &
Conway, 2006; Jaa a , Lumbe s, & E es, 2008;
Mosa i & Ghaedi, 2012; Voon, 2012) desc ibe
he ole o people as he mos impo an quali y
dimension in es au an quali y managemen .
Resea che s who ha e looked a psychological
aspec s o pe cep ions ha e con i med he
co ela ion be ween gues s’ quali y e alua ion
p ocess and demog aphic cha ac e is ics o
se ice s a . Fo example, Luohe and Tsau
(2011) con i med he link be ween gues s’
pe cep ions and age; Ma ínez-Tu , To de a,
Pei ó, and Po ocnik (2011) emphasized he
impo ance o o ganiza ional clima e; and
Wall and Be y (2007) concluded ha gues s’
quali y pe cep ions hea ily depend on he ype
o es au an i sel . The p e iously men ioned
i nding o Wall and Be y (2007) co obo a es he
idea o Kim and Kache sky (2006), and Meng
and Ellio (2008) who sugges ed ha gues s
o i ne dining es au an s a e mo e sensi i e o
he a i udes o se ice s a . In con as , a s udy
conduc ed by Waxman (2006) in Ca e shops
no only s essed he impo ance o s a ’s
a i ude bu also e ealed a ich se o social
quali y ac o s associa ed wi h s a , including
wa m h, a sense o belonging, amilia i y,
espec , us , and suppo . The design o ou
ques ionnai e has been based on he esul s o
he p esen ed s udies, and some quali y ac o s
we e logically in oduced om he SERVQUAL
ins umen (employees’ poli eness), DINESERV
(well- ained, compe en and expe ienced
s a ; numbe o s a ) and he Tangse model
(cus ome s’ in e ac ions wi h o he people).
Speci i c ac o s ha ha e been in oduced o
ou model o assessing he quali y o people
a e: hospi ali y o s a , compe ences o se ice
s a , su i cien numbe o s a o ensu e
quali y se ice, impo ance o he p esence o
he es au an manage , and he dis ac ing
p esence o o he gues s.
P ice
Subjec i e assessmen o quali y is pa icula ly
p oblema ic in e ms o indi idual pe cep ion
o p ice. Kim and Kache sky (2006) s a e ha
he pe cei ed p ice le el and i s co ela ion o
quali y a e exclusi ely a esul o an indi idual
psychological p ocess. This iew is suppo ed
by many au ho s (Bha achnaya & F iedman,
2001; Meng & Ellio , 2008) who ha e a gued
o he impo ance o indi idualism in p ice
pe cep ion (especially ”Fai p ice” pe cep ion).
Acco ding o hese au ho s, a ai p ice has
a signi i can impac on gues s’ sa is ac ion
and hei pe cep ion o quali y. The es au an
indus y ends o be highly p ice-elas ic,
as a small change in p ice is accompanied
by a la ge change in quan i y demanded
(Sedmak, 2011). We ha e no ed, ha p ice
was no iden i i ed as he mos impo an quali y
dimension in any o he p esen ed s udies.
Ne e heless, many s udies s essed he
impo ance o di e en indi idual p ice ac o s
(e.g., an accu a e bill is also a quali y ac o in
he DINESERV model). Following he abo e
discussion, we may suppose ha p ice quali y
can be measu ed based on he ollowing p ice
ac o s: unde s andabili y o p ices, accu a e
bill, alue o money, p ice compe i i eness,
and expec ed p ice le el s. ac ual p ice le el.
P ocess
The quali y o his dimension is mos o en
assessed acco ding o di e en ac i i ies o
se ice s a (Cousins, Foske , & Gillespie,
2002). Ha and Jang (2010) ha e p ima ily
ea ed he quali y o he se ice encoun e as
a mul idimensional cons uc ha is mos o en
he esul o gues s’ subjec i e e alua ion o
se e al quali y ac o s, such as he p ocess o
welcoming gues s, accep ance o o de s, gues
a endance, and so o h. Heung, Wong, and
Qu (2000) epo ed ha he speed o se ice is
he mos impo an ac o in de e mining gues s’
pe cep ion o quali y. Nam, Ekinci, and Whya
(2011) s a e ha i s ill emains unknown how
many quali y ac o s he e eally a e. Based
on he li e a u e e iew, he ollowing quali y
ac o s we e included in ou model: s a
esponsi eness o ques ions, s a help ulness
in se ing gues s’ needs, s a esponsi eness,
and es au an wo king hou s.
