RS

This article was downloaded by: [PERI Pakistan]
On: 17 January 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 778684090]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Foodservice Business Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792304001
The Impact of Product and Service Quality on Brand Loyalty

Allen Z. Reicha; Ken W. McClearyb; Yodmanee Tepanonb; Pamela A. Weaverb
a
School of Hotel and Restaurant Management, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA b
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
To cite this Article Reich, Allen Z. , McCleary, Ken W. , Tepanon, Yodmanee and Weaver, Pamela A.(2006) 'The Impact of
Product and Service Quality on Brand Loyalty', Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 8: 3, 35 — 53
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1300/J369v08n03_04
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J369v08n03_04
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The Impact of Product
and Service Quality on Brand Loyalty:
An Exploratory Investigation
of Quick-Service Restaurants
Allen Z. Reich
Ken W. McCleary
Yodmanee Tepanon
Downloaded By: [PERI Pakistan] At: 09:49 17 January 2011
Pamela A. Weaver
ABSTRACT. An exploratory study was conducted to examine the im-

pact of product quality and service quality on attitude- and behav-
ior-based brand loyalty for quick-service restaurants. A total of 175
respondents were surveyed. The results showed that quick-service res-
taurants need to be more concerned with product quality especially in
taste, freshness, and temperature, and focus on their overall service qual-
ity to build brand loyalty. Moreover, the results from correlation tests
show that brand loyalty for one brand may affect brand loyalty towards
another brand. The restaurants considered were McDonald’s, Burger
King and Wendy’s. doi:10.1300/J369v08n03_04 [Article copies available
for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH.
E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.
HaworthPress.com> © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
Allen Z. Reich, PhD, is Associate Professor, School of Hotel and Restaurant Man-
agement, Northern Arizona University, PO Box 5638, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 (E-mail:
allen.reich@nau.edu).
Ken W. McCleary, PhD, (E-mail: mccleary@vt.edu), is Professor, Yodmanee
Tepanon, is a PhD candidate, and Pamela A. Weaver, PhD, is Professor. All are at De-
partment of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Virginia Tech, 353 Wallace Hall,
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0429.
Journal of Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 8(3) 2005
Available online at http://jfbr.haworthpress.com
© 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J369v08n03_04 35
36 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH
KEYWORDS. Brand loyalty, fast food, quick-service restaurant, prod-

uct quality, service quality
INTRODUCTION
In today’s competitive environment, it is vital for a company (and its

brands) to know what customers desire and if the company is satisfying
those desires. Studies have shown that, for most products, there is a sig-
nificant relationship between customer satisfaction and brand loyalty
(Aaker, 1996; Pritchard, Havitz, & Howard, 1999; Pritchard & Havitz,
1997), and brand loyalty is a predictor of market share and profit, the ul-
timate goal for most companies (Baldinger & Rubinson, 1997). It is dif-
ficult enough to attract new customers but retaining current customers
can be challenging as well. Customer retention means higher profits.
According to Reichheld and Sasser (1990), a five percent retention can
lead to as much as an 85% increase in profit in some industries. When
customers are retained, resources for advertising and promoting can be
allocated for other matters, such as developing new products, expand-
ing the number of restaurant units, or transferred directly to the bottom
line. More importantly, when a company maintains costumers’ loyalty,
revenues should be more stable and ones’ reputation as a strong company
is more likely.
Bearing in mind the importance of brand loyalty, an exploratory
study was designed to examine the influence of perceptions of product
quality and service quality on attitude- and behavior-based brand loy-
alty in a quick-service restaurant (see Figure 1). In particular, a goal of
this study was to determine if product quality and service quality are
predictors of brand loyalty in quick-service restaurants and if so, their
relative strength. Three quick-service restaurant brands, McDonald’s,
Burger King, and Wendy’s, were compared based on the level of cus-
tomer brand loyalty they attracted. The basis for using these restaurants
was that each is large and therefore well known, frequented by a high
percentage of consumers, and often viewed as alternatives to each other
(Hill, 2004). This will ideally lead to more valid responses.
The paper begins with a review of literature relating to attitude-based
brand loyalty and behavior-based brand loyalty measures, product qual-
ity and service quality. Then, the methodology of the study is discussed.
Finally, results, implications and conclusions along with limitations and
recommendations are presented.
Reich et al. 37
FIGURE 1. Roles of Product and Service Quality on Brand Loyality: An Explor-

atory Investigation of Quick Service Restaurants
Behavioral
Brand
Product Quality Image Loyalty
PQ BBL
SQ ABL
Service Quality Image Attitudinal

Brand
Loyalty
LITERATURE REVIEW
Brand Loyalty
Two common reasons why people buy from certain firms/brands are
that they do not have alternatives or they have a high personal prefer-
ence for the brand (Zins, 2001). A brand represents promises of prod-
ucts or services offered by the company to its customers, and if it
delivers on its promises, loyalty is likely to occur. If a brand cannot pro-
vide satisfaction, customers may never purchase products represented
by that brand again. Research has found that a company must spend five
times as much to win a new customer than to retain ones it already has
(Hofmeyr & Rice, 2000). For a company to succeed, the most important
number is not first time customers, but those who are repeat purchasers
(Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978).
The concept of brand loyalty was introduced more than half a century
ago and has been explored by a number of researchers. Nevertheless,
this concept is still controversial in academia. According to Jacoby and
Chestnut (1978), the first empirical investigation actually looking at
brand loyalty was conducted in 1930 by the Psychological Corporation
to monitor the market share of roughly 1,500 different brands (Jacoby &
Chestnut, 1978).
Brand loyalty is defined in various ways by different researchers.

