Comparing the competitive advantages between

Macdonald and KFC, for young consumers in

Hsinchu area.
Professor: Dr. Trappey
Students: 9562503
9562502
952028
1. Introduction
Now if we standing before te train station! or nearby te ra"p or e#it of igway!
$
you %an a&ways see '%Dona&d or ()* is tere. +n te downtown! you wi&& see "ore
western fast food %ain stores. Tere used to be "any fast food brands in Taiwan:
,endy-s! .ardy-s! Te#as %i%/en! 0urger (ing1! but now! tese brands were on&y in
"e"ories. ,e ad so"e dis%ussion wit "any friends about tose fast food %ains!
2,at-s wrong wit tose fa"ous brands ad been 34! 2,y on&y '%Dano&d or ()*
were &eft in Taiwan34! 2,at are te fa%tors to teir su%%ess34! 2,at if we %o"pare
'%Dona&d wit ()*34 ,e are %urious about wo wi&& fina&&y o%%upy "ost of Taiwan
fast food "ar/et in te future! and by wi% %o"petiti5e ad5antages3 So! our resear%
purpose is ai"ed at te %o"paring %o"petiti5e ad5antages between '%Dona&d and ()*.
6nd we wi&& a5e so"e &iterature re5iew! 7uestionnaire for data %o&&e%ting! and a5e
dis%ussion for findings and suggestion.
Figure 1.1 rocess of research
!. "iterature review
6s we "ention abo5e! tere were se5era& western fast food %ains in Taiwan "any
2
Prob&e" define
8iterature re5iew
*o&&e%ting data
)inding 9 Suggestion
years ago! but now we %an on&y see a few of sur5i5ors in te "ar/et. +n so"e resear%!
we %an find so"e reasons for teir su%%ess. )or instan%e! we found '%Dona&d-s is
su%%essfu& wit teir f&e#ib&e "ar/eting strategies and :S*9; <:ua&ity! Ser5i%e!
*&eanness and ;a&ue= <>uang?Sias .u! 2000=. +n ter"s of te fa%tors wi% wi&& affe%t
%onsu"er-s bea5ior and %onsu"ing a"ount! we %an di5ide tese fa%tors in two spe%ifi%
parts: uti&itarian and e%doni%s 5a&ues. 6&so! it is found te i"pro5e"ent of uti&itarian
and e%doni% 5a&ues wi&& raise %onsu"ing a"ount.<@i?,en ,ang 9 'ing?Tsung
8ee!2005= ,en it %o"es to pri%ing ! "ost of ti"e we wi&& use pri%e re&ated strategies to
raise sa&es 5o&u"e or a"ount .owe5er! in resear% we found %onsu"ers wo often go to
'%Dona&d wi&& not in%rease teir %onsu"ing a"ount despite '%Dona&d strategy of
%utting pri%e.

<,ei?.ua *en! *ia?*un Tsai! 2003=. +n a word! we %oose si# "aAor
fa%tors and study wat are te '%Dona&d-s %o"petiti5e ad5antages.
3
Figure !.1 Concept of research
Bn5iron"ent
)ood Se&e%tion
Taste of )ood
Pri%e
0rand +"age
Ser5i%e
*usto"ers-
6ttitude
'%Dona&d-
s or ()*-s
%o"petiti5
e
ad5antages
C
#. Methodology
3.$ Desear% .ypotesis
,en young %onsu"ers %oose te fast food restaurants! fro" te &iterature! we
se&e%ted si# fa%tors as te "aAor fa%tors! wi% are pri%e! food se&e%tions! taste of food!
en5iron"ent! ser5i%e and brand i"age. 6nd we %onsider tat e5eryone as different
be&iefs on te si# fa%tors. Tab&e des%ribes te si# ypoteses.
$able #.1 $he si% hypotheses to be verified in this research
.ypotesis$ Compared with KFC Environment is a competitive advantage
of McDonald
.ypotesis2 Compared with KFC Food Selection. is a competitive
advantage of McDonald
.ypotesis3 Compared with KFC Price is a competitive advantage of
McDonald
.ypotesisC Compared with KFC Brand Image is a competitive advantage
of McDonald
.ypotesis5 Compared with KFC Service is a competitive advantage of
McDonald
.ypotesis6 Compared with KFC aste of Food is a competitive advantage
of Macdonald
3.2 Desear% )ra"ewor/:
Tis resear% is to understand ow young %onsu"ers se&e%ted te fast food restaurants.
En te oter and! tis %an e&p te two fast food restaurants to /now teir drawba%/s
and edges for i"pro5ing and "aintaining. Te respondents a5e to be under 30 years
o&d. Te 7uestionnaire is designed base on si# ypoteses. 6fter statisti%a& ana&ysis! te
5
resu&t wi&& indi%ate if te ypoteses are %onfir"ed or reAe%ted! troug wi% te
ad5antages of two fast food restaurants and %onsu"ers- per%eption wi&& be re5ea&ed.