Physical E idence
The impo ance o he physical, angible
en i onmen has been s essed by se e al
au ho s (Kim & Moon, 2009; Ma ila & Wi z,
2001; Namasi ayam & Ma ila, 2007; Ryu &
Jang, 2007; Yunkyong, 2007), as i ep esen s
an impo an basis o e alua ing he quali y o
se ices. A numbe o au ho s (Cheng e al.,
2012; Mosa i & Ghaedi, 2012; Ryu & Han,
2011; Wall & Be y, 2007) ha e epo ed ha
physical e idences ha e a di e en impac on
gues s who a e isi ing he es au an o he
EM_1_2017.indd 161EM_1_2017.indd 161 13.3.2017 16:59:0713.3.2017 16:59:07

162 2017, XX, 1
Ma ke ing a obchod
i s ime (i.e., i s - ime buye s) han on gues s
who ha e al eady isi ed he es au an in
he pas . In pa icula , ac o s associa ed wi h
cleanliness and noise signi i can ly in l uence
gues s’ pe cep ion o quali y (Ba be e al.,
2011; Ba be & Sca celli, 2010). Acco ding o
i ndings p esen ed in his sec ion and based
on se e al quali y models (SERVQUAL,
DINESERV, Tangse , SERVPERF), we ha e
included he ollowing quali y ac o s in ou
ques ionnai e: cleanliness o he p emises,
nea and p esen able s a , com o , design in
acco dance wi h ood o e ing, and sense o
secu i y.
P omo ion
Acco ding o Sedmak (2011), he mos common
o ms o p omo ion in he es au an indus y a e
ad e ising, sales p omo ions, public ela ions,
discoun s and special o e s, ou doo ligh ed
signs and boa ds, menus and wine lis s, di ec
sales, in i a ions and announcemen s and
special e en s. Di ec sales p esen he only
o m o ma ke ing communica ion ha p o ides
ins an eedback om gues s. The success o
di ec (pe sonal) sales hea ily depends on he
compe ence, p o essionalism and cha isma
o he se ice s a . Aside om he unc ional
aspec o quali y, which hea ily depends on
se ice s a sales ac i i ies ( ecommenda ions)
and gues s’ p omo ional ac i i ies (i.e., wo d o
mou h; Kelle , 2007), he quali y o p omo ional
ac i i ies is also pe cei ed h ough he quali y
o echnical ac o s, such as menu design (Din,
Zaha i, O hman, & Abas, 2012; Sha ma, Wagle,
Suche , & Bugwadia, 2011) and discoun s
(Taylo & Long-Tolbe , 2002). The e idence
p esen ed in his sec ion sugges s ha he e
a e no majo di e ences be ween di e en
o ms o p omo ional ac i i ies in ensu ing o e
quali y and gues s’ ( e)pu chase in en ion. In
ligh o he abo e, we ha e decided o include
he ollowing p omo ional quali y ac o s in ou
ques ionnai e: isible ma ke ing signs, signs o
special a en ion and complimen s (small gi s,
e c.), se ice s a ecommenda ions, olume
o sales campaigns and special o e s, and
ad e ising ac i i ies in social media.
Placemen
In he es au an indus y, unlike he ho el
indus y, adi ional channels o dis ibu ion
ha e emained unde de eloped. In he
es au an indus y, channels o dis ibu ion a e
mos o en di ec The mos impo an channels
o dis ibu ion a e: loca ion, di ec dis ibu ion
and indi ec dis ibu ion h ough a el agencies
and o he p o ide s ha include es au an
o e ings in hei o e ings (Sedmak, 2011).
The impo ance o geog aphical loca ion was
emphasized by Bowie and Bu le (2004) and
Pa sa, Sel , Sydno -Busso, and Yoon (2011).