Jacoby and Kyner (1973) defined brand loyalty as, “(1) The biased (i.e.,
nonrandom), (2) behavioral response (i.e., purchase), (3) expressed
over time, (4) by some decision-making unit, (5) with respect to one or
more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, and (6) is a function
of psychological (decision making evaluative) process” (Jacoby &
Kyner, 1973, p. 2). Tidwell and Horgan (1992, p. 346) suggested brand
loyalty is expressed as “a portion of repeat purchase behavior that finds
a basis in terms of internally stored structures of information: brand-re-
lated beliefs, states of affect, and behavior-based intentions.” Teas and
Grapentine (1996) note that brand loyalty simplifies the purchase deci-
sion process by not only lessening the need for information acquisition,
but also by limiting the number of firms in the consideration set and the
inherent risk of the purchase. Similarly, Zeithaml and Bitner (2003)
describe brand loyalty as a means of economizing decision effort by sub-
stituting habit for repeated, deliberate decisions which acts as a means
for reducing decision risk. Another straightforward explanation of brand
loyalty is that it is “the tendency of someone to buy a brand again and
again because they prefer it over others” (Hofmeyr & Rice, 2000, p. 86).
Two different philosophies have been adapted to further look at
brand loyalty: the stochastic approach and the deterministic approach.
The stochastic approach suggests that buyer behavior is difficult to clar-
ify because of a strong random component underlying basic changes in
the market (Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978). Therefore, loyal behavior is con-
sidered to be beyond human logical understanding and a company is un-
able to influence purchase behavior as it knows nothing about the cause
of this behavior (Odin, Odin, & Valette-Florence, 2001). The determin-
istic approach tries to derive explanations for customer loyalty. Repeat
behavior does not only occur by chance but also by some patterns that
can be explicated by factors or causes (Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978). Iner-
tia is also involved when looking at repeat purchase behavior. Inertia is
the repeat purchasing of the same brands without real motive and is
quite different from purchase due to overt preference for product char-
acteristics (Odin et al., 2001).
Attitude- and Behavior-Based Brand Loyalty
Researchers have attempted to apply and test measurements that might

accurately identify the level of brand loyalty of customers (Chaudhuri &
Holbrook, 2001; Burgess and Harris, 1998; Chaudhuri, 1999; Dick &
Basu, 1999; Iwasaki & Havitz, 2000; Oppermann, 2000; Pritchard,
Reich et al. 39
Havitz, & Howard, 1999). However, in one of the most cited sources on
brand loyalty, Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) wrote that even though there
had been considerable research into brand loyalty, measurement of the
construct was questionable.
A problem with measuring brand loyalty is that people do not neces-
sarily buy products because they are loyal to those brands. Perhaps, there
are only certain brands available in the customers’ area or there may be
only certain brands customers can afford (Hofmeyr & Rice, 2000). A
consumer’s attitude is often studied to measure its impact on purchase
behavior. These attitudes can also be used to determine preference, in-
tention, (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), loyalty (Chaudhuri, 1999), and
brand equity (Keller, 1993). While behavior involves an explicit action,
by a certain target market, often in a certain context and time, intention

and preference are successively more ambiguous, with intention being a
consumer’s expressed likelihood of purchase and preference being an
attitude designating a consumer’s affinity toward one brand relative to
other brands. Brand loyalty expresses various measures of both brand
attitudes and purchase habits. Brand equity concerns the added value of
firm’s name, based on brand knowledge, awareness, and image.
Studies of attitudinal brand loyalty tend to be based on inferences
from what people say rather than what people actually do (Farr &
Hollis, 1997). In contrast, behavioral loyalty measures are frequently
based on patterns of actual customer purchases (Rundle-Thiele & Mackay,
2001), although intent to purchase can be used as a substitute for actual
behavior. Numerous studies have also utilized surveys to measure be-
havioral brand loyalty by asking the respondents how frequently they
purchased certain products or services, relying on consumer recall
rather than tracking actual purchases (Reynolds & Arnolds, 2000; Prit-
chard et al., 1999).
Pritchard and Howard (1997) found that truly loyal travelers (high
levels of both behavioral- and attitude-based brand loyalty) were most
satisfied with the quality of services provided, followed by latently loyal
travelers (low levels of behavioral and high levels of attitudinal brand
loyalty). Their work, along with that of Aaker (1996), and Pritchard et
al. (1999) supports the hypotheses that product quality and service qual-
ity lead to brand loyalty.
It is difficult to build customer loyalty in the restaurant industry, es-
pecially in the quick-service restaurant where loyalty can be fleeting
and is often based on the best deal (Reich, 1997). Building customer
loyalty may be even more difficult for larger chains in the quick-service
sector. One study showed that big brands such as McDonald’s and Bur-
ger King have lower brand loyalty than other, smaller chains (Nation’s
Restaurant News, 2003). Often, food is not the only reason customers
pick a restaurant (Leung, 2003). For example, the restaurant’s environ-
ment, its quality and speed of service, cleanliness, value, and promo-
tions can impact selection. Taylor and Long-Tolbert (2002) found that
customers who used coupons were more likely to return to the same res-
taurant. Coupon promotions tend to place the restaurant in a better posi-
tion in the customers’ evoked set (Taylor & Long-Tolbert, 2002). In
pizza restaurants, this relationship between coupons and repeat pur-
chase was shown to be especially true for certain demographic groups
(Wilbourn, McCleary, & Phakdeesuparit, 1997).
Product and Service Quality
If customers have preferences for specific brands and are inclined to

