1. Presentation By: Lauree Francis
The Perceived Fairness of Waitlist- Management Techniques for Restaurants By: Kelly A. McGuire & Sheryl E. Kimes
Presentation By: Lauree Francis

2. Objective
Determine how customers of restaurants that do not take reservations react to common waitlist management techniques that can violate first- come, first-served expectations

3. The Four Waitlist Management Policies
Party-Size Seating
Seats parties at right sized tables
More seats are filled, increases both seat utilization and revenue
VIP Seating
Seating priority in loyal customers in hopes of continued revenue
Seating priority to well known customers (Celebrities) to add a higher “status” to restaurants reputation

4. The Four Waitlist Management Policies
Large-party Reservations
Only allows reservations for parties of 6/8 or more
Helps plan ahead for table use
Walk In large parties can interrupt service, by causing restaurants to hold tables and may end in loss of revenue
Call-ahead Seating
Allows customers to call before arrival but does not promise a table immediately upon arrival (no reservation)
Shorter wait times for customers who call ahead
Restaurants can spread demand to less busy times, maybe even negotiate arrival time

5. Issues to Consider Reference Transaction (Past Experiences)
Violations occur when the restaurant behaves differently than the customers past experience, even if they are following an existing policy
Social Justice
Customers evaluating the “fairness of a transaction”
Procedural Justice
Policy is viewed as “fair”
Distributive Justice
After customer experiences the policy they decide the outcome is “unfair”

6. Issues to Consider Familiarity
More familiar the customer is with the transaction the greater the chance they will view the transaction as being “fair”
If customers has complete information on a company policy, his or her fairness ratings tend to be higher than if the information has been withheld
Can be provided to customers by hostess or by a marketing campaign about call ahead seating or large party reservations

7. The Study
Tested customer-fairness perceptions of the four waitlist management policies
Used Scenario based survey
Two different scenarios for each policy
Advantage of shorter wait
Disadvantage of shorter wait
Scenarios were identical except in one they were with the a party that was seated right away and the other they had to wait
Scenarios were designed so customers knew the reason the restaurant made the choice of whom to seat first

8. Methodology Questions were ranked on a 7 point scale
Included questions about
Age
Gender
frequency of dining out
Analysis showed that none of those demographic factors influenced the responses
Convenience sample of 268
Majority (58%) female
Most customers had eaten out 5 to 10 time during the previous month

9. Key F i n d i n g s

10. Key Findings

11. Key Findings

12. Key Findings
Customers rated seating by party size and call ahead policies as relatively fair
Taking large party reservations only was viewed as neutral to slightly unfair
Giving priority to VIP customers was viewed as unfair
Some differences in fairness rating between customers who did not have to wait and those who did, but they were not statistically significant. Indicating that customers felt the same about the policies whether they were seated first or not

13. Key Findings

14. Means for Fairness Ratings
Customers ranked fairness of outcome similarly to the fairness of the policy
Call Ahead seating was still considered fair
VIP seating was still considered unfair
Seating by party size and large party reservations were rated Neutral
Large-party reservations customers with shorter wait time ranked the outcome significantly fairer than those who had to wait longer
Compared procedural and distributive justice ratings
Call ahead and VIP scenarios
No difference between fairness of policy and fairness of outcome
Party size and large party reservations
Some difference between fairness of policy and fairness of outcome

15. Means for Fairness Ratings
Customers judged the policy of seating by party size to be slightly fairer than the outcome of the policy (regardless of wait)
Customers judged the policy of seating by large party reservations to be slightly less fair than the outcome of the policy
Results indicate that customers felt it was fair for the party to be seated ahead of them because they had a reservation
But customers felt that the policy of restricting reservations to large parties only was unfair

16. Impact of Familiarity of Fairness
Impact of customers familiarity with each waitlist policy on fairness perceptions to the policy
Restricted analysis to customers that stated they were familiar with waitlist policies (scored 6 or 7) and those that weren’t (scored 1 or 2)
Customers with high familiarity ranked the waitlist policies as being more fair than those that were not familiar with policies
(all except for large party reservations)
Accepting large-party reservations was considered slightly unfair regardless of being familiar with policies or not

17. Implementation for Management
Party Size
Customers respond better to policies when they are aware of them and suggested phrase:
“There is a wait for tables right now. But we’ll put you on the list for the next available table for two”
VIP Customers
Strong negative ratings, should handle with care
Managers should attempt to mask special treatment
Customers wait in an area away from hostess table
Bring VIPs through a separate entrance
Use pagers, so customer cannot track place in line

18. Implementation for Management
Reservations for Large Parties Only
Being familiar with policy does not influence fairness outcome
Restaurants should allow reservations for all party size
Call ahead Seating
Most fair policy in study
Restaurants should promote use of this policy and the rules of the policy

19. Conclusion
Waitlist management helps managers to make important decisions of seating the right customer at the right time
VIP and large party reservations were considered most unfair
Party Size and Call ahead seating were considered most fair