We ha e decided o include he ollowing quali y
ac o s in ou s udy ( he angible ac o s we e
logically in oduced om he Tangse model):
en ance accessibili y, accessible pa king
a eas, nea and clean su oundings, pe cep ion
o whe he he es au an is wo h he dis ance
a elled, and indi ec dis ibu ion.
Di e en s udies emphasize he impo ance
o di e en quali y ac o s, as esea che s
base hei s udies on di e en (speci i c) quali y
ac o s. Ne e heless, no s udy has empi ically
in es iga ed and compa ed all se en ma ke ing
quali y dimensions (7P).
2.3 Analysis and Findings
The nex sec ion o he su ey was conce ned
wi h he e alua ion o he pe cei ed quali y o
he es au an o e ing. The esul s p esen ed
in Table 2 show ha all quali y ac o s we e
e alua ed ela i ely highly ( he a e age mean
alue is 3.98). Among he se en quali y
dimensions, he highes - a ed dimension was
p oduc & ood quali y (mean 4.32), wi h ood
sa e y i s highes a ed ac o (mean alue
4.47). The esul s indica e ha he lowes
pe cep ions a e ela ed o he dimension o
ma ke ing communica ion (mean 3.57), wi h
he lowes sco es ela ed o he ac o “ he
es au an is p ope ly ad e ised in he media
(2.95)”. The coe i cien s o a ia ion show how
homogeneous gues s a e in he e alua ion o
indi idual quali y ac o s.
In he nex sec ion o he s udy, an
explo a o y ac o analysis was pe o med
o assess he ac o s uc u e o pe cei ed
es au an quali y. Wi h his ac o analysis,
we ha e ied o answe ou main esea ch
ques ion and o es ou i s hypo hesis (H1),
which sugges s ha all se en ma ke ing quali y
dimensions (7P) ha e a s a is ically signi i can
in l uence on gues s’ quali y pe cep ion.
E idence o he scale’s eliabili y, ac o s uc u e
and alidi y on he basis o he analysed da a
is p esen ed nex . Fi s , we checked whe he
he answe s o he abo e 35 a iables (quali y
ac o s) we e no mally dis ibu ed. Because we
EM_1_2017.indd 162EM_1_2017.indd 162 13.3.2017 16:59:0713.3.2017 16:59:07
163
1, XX, 2017
Ma ke ing and T ade
Quali y dimensions (7P) Mean Coe i cien
o a ia ion (%)
P oduc ( ood)
Selec ion o dishes 4.26 18.64
Ex en o po ions 4.27 19.11
Tas e 4.35 17.70
Appea ance 4.28 18.88
Food sa e y pe cep ion 4.47 16.82
Physical e idences
Cleanliness o he p emises 4.34 18.04
Nea (p esen able) s a 4.28 19.30
Com o 4.22 20.14
Sense o secu i y 4.49 16.35
Design in acco dance wi h ood o e ed 4.26 20.16
People
Su i cien numbe o s a o ensu ing quali y se ice 4.13 21.40
Impo ance o he p esence o es au an manage o
ensu ing quali y o e ing 3.68 32.80
Dis ac ing p esence o o he gues s 2.51 54.26
Hospi able s a 4.26 20.52
Compe ences o se ice s a 4.13 21.84
P omo ion
Visible ma ke ing signs 3.97 25.69
Signs o special a en ion and complimen s 3.41 36.86
Recommenda ions om se ice s a 4.00 23.68
Volume o sales campaigns and special o e s 3.53 34.31
Ad e ising ac i i ies in he social media 2.95 43.90
P ice
Unde s andabili y o p ice i ems 4.52 16.17
Accu a e bill 4.67 13.88
Value o money 4.26 19.95
P ice compe i i eness 4.11 22.21
Expec ed p ice le el s. ac ual p ice le el 2.12 57.50
Placemen
Accessible en ance 4.01 26.38
Accessible pa king a ea 3.78 33.99
Nea (clean) su oundings 3.99 24.51
The es au an is wo h he dis ance a elled 3.99 24.71
The es au an enhances indi ec dis ibu ion 3.37 38.43
Tab. 2: Analysis o he assessmen s o quali y (desc ip i e s a is ics) – Pa 1
EM_1_2017.indd 163EM_1_2017.indd 163 13.3.2017 16:59:0713.3.2017 16:59:07