repurchase products carrying those brands, the brands must have satis-
fied customers or outperformed other brands in some ways. Therefore, a
company needs to understand and learn about its customers to achieve
customer retention. According to Hoisington and Naumann (2003),
“customers use five major categories to value a company or organiza-
tion’s performance: (tangible) product quality, service quality, quality
of relationship between customer and supplier, image, and price percep-
tion. For a tangible product, quality might include features, usability, or
compatibility. For a service offering, this would include the various di-
mensions of the service being provided (Hoisington & Naumann, 2003,
p. 34).” The general term, product, is often used as the inclusive term for
a brand’s offerings, whether they be tangible products or intangible
services (Hellofs & Jacobson, 1999).
While the focus of this research is the quick-service restaurant, the at-
tributes used to measure various features of this and other industry seg-
ments (i.e., table service restaurants, such as casual dining or fine
dining) are not mutually exclusive. For example, the taste of a food
product, courtesy of employees and cleanliness of the facility would be
applicable to the majority of restaurants, regardless of the type of
concept. For any business, quality would be assessed based on each
consumer’s attitude toward a product and its comparison with other prod-
ucts in the customer’s evoked set (Zeithaml, 1988).
Product quality is often conceptualized differently in different fields
and for different types of products. For example, product quality is
sometimes expressed simply as product attributes in marketing and eco-
nomics while it may represent multiple dimensions to researchers in
Reich et al. 41
operations (Wang, Lo, & Hui, 2003). Oh and Jeong (1996) listed some
attributes for assessing product quality in the foodservice industry.
These included tastiness of food, food quality, portion size, ingredient
freshness, temperature of food, and price of food. The quality of product
attributes is pivotal when the core offerings are tangible products. When
the core offering is an amalgamation of services and tangibles, service
quality also plays an important role and is often viewed as having the
highest degree of conceptual variation in quality (Zins, 2001). The issue
of service quality has drawn much attention from researchers especially
since the work of Parasuraman, Barry, and Zeithaml (1988) in develop-
ing the SERVQUAL scale. Very important to the quick-service market
are the intangible or service quality attributes, such as quick food
delivery, no waiting, employee attitude, employees’ greeting, respon-

siveness, and menu item availability (Oh & Jeong, 1996).
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
To determine whether (tangible) product quality and service quality

are related to brand loyalty, five hypotheses were developed.
H1: There is a positive relationship between the perception of

product quality and behavioral brand loyalty toward a quick-ser-
vice restaurant.
H2: There is a positive relationship between the perception of ser-

vice quality and behavioral brand loyalty toward a quick-service
restaurant.
H3: There is a positive relationship between the perception of

product quality and attitudinal brand loyalty toward a quick-ser-
vice restaurant.
H4: There is a positive relationship between the perception of ser-

vice quality and attitudinal brand loyalty toward a quick-service
restaurant.
H5: Strong attitudinal brand loyalty towards one quick-service

restaurant will negatively correlate with the attitudinal brand loy-
alty towards other quick-service restaurants.
METHODOLOGY
Four constructs were measured in this study: attitudinal brand loy-

alty, behavioral brand loyalty, product quality, and service quality. The
scales that comprise the dependent variables, attitudinal brand loyalty,
and behavioral brand loyalty, were adapted from studies by Reynolds
and Arnold (2000); Pritchard, Havitz, and Howard (1999); Chaudhuri
and Holbrook (2001); and Ganesh, Arnold, and Reynolds (2000). The
practice of adapting scales is acceptable as long as the original scale was
appropriately developed and tested, and the modification does not sig-
nificantly nor theoretically alter the underlying structure of the original
scale (Rawwas, Vitell, & Al-Khatib, 1994).
Reynolds and Arnold (2000) studied the relationship between sales-

