Consumer loyalty in the restaurant industry – a
preliminary exploration of the issues
This article looks at the
outcome of a questionnaire
designed to explore factors
relevant to engendering
consumer loyalty in restau-
rant choice. The sampling
frame comprises people with
relatively homogeneous
characteristics who dine out
with some frequency. The
overall objective was to ques-
tion certain assumptions that
have become current in
academic discussions of
consumer behaviour with
particular relevance to con-
sumer loyalty. Findings sug-
gest that the quality and
range or type of food are key
determinants in consumer
loyalty, but that the concept
of “quality of food” offers a
range of interpretations and
thus requires more careful
investigation. Additionally,
the concept of the “meal
experience” as a holistic
abstraction in the consumer’s
mind is called into question
as a consequence of the
analysis. Tangible rather than
intangible factors are identi-
fied as being of greater
importance in consumer
loyalty.
An earlier version of this
paper was presented at the
IAHMS Autumn Symposium,
Leeuwarden, The Nether-
lands, November 1996.
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
10/4 [1998] 139–144
© MCB University Press
[ISSN 0959-6119]
Mona A. Clark
School of Management and Consumer Studies, University of Dundee, Dundee,
UK
Roy C. Wood
The Scottish Hotel School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Introduction
This article constitutes a preliminary expres-
sion of the authors’ interest in the area of
consumer loyalty in the restaurant sector
and, in particular, the factors that engender
such loyalty. The main objective of the argu-
ments here is to question certain assump-
tions that have become current in academic
discussions of consumer behaviour in the
context of hospitality services, especially
restaurant choice, in the belief that in so
doing, it will be possible to clarify issues of
relevance for practitioners. Having said this,
what follows is unashamedly an exploratory
analysis intended to stimulate further reflec-
tion on an important issue in restaurant
marketing.
Consumer research into
restaurant choice
Remarkably little has been written on con-
sumer choice in a hospitality industry context
(but see Wood, 1995) and there is even less on
consumer loyalty. The shortest route to assess-
ing loyalty as a meaningful consumer
response in restaurant choice is to focus on
those inferences to be drawn from assess-
ments of the factors consumers rate as impor-
tant in such choice. The small literature on
this subject has, as its defining characteristic,
a focus on research methods that seek to elicit
the role of key variables in the choice of
restaurant given a number of alternative
scenarios. For example, June and Smith (1987)
use conjoint analysis on a sample of 50 afflu-
ent upper middle-class professionals in their
survey. Conjoint analysis involves a complex
ranking of attributes set against the chosen
hypothetical contexts (for notes on the method
see Ryan, 1994 who offers a useful introduc-
tion). For four such contexts, June and Smith
derived the results shown in Table I.
Given that this survey drew on data from
affluent diners the results are fascinating
insofar as food quality is, in all but one case,
relegated to fourth position, and atmosphere
to fifth position. This raises questions about
the significance of “intangible” factors other
than service in restaurant selection, a point
central to the work of Lewis (1981) and Auty
(1992).
Lewis (1981) considered five factors: food
quality; menu variety; price; atmosphere; and
convenience factors. The importance of these
attributes varied according to the type of
restaurant which in Lewis’ case was a cate-
gory united with food type: family/popular;
atmosphere; and gourmet. In all three
instances, however, food quality was found to
be the most important consideration influ-
encing restaurant selection by consumers.
Auty’s study more closely follows the dis-
tinct pattern set out by June and Smith (1987).
From a pilot questionnaire (n = 40) conducted
in a northern English city, a variety of choice
factors in the restaurant decision process
were collected and then collapsed into ten
categories: food type; food quality; value for
money; image and atmosphere; location;
speed of service; recommended; new experi-
ence; opening hours; and facilities for chil-
dren. To see if the type of restaurant chosen
varied according to dining occasion, Auty
also elicited four such occasions from the
pilot: a celebration (e.g. birthday); a social
occasion; convenience/need for a quick meal;
and business meal.
