The Quality of The Marketing Mix of Restaurants As A Basis For Effective and Efficient Financial Operational Control of Restaurants in Dulag, Leyte

Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 50

The quality of the marketing mix of

restaurants as a basis for effective


and efficient financial operational
control of restaurants in Dulag,
Leyte.

MALYKA TUPAZ
OVERVIEW

1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM


2. RESULTS
3. RECOMMENDATION
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1. What is the demographic profile of the respondent
owners in terms of individual factors:
1.1. Sex
1.2.Age
1.3. Average Monthly Income
1.4. Type of Ownership
1.5. Size of Restaurant
1.6. Capital Structure
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
2. What is the quality of the marketing mix applied
by the restaurants in terms of:
2.1. Product
2.2. Price
2.3. Place
2.4. Promotion
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
3. Is there a significant difference in the quality of
the marketing mix among Dulag restaurants owners
when they are grouped according to their individual
profile:
3.1. Sex
3.2. Age
3.3. Average Monthly Income
3.4. Type of Ownership
3.5. Size of the Restaurant
3.6. Capital Structure
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
4. Is there a significant relationship between the
quality of the marketing mix among Dulag restaurant
owner and their individual profile:
4.1. Sex
4.2. Age
4.3. Average Monthly Income
4.4. Type of Ownership
4.5. Size of the Restaurant
4.6. Capital Structure
FINDINGS FOR SOP 1.1
Table 2
Distribution of Respondent Restaurant Owners according to
Sex

Sex Frequency Percentag


e
Male 14 48%
Female 15 52%
Total 29 100%
FINDINGS FOR SOP 1.2
Table 3
Distribution of Respondent Restaurant Owners according to
Age

Age (in years) Frequency Percentage


21 to 25 2 7%
26 to 30 6 21%
31 to 35 1 3%
36 to 40 1 3%
41 to 45 3 10%
46 to 50 3 10%
51 and above 13 45%
Total 29 100%
FINDINGS FOR SOP 1.3
Table 4
Distribution of Respondent Restaurant Owner according to Average
Monthly Income
Average Frequency Percentage
Monthly Income
P5,000 to 7 24%
P10,000
P10,001 to 2 7%
P20,000
P20,001 to 6 21%
P30,000
P30,001 to 2 7%
P40,000
FINDINGS FOR SOP 1.4
Table 5
Distribution of Respondent Restaurant Owner according to
Type of Ownership
Type of Frequency Percentage
Ownership
Sole 28 97%
Proprietorshi
p
Partnership 0 0%
Corporation 1 3%
Total 29 100%
FINDINGS FOR SOP 1.5
Table 6
Distribution of Respondent Restaurant Owner according to
Size of the Restaurant
Size of the Frequency Percentage
Restaurant
10 Cover Seating 7 24%
11-20 Cover 10 34%
Seating
21-30 Cover 8 28%
Seating
31-40 Cover 1 3%
Seating
41 and above 3 10%
Cover Seating
Total 29 100%
FINDINGS FOR SOP 1.6
Table 7
Distribution of Respondent Restaurant Owner according to
Size of the Restaurant
Size of the Frequency Percentage
Restaurant
10 Cover Seating 7 24%
11-20 Cover 10 34%
Seating
21-30 Cover 8 28%
Seating
31-40 Cover 1 3%
Seating
41 and above 3 10%
Cover Seating
Total 29 100%
FINDINGS FOR SOP 2.1
Table 8
The Quality of Product
Statement Mean Interpretation
I was able to select an ingredient
specification that maintains taste 3.83 Very Good
consistency
I was able to make our menu
physical characteristics conforms 3.76 Very Good
to the product standard.
I was able to follow good culinary
3.83 Very Good
practices and sanitation.
I was able to offers variety of
3.86 Very Good
items in the menu.
Quality of Product 3.82 Very Good
FINDINGS FOR SOP 2.2
Table 9
The Quality of Price
Statement Mean Interpretation
I am able to offer price that is
Very Good
affordable. 3.76
I am offering prices that is
worthwhile spending
Very Good
considering quality of the
food. 3.86
I am able to earn profit while
Very Good
offering affordable price. 3.66
I am able to offer good salary
to my staff while product is Very Good
still affordable 3.76
FINDINGS FOR SOP 2.3
Table 10
The Quality of Place
Statement Mean Interpretation
I am able to provide good
setting arrangement that made
3.76 Very Good
the customers comfortable and
relaxing.
I was able to choose a location
that has a relaxed atmosphere
3.69 Very Good
which becomes one of the
attractions of the customers.
I was able to make the
ambiance of the place worth 3.62 Very Good
inviting.
FINDINGS FOR SOP 2.4
Table 11
The Quality of Promotion
Statement Mean Interpretatio
n
I was able to maintain
consistent contact clients via 3.59 Very Good
online.
I was able to use the tourist
spots in the area to promote 3.45 Very Good
the carenderia to customers.
I was able to train my staff on
how accommodate customers
which becomes one of the 3.55 Very Good
effective promotional
strategy of the restaurant.
FINDINGS FOR SOP 2
Table 12
The Quality of the Marketing Mix