Figure #.1 &esearch Framewor'
3.3 Sa"p&e )ra"e
6 7uestionnaire was designed and used to 5erify te si# ypoteses and it was
%ondu%ted in .sin?*u %ity on&y. To ai" at te young %onsu"ers pur%asing bea5iors!
a&& respondents "ust be under 30 years o&d. Se5enty 7uestionnaires were p&anned to do
te ana&ysis.
3.C 'etodo&ogy
Tis resear% used 'initab as te statisti% software to ana&yFe te data are %o&&e%ted
Sur5ey
Statisti%a& 6na&ysis
Desear% )indings
*on%&usions Suggestions
6
.ypoteses
fro" te 7uestionnaires. Te "ain statisti%a& "etod is two sa"p&e t test. wi% is tested
if te "ean e#isted signifi%ant differen%e.
Signifi%ant &e5e& !"0.05.
.
(. &esults and Findings
Se5enty respondents answered te 7uestionnaires in tis resear%. )irst! we dis%ussed
G
te be&iefs of young %onsu"ers on te si# fa%tors we %oose! te resu&t was sown be&ow:
Note tat te s%ores of be&iefs is fro" 0 to 6.
5.04 5.03
4.99
4.81
5.26
5.27
0
Environment Food
Selection
Price Brand
Image
Service a!te o"
Food
Figure (.1 Histogram of )eliefs in young consumers
,at do te young %onsu"ers %are "ost3 )ro" te .istogra"! it sows tat te
young %onsu"ers %are about te ser5i%e and taste of food "ost. 'oreo5er! te
respondents s%ored te two fast food restaurants! '%Dona&ds and ()*. Note tat te
s%ore of rating is fro" 0 to $0. Te t?test was %ondu%ted by 2be&ief ti"es rating4 of
'%Dona&d as we&& as ()* and tis wou&d e&p us to %onfir" or reAe%t our ypoteses.
0ase on te resu&ts! we %ou&d understand te %o"petiti5e ad5antages of ea% fast food
restaurants. Te t?test resu&t was sown be&ow:
$able (.1 $*test for difference on si% factors
8
)a%tors 0e&ief 'ean
<0e&ief ti"es Dating=
STDD;
<0e&ief ti"es Dating=
T?5a&ue P?5a&ue
'%Dona&d ()* '%Dona&d ()*
Bn5iron"ent 5.0C 33.50 33.C6 8.05 6.2 0.0C 0.C86
)ood
Se&e%tion
5.03 33.GC 33.G6 G.08 5.59 0 0.5
Pri%e C.99 3C.00 30.8G $$.3 8.8$ 1.+1, -.-#.,
0rand
+"age
C.8$ 3C.C0 32.$6 9.G6 8.9$ $.CC 0.0G6
Ser5i%e 5.26 38.2$ 35.96 8.82 8.5$ $.5C 0.063
Taste of
)ood
5.2G 3G.66 36.G9 8.0$ G.36 0.GC 0.23$
Te statisti%a& resu&ts sow tat tere are no signifi%ant differen%e on en5iron"ent!
food se&e%tion! brand i"age! ser5i%e and taste of food and tat "eans tey are not te
%o"petiti5e ad5antages of '%Dona&d. .owe5er! te pri%e of '%Dona&d is a %o"petiti5e
ad5antage of '%Dona&d<PH0.03GIJ=. @oung %onsu"ers genera&&y %onsidered tat
'%Dona&d pro5ides a "ore reasonab&e food pri%e of food. 'oreo5er! a&"ost a&& te
standard de5iations of '%Dona&d were greater tan ()*. Ene "ore ting sou&d be
noted is tat we got a 5ery "argina& P?5a&ue on te brand i"age and ser5i%e.
*onser5ati5e&y spea/ing! brand i"age and ser5i%e %ou&d be &atent %o"petiti5e ad5antages
of '%Dona&d.
/. Conclusions and 0uggestions
9
5.$ *on%&usions
Tis resear% studies te %o"petiti5e ad5antages of two fast food restaurants!
'%Dona&d and ()*! fro" young %onsu"ers- perspe%ti5e. Troug statisti%a& test! we got
te su""ary tab&e.:
$able (.1 0ummary of hypotheses test
.ypotesis$ compared with KFC Environment is a competitive
advantage of McDonald
#e$ected
.ypotesis2 Compared with KFC Food selection is a competitive
advantage of McDonald
#e$ected
.ypotesis3 Compared with KFC Price is a competitive advantage of
McDonald
S%pported
.ypotesisC Compared with KFC Brand image is a competitive
advantage of McDonald
#e$ected
.ypotesis5 Compared with KFC Service is a competitive
advantage of McDonald
#e$ected
.ypotesis6 Compared with KFC aste of Food is a competitive
advantage of MaDonald
#e$ected
<$= ,en young %onsu"ers se&e%ted a fast food restaurant! tey %are about te
ser5i%e and taste of food "ost. +n order to in%rease te "ar/et sare of young
%onsu"ers! restaurant "anagers a5e to put p&enty of efforts on te ser5i%e and
taste of food.