Auty’s main findings are based on 155 sub-
sequent house-to-house interviews conducted
on a random sample of four electoral wards in
the same city having the highest population
of ABC residents, a sample she claims as
being representative, 85 per cent of these
falling into social classes ABC, and 42 per
cent having annual incomes in excess of
£15,000. Her key results are as follows. First,
the percentage of respondents ranking each
of the ten variables in the top three yielded
the following results (Auty, 1992, p. 328): food
type (71); food quality (59); value for money
(46); image and atmosphere (33); location (32);
speed of service (15); recommended (11); new
experience (9); and opening hours and child
facilities, eight each. Second, Auty found that
restaurant type influenced the order of choice
criteria. Only four restaurants out of 22 were
chosen more for image than value for money
and food type and food quality generally
always ranked higher than image and atmos-
phere. Third, the occasion for dining out
affects the ranking of variables although
[ 139 ]
Mona A. Clark and Table I
Roy C. Wood Ranking and key variables influencing restaurant chosen in four hypothetical circumstances
Consumer loyalty in the
restaurant industry – a Context
preliminary exploration of the Intimate Birthday Business Family
issues
Rank dinner celebration lunch dinner
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality 1 Liquor availability Liquor availability Service Service
Management 2 Service Service Price Price
10/4 [1998] 139–144 3 Food quality Price Liquor availability Liquor availability
4 Atmosphere Food quality Food quality Food quality
5 Price Atmosphere Atmosphere Atmosphere
Source: After June and Smith (1987)

image and atmosphere still do not appear
among the most important factors (see Table
II – note that business meals did not “regis-
ter” with the sample and are excluded).
Auty’s conclusions are that food type and food
quality are the most frequently cited choice
variables for dining out in restaurants,
regardless of occasion. After food type, qual-
ity and price, atmosphere then becomes the
main way of making distinctions between
alternatives although this is mediated by the
occasion for, as Auty notes, only in one case
did the same restaurant appeal to those in
search of a social night out and those wanting
a quick, convenient meal (Auty, 1992, p. 337).
In general then there is indicative evidence
from all these studies to suggest that it is
relatively concrete factors that are important
in consumers’ choice of restaurant. The inter-
esting point about Table II is that even in the
context of “speed/convenience” where the
ranking of attributes might be regarded as
wholly predictable, they constitute little vari-
ation from the pattern for other social occa-
sions. Clues as to why this might be the case
are to be found in economic studies of restau-
rant choice among the affluent middle-class.
For example, Frisbee and Madeira (1986, p.
173) hypothesised that, in the case of two-
earner middle-class households:
as time becomes more valuable to household
members, the total cost of home-prepared
meals (food costs plus time costs) increases
relative to the total cost of restaurant meals
(which are generally less time-intensive).
The authors’ Canadian evidence suggests
their hypothesis is correct and that restau-
rant meals are perceived as inferior goods by
such households. Partially in confirmation of
this view, Pavesic (1989, p. 45) introduces the
familiar distinction between eating out and
dining out. He writes:
Customers will evaluate a restaurant as a
place to eat-out or as a place to dine-out. If a
restaurant is considered an eat-out opera-
tion during the week (a substitute for cook-
ing at home), customers will be more price
conscious. If a restaurant is considered a
dine-out operation, the visit is regarded
more as a social occasion or entertainment
and price is not as much of a factor.
The present study methodology
As indicated earlier, the data reported here
should be treated tentatively. The question-
naire implement employed was designed to
explore factors relevant to engendering cus-
tomer loyalty in restaurant use. For explo-
ration of this particular topic, the sampling
frame had to satisfy two principal require-
ments: it had to comprise people with some
relatively homogeneous characteristics who
were nevertheless graduated by status and
income (low-high); and it had to comprise

Table II
Attributes ranking for three occasions
Context
Rank Social Celebration Speed/convenience
1 Food type Food quality Food type 1
2 Food quality Food type Food quality 2
3 Value Value Value 3
4 Image/atmosphere Location Speed 3
5 Location Image/atmosphere Location 4
6 Recommended Recommended Image/alternative 5
7 Opening hours 6
Source: After Auty (1992, p. 329)

[ 140 ]
Mona A. Clark and
Roy C. Wood
Consumer loyalty in the
restaurant industry – a
preliminary exploration of the
issues
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
10/4 [1998] 139–144
people who were, probabilistically, known to @4 per cent in the sampling frame popula-
dine out with some frequency. The first crite- tion) and from senior grades within the
rion, it was assumed, would permit a scalar frame.
