SWOT Analysis
1
Decision Problem Zoomer is a mobile application used to help restaurants deliver food to customers. Restaurants partnered with Zoomer can utilize Zoomer’s network of local delivery drivers to bring food to customers. This eliminates the need of a full-time in-house delivery driver. Consumers download the application to access a list of local restaurants. Upon placing an order, the consumer can use their phone to track their order in real time. Zoomer has steadily spread its service to cities throughout the United States. They also maintain international operations in countries such as Ireland, Poland, Sweden, and Thailand (Zoomer). Zoomer has recently moved into New Brunswick, New Jersey. Like any new market, there are challenges in understanding the local populations’ demographics and attitudes. To assist Zoomer in expanding its business, research was conducted to answer the following question: What is the best strategy to market Zoomer to potential customers in the Easton Avenue/New Brunswick area? Research Problems & Hypotheses To effectively address the decision problem, Zoomer needed to collect various descriptive data. Basic demographic information, the presence of competition, and other factors will impact the size and scope of marketing efforts. Identifying sources of value, customer opinions on new features, and quantifiable delivery expectations will allow Zoomer to be positively received. This initial feedback will highlight unique market characteristics enabling causal research. Three research problems were developed to focus Zoomer’s data collection efforts:
1. What aspect of delivery is valued most by our customers?
2. Would a rewards program entice customers to order delivery more often?
3. Can bundling deliveries from multiple restaurants provide value to customers? Each research problem focused on gathering consumer insights to understand what may persuade a customer to utilize Zoomer. Promotional materials can then focus on the insights to build a positive brand reception in the community. Based on the research problems, several hypotheses were developed concerning expected relationships:
I. Consumer moods and feelings will impact their willingness to pay for delivery.
II. Delivery drivers will impact consumer’s value perception of delivery. Men and women will consider different characteristics to be most important.
III. Competitors have existing value-added features that have captured consumer loyalty.
2
IV. A rewards program will enhance initial trails and likelihood of ordering delivery.
V. Bundling deliveries will increase order frequency and total order cost.
Data collection and subsequent analysis will be conducted to answer these questions and more. By doing so Zoomer will understand what customers value and desire, allowing an effective marketing campaign to gain market share. Survey Overview & Respondent Profile Qualitative and quantitative questions relating to the research questions were distributed in a survey. The survey can be viewed in its entirety in Appendix A. In total, 61 responses were recorded. The gender distribution in responses was almost exactly even, with 31 male and 30 female respondents completing the survey. All respondents identified themselves as Rutgers University undergraduate students. The survey was designed to seek specific information from Rutgers students using a filtering question. Those who were students were asked various questions, including their age, their current living arrangements, which campus they frequented most, and if they had a meal plan. 79% of respondents (48 of 61) indicated they were over 21 years old. There was a fairly even breakdown of on-campus, off-campus, and commuter students, with each category receiving 36%, 36%, and 28% of the vote respectively. 64% of students did not have a meal plan. Combining the living arrangement and meal plan question provided a valuable insight, as the percentage of off-campus and commuter students (64%) matched the population who did not have a meal plan exactly. This relationship could be further analyzed to determine if off-campus and commuter students order for delivery more frequently, and thus targeted in advertisements. Finally, students spent most time on Livingston (67%) or College Avenue (29%) campuses. Perhaps the students who spend more time away from College Avenue will value a delivery service more. A detailed graphical breakdown concerning this information appears in Appendix B. These demographic considerations must all be considered during research problem analysis. If the differences in the population are not properly considered, conclusions reached may not be valid when applied to the population at large. Research Problem One – Analysis, Results, & Recommendations The first research problem related to understanding what aspect of delivery did consumers value. Understanding what is valued by customers is among the most important takeaway from this research. If Zoomer is not able to provide consumers value, they will not use the application. Consumers’ perception of value varies from market to market. Understanding what is most important to the New Brunswick population will enable Zoomer to highlight value aspects in advertisements. Ideally, customers will feel the brand emphasizes attributes that relate to them.
