Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51(4) 483 –491 © The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1938965510378574 http://cqx.sagepub.com

Electronic Meal Experience: A Content Analysis of Online Restaurant Comments

By Ioannis S. Pantelidis

Abstract

This article presents a content analysis of 2,471 customer comments regarding three hundred London restaurants on an online restaurant guide. Favorable comments far outnumbered negative reviews. The study’s chief purpose was to identify the factors that are most salient in a guest’s evaluation of a restaurant. Although food is established as the king of the meal experience, as found in other studies, the starter is cited as a highly memorable item in many consumers’ comments. A preference structure model emerges suggesting that customers consider food, service, ambience, price, menu, and decor (in that order) when reflecting on their experiences. Contrary to expectations, the model remains relatively constant when tested in times of economic plenty and economic crisis. Depending on how management monitors and responds to them, comments on elec- tronic guides and in social media can destroy a restaurant or help secure the business’s longevity. Restaurant managers who respond successfully to comments in electronic forums can turn an unsatisfied customer to a loyal one. The study provides a comparison of comments made during times of favorable economic conditions and times of economic recession.

Keywords

restaurant management; consumer satisfaction; online consumer guides; word of mouth; referrals; social media; Alexa.com; www.london-eating.co.uk

The complexity of the restaurant business, together with the intricacies of customers’ expectations, makes it difficult for a restaurateur to predict how each customer will react to a particular dining experience. The difficulties of ensuring customer satisfaction are amplified by the fact that, as Davis et al. (2008, 339) remind us, “The consumer becomes part of the product which adds to the challenge of how to market the product effectively.”

Although restaurant operators do their best to focus on the strength of their brand as part of the effort to ensure customers’ satisfaction, marketing efforts to create a brand can become expensive. On top of that, guests can be delighted with the food but dislike the atmosphere (or the other way around). When a guest fails to return, the restaurateur risks never knowing the reason.

While online restaurant review sites and social media reviews add to the existing complications for restaurant operators, they also can point to areas in need of improvement for restaurateurs who pay attention. Many consumers now consult not only friends and relatives when they are seeking a restaurant, but they consult online guides and social media sites. Thus, favorable word of mouth has been for many years the best friend of the small and medium-size restaurant. Espe- cially during times of economic crisis, word of mouth and

other person-to-person communication may be a restaurant’s chief means of promotion.

Word of Mouth Marketers value word of mouth and have attempted to influ- ence it in many ways, but word of mouth is not a commodity that can be manufactured, and it is difficult to alter. Because word of mouth is a by-product of a solid business that provides a great meal experience to the customer, seeking to generate word of mouth without ensuring that the product on offer is of good quality is an act of futility. With the rise of social media and online forums of various types, word of mouth has transcended the traditional format and has become a critical element in many consumers’ patronage decision. The practice of passing a marketing message through online media has become known as “word of mouse,” but the literature also refers to it as “electronic word of mouth” or “word of keyboard” (Helm 2000; Gelb and Sundaram 2002; Riedl, Konstan, and Vrooman 2002; Henning-Thurau et al. 2004). If word of mouth was an important element of a restaurant’s marketing strategy, then “word of mouse” may be more so.

One reason for the growing importance of online forums is that younger customers, often called “Generation Y,” constantly

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11, 2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

484 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51(4)

rely on chat rooms, texting, and video messaging—thereby rapidly passing along their opinions and experiences. For this reason, restaurants need to establish their online identity and remain in touch with the market.

While it is common to believe that such forums are the province of younger customers, the fact is that they are used by people of all ages. The number of consumers who utilize online restaurant guides or travel guides such as tripadvisor. com is fast on the increase. As Gelb and Sundaram (2002) argue, the relative anonymity of online posting empowers people to express their feelings about a product or service with speed and ease not available in the past. Dobele, Toleman, and Beverland (2005) argue that the best strategy is for mar- keters to target opinion leaders to ensure a believable referral strategy. Thompson (2003) in an article in the New York Times argued that companies now pay considerable attention to reputation on social media. He points, for example, to the case of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which achieved box office success through early favorable reviews on websites, despite a small advertising budget.