variation in responses ensuring content
validity relative to similarly graduated ques-
tions. The second criterion would meet a Principal findings
more fundamental objective – that a range of
Out of the 63 returns, there were some 31
meaningful responses would be forthcoming
usable responses (those answering “yes” to
from what could be inferred to be a group of
whether or not they visited one restaurant
regular, if not always knowledgeable, diners.
more than another). All respondents were
Accordingly, for these and other reasons of
invited to enter a brief description of the their
convenience, the sampling frame adopted
regular choice of restaurant and to name it.
comprised the career grades of academic staff
From this information it was possible to
at the two universities in which the authors
are employed. An independent sample was classify respondents’ selections by a variety
drawn from each frame using a modified form of criteria – in Table IV we note two such
of systematic selection (therefore without classifications by establishment “type” and
replacement) and a sampling interval defined “style” of food. Overall, there is some sugges-
according to the number of questionnaire tion that those who frequent a single restau-
issues required (100 per institution). In total, rant on a regular basis have a preference for
some 31 usable responses were yielded by this independent restaurants serving “brasserie”
process across both institutions (Table III or “new Scottish”-style food, styles of food
shows principal demographic and local char- which, if not always haute gastronomy, are
acteristics of the respondents) constituting a certainly at the more sophisticated end of the
15 per cent response rate, representing all scale of culinary complexity.
grades of staff, a moderately accurate reflec- To examine our results in more detail,
tion of the age distribution of the sampling beginning with those findings that garnered
frame, and an exaggerated response rate substantial majority responses, in terms of
among females (@33 per cent compared with generic issues of restaurant choice, 18 (58 per
cent) of respondents asserted that their own
preferences and tastes were the main deter-
Table III minants of restaurant selection. It was clear
Principal characteristics of the sample from comments volunteered by respondents
No. that such individualism related not only to
restaurant choice in a “business” context
Faculties
(dining visitors to the workplace) but was an
University A
emphatic assertion of personal preference. As
Medicine and dentistry 3
might be imagined, where choice of restau-
Science and engineering 7
rant was influenced by broader considera-
Law and accounting 3
tions of the needs of others then spouses and
Duncan of Jordanstone 2
partners (5: 16 per cent); children (4: 12 per
Arts and social sciences 5
cent) and work colleagues (3: 10 per cent)
University B
Arts and social sciences 4
Engineering 0 Table IV
Science 3 Classification of restaurants
Education 0
Business 4 No.
Career grade (a) Type of restaurant
Professor 11 Fast food or other chain restaurant 6
Reader/senior lecturer (i.e.) associate Public house 3
professor 9 Hotel 3
Lecturer (assistant professor) 10 Independent restaurant 15
Age Other 4
21-34 4 (b) Style of food
35-45 9 Pizza/Italian 4
46-54 12 Burger 2
55-65 6 Brasserie 7
65+ 0 “New Scottish” cookery 7
Sex Ethnic 2
Male 21 Pub 3
Female 10 Other 6
[ 141 ]
Mona A. Clark and
Roy C. Wood
Consumer loyalty in the
restaurant industry – a
preliminary exploration of the
issues
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
10/4 [1998] 139–144
[ 142 ]
figured whereas non-work friends did not
feature at all.
Relative to the specific choice/preference
for a particular restaurant, a surprising
degree of loyalty was felt for favoured estab-
lishments, some 16 (52 per cent) and 6 (19 per
cent) feeling “loyal” or “very loyal” respec-
tively, 71 per cent in all. More interesting yet,
some 19 (61 per cent) of the 22 “loyal” or “very
loyal” respondents also asserted that their
loyalty was recognised by staff and manage-
ment. Invited to write in a short description
of how this loyalty was recognised, respon-
dents gave remarkably consistent replies:
• Eight (42 per cent) mentioned the friendli-
ness of staff.