person and store loyalty. Store loyalty was found to promote word-
of-mouth promotions, satisfaction was an antecedent of store loyalty,
and salesperson loyalty was positively correlated to store loyalty. Be-
havioral store loyalty was measured with a four-item scale that achieved
a reliability coefficient of .80. The items included: (1) I am very loyal to
(store name), (2) and (3) share of purchases (two items) (the two items
were not explicitly provided, but based on the research of others, this
was likely based on the ratio of total purchases to store purchases), and
(4) I shop at other stores if the price is lower (Reynolds & Arnold
(2000). Pritchard et al. (1999) found that the role of commitment is
highly correlated with customer loyalty. Their attitude-based brand loy-
alty construct was measured by four items: (1) I consider myself to be a
loyal patron of XYZ airline; (2) If I had to do it over again, I would fly
with another airline; (3) I try to fly with XYZ airline because it is the
best choice for me; and (4) To me, XYZ is the same as other airlines
(Pritchard et al., 1999). Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) divided brand
loyalty into purchase (behavioral) loyalty and attitude-based loyalty.
Behavioral loyalty was operationalized as “I will buy this brand the next
time I buy (product name) and I intend to keep purchasing this brand.”
The attitude-based brand loyalty was measured by, “I am committed to
this brand and I would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand
over other brands” (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).
From the above research, three items based on suitability for this re-
search were selected to measure each type of brand loyalty (see Table 1).
The wording of the scales was modified to be compatible with the
quick-service restaurant industry and then tested for content validity.
The summated scores on each set of three scales were used as the de-
pendent variables.
Reich et al. 43
TABLE 1. Dependent Variables for Measuring the Attitude-and Behavior-Based

Brand Loyalty
Dependent Variables Scale Type Modified From

Attitudinal brand loyalty (ABL)
1. I am very loyal to brand X Likert-type scale ranging Reynolds and Arnolds
from 1-7 (2000), Pritchard et al.
2. I would highly recommend (1 = Disagree completely (1999),
brand X to my friends and 7 = Agree completely Chaudhuri and Holbrook
3. I would continue to dine at (2001). Ganesh, Arnold,
brand X even if the price was and Reynolds (2000)
higher
Behavioral brand loyalty (BBL)
1. Of the times you purchase 0-9%, Reynolds and Arnolds

fast food, approximately what 10%-25%, (2000),
percentage is at brand X? 25%-40%, Chaudhuri and Holbrook
(This scale was converted to 40%-55%, (2001)
a 7-point scale for the final 55%-70%,
analysis) 70%-85%,
85%-100%
2. In the future, I intend to keep Likert type scale ranging
buying from brand X from 1 to7
(1 = Very unlikely and
3. The next time you go to a fast 7 = Very likely)
food restaurant, how likely is it to
be brand X?
The independent variables are product quality and service quality.

The scale items used were drawn from Oh and Jeong’s (1996) compre-
hensive study of consumer market segments for quick-service restau-
rants. Their attributes were derived from 19 items used by National
Restaurant Association Research and appear to be one of the most com-
prehensive lists in hospitality research (Oh & Jeong, 1996). Based on
factor analysis, the 19 variables loaded on product quality, service
quality, amenity, appearance, and convenience. The same five items
from Oh and Jeong’s product loading were used to measure product
quality (tastiness of food, portion size, ingredient freshness, tempera-
ture of food, and price of food). Oh and Jeong measured “price of food”
based on the customer’s expected level of performance relative to the
ideal level of performance. To improve face validity (the respondent’s
understanding of the question) and because product quality is the con-
struct being measured, the “price of food” item will be measured rela-
tive to quality. That is, “price of food” was replaced with the product’s
value position–“value” (e.g., I received my money’s worth). In essence,
this is what the authors state they are measuring. “Overall Food Qual-
ity” was added as a test of convergent validity and to offer respondents a

more general option.
Service quality was also measured utilizing attributes modified from
Oh and Jeong’s (1996) study. The four variables which loaded on the
service quality factor in the Oh and Jeong (1996) study were considered
(quick food delivery, employees’ greeting, responsiveness, and em-
ployee attitude). The item labeled “responsiveness” was not used be-
cause it was felt that “quick food delivery” from the service factor and
“no waiting,” an item that loaded on convenience (a related service fac-
tor) encompass “responsiveness,” at least in the eyes of the consumer.
Other items that loaded on convenience, including menu availability,
dining room temperature, and convenient location were eliminated for
various reasons, including infrequency of occurrence in the case of

menu availability and room temperature problems, and the abundance
of locations of the restaurants under consideration (McDonald’s, Bur-
ger King, and Wendy’s). Items that loaded on amenity and appearance
were not used as it was felt that they did not directly relate to the present
study (i.e., spaciousness, comfortable seating, and so forth). A fourth
variable, “overall service quality,” was added primarily as a test of con-
vergent validity, but also to allow respondents a general/overall option.
Table 2 includes the scale items used to measure product quality and
service quality in this study.
TABLE 2. Independent Variables for Measuring Product and Service Quality
Independent Variables Scale Type Modified from