3
To assess value, respondents were asked to rank certain factors that may impact ordering tendencies on a 7-point scale. These included convenience, saving time, inclement weather, and lacking a vehicle to pick up a car. The factors listed were predetermined by the team, but to ensure critical factors not listed were considered, respondents were provided the option to write in their own factors. The results are summarized in the table below:
Factor Convenience Saving Time Inclement Weather Lack of Car Average 6.2 5.6 5.5 3.6 Median 7 6 6 4
Convenience appeared to be the most important factor to consumers. Reviewing comments also indicated that feeling lazy leads to ordering for delivery. This presented an opportunity to test our first hypothesis. Now that an important mood was identified, we could test how it impacted consumers’ opinions on delivery charges. To do so, a regression was run where:
Y = Maximum Amount in Dollars for a Delivery Charge X1 = Convenience Factor
X2 = Maximum Time Willing to Wait in Minutes
The regression equation was Y = 1.28 + .2X1 + .007X2, where the P-Value of X1 and X2 are .06 and .4 respectively. Based on these results, we can conclude that perceived convenience significantly impacts consumers’ willingness to pay with 90% confidence. We cannot reject our first hypothesis, because those consumers who valued convenience highly tended to be willing to pay higher delivery charges. A delivery experience that consumers believe is convenient may be more important than a delivery that is fast. Next, respondents were asked to share experiences with delivery drivers, both positive and negative. They indicated if characteristics such as clothing, cleanliness, politeness, or vehicle driven ever impacted how they felt about their delivery. To address our second hypothesis, the count of responses were split by gender to determine which characteristic was most important. Please refer to Appendix C for the cross-tabulation table. 78% (65 of 83) of reported incidents related to politeness and cleanliness of drivers. Comments generally indicated that poor attitudes affected tips and the impression of the restaurant. Consumers also enjoyed their food more and tipped better when drivers looked clean. While women tended to recall more observations impacting their experience than men, gender did not affect which characteristic was important. In both populations, cleanliness, politeness, clothing, and vehicle driven were ranked most important to least important. We therefore reject our second hypothesis, and conclude that gender does not impact important driver characteristics. These two tests provided data that enabled the team to make recommendations regarding value. First, consumers may be willing to pay a premium if they feel the Zoomer experience is convenient. Therefore, Zoomer advertisements should convey how the application makes life easier for users. Advertising effectiveness may be amplified if Zoomer can identify which advertising medium will provide the most exposure to consumers who are feeling lazy. It is possible advertisements should not cater to price sensitive consumers.
4
Next, if delivery drivers are to be featured in an advertisement, they must be uniformed, well- groomed and smiling. Uniforms make drivers appear professional. A smile may imply the driver is friendly and striving to enhance the experience. Important feedback was gained from these reviews. Zoomer may consider implementing a driver review feature in their application. By collecting qualitative and quantitative feedback, drivers who impact the Zoomer brand image can be rewarded or disciplined accordingly. Encouraging drivers to maintain a dress code and proper grooming standards will enhance positive customer experiences, and drivers may receive better tips! Research Problem Two – Analysis, Results, & Recommendations Value-added features can be the difference in satisfying or delighting a customer. However, various costs are associated with developing new features. A rewards program may enhance order frequency, improve initial trials of Zoomer, and give consumers a reason to remain loyal to Zoomer. However, those who actually use the application must be consulted to ensure the new feature will actually provide value and be worth the investment. Before Zoomer can introduce a new feature to capture market share, it should understand who its main competitors are. Furthermore, do these competitors have a differentiating feature that promote brand loyalty? If so, Zoomer may need to convince those loyal to other brands that Zoomer is the superior platform. Respondents were asked to indicate if they were familiar with Zoomer and its competitors. Only 30% were familiar with Zoomer, while 79% had heard of Grubhub and 67% heard of Scarlet Menus (Appendix D). These are Zoomer’s main competitors. However, familiarity does not always translate to loyalty. The team needed to understand if there was a correlation between knowledge of applications ordering frequency. A strong positive correlation, meaning if customers who ordered frequently tended to know many applications, may indicate consumers value ordering online. A strong negative correlation, meaning those who order frequently have heard of very few applications, may imply that customers remained loyal to the brand they tried first. A graphic representation of the correlation results is in Appendix E. The correlation coefficient was .19. While some may interpret this as a strong correlation, the lacking sample size led us to conclude the correlation was not strong enough to provide proof of a relationship. Based on this interpretation, we reject the third hypothesis, and conclude that competitors do not have any features that encouraged loyalty. An analysis of feedback concerning the rewards program was now important. Respondents indicated whether they preferred a loyalty program based on frequency of use or referral of friends. They were also asked if a rewards program would increase their likelihood of ordering delivery. The results are summarized in a cross tabulation in Appendix F. The majority of consumers responded positively to the notion of a rewards program. 84% preferred a frequency based program, while 64% indicated a rewards program would “definitely”