• Four (21 per cent) mentioned they were
always recognised by staff on arrival with
various consequences (speedier service;
access to a table at busy times; the occa-
sional complimentary bottle of wine; atten-
tive service).
• Three (16 per cent) mentioned some flexibil-
ity of food choice was permitted (chefs
would cook favourite dishes not on the
menu; children’s needs would be accommo-
dated).
In the light of these findings it is useful to
consider levels of restaurant patronage and
average spend. Some 25 (80 per cent) of the 31
respondents visited their preferred restau-
rant between one and five times a month with
14 of these (56 per cent of the total) doing so on
two or more occasions in any one month. As
might be anticipated, the range of restaurants
represented in respondents’ choices lead to a
broad distribution of average spend values
(Table V).
The above data reflect responses to the
question as to how much was spent on aver-
age on each visit to the preferred restaurant.
There are two extremes, some 45 per cent of
respondents spending between £0-10 and 42
per cent in excess of £21 with 32 per cent
spending more than £25 on each visit. There
was a tentative relationship between
frequency of visit to the favoured restaurant
and average spend – those who visited their
Table V
Distribution of average expenditure on dining
out
£ % Cumulative %
0-5 5 16 16
6-10 9 29 45
11-15 1 3 48
16-20 3 10 58
21-25 3 10 68
25+ 10 32 100
chosen restaurant more often were more
likely to spend more. Interestingly, average
spend did not appear to be a function of
formal remuneration as reflected in occupa-
tional grade as higher grades (and thus
higher earners) did not seem to spend more
than those of lower grades.
Finally here, we consider factors respon-
dents felt were important in their choice of
preferred restaurant and in terms of the fac-
tors they looked for in choosing a place to eat
more generally. Respondents were asked to
rate ten aspects of their preferred restaurant
on a five-point scale. The ten aspects were as
in Table VI. The five-point scale was (1) very
satisfactory; (2) satisfactory; (3) neither satis-
factory nor unsatisfactory; (4) unsatisfactory;
(5) very unsatisfactory. As would be expected
in a preference-based survey, most items
scored in the “very satisfactory/satisfactory”
categories. Figures after the parentheses in
Table VI show the percentage of respondents
scoring in the (1) “very satisfactory” category.
The most significant of these values is for
“Quality of food” the only value other than
“Friendliness of staff ” where more than 50
per cent of respondents rated a factor “very
satisfactory”. An interesting aside on these
findings (and it is only that) is that all the
“very loyal” respondents rated quality of food
first in overall importance and quality of food
was the most important factor in brasseries
and independent restaurants, whereas the
result was much more variable for the “loyal”
respondents. It is thus possible that future
investigation might examine the hypothesis
that food quality is the most important factor
in the strength of customer loyalty.
This last result is interesting for the
generic reasons for restaurant choice.
Respondents were asked to select five of the
above factors and rank them 1-5 in terms of
their general importance to respondents in
choosing a restaurant. Of the 31 respondents,
only 20 provided usable responses to this
question of which 19 ranked food quality as
the most important variable in restaurant
Table VI
Ten aspects of the restaurant product
Price of food (90) 35
Price of drink (80) 13
Speed of service (84) 45
Quality of food (84) 61
Atmosphere (84) 48
Friendliness of staff (87) 52
Parking facilities (55) 21
Lavatory/washroom facilities (66) 13
Range of food choice (84) 32
Opening hours (83) 43
Mona A. Clark and
Roy C. Wood
Consumer loyalty in the
restaurant industry – a
preliminary exploration of the
issues
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
10/4 [1998] 139–144
choice. The five factors most commonly
included in respondents’ rankings were:
1 Range of food – 20.
2 Quality of food – 19.
3 Price of food – 14.
4 Atmosphere – 14.
5 Speed of service – 14.
Discussion and conclusions
The findings of June and Smith, Lewis and
Auty seem to garner broad support from this
limited pilot study. The quality of food and the
range or type of food (type of food being
inferred from the type of establishment
quoted in relation to customer loyalty) were
the key determinants of restaurant
choice/customer loyalty in this study.
