BFJ102,2

122

British Food Journal,Vol. 102 No. 2, 2000, pp. 122-133.# MCB University Press, 0007-070X

A look at fastfood competitionin the Philippines

Chu-Mei LiuChihlee College of Business, Panchiao City, Taipei Hsien, Taiwan, ROC

Kuang-Jung ChenDepartment of International Trade, Van Nung Institute of Technology,

Chung-Li, Taiwan, ROC

Keywords Fast-food restaurants, Product mix

Abstract The study tried to develop a product-market structure of the fast-food restaurants inthe Philippines. Using the concept of hierarchical clustering based on substitution-in-use, theinfluence of three categories of situational influence were used to modify the original choice-market mix relationship at every clustering stage. Changes in the importance of the individualcomponents of the product-service mix served as the basis of the link-up among competing fast-food restaurants.

Restaurants are part of an industry system, providing services to people awayfrom home that becomes progressively more general and broader as it movesfrom restaurants to food services to hospitality industry. It is towards thissophistication of man's basic needs and his complex life that fast-foodrestaurants emerged.

Fast-food restaurants are a breakthrough from the traditional cateringmethods and standards. They have resulted in more sophisticated operationsand styles for services. They have provided flexibility and comfort withreasonable prices. Their services are within the level that can satisfy customerswith various tastes, drives, and upbringing. Customer satisfaction has been oneof the measurable objectives of other service-oriented establishments. It is tothe satisfaction of the customer's needs that the business strives. Without thesupport of customers and satisfaction of their wants, the existences of fast-foodrestaurants would be in jeopardy. A satisfied customer would always go backto the same fast-food establishment where his wants and preferences were notmerely met but also complemented (Reyes, 1996). The satisfaction of customerpreferences, in effect, constitutes the image of the particular fast-foodrestaurant and plays an important role in the business industry.

The Philippine Star (1997) described the Filipinos as food lovers. They enjoytasty meals. They go to restaurants serving smorgasbords in a luncheon orsupper buffet offering a variety of foods and dishes. These restaurants, mostespecially, attract students. They are the group of people that regularlypatronize fast-food restaurants, which accounts for the sudden boom in thefast-food industry in the Philippines.

During the past few years, the fast-food industry in the Philippines achieveda tremendous growth, not only in Metro Manila, but also in all other areas of thecountry. This situation makes the fast-food industry in the Philippines a

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available athttp://www.emerald-library.com

A look atfastfood

competition

123

thriving ground of intense competition among the players in the industry. Priorand during the current financial crisis that hit the Asian region, patronage offast-food establishments continues to grow while there is perceived slow downin other business sectors (HRAP, 1998). Foreign-based fast-food chains joinedthe already tight roster of fast-food establishments operating in the country.How does the competitive structure of the industry now appear?

IntroductionFast-food restaurants have their own benefits, which their customers perceive.These perceived benefits are the primary reasons why they are patronized.Consumers rate these benefits or the values that they see in the product.Detailed information on the preferences of these consumers is revealed throughrepresentative samples of how they rate the importance of such benefits.Certainly, most people would like as many benefits as possible. However, therelative importance they attach to individual benefits can differ significantlyand these can be used as effective barometers in segmenting the markets.

Astute marketers have long realized that in addition to brand image, theircompany image can strongly influence consumer's behavior toward theirenterprise and its products (Kasulis and Lusch, 1981). A company's image isthe perception consumers have of its character as a result of their experiencewith it and their knowledge of and beliefs about it. Similarly, consumerpatronage of a particular retail store can also be significantly influenced bytheir perception of its image or personality. Store image may be defined as theway in which the store is defined in the shopper's mind, partly by its functionalqualities and partly by an aura of psychological attributes (Pessemier, 1980).This definition implies that the fast-food restaurant image could be derivedfrom the so-called functional attributes of price, convenience, and selection ofmenu. Variables such as architecture, interior design and advertising couldinfluence a restaurant's image as well. Therefore, consumers can developimages of fast-food restaurants regardless of whether management consciouslyattempts to project a specific image or not. For this reason, it is important formanagement to understand their image, as consumers perceive it. If theconsumers' criteria for selecting a particular restaurant from among othercompetitors can also be identified, then management can determine how therestaurant is evaluated or measured.