5
or “probably” encourage them to order via Zoomer more often. An additional 26% indicated it “maybe” would encourage orders. The reaction leads us to a failure to reject the fourth hypothesis. It appears a rewards program will increase ordering frequency, and by extension encourage initial trials. Zoomer should develop a rewards program. It can be incorporated into advertisements to encourage users to download and try the application. Showcasing the tangible or intangible rewards themselves may be a strategy to encourage participation, but further research is needed. Zoomer still has the ability to become the delivery market leader in New Brunswick. Research Problem Three – Analysis, Results, & Recommendations New Brunswick is home to a diverse range of restaurants. This caters to the Rutgers University population, as Rutgers is consistently rated as the most diverse school in the country (Rutgers University). Bundling deliveries from multiple restaurants may be able to increase both order frequency and total order cost. This could potentially add value to restaurants and their customers simultaneously. Those who took the survey were asked if they would order dinner and dessert from different restaurants if they could be delivered at the same time. The results are summarized in a Pareto Diagram in Appendix G. 87% responded “probably not”, “maybe”, or “probably” – the three middle points in the scale. This implies there is not an overwhelming reception to the idea either way. Survey participants also tend to overestimate their likelihood to act in one way or another while taking surveys. The team indicated there may be a positive bias in these results, and accordingly did not feel comfortable enough to give the bundling idea a thumbs-up. The uncertainty in the data led to the rejection of the fifth and final hypothesis. There was simply no clear indication to tell if customers would use a feature like this. Management should avoid developing and implementing this system. Further research could be conducted, but costs should be considered as initial results were underwhelming. This innovation may not be useful to advertise Zoomer’s services. Summary & Limitations Below is a brief summary of the results for the hypotheses proposed:
I. Consumer moods and feelings will impact their willingness to pay for delivery. Fail to reject. Lazy consumers may be willing to pay a delivery premium.
II. Delivery drivers will impact consumer’s value perception of delivery. Men and women will consider different characteristics to be most important. Reject. Gender has no impact on which delivery driver characteristics are important.
6
III. Competitors have existing value-added features that have captured consumer loyalty. Reject. There is no evidence that any competitor has captured significant loyalty.
IV. A rewards program will enhance initial trails and likelihood of ordering delivery.
Fail to reject. A rewards program was received very positively if executed correctly.
V. Bundling deliveries will increase order frequency and total order cost. Reject. Consumers will likely not utilize this feature if available.
While the team was pleased with the outcome of the data analysis and resulting conclusions, various factors could have impacted results. The first and most obvious is survey noncoverage error. Insights were only gathered from Rutgers students. To provide great assurance of validity, populations including graduate students, New Brunswick residents unaffiliated with Rutgers, and non-resident employees based in New Brunswick must be considered. Restaurant owners should also be provided a separate survey. Without satisfying the restaurant owners, Zoomer will not have any business period! While designing the survey, consideration of privacy and appropriateness was of the utmost concern. However, sensitive questions that could provide valuable insights were avoided. New Brunswick has been referred to as a “food desert”. This refers to urban areas that lack proper grocery stores. Small convenience shops and corner stores sell fresh fruit and meat, but normally at prices that prohibit low to middle range earners from consistently purchasing it. These individuals often turn to restaurants and fast food for more affordable meals (Kratovil). It would be interesting to analyze if socioeconomic status effected delivery habits, but out of respect for classmates this topic was avoided. There were various comments in the survey that indicated alcohol consumption may impact delivery frequency. It is true that New Brunswick, has a busy night life and popular bar scene, but the researchers were not comfortable to probe on the topic. Chances are the results from college students regarding their alcohol consumption may be alarming! Zoomer is also not a publicly held company. There are very little details online about the company’s activity and financial results. Advertising budgets, corporate strategies, and insight to cost drivers set the scope for research. Without this, it is impossible to develop an analysis that would properly reflect the level of detail and sophistication that Zoomer could afford. Finally, the team’s inexperience as researchers limited potential applications of the data! Various parts of the survey could be adjusted to capture a higher degree of insight. The team also realized that one conclusion from the data only leaves you asking yourself five more questions about the subject! Pretesting the survey would improve the quality of data and therefore improve the analysis.
7
Works Cited
"Diversity." Diversity | Rutgers University - Newark. Rutgers University, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2016.
Kratovil, Charlie. "City Still Working to Replace Failed Downtown Supermarket." New
Brunswick Today. N.p., 12 Mar. 2015. Web. 16 Dec. 2016. "Zoomer - The Delivery Network for High Volume Restaurants." Zoomer - The Delivery
Network for High Volume Restaurants. Zoomer, n.d. Web. 16 Dec. 2016.
8
Appendix A - Survey
Q 1
On a ve ra ge , how ma ny time s do you orde r food for de live ry monthly?