“Friendliness of staff ”, although considered
to be “very satisfactory” relative to preferred
establishments by slightly over 50 per cent,
was not one of the five factors included in
generic reasons for restaurant choice. The
friendliness of staff appears to be a function
of customer loyalty rather than a cause of it,
supporting the hypothesis that tangible
rather than intangible factors are more sig-
nificant in gaining customer loyalty. This is
also evident from looking at those who
claimed they were “not loyal” to the place in
which they most regularly dined. Here, the
majority also stated that the quality of food
was the top ranking factor in their choice of
restaurant. From a purely instrumental point
of view, the contention that tangible rather
than intangible facts may be worthy of inves-
tigation as being of greater importance than
has hitherto been thought is, academically at
least, controversial. Much consumer
behaviour/marketing theory applied to
restaurants has proceeded at least implicitly
from Campbell-Smith’s (1967) seminal work
on the marketing of the meal experience,
whereby it is the total package of experiences
encountered in the restaurant environment
that have been held to be the major explana-
tory variable in such behaviour. The
secondary evidence reviewed here offers
little comfort to such a view and the empiri-
cal study reported, though limited, is sugges-
tively supportive of this evidence.
Having said this, it is important to recog-
nise that the limitations of the present study
have at least some of their roots in generic
methodological problems. The most obvious
of these relates to the issues attendant on the
use of simple rating scales. Such scales natu-
rally operate in a two-dimensional world,
specifying factor labels (here, range of food,
quality of food and so on) and value labels
(very satisfactory, satisfactory and so on). As
every novice researcher is taught, however,
the “very satisfactory” of Person A cannot be
assumed to be coterminous with the “very
satisfactory” of Person B. By its very defini-
tion, a rating scale requires respondents to
convert qualitative judgements into a quanti-
tative or semi-quantitative value: rating
scales are reductionist, and such reduction-
ism necessarily obscures the complexities of
respondents’ ratiocinative processes. The
problem is especially acute in areas dealing
with sensitive or emotive topics, or basic
needs such as food preferences and choice.
Take, for example, the concept of the “quality
of food”. In the present study, two of the
respondents who claimed that “quality of
food” was the most important factor in their
choice of regular restaurant actually ate in a
fast food restaurant and a university commis-
sary (for the others for whom quality of food
was important, it was, it will be recalled,
independent restaurants and brasseries that
figured most prominently). Clearly, the gener-
alised nature of the concept of “quality of
food” itself (together with similar factor
labels) is in need of further investigation, as
there is clearly at the very least an expecta-
tional component to consumers’ decisions
and this may well derive from an apprecia-
tion of consistency. Thus, one thinks of the
characteristics of food offered by the burger
or restaurant chain not in the sense of
gourmet quality but in the sense of the cus-
tomers’ loyalties being held by the knowledge
that exactly the same quality will be offered
each time the establishment is visited. This
in itself is not a novel finding: indeed it is
a central tenet of behavioural marketing
theory.
However, in the light of the secondary evi-
dence reviewed here, it does raise questions
as to the range of interpretations that
may be put on the term “quality of food” by
respondents to survey research and this
clearly has consequences for the interpreta-
tion of results, highlighting as it does the
traditional tensions between detailed qualita-
tive investigation of attitudes, values and
feelings and the more summary pseudo-quan-
titative approach implied by the use of ques-
tionnaires and questionnaire variants. In
areas such as consumer research, further
complications arise in the naturally occur-
ring differences to which survey respondents
are required to address their judgements.
For example, in self-selecting their choice of
“regular” restaurant consumers may safely
be assumed to set a template for such judge-
ments.
In this context, however, “choice”
inevitably throws up diversity in any sample,
although this diversity exhibits regular
[ 143 ]
Mona A. Clark and
Roy C. Wood
Consumer loyalty in the
restaurant industry – a
preliminary exploration of the
issues
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
10/4 [1998] 139–144
[ 144 ]
patterning in the form of a framework of
market segmentation. Market segmentation
in any context is not, though, a static phe-
nomenon. Rather, consumers interact with
the market which, of course, they partially
create and re-create in an ever more complex
series of interactions with service providers
(Brown, 1995). Consumers’ perceptions of the
nature and extent of segmentation in any
market is focused by their own capacity for
personal “choice”, and the compromise
between these variable conditions, to some
degree at least, their expectations. Put in
plainer terms, the meanings which
consumers attach to certain factor labels
such as “quality of food” are conditioned at
least twice – once at the macro-level in their
interaction with the marketplace in general,
and once in the specific cases of explicit
choices of services or products (Finkelstein,
1989).