Statement Mean Interpretatio


n
Product 3.82 Very Good
Price 3.76 Very Good
Place 3.69 Very Good
Promotion 3.53 Very Good
Quality of 3.70 Very Good
Marketing
Mix
FINDINGS FOR SOP 3.1
Table 14
One-Way ANOVA of the Quality of Marketing by Sex

Scores in F Sig Interpretat


ion
Quality of 2.005 0.168 No
Product significant
difference
Quality of Price 0.429 0.518 No
significant
difference
Quality of Place 0.281 0.6 No
significant
FINDINGS FOR SOP 3.2
Table 16
One-Way ANOVA of the Quality of Marketing by Age

Scores in F Sig Interpretation


Quality of .628 .706 No significant
Product difference
Quality of Price 0403 .869 No significant
difference
Quality of 1.053 .420 No significant
Place difference
Quality of .403 .869 No significant
Promotion difference
FINDINGS FOR SOP 3.3
Table 18
One-Way ANOVA of the Quality of Marketing by Average Monthly Income

Scores in F Sig Interpretation


Quality of .467 .797 No significant
Product difference
Quality of .256 .932 No significant
Price difference
Quality of .256 .932 No significant
Place difference
Quality of .256 .932 No significant
Promotion difference
FINDINGS FOR SOP 3.4
Table 20
One-Way ANOVA of the Quality of Marketing by Type Ownership

Scores in F Sig Interpretation


Quality of 25.13 .000 There is
Product 8 significant
difference
Quality of .112 .741 No significant
Price difference
Quality of .12.1 .002 There is
Place 03 significant
difference
Quality of .112 .741 No significant
FINDINGS FOR SOP 3.5
Table 22
One-Way ANOVA of the Quality of Marketing by Sizes of Restaurant

Scores in F Sig Interpretation


Quality of 1.131 .365 No significant
Product difference
Quality of .658 .627 No significant
Price difference
Quality of .658 .627 No significant
Place difference
Quality of .658 .627 No significant
Promotion difference
FINDINGS FOR SOP 3.6
Table 24
One-Way ANOVA of the Quality of Marketing by Capital Structure