Q 2 Ra te the importa nce of the following fa ctors whe n cons ide ring orde ring food for de live ry. (1 be ing not importa nt, with 7 be ing e s s e ntia l)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Conve nie nce S a ving Time We a the r Fa ctors Don't ha ve a ve hicle to drive to the re s ta ura nt
Othe r. P le a s e s pe cify.
Q 3 Wha t is the longe s t a cce pta ble time (in minute s ) for a de live ry orde r?
Q 4 Wha t's the mos t you would pa y for a de live ry cha rge be fore s e e king a n a lte rna tive re s ta ura nt?
01 2 3 4 5
Am ount in
Dolla rs
P a g e Bre a k
9
Q 5 Cons ide r the following s ce na rio: Re s ta ura nt A offe rs a pizza for $12 a nd a $3 de live ry cha rge . Re s ta ura nt B offe rs the pizza for $15 a nd fre e de live ry. Which offe r a re you more incline d to choos e ?
Re s ta ura nt A
Re s ta ura nt B P a g e Bre a k
Q 6 P le a s e indica te if you ha ve he a rd of the following a pplica tions :
Zoom e r
S e a m le s s
Grubhub
P os tm a te s
S ca rle t Me nus
Ea t S tre e t P a g e Bre a k
Q 7 Ha ve a ny of the following cha ra cte ris tics of a de live ry drive r e ve r impa cte d how you fe lt a bout your de live ry?
Clothe s /Uniform
Cle a nline s s /Hyge ine
P olite ne s s /Attitude
Type of Ve hicle Drive n
Othe r
Not Applica ble Q 8 If you che cke d a ny of the pre vious boxe s , ple a s e brie fly de s cribe wha t wa s right or wrong, a nd how it impa cte d your e xpe rie nce .
P a g e Bre a k
10
Q 9 Would a re wa rds progra m tha t provide d dis counts a nd fre e ite ms for fre que nt orde rs e ncoura ge you to orde r de live ry more fre que ntly?
De finite ly
P roba bly
Ma ybe
P roba bly not
De finite ly Not
Q 10 If a de live ry re wa rds progra m we re e s ta blis he d, would you pre fe r the ince ntive s to be ba s e d on fre que ncy of us e or re fe rra l?
Fre que nc y of Us e
Re fe rra l Q 11 Ima gine a de live ry s e rvice wa s a ble to pick up food from multiple re s ta ura nts a nd de live r the m to you a t the s a me time . Would you be more like ly to orde r de s s e rt from a nothe r re s ta ura nt in a ddition to your ma in cours e ?
De finite ly
P roba bly
Ma ybe
P roba bly Not
De finite ly Not P a g e Bre a k
Q 12 Wha t me dium a re you mos t like ly to notice a n a dve rtis e me nt?
Te le vis ion
Ra dio
Ne ws pa pe r/Ma ga zine
S ocia l Me dia
Othe r Online S ite
P a pe r Flye r
11
Othe r (P le a s e S pe cify)
Q 13 Are you a Rutge rs s tude nt?
Ye s
No P a g e Bre a k
Q 14 Are you a gra dua te or unde rgra dua te s tude nt?
Gra dua te
Unde rgra dua te Q 15 Do you ha ve a me a l pla n?
Ye s
No Q 16 P le a s e indica te your curre nt living a rra nge me nts .
On-ca m pus
Off-ca m pus
Comm ute r Q 17 Wha t ca mpus do you s pe nd the m os t time on?
Colle ge Ave nue
Livings ton
Cook/Dougla s s
Bus ch P a g e Bre a k
12
Q 18 P le a s e indica te your ge nde r.
Ma le
Fe m a le
P re fe r not to s pe cify Q 19 P le a s e indica te your a ge .
13
Appendix B – Respondent Profile
14
15
Appendix C – Delivery Driver Cross Tabulation
Trait Male Female Total Male % Female % Total % Clothes 8 6 14 10% 7% 17% Cleanliness 12 15 27 14% 18% 33% Politeness 16 22 38 19% 27% 46% Vehicle 2 2 4 2% 2% 5% Total 38 45 83 46% 54% 100%
Appendix D – Competitor Analysis
Application Frequency Percentage Grubhub 48 79% Scarlet Menus 41 67% Eat Street 23 38% Zoomer 18 30% Seamless 16 26% Postmates 9 15%
Appendix E – Correlation Results
16
Appendix F – Rewards Program Cross-Tabulation
Appendix G – Bundling Pareto Diagram
Order Likelihood? Frequency Referral Total Definitely 18% 2% 20% Probably 39% 7% 46% Maybe 18% 8% 26% Probably Not 7% 0% 7% Definitely Not 2% 0% 2% Total 84% 16% 100%