Product quality
1. Tastiness of food Likert type scale ranging Oh and Jeong (1996)
from 1 to 7 (1 = Very low
2. Portion size performance and
3. Ingredient freshness 7 = Very high performance)
4. Temperature of food
5. Value
6. Overall Food quality
Service quality
1. Quick food delivery Likert type scale ranging Oh and Jeong (1996)
from 1 to 7 (1 = Very low
2. No waiting performance and
3. Employees’ greeting 7 = Very high performance)
4. Employee attitude
5. Overall service quality
Reich et al. 45
The instrument was pretested with a sample of 90 students in hospi-

tality management classes at a university in the Southwestern United
States. The reliability of the scales was examined and the results were
satisfactory. The alpha scores for attitudinal brand loyalty, behavioral
brand loyalty, product quality, and service quality were .84, .85, .83,
and .79, respectively. According to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994),
modest reliability is .7 and .8 is preferred when important decisions will
be based on the results of the research. Therefore, the scales were con-
sidered acceptable to use in this exploratory study.
Content and face validity were accomplished through the reviews of
experts in scale construction (academic faculty members) and input
from consumers (students and academic staff). Convergent validity was
examined internally by testing the correlation of single-item scales that

measure attitudinal brand loyalty, behavioral brand loyalty, product
quality, and service quality. The variables in each scale highly correlate
with each other (p < .01), hence convergent validity was supported. The
sampling plan selected was a convenience sample. Rallapalli, Vitell,
Wiebe, and Barnes (1994) wrote that convenience samples are acceptable
as long as the study is exploratory and the respondents are familiar with
the questions being asked. Since this is a new model and exploratory in
nature, it is also more efficient to test it first on a convenience sample
before testing it with more expensive mail survey on a probability or
random sample.
RESULTS
A total of 175 surveys were collected for the actual study. Eighty-five
surveys were collected from shoppers at a grocery store and a regional
hospital (intercept interviews). Incentives were offered to increase
response rate (a drawing for a first prize of $125.00 and second prize of
$75.00). The remaining responses were from students in hospitality
classes at a university in the southwestern United States. A t-test for
each construct showed no significant differences between the intercept
interviews and those of the students. Alpha scores for the reliability test
for the sample were .92 for attitudinal brand loyalty; .86 for behavioral
brand loyalty; .89 for product quality; and .86 for service quality.
The majority of respondents were female (n = 106). Approximately
half of the respondents reported having income of $30,000 or lower
(51.3%) and the largest percentage was in the age group of 21-30 (see
Table 3).
TABLE 3. Descriptive Demographic Statistics
Variables n Percentage
Sex (n = 170)
Male 64 37.6
Female 106 62.4
Age (n = 171)
Up to 20 44 25.7
21-30 67 39.2
31-40 19 11.1
41-50 28 16.4
51-60 9 5.3
61-70 3 1.8
71 and older 1 .6
Annual income ($) (n = 162)
Up to 15,000 44 27.2
15,001 to 30,000 39 24.1
30,001 to 45,000 17 10.5
45,001 to 60,000 29 17.9
60,001 to 75,000 16 9.9
75,001 to 100,000 8 4.9
100,001 or more 9 5.6
The total number may not add up to the total number of respondents (n=175) due to missing data.
Regression Analyses
As the purpose of this study was to examine the influence of product

quality and service quality on attitude-based and behavior-based brand
loyalty, a series of the stepwise regression analyses were performed to
predict brand loyalty based on perceptions of product quality and ser-
vice quality and to test the first four hypotheses. Regression analysis
can be used when both dependent and independent variables are ordinal
and stepwise regression is recommended to “determine the contribution
of each predictor already in the equation if it were to enter last”
(Pedhazur, 1997, p. 222).
Six items measuring product quality were included in the model: tast-
iness of food, portion size, ingredient freshness, temperature of food,
value, and overall food quality. The results showed that “tastiness of
food” and “ingredient freshness” were significantly related to atti-
tude-based brand loyalty with an R2 of .38. The same two variables,
Reich et al. 47
along with temperature of food, loaded as predictors for behavior-based

brand loyalty, accounting for 39 percent of behavior-based brand loy-
alty of quick-service restaurant customers (see Table 4).
The regression analyses also revealed the influence of service quality
on attitudinal and behavioral brand loyalty. While individual service
items were not significant, the perception of overall service quality ex-
plained 23% of the variance in attitude-based brand loyalty and 20% of
the variance in behavior-based brand loyalty. As a result, H1-H4 were
supported. Table 4 shows the results of the regression analyses of both
product quality and service quality on attitude- and behavior-based
brand loyalty.
Correlation Tests
Another objective of this study was to look at the brand loyalty ex-
pressed towards the quick-service restaurant chains in the study, Mc-
Donald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s.
It was hypothesized that the attitude-based brand loyalty towards one
quick-service restaurant will negatively correlate with the attitude-based
brand loyalty towards other quick-service restaurants (H5). In other
words, higher loyalty to one chain should mean lower loyalty to another.
In this study attitude-based brand loyalty for McDonald’s is compared
with attitude-based brand loyalty to Burger King and Wendy’s. Based on
the results of correlation analysis, hypothesis H5 is rejected. Attitudinal
TABLE 4. Prediction Results of Perceptions of Product Quality and Service
*
Quality
Model Predictors Standardized p-value Tolerance R2