Scores in F Sig Interpretation


Quality of 1.286 .293 No significant
Product difference
Quality of .833 .446 No significant
Price difference
Quality of .833 .446 No significant
Place difference
Quality of .833 .446 No significant
Promotion difference
FINDINGS FOR SOP 4.1
Table 26
Correlation of the Quality of Marketing Mix and Age
Scores in Sig Pearson r Interpretation
coefficient
Quality of 0.345 -0.182 There is no
Product significant
relationship.
Quality of Price 1.00 0.00 There is no
significant
relationship.
Quality of Place 0.795 0.05 There is
significant
relationship.
Quality of 1.00 0.00 There is no
Promotion significant
FINDINGS FOR SOP 4.2
Table 28
Correlation of the Quality of Marketing Mix and Sex
Scores in Sig Pearson r Interpretation
coefficient
Quality of Product 0.168 -0.263 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of Price 0.518 0.125 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of Place 0.600 -0.102 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of Promotion 0.518 0.125 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of the 0.333 -.186 There is no significant
Marketing Mix relationship
FINDINGS FOR SOP 4.3
Table 30
Correlation of the Quality of Marketing Mix and Average Monthly Income
Scores in Sig Pearson r Interpretation
coefficient
Quality of Product 0.499 -0.131 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of Price 0.816 0.45 There is significant
relationship
Quality of Place 0.816 0.45 There is significant
relationship
Quality of Promotion 0.816 0.45 There is significant
relationship
Quality of the 0.318 -.192 There is no significant
Marketing Mix relationship
FINDINGS FOR SOP 4.4
Table 32
Correlation of the Quality of Marketing Mix and Type of
Ownership
Scores in Sig Pearson r Interpretation
coefficient
Quality of Product 0.00 -0.694** There is no significant
relationship
Quality of Price 0.741 0.064 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of Place 0.002 -0.556** There is no significant
relationship
Quality of Promotion 0.741 0.064 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of the 0.010 -0.472** There is no significant
Marketing Mix relationship
FINDINGS FOR SOP 4.5
Table 34
Correlation of the Quality of Marketing Mix and Size of
Restaurant
Scores in Sig Pearson r Interpretation
coefficient
Quality of Product 0.194 -0.249 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of Price 0.710 -0.072 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of Place 0.710 -0.072 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of Promotion 0.710 -0.072 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of the 0.305 -0.197 There is no significant
Marketing Mix relationship
FINDINGS FOR SOP 4.6
Table 36
Correlation of the Quality of Marketing Mix and Capital
Structure
Scores in Sig Pearson r Interpretation
coefficient
Quality of Product 0.347 -0.181 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of Price 0.718 -0.070 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of Place 0.718 -0.070 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of Promotion 0.718 -0.070 There is no significant
relationship
Quality of the 0.507 -0.128 There is no significant
Marketing Mix relationship
CONCLUSION
1. The quality the product of the restaurants in
Dulag, Leyte perceived by restaurant owners are
indeed very good.
2. The quality the price of the restaurants in Dulag,
Leyte perceived by restaurant owners are indeed
very good.
3. The quality the place of the restaurants in Dulag,
Leyte perceived by restaurant owners are indeed
very good.
CONCLUSION
5. The quality of the marketing mix of the respondent
restaurant owners from Dulag, Leyte has high mean score of
3.70 and is interpreted as very good.
6. The study manifests that quality of the marketing has no
significant difference when group according to its personal
profile.
7. The study manifests that quality of the marketing has no
significant difference when group according to its work-related
profile.
8. Perception of the respondent restaurant owners on their
quality of the marketing mix differs when they are grouped
CONCLUSION
9. Significant values for the quality of Product, Quality
of Price, Quality of Place, Quality of Promotion and
Quality of the Marketing Mix when correlated with age
are above 0.01 and 0.05; thus, the relevant null
hypotheses must be accepted and the corresponding
alternative hypotheses be rejected.
10. Perception of the respondent restaurant owners on
their quality of the marketing mix differ when they are
grouped according to Average Monthly Income.
CONCLUSION
11. Significance values for the quality of Product,
Quality of Price, Quality of Place, Quality of Promotion
and Quality of the Marketing Mix when correlated with
sex are above 0.01 and 0.05; thus, the relevant null
hypotheses must be accepted and the corresponding
alternative hypotheses be rejected.
12. Perception of the respondent restaurant owners on
their quality of the marketing mix differs when they are
grouped according to Type of Ownership.
CONCLUSION
13.Significant values for the quality of Product, Quality
of Place, and Quality of the Marketing Mix when
correlated with type of ownership are equal to or lesser
than 0.01 and 0.05; thus, the relevant alternative
hypotheses must be accepted and the corresponding
null hypotheses be rejected.
14. Perception of the respondent restaurant owners on
their quality of the marketing mix differs when they are
grouped according to Sizes of the Restaurants.
CONCLUSION
15. Computed significant values for the quality of
Product, Quality of Price, Quality of Place, Quality of
Promotion and Quality of the Marketing Mix when
correlated with age are above 0.01 and 0.05; thus, the
relevant null hypotheses must be accepted and the
corresponding alternative hypotheses be rejected.
16. Perception of the respondent restaurant owners on
their quality of the marketing mix differs when they are
grouped according to Capital Structure.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Product
In order to improve the perception of the restaurant owners on
the quality of the product, it is a must that the restaurant
integrate into its corporate culture, strategic planning, sense
of elegance, and aesthetic presentation in serving their
product to the customers. This could be done by recalling the
vision, mission, goals, objectives and strategies where focus
should not only be on the bottom line or profits and the
provision of product’s quality but also on the perception of the
employees, especially the crews.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Product