<2= @oung %onsu"ers %onsider tat te '%Dona&d pro5ides a "ore reasonab&e food
pri%e tan ()*. To '%Dona&d! it-s an ad5antage against ()* and sou&d be
$0
"aintained. En te oter and! ()* sou&d do a detai& resear% about te
reason wy young %onsu"ers a5e su% per%eption about te pri%e of two
restaurants.
<3= ,e found tat e5ery fa%tor! te a&& standard de5iation of '%Dona&d were greater
tan ()*. +t possib&y "eans tat young %onsu"ers gi5e te "ore di5erse
rating on '%Dona&d.
<C= ,e got te "argina& p?5a&ue on ser5i%e and taste of food and tat %ou&d be te
&atent %o"petiti5e ad5antages of '%Dona&d.
5.2 Suggestion
Tis is Aust an e#p&orati5e resear%. Se5enty 7uestionnaires "aybe not suffi%ient to
get te pre%ise resu&ts. Bn&arge te nu"ber of te respondents is te first suggestion in
future resear%. 'oreo5er! "ost our respondents are senior ig s%oo& students! we "ay
&a%/ te opinions of %o&&ege students and oters wo are under 30 years o&d. ,y young
%onsu"ers tin/ te pri%e of '%Dona&d are "ore reasonab&e! a detai& resear% is needed.
1ppendi%23uestionnaire
$$
)irst of a&&! tan/s for your ti"e to fi&& tis 7uestionnaire wi% is used to sur5ey
te /ey fa%tors affe%ting %usto"ersK preferen%e wen tey %oose western fast food
restaurants! &i/e '%Dona&d or ()*. 6fter reading te fo&&owing 7uestions! p&ease %oose te
answers. Te i"portan%e &e5e& of te fa%tors: $?&east i"portant 2?&ess i"portant 3?
uni"portant C?5ery i"portant 5?"ore i"portant 6?"ost i"portant. B5a&uation points of
()* or '%Dona&d:$?9 points<wen one get "ore points on ea% ite"! one perfor"s better
on tat ite".=
$. ,en you %oose fast food restaurants! is 2*&ean en5iron"ent33 te fa%tor tat attra%ts
you to %onsu"e3 < =
6t '%Dona&dKs<()*=! ow "any points you wi&& gi5e te" in ter"s of %&ean
en5iron"ent3 '%Dona&d< = ()*< =
2. ,en you %oose fast food restaurants! is 2"u&tip&e %oi%es4 of food33 te fa%tor tat
attra%ts you to %onsu"e3< =
6t '%Dona&d<()*=! ow "any points you wi&& gi5e te" in ter"s of "u&tip&e %oi%es
of food3 '%Dona&d< = ()*< =
3 ,en you %oose fast food restaurants! is 2pri%e4 te fa%tor tat attra%ts you to %onsu"e3
< =
6t '%Dona&d<()*=! ow "any points you wi&& gi5e te" in ter"s of pri%e3
'%Dona&d< = ()*< =
C. ,en you %oose fast food restaurants! is 2brand4 te fa%tor tat attra%ts you to %onsu"e3
6t '%Dona&d<()*=! ow "any points you wi&& gi5e te" in ter"s of brand3< =
'%Dona&d< = ()*< =
5. ,en you %oose fast food restaurants! is 2ser5i%e 7ua&ity4 te fa%tor tat attra%ts
$2
you to %onsu"e3< =
6t '%Dona&d<()*=! ow "any points you wi&& gi5e te" in ter"s of ser5i%e 7ua&ity3
'%Dona&d< = ()*< =
6 ,en you %oose fast food restaurants! is 2food4 te fa%tor tat attra%ts you to %onsu"e3
< =
6t '%Dona&d<()*=! ow "any points you wi&& gi5e te" in ter"s of food3 '%Dona&d< =
()*< =
0a%/ground infor"ation
$.>ender: LLL"a&e!LLLfe"a&e
2.Bdu%ation degree: LLLAunior ig s%oo&! LLLsenior ig s%oo&! LLLba%e&orKs degree!
LLLL"asterKs degree! LLLdo%torKs degree
3.6ge:LLL$5M20! LLL20M25! LLL25M30! LLLabo5e 30. ,e do appre%iate for your assistan%e.
,e
benefit a &ot fro" your e&p.
$3