Markets consist of various buyers, and buyers differ in one or more respects.They may differ in their wants, resources, geographical locations, buyingattitudes, lifestyles, and buying practices. Any of these variables can be used tosegment a market. Market segmentation reveals the potential marketopportunities facing the establishment. The establishment now has to evaluatethe various segments and decide on which segment or segments to serve. Thequestion of how many segments to serve can also be addressed, either toincrease market share or develop niches, as a competitive strategy. Theestablishment, in evaluating different market segments, must look at factors

BFJ102,2

124

such as segment size and growth, segment structural attractiveness, andcompany objectives and resources. Within each segment, the establishmentneeds to develop a product-positioning strategy.

According to Kotler (1994), positioning is the act of designing the company'soffering and image so that it occupies a distinct and valued place in the targetcustomer's mind. The management of a fast-food establishment therefore,needs to describe to his customers how his store differs from current andpotential competitors. Using his store attributes, he can project an image orpersonality that directly influences the consumer patronage of the store. It isthen ultimately the consumer's perception of all the competing outfits that willdecide or establish the mode of direct or indirect competition among industryparticipants. This picture is captured in the product-market structure. It is thepurpose of this study to establish the current product-market picture of thePhilippine fast-food industry and determine the forces that are responsible forthe structural linkages.

Related literatureChase (1988) describes a restaurant as a high contact service enterprise with thefollowing characteristics:

. The service product is multidimensional and hence its quality is in theeyes of the beholder.

. The direct worker is part of the service product.

. Demand for the service is often instantaneous and hence cannot bestored.

. Because the product is generally customer initiated, an optimal balancebetween service system demand and resources is difficult to achieve.

. Changes in the capacity of the system affect the nature of the serviceproduct.

. The production schedule has a direct, personal effect on the consumer.

. Only part of the service can be kept in inventory.

. Verbal skills and knowledge of policy are usually required of the serviceworker.

. Wage payment must usually be related to labor hours spent rather thanoutput.

. It is assumed that service system capacity is at its long run level whenthe system first opens.

. A service system malfunction will have an immediate, direct effect onthe customer.

Because of the multidimensional nature of restaurant service, the application ofthe hospitality marketing mix of Renaghan (1981) appears to be imperative.The mix contains three major sub-mixes of clearly delineated but interrelated

A look atfastfood

competition

125

elements. The Product-Service Mix ± the combination of the tangible andintangible offerings of the establishment presented as its product aimed atsatisfying the needs of the target market. This mix highlights the fact thatconsumers do not perceive the product and service elements separately but as aunified whole. The Presentation Mix ± is an umbrella concept covering theelements under the firm's control that act in concert to make the total product-service offering more tangible to the consumer. In effect, managementcombines tangibles to serve as surrogates of the intangible components of theoffering. It is through the presentation mix that the firm tries to differentiate itsoffering from those of its competitors. The Communication Mix ± include allthe communications between the firm and the target market. Externalcommunication is intended to persuade the consumer to use the establishment.It is usually applied when the consumer is not actually in the establishment.Internal communications are used when the consumer is already within theestablishment and actually consuming the product.

Mazursky and Jacoby (1986) pointed out that the various determinants ofstore choice are intimately related to a store image that influences itsattracting power. Demographic characteristics, life-style characteristics, andother consumer characteristics lead to general opinions and activitiesconcerning shopping and search behavior. These consumer characteristicsalso affect the importance which they place on store attributes as theyevaluate their alternatives. The consumer's store attitudes then influencesstore choice and ultimately, the product and brand-choice decision.Satisfaction, in the process, leads to reinforcement in the store's image, whichincreases the likelihood of continued patronage and greater store loyalty(Hawkins et al., 1992).

Seldom do you hear customers categorically stating that the store's physicalplant was the basis of their choice. Yet studies show that food-servicecustomers begin to formulate opinions about a food-service operation longbefore they sample the food and beverage items. While they are still outside thephysical confines of the operation, opinions are being formulated about theexterior architecture and landscaping. These initial opinions are carried insideonce the customer has entered. They are either dispelled or reinforced by theinterior design and lighting.

All internal and external factors combine to provide the customer with a`̀ total experience''. If any part of this experience is not up to the expectations ofthe customer, the customer may not return, and may tell their friends abouttheir poor experiences (National Restaurant Association (NRA) 1994).