Since the restaurant is aiming for taste consistency, the


owners must ensure to compensate well all the crews
who made the food so that the employee turnover will
be minimal because it might be the cause of
inconsistent taste if crew will change overtime. Also,
proper training will be given to the newly hired crew to
impart knowledge on the systematic flow of the
operation.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Product

Restaurant owners must continue or even


improve their sanitation of the place for the
customers to feel comfortable and safe about
the food they eat.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Price

The restaurant must maintain the affordability


of the price without compromising the quality of
the product to attract more customers and
retain the regular customers. This can be
achieved by minimizing cost of the ingredients,
ensuring efficiency of employee for higher
returns and avoiding unnecessary cost.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Price

To maintain affordability of price, the restaurant


owners must monitor the cost incurred in every
aspect of the business such as the cost of the
goods sold, the salary to the crew must be
worth it and provide higher return and minimize
other cost while maximizing profit.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Price

The restaurant owners must also consider


the utilization of the digital tool which can
improve pricing strategy such as posting
online with discounts and promotions.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Price

The restaurant owners must also ensure to


attract customers by providing them
promo codes, buy 1 take 1 offers and other
strategy which can help the restaurant
excel over the competitors
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Place

The restaurant must ensure that the place is


comfortable and conducive to dine in with. This
can be done by providing good ventilation,
aesthetic view, organized interior arrangement
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Place

The restaurant must also ensure that there is


enough parking space for their customers for
both car and motorcycle so that customers will
choose to dine with them.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Place

The restaurant must be strict in terms of security for


safety of the customers by installing CCTV camera in
the area or even hiring security personnel if
necessary.

The restaurant must ensure that the place is clean


for them to feel safe for the food they eat.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Promotion

The restaurant must continue to make noise on


their product to the public for a continues
exposure to the customers and to remind them
what they are selling. This can be done
commonly by posting products online for a
cheaper advertising cost.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Promotion

The restaurant must participate in any food


expo to expand their target customers.
The restaurant owners must also come up with
ideas on how to promote their product such as
providing them with loyalty card where they can
earn points that can be redeem at a particular
point earned.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Promotion

The restaurant must participate in any food


expo to expand their target customers.
The restaurant owners must also come up with
ideas on how to promote their product such as
providing them with loyalty card where they can
earn points that can be redeem at a particular
point earned.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations on the Quality of Promotion

The restaurant owners must also integrate in


digital tool such as maxim, food panda, pasabuy
and other tools whichever is applicable for them
to be seen in a wide range of customers.
Your best quote that reflects
your approach… “It’s one small
step for man, one giant leap for
mankind.”

- NEIL ARMSTRONG

You might also like