164 2017, XX, 1
Ma ke ing a obchod
Quali y dimensions (7P) Mean Coe i cien
o a ia ion (%)
P ocesses
P omp esponsi eness o s a o ques ions 4.24 21.84
Help ulness o s a in sa is ying clien s’ needs 4.04 24.80
Responsi eness o se ice s a 4.18 21.10
Res au an opening hou s 4.29 19.81
Wai ing ime 4.10 22.00
Sou ce: own
Quali y ac o s (QF)
Quali y dimensions
People Placemen P oduc and Physical
e idences
Help ulness o s a in sa is ying gues s’ needs 0.879 –0.096 0.047
Immedia e esponsi eness o s a o gues s’
ques ions 0.751 –0.045 –0.049
Signs o special a en ion and complimen s 0.740 0.024 0.144
Responsi eness o se ice s a 0.709 –0.006 –0.096
Recommenda ions om se ice s a 0.649 0.094 –0.034
Compe ences o se ice s a 0.646 0.038 –0.137
Hospi able s a 0.551 0.054 –0.158
Su i cien numbe o s a o ensu ing quali y se ice 0.473 0.019 –0.187
Value o money 0.450 0.084 –0.178
The es au an is wo h he dis ance a elled 0.259 0.448 –0.074
Accessible pa king a ea –0.104 0.759 0.038
Accessible en ance 0.082 0.733 0.020
Nea (clean) su oundings 0.094 0.602 –0.104
Tas e 0.027 –0.041 –0.747
Appea ance 0.002 –0.016 –0.743
Food sa e y pe cep ion –0.072 0.022 –0.729
Sense o secu i y –0.041 0.097 –0.676
Ex en o po ions –0.026 –0.008 –0.667
Selec ion o dishes 0.108 –0.060 –0.649
Com o 0.138 0.088 –0.502
Cleanliness o he p emises 0.211 0.094 –0.495
Nea (p esen able) s a 0.328 0.054 –0.416
Design in acco dance wi h ood o e 0.320 0.044 –0.395
Explained a iance % 40.973 5.058 4.221
Sou ce: own
Tab. 2: Analysis o he assessmen s o quali y (desc ip i e s a is ics) – Pa 2
Tab. 3: Ro a ed ac o solu ion
EM_1_2017.indd 164EM_1_2017.indd 164 13.3.2017 16:59:0713.3.2017 16:59:07
165
1, XX, 2017
Ma ke ing and T ade
could no con i m a no mal dis ibu ion o any
o he selec ed quali y ac o s o he i s se
(Kolmogo o Smi no Tes (KMO) was used),
i was necessa y o us o use he P incipal
Axis Fac o ing me hod o he explo a o y ac o
analysis. The i s es was pe o med in o de
o e alua e he sui abili y o in o ma ion o
inclusion in he ac o model. Thus, on he basis
o he alue o he KMO measu e o sampling
adequacy (0.958), as well as he ou come o
he Ba le es o sphe ici y (2 = 31,071.468;
deg ees o eedom = 595), we es ima ed ha
all included a iables a e sui able o ac o
analysis. The majo i y o ac o s had sa is ac o y
communali ies (> = 0.50), sugges ing ha he
g ea e pa o hei a iabili y can be explained
by he in l uence o common ac o s, he h ee
a iables wi h oo low communali ies (“p esence
o Manage (0.132)”, “dis ac ing p esence o
o he gues s (0.190)” and “ad e ising ac i i ies
in he social media (0.251)” – we e excluded
om he e alua ion p ocess o he ac o
model. A e a ew successi e i e a ions o he
ac o model e alua ion, we i nally selec ed
as mos app op ia e he ac o model wi h 23
ac o s (p esen ed in Tab. 3); while 12 ac o s
had o be emo ed om u he analysis. The
sui abili y o in o ma ion o inclusion in he i nal
ac o model is also suppo ed by he alues
o he KMO indica o (0.957) and he ou come
o he Ba le es ( = 223,289.398; deg ees
o eedom = 253). Based on a o a ed ac o
solu ion, we ha e chosen a i nal model wi h
h ee ac o g oups (quali y dimensions), as
i allows o a mo e meaning ul in e p e a ion
o he ac o model. The i nal model wi h h ee
quali y dimensions is p esen ed in Table 3. Fac o
weigh s wi h ac o loadings abo e 0.3 and ac o s
ha con ain mo e han h ee i ems we e e ained.