In the Philippines, especially in urban centers, fast-food restaurants areoften clustered along one street. Clustering is commonly explained by factorssuch as easy place association and attraction. Customers are willing to travela distance to locate the right offering and once they arrive in the locale,clustering gives them in-situ options to choose from. Availability of optionsreduces the cost of making the wrong decision, a benefit they traded for thecost of travel. NRA also found that consumers do not go far out of their way to

BFJ102,2

126

find the right fast-food restaurant. It appears that the use of a fast-foodrestaurant is attached to the urgency of the need for food, either physiologicalor social (NRA 1994).

Saavedra (1983) cited various menus being offered by fast food restaurantsas the main reason, aside from excellent service and ambience, that make one'smeal truly worthwhile.

Kotler (1994) opines that atmospherics affect purchase behavior by acting asan attention-getting, message-creating, or emotion-creating medium.

Understanding a buyer's needs and buying behavior is better achieved byknowing the reasons why people dine outside the home. Records of thePhilippine Hotel and Restaurant Association indicate that Filipinos commonlycite the following reasons for dining outside their home.

. A treat.

. Business requires it.

. Celebrate special occasions.

. Change of pace.

. Convenient.

. Enjoy good food.

. For food not usually available at home.

. Good way to entertain guest.

. Good way to relax.

. Nobody has to cook or clean up.

. Prices are reasonable.

. Spouse requests to eat out.

. Whole family enjoys themselves.

Lovelock (1983) cited that the restaurant's nature of service delivery isconsidered as a discrete transaction. The marketers tend to be less informedabout who their customers are and what use each customer makes of theservice. The extent to which service characteristics are customized is high.However, the extent to which customer-contact personnel exercise judgment inmeeting an individual customer's needs is low. The extent of demandfluctuation over time is wide and peak demand regularly exceeds capacity. Tocomplicate things further, the purchase and consumption situation exerts aninfluence on consumer decision making.

Belk (1974) identified five groups of situational influences:

(1) Physical surroundings ± the most readily apparent features of asituation. These features include geographical and institutional location,deÂcor, sounds, aromas, lighting, weather, and visible configurations ofmerchandise or the material surrounding the stimulus object.

A look atfastfood

competition

127

(2) Social surroundings ± provide additional depth to a description. Otherpersons present, their characteristics and their apparent roles.

(3) Temporal perspective ± dimension of situation, which may be specifiedin units ranging from time of day to season of the year.

(4) Task definition ± the feature that includes an intent or requirement toselect, shop for/or obtain information about a general or specificpurchase.

(5) Antecedent states ± the momentary moods or momentary conditions.

Fast-food restaurants and customers do not exist in a vacuum but areembedded in an environment. Studies found evidence indicating that theintended or anticipated use of the product, the functions to be served, theapplication/consumption context, or in general the usage situation, influencethe choice among products/brands and, consequently, substitutability. It is tothis premise that this study concerned itself in the establishment of acompetitive picture of the fast-food restaurants operating in Metro-Manila.

MethodologyThis study capitalized on the approach of Srivastava et al. (1981, 1984) inestablishing the product-market structure of financial services. A slightmodification of the analysis, however, is necessary in order to capture thedifferences of the influence of Belk's situational influences.

In the estimation of the beta coefficient of the different independent variables(attributes and features of the fast-food restaurant) used to influence fast-foodrestaurant choice, stage-wise multiple regression was used. Initially, choice wasregressed with the situational variables. Step-wise regression was done in orderto determine the strength or degree of influence of the different groups ofsituational influences and only those significant will be utilized in the stage-wise regression stage.

Having established the sequence of the introduction of the situationalvariables, the development of the product-market structure was undertaken.The initial regression run was executed using simultaneously only the tenvariables used to describe the fast-food restaurant product-service mix, namely:fast and quick service; good value for money; food taste/flavor; variety of foodofferings; music and noise level; attractive deÂcor; atmosphere and ambience;promotional gimmicks and items; friendly and pleasant staff, and cleanlinessand neatness. It must be noted that it is through these variables that thecompeting firms try to differentiate their offerings to the consumers. It istherefore expected that each fast-food restaurant will endeavor to present aunique image or distinctive profile. In order to capture this concept a separateregression run was done for each restaurant.