Coefficient
Attitude-based Tastiness of food .401 .000 .559 .38
brand loyalty
Ingredient freshness .274 .001 .559
Overall service .487 .000 1.000 .23
quality
Behavior-based Tastiness of food .454 .000 .549 .39
brand loyalty
Ingredient freshness .333 .000 .466
Temperature of food ⫺.176 .026 .597
Overall service .447 .000 1.000 .20
quality
*Only items that have significant values below .05 (p < .05) are shown
brand loyalty towards one brand did not provide negative loyalty to other
brands. There was not a significant relationship, either negative or posi-
tive, between expressing loyalty to McDonald’s and loyalty to Burger
King. However, there was a significant positive relationship between
loyalty to McDonald’s and loyalty to Wendy’s, and loyalty to Burger
King and loyalty to Wendy’s (see Table 5).
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Product or Service?
From the results of this study we can see that product quality and ser-
vice quality positively correlate with both attitude-based and behavioral

brand loyalty. Product and service quality are both important in the res-
taurant industry and the quick-service segment is no exception.
Based on this study, the three most important perceptions of product
quality in a quick-service restaurant are: taste of food, freshness of the
ingredients, and temperature of food. Remarkably, portion size, value,
and food quality were not significant predictors of customers’ loyalty to
the restaurant. While companies, such as Hardee’s, are striving to sell
bigger portions of food to create value for customers, they may be head-
ing in the wrong direction. Perhaps “more” is not always “better” in the
quick-service restaurant industry. With the current awareness of the
TABLE 5. Attitude-Based Brand Loyalty Correlation Matrix for McDonald’s,
Burger King, and Wendy’s
I am very loyal I am very loyal I am very loyal

to McDonald’s to Burger King to Wendy’s
I am very loyal Pearson 1
to McDonald’s Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) –
N 172
I am very loyal Pearson .119 1
to Burger King Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .126 –
N 168 168
I am very loyal Pearson .211 .410 1
to Wendy’s Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .006** .000** –
N 167 167 167
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
Reich et al. 49
obesity problem in the United States and the negative publicity for the
burger restaurant industry generated by the movie “Super-size Me,” the
findings that customers in this study placed an emphasis on taste and
freshness of ingredients are important.
In a related study, Skogland and Siguaw (2004) found that value was
not a predictor of brand loyalty for hotel guests, while hotel design,
amenities, and employee interaction were. In light of the concurrent va-
lidity from their research, value and its related dimensions of price and
portion size, appear to be insignificant players in the drive for loyalty.
Therefore, rather than utilizing value for purposes of gaining loyalty, it
could be considered for short-term sales promotions or in the case of
“value menus,” long-term sales promotions.
When looking at service quality in a quick-service restaurant, it is dif-

ficult to separate out the specific service attributes that affect customer
brand loyalty. A more Gestalt assessment of service quality appears to
be more important than single items. Perhaps many customers do not
consider services in a quick-service restaurant to be called “service” due
to the limited interactions between service providers and customers.
Management should, therefore, look at how the overall efforts of em-
ployees contribute to their customers’ perception of service quality. In
addition to training employees how to perform tasks for their assigned
position, they might be trained how to assess the customer’s overall
dining experience so they can intervene as needed.
The Point is “Variety”
A somewhat surprising result of our study is that brand loyalty to one

restaurant brand does not necessarily mean negative loyalty to another.
Being strong competitors, one would expect a loyal customer of Mc-
Donald’s to shun Burger King or Wendy’s. On the contrary, the study
shows a positive relationship between loyalty to Burger King or Mc-
Donald’s and Wendy’s, and no significant relationship between loyalty
to Burger King and McDonald’s. It may be that for the sample in this
study, Burger King and McDonald’s are seen as substitutes for each
other. A possible explanation for this is that consumers may see Burger
King and McDonald’s as similar concepts but see Wendy’s as being dif-
ferent from both Burger King and McDonald’s. In other words, they
may like Wendy’s and either Burger King or McDonald’s, seeing the
latter two as substitutes for each other.
Restaurant businesses differ from manufacturing because the core
products are normally a mixture of tangible products and services. Fur-
thermore, these services full sensory experiences as apposed to manu-