We s a ed ou ac o analysis wi h se en
quali y dimensions, as, ollowing Ko le ’s
ma ke ing heo y, we ha e hypo hesized ha
all se en quali y dimensions ha e a signi i can
in l uence on gues s’ o e all quali y pe cep ion.
Based on he o a ed ma ix o ac o weigh s
shown in he able abo e, i is e iden ha
gues s’ pe cep ion o he quali y o es au an
o e ings is mainly based on he quali y o he
ollowing ma ke ing ac o s: people (40.97%),
placemen (5.05%), p oduc ( ood) and physical
e idences (4.22%). Based on hese h ee
quali y dimensions (see explana ion below) and
he alues o hei o al explained a iances,
i is clea ly e iden ha he quali y o people
(s a ) has he g ea es impo ance (40.97%)
in assu ing es au an quali y, ollowed by he
quali y o placemen (5.05%) and he quali y
o ood and physical e idences (4.22%). O he
ma ke ing quali y dimensions a e, in ela ion o
gues s’ assessmen o quali y, no s a is ically
signi i can . Special a en ion should be paid
o he hi d ac o , which is o med by me ging
he wo dimensions o ood and physical
e idences. As u he dissec ion o he esul s
does no con ibu e o he imp o emen o
he quali y o he esea ch, we ha e decided
o keep he model wi h h ee main ac o s.
These esul s clea ly do no suppo H1, as
only h ee ma ke ing quali y dimensions ha e
a s a is ically signi i can in l uence on gues s’
quali y pe cep ion. The ela ion be ween he
heo e ical cons uc and he esea ch esul s is
p esen ed in Figu e 1. On he le side, he 7P
ma ke ing quali y dimensions a e p esen ed
wi h ini ial 35 quali y ac o s, while on he
igh side he esea ch esul s, wi h he i nal
3 dimensions and 23 ac o s a e p esen ed.
Twel e ac o s had o be emo ed om he
ac o analysis, as hey had low communali ies
(< 0.5) and low ac o weigh s (< 0.3). Thus,
he esul s o his s udy indica e ha gues s
pe cei e es au an quali y based on only h ee
ma ke ing quali y dimensions and 23 quali y
ac o s (see also Tab. 3).
Al hough he i ndings p esen ed abo e
clea ly indica e non–cohe ency o pe cei ed
quali y, we ha e decided o u he empi ically
in es iga e he di e ences be ween di e en
quali y dimensions. Based on he compa ison
o mean alues p esen ed in Table 2, we
s a is ically analysed he pe cei ed di e ences
be ween all quali y dimensions. Pai ed s a is ics
and wo-sided es s we e used o all possible
pai s. S a is ically signi i can di e ences we e
ound be ween all quali y dimensions ( he only
excep ion is he compa ison be ween he mean
alue o he dimensions o p oduc and physical
e idences, o which he deg ee o signi i cance
is 0.510). This indica es ha he o e ed quali y
is pe cei ed as highly incohe en ; hus, H2
canno be con i med. Con a y o expec a ions,
his s udy did no con i m he cohe ency o
pe cei ed quali y in es au an s’ o e ings.
Conclusion and Implica ions
The pu pose o his s udy was o de e mine
how di e en ma ke ing ac o s in l uence
es au an gues s’ o e all quali y pe cep ion.
EM_1_2017.indd 165EM_1_2017.indd 165 13.3.2017 16:59:0813.3.2017 16:59:08