In summary, therefore, we have argued in
this paper not that the “meal experience” is
unimportant, but rather that a growing
weight of evidence suggests that, for the con-
sumer, additional elements only “kick-in” as
significant in their experience if the central,
tangible aspect of dining out, i.e. food, is con-
strued as acceptable. Again, we do not regard
this as a novel insight. Auty’s (1992) research
showed this view to be a commonplace among
restaurateurs, and it is well-articulated in the
work of Ritzer (1996) on McDonaldization and
Gillespie (1994) on chef-patrons – two
extremes of the restaurant market. Yet there
is at least an implicit resistance to such a
position in much restaurant marketing litera-
ture. Clearly further investigation of these
questions is desirable in order to clarify pre-
vailing assumptions and to test the kinds of
arguments presented here.
Specifically, any researcher in this area
faces a dilemma. Survey research methods
are a useful means of eliciting trend data but
in the specific arena of consumer choice of,
and loyalty to, restaurants and restaurant
types, survey methods such as the kind
employed in this study by necessity embrace
a set of a priori assumptions about the consis-
tency of consumer judgements when using
factor labels. The problem is as old as attitude
research itself, but its salience in consumer
research lies in those multi-layered complexi-
ties of the social order that are filtered at the
level of general perception before being
deployed in specific responses to particular
phenomenon (Campbell, 1987). It is, then, to
this area that future research in this very
narrow and specific field might usefully be
directed. In particular, template research is
required to explore the content of commonly
employed (by researchers) terminology as
perceived by the population. What do people
mean by “quality of food” and “friendliness of
staff ”? How are these researcher categories
constituted by those to whom research is
directed? By developing some systematic
analysis of consumer terminology benefits
may accrue in elucidating the relationships
between the relative roles of “tangible” and
“intangible” elements in the meal experience.
Further, by atomising these concepts and
revealing their essential building blocks, we
may find that the holistic idea of the “meal
experience” has to be abandoned or replaced
with a more rationalised and pragmatic
model of consumer behaviour in restaurant
choice.
References
Auty, S. (1992), “Consumer choice and segmenta-
tion in the restaurant industry”, The Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 324-39.
Brown, S. (1995), Postmodern Marketing, Rout-
ledge, London.
Campbell, C. (1987), The Romantic Ethic and the
Spirit of Modern Consumerism, Blackwell,
Oxford.
Campbell-Smith, G. (1967), The Marketing of the
Meal Experience, Surrey University Press,
Guildford.
Finkelstein, J. (1989), Dining out: A Sociology of
Modern Manners, Polity, Cambridge.
Frisbee, W.R. and Madeira, K. (1986), “Restaurant
meals – convenience goods or luxuries?”,
The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 6 No. 12,
pp. 172-92.
Gillespie, C.H. (1994), “Gastrosophy and nouvelle
cuisine: entrepreneurial fashion and fiction”,
British Food Journal, Vol. 96 No. 10, pp. 19-23.
June, L.P. and Smith, S.L.J. (1987), “Service attrib-
utes and situational effects on customer pref-
erences for restaurant dining”, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 20-7.
Lewis, R. (1981), “Restaurant advertising: appeals
and consumers’ intentions”, Journal of Adver-
tising Research, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 69-74.
Paversic, D.V. (1989), “Psychological aspects of
menu pricing”, International Journal of Hos-
pitality Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 43-9.
Ritzer, G. (1996), The McDonaldization of Society,
rev. ed., Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Ryan, C. (1994), Researching Tourist Satisfaction:
Issues, Concepts, Problems, Routledge,
London.
Wood, R.C. (1995), The Sociology of the Meal,
Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.