Those who overlook the strength of electronic media should be reminded of the sad case of Casa Flamenco, a Spanish-theme restaurant in Brisbane, Australia (Casa Flamenco 2008). I will review that situation in the next section.

Although all internet-related activities are of interest, including emails, blogging, and social networking sites, the literature tends to focus on websites and on the effects of viral marketing (Helm 2000; Dobele, Toleman, and Beverland 2005). However, in this article, I look only at comments and reviews posted by genuine customers and not obvious activi- ties of marketers. Consumers are discriminating in this regard. For example, Teasdale (2007) reports that when it comes to trust, almost twice as many travelers rely on sites with visi- tors reviews as opposed to travel agent websites. Considering restaurant advertising, the message is controlled by the res- taurateur in viral marketing, while the message is controlled by the consumer in most social media sites. As Teasdale suggests, consumers are more likely to trust the latter.

The Role of Restaurant Websites The rapid expansion of technological advancements, par- ticularly those relating to the internet, provides an incredible challenge to independent and small and medium-size restau- rants that cannot afford to hire the expertise to keep up with the changes. Camilo, Connolly, and Woo (2008, 377) identi- fied the failure to keep up with technological changes as a chief reason for the failure of independent restaurants. Cer- tainly it is important to maintain an effective electronic mar- keting strategy, as highlighted by Kasavana (2002), but the key is to effectively manage the restaurant’s online brand. This is where working with social media and other sites is important to restaurants’ electronic marketing strategies.

Kimes (2008) points out that effective websites can contribute to a positive dining experience, as well as convince customers to patronize a restaurant. Consumers who look for online reviews of restaurants are likely to also search the web for the restaurant’s website, and they will often expect to see a menu, as well as pictures and possibly videos relating to the restaurant’s meal experience. Restaurateurs who fully com- prehend the importance of interactivity on their websites as a tool of creating a loyal customer base will also understand the importance of tracking and monitoring customer online reviews.

Hotels seem to have embraced this interactive strategy more than restaurants, so far. When I interviewed the product man- ager of Review Analyst, the tool I used to collect reviews, media, and statistics from top travel review sites and social media sites (see www.reviewanalyst.com), it became appar- ent that the majority of their clients are hotel companies.

Customer Satisfaction in Restaurants Let us return to the case of Casa Flamenco, the Australian restaurant that is famously no longer in business due to elec- tronic word of mouth. This is a classic situation of a failure to satisfy a guest both during and after the meal. On Monday, February 11, 2008, Lorraine Pacey received an email from this restaurant in response to her complaint about a meal expe- rience she had had in the restaurant. The restaurateur’s response to her constructive criticism was as follows: “Dear Lorraine, your are an idiot we dont need your feedback” (Exhibit 1). She forwarded the email to a few friends, and the story went viral, resulting in news coverage in the conventional press. Eventually the restaurant was forced to close. With well over twenty thou- sand hits on the websites that posted the now-legendary email, the proprietor may have missed an opportunity for free adver- tising, but it seems that a full recovery for the business was unlikely, given the extent of negative publicity.

In their examination of twenty-eight expectations that cus- tomers seek to satisfy when dining out, Kivela, Inbakaran, and Reece (2000) reported a positive correlation between satisfaction of expectations and willingness to return. Although the study did not address word of mouth, willingness to return should be a reliable indicator of favorable comments. Interest- ingly, the expectations that were least met in the study were privacy, innovation, menu variety, noise levels, and the han- dling of reservations.

Several other studies have been conducted on customer expectations. However, efforts to prioritize expectations or set them in a hierarchy have been inconclusive. Andaleeb and Conway (2006) suggest that to satisfy customer expectations, restaurateurs ought to focus their efforts on service quality, price, and food quality, in that order. However, one may argue that this order is part induced by the design of their methodol- ogy. Gupta McLaughlin, and Gomez (2007) eloquently and

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11, 2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

Pantelidis 485

with an impressive set of data argue that the order of signifi- cance to the consumer is food quality, price, greeting, and service. Young and Jang (2008) also put food first, followed by the physical environment and service. However, this study failed to consider price—an unfortunate omission in the midst of an economic recession, given the likelihood that restaurant guests would have greater price sensitivity.

