'Value for money' and the restaurant experience: a case study of supply and demand stakeholders

Abstract

Using the case of a training restaurant open to paying guests, this study compares the perceptions of two groups of stakeholders with regard to different factors of the dining experience. The first group represents the supply side and is composed of 73 students involved in the preparation and delivery of menu dishes, while the demand side consists of 222 guests of the training restaurant. Both groups' level of agreement was similar when they identified gaps regarding the restaurant's performance in terms of décor, design, lighting and background music. The groups, however, differed in their perceptions of other elements, most notably regarding the selection of beverages, and the entertainment aspect of the dining experience (e.g., deboning fish in front of guests), with students clearly in lesser agreement. Overall, the study's findings demonstrate that involving different groups of stakeholders to evaluate the restaurant's performance could potentially enhance the dining experience.

Customer Satisfaction with Online Food Ordering Portals in Qatar

“…In the restaurant context, Voon (2012) found that the most important factor determining youth loyalty is the value for money. Alonso et al (2016) captured the perceptions of different stakeholder groups through their detailed study on the value of money and the restaurant experience. Soriano (2002) acknowledged that restaurateurs should go beyond providing high quality food and service and should focus on providing additional value to the customer in order to attract and retain customers.…”

Identifying core “responsible leadership” practices for SME restaurants

“…Despite the importance of RL in the restaurant sector (Elkhwesky et al , 2022a), there are very few studies that deal with this term per se . Most of the extant research has focused on individual RL practices, such as CSR, stakeholder involvement, ethics, sustainability and environmentally friendly actions (Alonso et al , 2016; Iaquinto, 2014; Kasim and Ismail, 2012; Kim and Brymer, 2011; Lee and Heo, 2009; Raab et al , 2018; Radwan et al , 2010; Swimberghe and Wooldridge, 2014).…”