Temporal variables (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) were then included in theevaluation of the choice of each restaurant. Hierarchical clustering of the

BFJ102,2

128

restaurant was done using the beta coefficients as a basis for the clusteringprocedure. The first restaurants joined by the clustering procedure were treatedas a single unit in the succeeding step.

Social surrounding variables (alone, with friends, with clients) were includedin the next regression analysis of the individual restaurants, including thejoined firms in the previous stage, now taken as a single restaurant. Again,with the beta coefficients as a basis, another hierarchical clustering wasundertaken. The foregoing steps were repeated in the inclusion of taskdefinitional (socialization, business, celebration) variables.

The data used in the forgoing analysis was generated through a surveyusing flash cards. A total of 1,365 respondents were randomly selected indifferent fast-food restaurants situated in Metro Manila using the list takenfrom the Department of Trade and Industry and Hotel and RestaurantAssociation of the Philippines as reference.

The importance of the product-service mix variables in the choice of fast-food restaurants was elicited by the first set of cards shown to the respondents.In the second set of cards, the respondents were requested to identify (write) atleast five fast-food restaurants they usually patronize. Thereafter, these cardswere used in assessing choice when a particular situation was present. Therespondents were requested to arrange the cards in descending priority when asituation was given. A total of 156 fast-food restaurants were identified. In thefinal analysis, however, only 26 brand names were used. Fast-food restaurantsthat did not meet the necessary number (50) needed in the regression analysiswere dropped from the list. Likewise, similar franchised brand names located indifferent places were consolidated as one brand.

ResultsIndividual regression was done on each destination and the coefficient servedas inputs in the hierarchical cluster analysis undertaken using averagelinkage between groups as criteria. Agglomeration normally results in thereduction of the amount of variation explained by a model. To determine theappropriate tradeoff level, regression analysis was done for each stage ofagglomeration. The fast-food restaurants appearing in the Cluster 2 columnor Table I were not included in the analysis for the specific stage. EstimatedR-squared values were transformed into unexplained variances and plotted tovisualize the location of the `̀ elbow'' point (Hair et al., 1995). The elbowoccurred at nine clusters, equivalent to the 17th stage of the agglomerationprocess (Figure 1).

At the cut-off point, six fast-food restaurants remain unattached and theother three clusters were generated as results of the tie-up of several fast-foodrestaurants. Cluster 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9, contain only one fast-food restaurant andall of them are franchised brands and have branches inside shopping malls. Itappears that loyal customers patronize these fast-food restaurants. Theimportance attached by the customers to fast and quick service, music andnoise level, attractive decor, atmosphere and ambience, promotional gimmicks

A look atfastfood

competition

129

and items, friendly and pleasant staff, and cleanliness and neatness changed invarious directions depending on the situational context that entered the model.However, good value for money, food taste/flavor and variety of food offeringspractically remain unchanged. It does appear that the perception of thecustomers relative to these three attributes provides a unique identity for thefranchised group of fast-food restaurant. This perception remains unchangedregardless of the situation context present.

Clusters combined Stage cluster first appearsStage Cluster 1* Cluster 2* Coefficient Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Next stage

1 Brand 1 Brand 1 120.1679 0 0 32 Brand 2 Brand 2 152.1355 0 0 83 Brand 3 Brand 3 431.7078 0 1 54 Brand 4 Brand 4 1,003.4598 0 0 55 Brand 5 Brand 5 1,460.0529 4 3 66 Brand 6 Brand 6 2,961.1577 5 0 107 Brand 7 Brand 7 3,436.3215 0 0 98 Brand 8 Brand 8 3,751.3496 0 2 159 Brand 9 Brand 9 4,470.4849 7 0 17

10 Brand 10 Brand 10 6,146.7056 0 6 1211 Brand 11 Brand 11 6,155.7632 0 0 1312 Brand 12 Brand 12 8,440.8389 10 0 1413 Brand 13 Brand 13 8,930.8828 0 11 1414 Brand 14 Brand 14 10,430.2549 12 13 1515 Brand 15 Brand 15 14,278.8408 14 8 1816 Brand 16 Brand 16 14,600.7510 0 0 2017 Brand 17 Brand 17 15,968.3545 9 0 1918 Brand 18 Brand 18 17,593.6543 15 0 2019 Brand 19 Brand 19 20,504.8047 0 17 2220 Brand 20 Brand 20 21,242.9102 18 16 2121 Brand 21 Brand 21 27,486.2246 20 0 2222 Brand 22 Brand 22 32,641.5996 21 19 2323 Brand 23 Brand 23 44,443.8281 22 0 2524 Brand 24 Brand 24 54,835.1797 0 0 2525 Brand 25 Brand 25 88,964.8516 24 23 0

Notes: * For consistency actual names are disguised because of the request of the firms

Table I.Agglomeration

schedule using averagelinkage (between

groups)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

01 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Number of Clusters

1-R

2

Elbow point

Figure 1.

BFJ102,2

130

Cluster 7 consists of fast-food restaurants under the sub-grouping called`̀ carenderias'' popularly known as `̀ turo-turo''. During the introduction of thetemporal situation variable Brands 24, 25, 11, 4, 26 and 10 joined togetherforming subgroup A. Brands 16 and 17 were separately linked forming sub-group B. In the succeeding clustering iteration, Brand 2 was linked to sub-group A and Brand 6 linked up with sub-group B. Sub-group C was generatedthrough the link-up of Brands 9 and 14. During the next clustering iteration,Brand 15 linked up with sub-group A, Brand 7 joined subgroup C. When socialsurroundings were included in the modeling process, all the three sub-groupswere linked as one cluster.

Fast and quick service, food taste/flavor, variety of food offerings, andfriendly and pleasant staff are the variables responsible for the joining of thecarenderias into subgroups. Changes in the coefficients relative to variety ofthe food offerings cause the delay in the link-up of the other brands. Andvalue of money was responsible for the final link-up of the subgroups to formCluster 7.

Another point worth mentioning regarding the initial grouping of the fast-food restaurant in sub-groups A and B is the fact that all start serving theircustomers at breakfast time. Furthermore, the firms in subgroup A during theinitial formation are near each other. This tends to show that location and timeof operation appear to be factors to reckon with.

Brands 5, 22, 12 and 20 are fast-food restaurants that operate on a 24-hourbasis. They are all situated in areas near hospitals or at junctions of mainroads. Basically, their cleanliness and neatness, music and noise level,attractive deÂcor, atmosphere and ambience, and friendly and pleasant staffstand out as variables responsible for the link-up.

Brand 8 and 21 are fast-food restaurants situated in a sort of mobile-typevenue. Brand 21 operates on a 24-hour basis. Cleanliness and neatness andfriendly and pleasant staff are the variables that linked them up and at thesame time separates them from the carenderias.

Overall, social surroundings greatly affected the importance of good valuefor money, food taste/flavor, variety of food offerings, music and noise level,attractive deÂcor, atmosphere and ambience, friendly and pleasant staff, andcleanliness and neatness. The common tendency is an increase in theimportance of these variables as the situation changes from alone, to withfriends and highest if with clients.

With the inclusion of task definition in the model, minimal increase in theimportance of the following variables was registered: food taste/flavor, varietyof food offerings, music and noise level, attractive deÂcor, atmosphere andambience, friendly and pleasant staff, and cleanliness and neatness. Speed ofservice is also affected.

The final product-market structure of the fast-food restaurant using therescaled distance cluster combine is presented in Figure 2. As one moves fromthe left side of the figure to the right, the scales show that the distance between

A look atfastfood

competition

131

the clusters increases and the degree of substitution between groups becomesweaker. The number of fast-food restaurants in a cluster however alsoincreases, making direct competition among these restaurants within thecluster tighter.

Brand 19

Brand 24

Brand 25

Brand 11

Brand 4

Brand 26

Brand 10

Brand 2

Brand 15

Brand 9

Brand 14

Brand 7

Brand 16

Brand 17

Brand 6

Brand 13

Brand 8

Brand 21

Brand 23

Brand 5

Brand 22

Brand 12

Brand 20

Brand 3

Brand 18

Brand 1

Elbow point

Figure 2.Product-market

structure of Philippinefast-food restaurant

BFJ102,2

132

Conclusion and managerial implicationsThe structure established shows the relative picture of the competitivesituation of the fast-food restaurants in Metro Manila, Philippines. Theapparent easy start-up of carenderias generated the tightness of thecompetition in this sub-group of fast-food restaurants. Since the franchisedbrands are normally supported financially, loyalty and apparent service to aparticular niche enhance their ability to create good images that result in astrong customer loyalty.

Although a product market structure was successfully established, the useof approaches that can capture the interactions among situation, person, andproduct factors, might produce an improved picture. This is particularly sobecause it is possible that a simultaneous situation could occur or multiple usesof the fast-food restaurant can also happen. As such, it might be necessary torelax the one membership rule and allow the presence of overlapping clusters.

References

Belk, R.W. (1974), `̀ An exploratory assessment of situational effects in buyer behavior'', Journalof Marketing Research, May.

Chase, R.B. (1988), `̀ The customer contact approach to services: theoretical bases and practicalextension'', in Lovelock, C. (Ed.), Managing Services: Marketing Operations and HumanResources, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data AnalysisWith Readings, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hawkins, D.I., Best, R. and Coney, K.A. (1992), Consumer Behavior: Implications for MarketingStrategy, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.

HRAP Bulletin (1998).

Kasulis, J.J. and Lusch, R.F. (1981), `̀ Validating the retail store image concept'', Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Fall.

Kotler, P. (1994), Marketing Management, 8th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Lovelock, C.H. (1983), `̀ Classifying service to gain strategic marketing insights'', Journal ofMarketing, Summer.

Mazursky, D. and Jacoby, J. (1986), `̀ Exploring the development of store images'', Journal ofRetailing, Summer.

National Restaurant Association (1994), Fast Food Restaurant Survey, Fast Food RestaurantAssociation of the Philippines.

Pessemier, E.A. (1980), `̀ Store image and positioning'', Journal of Retailing, Spring.

(The) Philippine Star (1997), www.philstar.com

Renaghan, L.M. (1981), `̀ New marketing mix for the hospitality industry'', The Cornell Hotel andRestaurant Administrative Quarterly, August.

Reyes, M. (1996), HRAP Bulletin.

Saavedra, R. (1983), `̀ The marketing strategies of fast food restaurants: an analysis'',(unpublished).

Srivastava, R., Alpert, M.I. and Shocker, A.D. (1984), `̀ A customer-oriented approach fordetermining market structures'', Journal of Marketing, Spring.

Srivastava, R., Leone, R.P. and Shocker, A.D. (1981), `̀ A market structure analysis: hierarchicalclustering of products based on substitution-in-use'', Journal of Marketing, Summer.

A look atfastfood

competition

133

Further reading

Anonuevo, M.V.E. (1984), Principles of Marketing Management, National Book Store, Manila.

Backus, H. (1977), Designing Restaurant Interiors: A Guide for Food Service Operators, Lebhar-Friedman, New York, NY.

Dickson, P. (1982), `̀ Person-situation: segmentation's missing link'', Journal of Marketing, Fall.

Dillion, W.R., Madden, T.J. and Firtle, N.H. (1984), Marketing Research in MarketingEnvironment, Times Mirrow/Mosby College Publishing, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Firnstahl, T.W. (1989), `̀ My employees are my service guarantee'', Harvard Business Review, Julyand August.

George, W.R. (1977), `̀ The retailing of services ± a challenging future'', Journal of Retailing, Fall.

Heskett, J.L. (1987), `̀ Lesson in the service sector'', Harvard Business Review, March-April.

Kotler, P. (1974), `̀ Atmospherics as a marketing tool'', Journal of Retailing, Winter.

Lambert, C. (1981), `̀ Environmental design: the food-service manager's role'', The Cornell Hoteland Restaurant Quarterly, May.

Leigh, J.H. and Martin, C.K. Jr (1981), `̀ A review of situational influence paradigms and research'',in Enis, B. and Roering, K. (Eds), Review of Marketing, American Marketing Association,Chicago, IL.

Milliman, R.E. (1986), `̀ Influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons'',Journal of Consumer Research, September.

Philippine Agribusiness and Food Market (1996), Green Pages Publishing Corporation.

Schmenner, R.W. (1986), `̀ How can service businesses survive and prosper?'', Sloan ManagementReview, Spring.

Surprenant, C.F. and Solomon, M.R. (1987), `̀ Predictability and personalization in the serviceencounter'', Journal of Marketing, April.