facturing’s product in a box. Brand loyalty theory suggests consumers
are less likely to look for other brands after they have found the ones
they like (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2003). However, in the restaurant indus-
try, customers are inclined to seek out new and varied experiences.
These actions can happen without first developing a negative impres-
sion of current brand choices. Brand loyalty in the quick-service restau-
rant may then be viewed as: the intention to dine at the same fast food
restaurant again (behavioral brand loyalty), to have a positive attitude
towards that restaurant (attitudinal brand loyalty), and try other restau-
rants as well (limited overall loyalty).
CONCLUSION
Hypotheses one through four were supported in that product and ser-
vice positively influenced both attitude- and behavior-based brand loy-
alty. Regarding product quality, the items taste, freshness, and food
temperature were significant predictors of behavior-based brand loyalty,
while taste and freshness successfully predicted attitude-based brand loy-
alty. From the increased focus on taste and freshness from both burger
and non-burger segments of the industry, (e.g., “we don’t make it until
you order it”) it appears that many quick-service restaurants are already
on the right track. Value and portion size, two related attributes, were not
considered predictors of brand loyalty, as was overall product quality.
Though additional research would be needed to learn why this occurred,
perhaps value is something that is transitory (i.e., whomever has the best
deal), while product quality for this industry segment is somewhat am-
biguous (i.e., few have quality that stands out from the rest), and portion
size is the customer’s option in that they can buy a small, medium, or
large version of just about everything. While taste, freshness, and temper-
ature are important characteristics for quick-service restaurants to for in-
creasing brand loyalty, value, portion size, and overall food quality
should be considered for other marketing purposes (e.g., sales promo-
tions and part of the overall marketing mix). Regarding service, it appears
that it is the overall service quality experience, not its individual aspects,
has the greatest potential to increase brand loyalty. Product quality helped
predict brand loyalty at nearly twice the level of service quality.
Hypothesis five, that strong attitudinal brand loyalty towards one
quick-service restaurant will negatively correlate with the attitudinal
brand loyalty towards other quick-service restaurants, was rejected. This
Reich et al. 51
finding was surprising. In fact, in our study, loyalty for two brands Mc-
Donald’s and Burger King) actually influenced one other brand in a posi-
tive way (Wendy’s). This may tell us that while marketers in this segment
attempt to vigorously stimulate selective demand (demand for their own
brands), perhaps the stimulation of primary demand for burgers, similar
to what the beef and dairy associations do, or simply dining out more of-
ten, may be worthy of consideration. Thus, the relative brand loyalty con-
cept in the restaurant industry needs further study.
LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Some limitations in this study should be mentioned. First, only three

quick- service restaurant brands were included in the study. Future re-
search should include more brands for better and expanded comparisons.
The inclusion of quick-service restaurants whose primary emphasis is on
food other than hamburgers should be considered. Another limitation is
the composition of the sample. While the sample was adequate for an ex-
ploratory study, it should be expanded in future research to be more rep-
resentative of the population and include other geographic areas. The
results from exploratory research provide us with interesting insights and
the basis for future research, but should not be used for important deci-
sions. Finally, brand loyalty, as it related to hypothesis five was measured
using only two items. To learn more about how loyalty toward one restau-
rant impacts loyalty toward another, additional hypotheses and scale
items should be developed and tested.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand loyalty equity across products and markets. Cal-
ifornia Management Review, 38(3), 102-120.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Be-
havior. Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Baldinger, A. L. & Rubinson, J. (1996). Brand loyalty: The link between attitude and
behavior. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(6), 22-35.
Burgess, S. & Harris, M. (1998). Values, optimum stimulation levels and brand loy-
alty: new scales in new populations. South African Journal of Business Manage-
ment, 29(4), 142-158.
Chaudhuri, A. (1999). Does brand loyalty mediate brand equity outcomes? Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(2), 136-146.
Chaudhuri, A. & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and
brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing,
65(2), 81-93.
Dick, A. S. & Basu, K. (1999). Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual
framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 29-43.
Farr, A. & Hollis, N. (1997). What do you want your brand to be when it grows up: big
and strong? Journal of Advertising Research, (December), 23-36.
Gamesh, J., Arnold, M. J. & Reynolds, K. E. (2000). Understanding the customer base
of service providers: an examination of the differences between switchers and
stayers. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 65-87.
Hellofs, L. L. & Jacobson, R. (1999). Market share and customers’ perceptions of qual-
ity: when can firms grow their way to higher versus lower quality? Journal of Mar-
keting, 63(1), 16-25.
Hill, J. McDonald’s Corporation. Retrieved on April 20, 2004, from http://www.

hoovers.com/mcdonald’s-corporation/--ID_10974--/free-co- factsheet.xhtml
Hofmeyr, J. & Rice, B. (2000). Commitment-Led Marketing: The Key to Brand Profits
is in the Customer’s Mind. New York: John Wiley & Son.
Hoisington, S. & Naumann, E. (2003). The loyalty elephant. Quality Progress, 36(2),
33-41.
Iwasaki, Y. & Havitz, M. E. (2000). A path analytic model of the relationships between
involvement, psychological commitment, and loyalty. Journal of Leisure Research,
30, 256-270.
Jacoby, J. & Chestnut, R. W. (1978). Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management.
New York: John Wiley.
Jacoby, J. & Kyner, D. (1973). Brand loyalty Vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journal
of Marketing Research, 10(February), 1-9.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Leung, S. (2003). Advertising: fast-food firms’ big budgets don’t buy consumer loy-
alty. Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2003, B4.
Nation’s Restaurant News (2003). Survey reveals customers show little brand loyalty for
fast food. Retrieved on April 20, 2004, from http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/
0,4621,310309,00.html
Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.
Odin, Y., Odin, N. & Valette-Florence, P. (2001). Conceptual and operational aspects of
brand loyalty: an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 53(2), 75-84.
Oh, M. & Jeong, M. (1996). Improving marketers’ predictive power of customer satis-
faction on expectation-based target market levels. Hospitality Research Journal,
19(4), 65-85.
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research,
39(1), 78-84.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERQUAL: a multiple-item
scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing,
64(1), 5-37.
Reich et al. 53
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and