Methodology To conduct this study, I analyzed consumer comments on the online restaurant guide www.london-eating.co.uk, which listed 791 London-based restaurants on its webpages in March 2007. I selected this particular guide for three reasons. First, this was one of the first online guides to attempt to ensure genuine reviews by asking reviewers for a valid email address or by having them register to post a review. Although this format can still be manipulated, it is much better than the blogs and forums that allow the anonymous postings of either malicious or inappropriately favorable comments. Second, the guide features a ten-point star rating system for restaurants, making it easier to spot negative comments. Third, it was the most-used such site, having gained popularity fast since its launch in 2001 with Alexa.com. For example, Hardens.com (the website of the eponymous London restaurant guide, which began publication in 1991) is ranked by Alexa.com at 379,981, while london-eating.co.uk was ranked 51,027.

The notion that restaurant proprietors may be influencing positive comments is always a danger, although all effort was taken to ensure that any blips in the data were eliminated. In addition to the website’s controls, I eliminated obvious prob- lems. An example of such a case was one restaurant that had only two comments from July ’05 to February ’07, and then suddenly had twelve positive comments within two days in January ’09. After calling the restaurant to confirm whether there was a change of management, I deleted those twelve comments from the analysis.

The primary aim of the research was to capture the key variables consumers consider in their online reviews. Regard- less of whether the review is positive or negative, we can identify key elements of the meal experience as cited by a

substantial number of individuals. This alone provides a posi- tive contribution to the body of knowledge and understanding of consumer behavior in relation to restaurant patronage.

I randomly selected 300 full-service restaurants from the 791 restaurants on the London-eating site. Selection criteria were that the restaurant either had an online presence so that I could determine the style of service, or it had online articles that could serve the same purpose. I applied the Davis et al. (2008, 42) classification of full-service restaurants to include their fine-dining and popular-catering categories. Although they do not offer a finite definition of each, they give a descrip- tion of general characteristics of each restaurant category.

I compiled the original set of data of 2,292 comments during March 2007. With a content analysis, I hoped to iden- tify key factors in the consumers’ reflective commentaries and thus suggest the key values in consumers’ restaurant pref- erence structure model. The project was temporarily sus- pended in 2007 and most of 2008 due to lack of resources. This provided a serendipitous outcome. With the economic recession reaching its nadir in December 2008, I had an oppor- tunity to test the model against a set of data that reflected customers’ views during a time of unfavorable economic conditions, notably, the collapse of Lehman Brothers, as reported by the media on September 15, 2008. I allowed a lag time of 2.5 months from the Lehman case to December 2008 for the effects to be felt, so that the research would show any changes in consumers’ evaluation criteria.

Thus, the content analysis (Krippendorff 1980) included a total of 2,471 comments (the original 2,292 plus 179 during the recession). The original data of 2,292 comments from twenty months (July 2005 to February 2007) were analyzed separately from the 179 comments retrieved for the same three hundred restaurants for the months of December 2008 and January 2009. By this time, thirty-four of the original restaurants had closed, but I was able to convert the frequen- cies of key variables to percentages to make meaningful comparisons.

I note the gap in the data from March ’07 to November ’08. This was a transitional period from what can be considered a favorable economic climate to a time of major economic issues. I tested the reliability of the methodology by recoding data twenty-one months after the first data collection. I con- firmed that there were no significant issues with the coding. The validity of the categories was confirmed by triangulating the results to similar categories reported in the literature.

Findings and Discussion The demographics of this guide’s users are hard to determine, but from analyzing the names it can be determined that the gender proportion of reviewers is approximately 52 percent male and 48 percent female. It appears that reviewers of all ages post on this site. According to Alexa.com, 78.6 percent

Exhibit 1. The Legendary Casa Flamenco E-Mail

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11, 2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

486 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51(4)

of the site traffic comes from the United Kingdom, 3.5 percent from the United States, 2.6 percent from India, 1.2 percent from Germany, and 1.2 percent from Italy. The remaining 12.8 percent comes from such countries as Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and Spain.

I found that positive comments outweighed negative ones in both time periods (see Exhibit 2). The fact that the anonym- ity of this site does not unleash a negative tsunami and instead allows satisfied customers to give a positive restaurant review is a message of great hope to restaurateurs who might be concerned about such sites. I observe that restaurants that are doing their best to offer a good meal experience are acknowl- edged by the users of this site.

Although both periods saw a much higher percentage of positive comments, I note that the relative percentage of negative comments rose in period 2, perhaps suggesting that customers are looking for a better value for money during unfavorable economic conditions. It is also possible that London restaurants attempted to cut costs by offering a lower quality of product during the recession, thus spurring more dissatisfaction. Camilo, Connolly, and Woo (2008) explored this issue in their study.

An interesting result in Exhibit 3 is that price ranks fourth in the list of most frequently mentioned factors, with food and service at the top. Finding food as the primary variable is congruent with the studies I mentioned above (e.g., Gupta, McLaughlin, and Gomez 2007; Young and Jang 2007, 2008). The majority of commentaries had at least two or three factors within the review, which is why the numbers attrib- uted to the factors exceeds the number of comments. Thus, although I established a preference structure model based on factor frequency per comment, it is the interrelation of the factors that would require further research. For example, in comments where the price was far beyond what the consumer

expected to pay, the conclusion of the comment was often that the customers would not return even if they were satis- fied with food and service. Note that the model remains constant for period 2.

Although food is at the top of the agenda when consumers reflect on their experiences, the chef is not often discussed— except when the restaurant is operated by a celebrity chef, a circumstance that accounts for 119 of the total 136 comments relating to the chef in both periods. The qualities of the waiter or waitress are discussed far more often, along with the notion of friendliness. I note that for period 2, the discussion about consumption of drinks overtakes discussions of friendliness, for whatever reason. Exhibit 7 refers to a memorable type of drink; these categories (wine and beer) were not added to the number of discussions about drink (a category seen in Exhibit 4). They were differentiated as an expression of pref- erence to a particular type of product as opposed to a more general reflection about drinking.

From the comments that specifically discussed a menu category (Exhibit 5), it becomes evident that the largest per- centage of customers will remember the main course, as opposed to the starter or dessert. However, on closer inspec- tion, I note that people are most likely to order only one course (that is, the entrée only). Logically, those people have only the main course to discuss. Yet starters also show up strongly, although not as many people order them. To address this issue, I contacted ten experts with a long history of restaurant man- agement in the London restaurant business, averaging their estimates of the percentage of guests who order an appetizer and those who just order the main course. This calculation suggests that for lunch, around 39 percent of customers will not order a starter; while for dinner, the figure drops to around 22 percent. Therefore, if on average three out of ten customers are not having starter, one may argue that statistically the starter

Exhibit 2. Positive versus Negative Comments

Type of Comment July 2005 to February 2007 Percentage December 2008 to January 2009 Percentage

Positive 1,779 77.62 113 63.13 Negative 513 22.38 66 36.87 Total comments 2,292 100.00 179 100.00

Exhibit 3. Customer Satisfaction Factors Mentioned Most Frequently in Commentaries on London-eating.co.uk

Top Talked-About Factors July 2005 to February 2007 Percentage of 2,292 December 2008 to January 2009 Percentage of 179

Food 2,195 95.77 176 98.32 Service 2,116 92.32 132 73.74 Atmosphere or ambience 1,160 50.61 94 52.51 Price 669 29.19 49 27.37 Menu 609 26.57 48 26.82 Design or decor 231 10.08 15 8.38 Total comments 2,292 100.00 179 100.00

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11, 2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

Pantelidis 487

may be as important in delivering a memorable experience as is the main course. This is an area that could be further researched.

Although the significance of the findings in Exhibit 6 may be minimal, it is worth noting that fish appears to be the most memorable type of food with chicken second. This, together with findings from Exhibits 5 and 7, highlights the necessity to focus not only on main course but invest equal consider- ation in other parts of the meal experience. It also highlights the importance of good wine selection to complement specific dishes. In that regard, one of every four customers who left a comment on the website mentioned the wine in their review. Only a small number mentioned beer or any other type of drink. It would greatly depend on the type of restaurant, but it is clear that a well-chosen wine from a good wine list ought to be part of the “weaponry” of any restaurant.

To further assess any trend in the number of reviews per month, I compared the total number of comments for the month of January in each of four years (2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009) for the same 300 restaurants (Exhibit 8). The total number of comments for January 2008 were added for comparative

purposes only, as the data from that period were not analyzed. As indicated above, I defined those data as part of the “tran- sitional period” between the economically favorable and unfa- vorable periods. Of the 34 restaurants that closed during the study, just 9 had closed by January ’08, with a further 25 closed by January ’09. The blue column shows the comments for the original 300 hundred restaurants in the study. A more meaning- ful comparison is that of the red columns, which show that the total number of comments for the 266 restaurants that remained open from January ’06 to January ’09 dropped in January 2009. The discrepancy between January ’09, as compared with the other three, amounted to a 26 to 30 percent reduction in com- ment activity for the surviving restaurants. This can be inter- preted as a validation of the reduced patronage of London restaurants reported by the media.

Conclusions This study examines consumer-generated internet content, often called “word of mouse,” which has already become a critical element in guests’ determination of whether to visit

Exhibit 4. Factors Cited Less Frequently in Restaurant Reviews

Other Keywords July 2005 to February 2007 Percentage of 2,292 December 2008 to January 2009 Percentage of 179

Waiter or waitress 496 21.64 56 31.28 Friendly 455 19.85 27 15.08 Drink 356 15.53 32 17.88 Chef 121 5.28 15 8.38 Total comments 2,292 100.00 179 100.00

Exhibit 5. Most Talked-About Menu Category

Menu Category July 2005 to February 2007 Percentage of 2,292 December 2008 to January 2009 Percentage of 179

Main course 522 22.77 38 21.23 Starter 385 16.80 29 16.20 Dessert 194 8.46 10 5.59

Exhibit 6. Memorable Food Types

Memorable Food Type July 2005 to February 2007 Percentage of 2,292 December 2008 to January 2009 Percentage of 179

Fish 223 9.73 20 11.17 Chicken 157 6.85 15 8.38 Beef 111 4.84 3 1.68 Vegetarian 74 3.23 3 1.68 Pork 52 2.27 1 0.56

Exhibit 7. Type of Drink Discussed

Memorable Type of Drink July 2005 to February 2007 Percentage of 2,292 December 2008 to January 2009 Percentage of 179

Wine 583 25.44 51 28.49 Beer 72 3.14 4 2.23

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11, 2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

488 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51(4)

a restaurant. The old concept of viral marketing, as generated by the operator, has become meaningless with the shift in power from marketer to consumer—indeed, consumers will be suspicious or even offended when restaurateurs attempt to influence the content of social media sites.

The research evidence suggests that in both favorable and unfavorable economic periods, the preference structure model of restaurant consumers remains relatively similar. The good news for restaurateurs is that the majority of online reviews examined in this article were generally positive, which means delivering a good product and service is often rewarded by customers in terms of word of mouse. In this research, food appears as the top factor for customer satisfaction, followed by service and atmosphere. While the entrée was mentioned most often across all reviews, I must note that for those who order an appetizer, the study suggests that the starter is an influential course when it comes to what people remember and talk about after they leave a restaurant. I also found some evidence that consumers sought more value for money during the recession of 2008 and 2009. The article also establishes a methodological approach that could be replicated in alter- native major cities around the world to give a better picture of the restaurant industry across cultural barriers.

Becoming Memory Weavers Having analyzed the results of the research, I offer some spe- cific meaningful conclusions and suggestions that can find practical applications to a strategic approach for the restau- rateur dealing with the economic crisis. First, the most impor- tant way to influence electronic reviews and comments in social media remains the same as ever—serve excellent food in a way that makes it memorable. Even though food is the number-one topic of the restaurant reviews I examined, remember that a wonderful shared experience—rather than hunger—is the primary reason why people dine out in a full-service restaurant. More than 65 percent of all reviews

analyzed in this research start with a phrase such as, “My husband and I . . . ,” ”My girlfriend and I . . . ,” or “My friends and I. . . .” Ensuring that the meal experience is a memorable one should result in positive comments in chat rooms, forums, and review websites.

You should monitor the comments on restaurant review sites. Although your guests will not appreciate attempts to insert false positive comments, your guests are also voluntarily and freely offering you advice on how to improve your res- taurant. Thus, a proactive strategy would see proprietors surf the web to find comments about their restaurant. Negative comments can be used to improve the areas highlighted by the customers. Social media present an opportunity for genu- ine interaction between the proprietor and guests on the forum. Thus, if there is a problem, you can offer an explanation (not an excuse) and demonstrate how you are attempting to recover the service failure. This goes a long way in creating the feeling that the restaurateur cares about his or her reputation.

The findings of this research suggest that guests’ expectations are a key point in whether they are satisfied. Exceeding those expectations in an enjoyable manner can be achieved if the focus is on specific elements of the meal experience. Finding that unique selling point and enhancing it is the key to ensure your restaurant stands out from the rest of the competition.

Food is King Even though your guests are seeking an experience at your restaurant, it is clear from this research (and many other stud- ies) that food truly is king. It is the primary variable that will influence a customer’s memory and subsequently his or her behavioral intentions—whether that includes returning or sharing reviews on various internet sites. No matter how good the service or how well priced the menu may be, if the res- taurant fails to deliver its primary product, the experience will be tainted, and subsequent comments will be negative.

There is No King without Loyal Subjects It was clear that some restaurants sought to control costs during the recession. Guests noticed, as reflected in such comments as “good food but really slow service” and “fire the chef, hire more waiters.” In times of economic volatility, the training budget is often the first budget to go. Camilo, Connolly, and Woo (2008) report excessive cost cutting as one of the major traits contributing to restaurant operations’ failure. Restaura- teurs who value their employees will ensure that motivation is kept high and that the best employees do not go to work for the competitor because they feel undervalued. With a minimum staff-to-customer ratio, or with undertrained staff, both food and service will suffer—and this will be reflected in customer comments.

Exhibit 8. Comparison of Number of Comments for the Month of January in Four Years

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11, 2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

Pantelidis 489

Keep an Eye on the Big Picture

Although this article’s preference structure modeling puts price as the fourth most discussed variable, that does not mean it is the fourth most memorable. People tend to feel less com- fortable talking about money than other elements of the meal experience. As Monroe (1989) suggests, pricing can entice or repel a customer. One must not forget that certain customers are attracted to high-price menu items, as they may relate high price to better quality or status. So pricing can entice or repel at either of its polar ends.

Although food is at the top of the list, a brilliant meal followed by a huge bill may cause guests to think twice about returning to your restaurant. Other factors also influence guests’ satisfaction, including a badly handled reservation call or an unkempt restaurant exterior.

Having a vision and being proactive may appear as the last contributing factor to a successful restaurant operation in the Camilo, Connolly, and Woo (2008) study, but in times of eco- nomic volatility, this trait should be at the top. Without vision there can be no unique selling point, and in times of economic recession a unique selling point will make all the difference. Search engines and online restaurant guides aggregate con- sumer feedback from a number of sources. The Hardens.com restaurant guide, for example, which has been available to mobile phone for more than five years, reported higher sales from their online services than from the restaurant guide hard copies. This is further evidence that restaurant visits are heav- ily influenced by web content. Attempting to control the flow of communication may become impossible for the small-size restaurant, but having a vision and sticking to it will ensure that no matter what, the message will always be positive in the long run, as long as the vision is well executed.

Taking Advantage of Opportunities The internet is a loud megaphone, and if your restaurant has gained some form of celebrity, you should consider how to take advantage of it. For example, it would have been a long shot, but the owner of Casa Flamenco might have been able to parlay the negative publicity into a market position of “the abusive-Spanish-theme restaurant,” with the idea that Brisbane tourists would want to pay a visit to a place that had gained such notoriety.

That situation was probably too far gone, and only the bravest entrepreneur would see that as an opportunity. How- ever, the point remains that negative comments could be seen as an opportunity to enhance your product. One way to do this is to seek out dissatisfied customers and win them back. One reviewer in my sample posted this: “I wrote the review below about being asked to leave within two minutes. After my dining experience, I sent an email to their customer services. Hats

off to them, they responded within 24 hours and sent me a £20 gift voucher as an apology and said they do have a policy of 1 hour 45 table turn around and that they would take my feedback on board and train their staff and managers about how to enforce this correctly with customers.” The reviewer continues with a further 350 words describing his experience, concluding that he would definitely visit the restaurant again. Another reviewer wrote, “I wrote a critical review of this res- taurant on this website a few months ago, highlighting their shortcomings on an evening I spent there with my husband; the main of these being the terrible service. The day after the review was posted I was tracked down (the review was anony- mous so they really had to match up all the orders that evening to the food I described in the review, which is quite impres- sive!) and asked to come to the restaurant again to see if I would change my mind. My husband and I finally got around to going again last night. . . . It truly was like stepping into a new restaurant, so when the chef came out to see us I could honestly tell him that the evening was faultless.” Such favor- able follow-up commentaries are priceless. They show that restaurants are listening and acting to correct problems.

Managing Social Media and Internet Posts This study shows the importance of monitoring and managing electronic communications. Not only can restaurateurs achieve a better understanding of what consumers want and how they perceive their restaurant, but customers’ comments can also highlight areas of improvement and enable restaurateurs to pro- tect their brand online. Although there are a number of compa- nies that can monitor a number of blogs, social sites, and review sites for any business, most of this can be easily achieved by independent restaurateurs who may not have the budget to invest to a large company. Google alerts, for example, is an easy way of getting emails based on selected topics and keywords. Every time Google’s bots find a comment, article, or review about your restaurant, you can view it and choose whether to respond. Above, I gave two examples where restaurateurs responded to unsatisfied customers with favorable results. Such a strategy has two effects. First, it allows you to win back a dissatisfied customer; and second, it allows your restaurant to stand out as one that will make it right if something goes wrong.

Finally, if guests repeatedly offer positive comments about a particular aspect of the restaurant, this aspect can be used as a criterion for rewarding and further motivating employees. If, on the other hand, a particular area consistently receives negative comments, then the restaurateur can investigate the reasons behind this underperformance. Keeping track of com- ment patterns over long periods of time can also act as a key performance indicator for restaurateurs. Especially when review sites operate a star rating system, a restaurateur can easily track his or her restaurant rating over periods of time.

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11, 2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

490 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51(4)

The Next Stage: Word of Video

It is just a matter of time before “word of mouse” becomes “word of video” and restaurateurs and other hospitality opera- tors find themselves the subjects of videos posted on YouTube, Facebook, or elsewhere. The technology is already easily available. Although the bulk of comments on the London eating site were favorable, I again note that it is easy to become an internet restaurant fatality. On Facebook, the keywords “worst restaurant” resulted in 244 interest groups. Having a Facebook group for your restaurant, on the other hand, costs you little time and could generate a good sense of community for your customers.

A Google search on the keywords “terrible restaurant” on February 9, 2009, yielded 7,150,000 hits globally and 720,000 in the United Kingdom. Likewise, the keywords “worst res- taurant” resulted 6,100,000 global hits and 209,000 U.K. results. The top page results emanate from websites such as tripadvisor.com, answers.yahoo, and youtube.com. Consumers are not shy about using their mobile phone cameras and videos to depict undesirable back-of-house areas or dirty kitchens or toilets. Instead of describing them, they will simply post them.

Needless to say, mobile phones can work in your restau- rant’s favor, since consumers can use one of many apps to connect to a map online (Exhibit 9), locate a restaurant, and download data that their GPS software will translate to direc- tions to the restaurant. Bear in mind that most of the images and videos featured in such services are consumer-generated. Large businesses are already taking advantage of the consumer- driven imagery, but a big budget is not necessary. What is needed is a clear, concise, and unique message.

Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research

Although every care has been taken to minimize coding errors, the coding was performed manually and it is not pos- sible to totally eliminate errors. I must also caution that the results presented here may apply only to full-service restau- rants. I see no reason that the results cannot be generalized beyond London, but I note that the survey is limited by geog- raphy. I would have liked to have analyzed comments from all 791 restaurants, but resource limitations did not permit. I cut my second research period short to submit this paper to a Cornell Quarterly special issue, in 2009. I suspect that the succeeding months may have shown a greater consumer willingness to discuss pricing. Finally, the research could easily be replicated with other websites that feature consumer reviews, and the preference structure model suggested in this article could be tested in other cultures.

Disclosures

The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References

Andaleeb, Syed Saad, and Carolyn Conway. 2006. Customer satisfac- tion in the restaurant industry: An examination of the transaction- specific model. Journal of Services Marketing 20 (1): 3-11.

Exhibit 9. Seamless Integrated Technology and Consumer-Generated Content

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11, 2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/

Pantelidis 491

Camilo, Angelo, A. Connolly, J. Daniel, and Gon Kim Woo. 2008. Success and failure in northern Carolina: Critical success factors for independent restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 49 (4): 364-80.

Casa Flamenco. 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v-GeEq VMEgfNc (accessed February 7, 2009).

Davis, Bernard, Andrew Lockwood, Ioannis Pantelidis, and Peter Alcott. 2008. Food and beverage management. 4th ed. London, UK: Elsevier.

Dobele, Angela, David Toleman, and Michael Beverland. 2005. Controlled infection! Spreading the brand message through viral marketing. Business Horizons 48:143-49.

Gelb, Betsy D., and Suresh Sundaram. 2002. Adapting to word of mouse. Business Horizons 45 (4): 21-25.

Gupta, Sachin, Edward McLaughlin, and Miguel Gomez. 2007. Guest satisfaction and restaurant performance. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 48 (3): 284-98.

Helm, Sabrina. 2000. Viral marketing—Establishing customer relation- ships by “word-of-mouse.” Electronic Markets 10 (3): 158-61.

Henning-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin Gwinner, Giannfranco Walsh, and Dwayne Gremler. 2004. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 (1): 38-52.

Kasavana, Michael L. 2002. eMarketing: Restaurant websites that click. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 9 (3/4): 161-78.

Kimes, Sheryl E. 2008. The role of technology in restaurant revenue management. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49:297-309.

Kivela, Jaksïa, Robert Inbakaran, and John Reece. 2000. Consumer research in the restaurant environment. Part 3: Analysis, find- ings and conclusions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 12 (1): 13-30.

Krippendorff, Klaus. 1980. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London, UK: Sage.

Monroe, K. 1989. The pricing of services. In Handbook of services marketing, ed. C. A. Congram and M. L. Friedman, 20-31. New York, NY: AMACOM.

Riedl, John, Joseph Konstan, and Eric Vrooman. 2002. Word of mouse: The power of collaborative filtering. New York, NY: Warner Books.

Teasdale, Mike. 2007. Establishing trust online. Harvest digital report. Nielsen/Netratings, http://www.harvestdigital.com/ uploads/assets/pdfs/a06e872df8d658b9c6ad0f48ea5c2d98.pdf (accessed July, 2010).

Thompson, Nicholas. 2003. Technology; more companies pay heed to their “word of mouse” reputation. New York Times, June 23. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E3DB143 BF930A15755C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 (accessed February 7, 2009).

Young, Namkung, and SooCheong Jang. 2007. Does food quality really matter in restaurants? Its impact on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 31 (3): 387-409.

Young, Namkung, and SooCheong Jang. 2008. Are highly satisfied restaurant customers really different? A quality perception per- spective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality management 20 (2): 142-55.

Bio

Ioannis S. Pantelidis is a Ph.D. candidate, senior lecturer in hos- pitality and tourism management, and program leader in interna- tional hotel and restaurant management at the London Metropolitan Business School of London Metropolitan University (i.pantelidis@ londonmet.ac.uk).

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11, 2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cqx.sagepub.com/