1. Lakeside Grill Report Prepared by Alexa Gaudin Destiny Johnson
Brooke Redding
Zach Zambrano
Juan Nolasco

2. Sample Characteristics

3. Sample Size Total sample size = 253 respondents
204, 80.6% have eaten at Lakeside Grill
49, 19.4% have not eaten at Lakeside Grill

4. Age and Gender of Sample
Females  52.3%
Males  47.7%

5. Household Income of Sample

6. Distance of Sample from Lakeside Grill
Live
Work

7. New Variables

8. Total Meals Eaten at Lakeside Grill
Mean = Mode = 10 Median = 8.5
Standard Deviation = 4.87

9. Type of User
Type of User Number of Meals Eaten Sample Size Percent of Sample
Light users to 6 meals %
Moderate users to 10 meals %
Heavy users or more meals %

10. Type of Diner
Type of User Values for Group Sample Size Percent of Sample
Evening diner to %
Both meals -1 to %
Lunch diner +2 to %
To determine the type of diner each person was a value was calculated for Number of Noon Meals – Number of Evening Meals

11. Research Objective One
What is the current level of customer satisfaction and patronage with the various aspects of Lakeside Grill.

12. Number of Noon (lunch) Meals
Mean = Mode = 2 Median = 7.5
Standard Deviation = 4.41

13. Number of Evening (Dinner) Meals
Mean = Mode = 5 Median = 8.5
Standard Deviation = 3.41

14. One Thing You Like Best

15. One Thing You Dislike the Most

16. Lakeside Satisfaction Ratings (Part I)

17. Lakeside Satisfaction Ratings (Part II)

18. Satisfaction Ratings by Type of Diner
Location more important for noon diners (4.26) than evening diners (3.61)

19. Satisfaction Ratings by Gender

20. Satisfaction Ratings by Age

21. Conclusions Food is Number 1 reason customers like Lakeside
Wait time is primary dislike of Lakeside
19.3% eat at least once a week
Highest ratings were for food
Lowest ratings for parking, speed of service, appearance
Females tended to rate Lakeside lower than males
Younger consumers tended to rate food lower
Appearance lower for younger and older consumers

22. Research Objective Two
Why Have Individuals Not Patronized the Lakeside Grill?

23. Why Have Not Eaten at Lakeside Grill

24. Conclusions
Awareness Number 1 reason for not eating at Lakeside

25. Research Objective Three
How Has the Addition of a New Competitor Down the Street Impacted the Lakeside Grill’s Customer Base?

26. Most Preferred Ranking of Restaurants

27. Rating of Food at Fisherman’s Paradise
Note: 90.9% of sample had eaten at Fisherman’s Paradise.

28. How Has Fisherman’s Paradise Affected Patronage at Lakeside Grill?

29. Impact of Fisherman’s Paradise by Type of User

30. Impact of Fisherman’s Paradise by Type of Diner

31. Impact of Fisherman’s Paradise by Age

32. Conclusions Ranking Questions
Lakeside “Most preferred” by 30.6% of the sample
Lakeside ranked 2nd (Happy Times Bar first)
Lakeside rank 1st or 2nd by 56% of the sample
37% rated food better at Fisherman’s Paradise than Lakeside
Eating less or quit eating at Lakeside Grill
26.1% of total sample
23.6% of heavy users and 22.1% of moderate users
23.5% of noon diners and 21.4% of evening diners
33.3% of individuals and 27.6% of individuals 18-29

33. Research Objective Four (A)
Would changing Lakeside Grill’s menu or amenities increase sales?

34. Importance of New Items to Patronage

35. Importance of New Items by Type of User

36. Importance of New Items by Gender

37. Importance of New Items by Income

38. Importance of New Items by Distance Live

39. Conclusions Modifying menu can impact patronage Free bread at meals
Healthier meals
Important to females
Lunch menu
Positively related to usage
Inversely related to income
Half-portions important to females
More important to those that live closest to Lakeside Grill

40. Research Objective Four (B)
Would changing the advertising, and/or promotional practices increase sales?

41. Importance of Marketing Tactics

42. Importance of Price-off Promotions by Age

43. Conclusions Price-off promotions most important
Tends to decline with age
Advertising on TV somewhat important

44. Research Insights

45. Monthly Sales for Lakeside Grill
Sales Growth Stagnates
Fisherman’s Paradise
Opened (April 2012)
2010
2011
2012

46. Insights (Part I) Strong customer core Impact of Fisherman’s Paradise
People eat at Lakeside because of food
Large, loyal group eats about once/week (30%)
Ranked 1st or 2nd by 56% of sample
Impact of Fisherman’s Paradise
New restaurant phenomenon
Lost approximately 20% of customers
Lost primarily moderate/heavy diners
Lost high percentage 50-59, age groups
Not gaining new customers

47. Insights (Part II) Reasons for customer loss
Slow speed of service (not staff)
Appearance of building (exterior and interior)
Lower level of satisfaction by females

48. Why long wait time? Examined hourly labor costs
Wait time due primarily to hourly staff
Sales/cost data examined
Compare to gross sales
Compare hour labor cost percent to gross sales
Compare hour labor cost percent to industry average

49. Hourly Labor Costs / Gross Sales
Sales growth levels off
Fisherman’s Paradise opens (April 2012)
Hourly labor costs remain relatively flat
2010
2012

50. Hourly Labor Costs Percent / Sales
Wait time starts to increase
Now an alternative
Long wait time
Sales increased, but labor as % of sales declined!

51. Hourly Labor Costs Percent / Industry Average
Labor as % of Sales below industry!

52. Insights (Part III) Direct labor costs Customers lost due to
Did not increase proportionately with sales increase
Impacted service level at peak capacity times
Resulted in longer wait times
Customers lost due to
Longer wait time
Exterior/interior appearance
Fisherman’s Paradise offered viable alternative
Regaining lost customers will be challenging

53. Recommendations

54. Recommendations Increase hourly labor personnel
Goal is to increase speed of service
Paint/remodel building exterior
New furniture/remodel interior
Television advertising
Awareness advertising to gain new customers
Promotion of price-off specials to attract former customers
New items to add
Free bread with meals
Healthier food choices
Lunch menu available for both meals