Prediction. Singapore: Wadsworth.
Pritchard, M. P., Havitz, M. E. & Howard, D. R. (1999). Analyzing the commitment-
loyalty link in service contexts. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 27,
333-348.
Pritchard, M. P. & Howard, D. R. (1997). The loyal traveler: examining a typology of
service patronage. Journal of Travel Research, 35(4), 2-11.
Rallapalli, K. C., Vitel, S. J., Wiebe, F. A., & Barnes, J. H. (1994). Consumer ethical
beliefs and personality traits: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Ethics,
13, 487-495.
Rawwas, M. Y. A., Vitell, S. J. & Al-Khatib, J. A. (1994). Consumer ethics: The possi-
ble effects of terrorism and civil unrest on the ethical values of consumers. Journal
of Business Ethics, 13, 223-231.
Reich, A. Z. (1997). Marketing Management for the Hospitality Industry: A strategic
Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Reichheld, F. F. & Sasser W. E. Jr. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services.
Harvard Business Review, (September-October), 105-111.
Reynolds, K. E. & Arnolds, M. J. (2000). Costumer loyalty to the salesperson and the
store: examining relationship customers in an upscale retail context. Journal of Per-
sonal Selling & Sales Management, 20(2), 89-98.
Rundle-Thiele, S. & Mackay, M. M. (2001). Assessing the performance of brand loy-
alty measures. Journal of Service Marketing, 15(7), 529-546.
Skogland, I. & Siguaw, J.A. (2004). Are your satisfied customers loyal? Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 221-234.
Taylor, G. A. & Long-Tolbert, S. (2002). Coupon promotions in quick service restau-
rants: preaching to the converted? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 43(4), 41-47.
Tidwell, P. M. & Horgan, D. D. (1992). Brand character as a function of brand loyalty.
Current Psychology, 11(4), 346-352.
Teas, R. K. & Grapentine, T. H. (1996). Demystifying brand equity. Marketing Re-
search, 8(2), 24-29
Wang, Y., Lo, H. & Hui, Y. V. (2003). The antecedents of service quality and product
quality and their influence on bank reputation: evidence from the banking industry
in China. Managing Service Quality, 13(1), 72-83.
Wilbourn, L., McCleary, K.W. & Phakdeesuparit, A. (1997). Demographic and psy-
chographic determinants of coupon users at pizza restaurants. Journal of Restaurant
and Foodservice Marketing, 2(1), 45-61.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and values: a means-end
model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, July, 2-22.
Zeithaml, V. A. & Bitner, M. J. (2003). Service Marketing: Integrating Customer Fo-
cus across the Firm. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Zins, A. (2001). Relative attitudes and commitment in customer loyalty models: some
experiences in the commercial airline industry. International Journal of Service In-
dustry, 12(3), 269-294.
doi:10.1300/J369v08n03_04

RS

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RS

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This article was downloaded by: [PERI Pakistan]

On: 17 January 2011

Journal of Foodservice Business Research

The Impact of Product and Service Quality on Brand Loyalty

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

ABSTRACT. An exploratory study was conducted to examine the im-

KEYWORDS. Brand loyalty, fast food, quick-service restaurant, prod-

In today’s competitive environment, it is vital for a company (and its

FIGURE 1. Roles of Product and Service Quality on Brand Loyality: An Explor-

Service Quality Image Attitudinal

Brand loyalty is defined in various ways by different researchers.

Attitude- and Behavior-Based Brand Loyalty

Researchers have attempted to apply and test measurements that might

by a certain target market, often in a certain context and time, intention

Product and Service Quality

If customers have preferences for specific brands and are inclined to

delivery, no waiting, employee attitude, employees’ greeting, respon-

To determine whether (tangible) product quality and service quality

H1: There is a positive relationship between the perception of

H2: There is a positive relationship between the perception of ser-

H3: There is a positive relationship between the perception of

H4: There is a positive relationship between the perception of ser-

H5: Strong attitudinal brand loyalty towards one quick-service

Four constructs were measured in this study: attitudinal brand loy-

Reynolds and Arnold (2000) studied the relationship between sales-

TABLE 1. Dependent Variables for Measuring the Attitude-and Behavior-Based

Dependent Variables Scale Type Modified From

1. Of the times you purchase 0-9%, Reynolds and Arnolds

The independent variables are product quality and service quality.

ity” was added as a test of convergent validity and to offer respondents a

various reasons, including infrequency of occurrence in the case of

Independent Variables Scale Type Modified from

The instrument was pretested with a sample of 90 students in hospi-

examined internally by testing the correlation of single-item scales that

TABLE 3. Descriptive Demographic Statistics

As the purpose of this study was to examine the influence of product

along with temperature of food, loaded as predictors for behavior-based

Model Predictors Standardized p-value Tolerance R2

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

vice quality positively correlate with both attitude-based and behavioral

I am very loyal I am very loyal I am very loyal

When looking at service quality in a quick-service restaurant, it is dif-

The Point is “Variety”

A somewhat surprising result of our study is that brand loyalty to one

thermore, these services full sensory experiences as apposed to manu-

LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Some limitations in this study should be mentioned. First, only three

Hill, J. McDonald’s Corporation. Retrieved on April 20, 2004, from http://www.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and

Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen