1. EATING OUT DECISION Presented By- Rupam Mondal Pratigya Sharma Siddhant Jain Manish Dayal Vaibhav Mishra Presented to- Dr. Richa Misra

2. Introduction  Eating out decision-making processes, including acquisition, transformation, service, consumption, and disposal, interact with family and community environments to define food choices and shape individual thinking (i.e., their constructed reality) about food, eating, health, and well- being.  India is a food loving country and there are so many kind of foods and beverages are available in Indian market.  It has a large fast food market for her food loving people and they love to eat fast food outside their home.  The study regarding the food culture on behalf of demographic, Geographic, Physiographic and behavioural

3. Abstract  The study is about the customer perceptions preference and behavior about the various Eating Out habits.  The study is conducted within the college campus i.e, the students of Jaipuria and other family members and friends  Research design is Descriptive and Exploratory  Sampling Method is convenient(non probabilistic)  Sample size are the respondents(32)  Scale used is nominal, likert, interval, ratio, Ordinal.  The testing is done through SPSS 20.

4. Objective  To study the increasing habit of Eating Out  To identify the various factors influencing Eating Out  To study the psychological behavior of customers towards different varieties of food.  To experiment the consciousness of people towards their health.  To identify the most preferred habits among all age groups for Eating Out

5. Literature Review  The Indian fast food market has been witnessing rapid growth on the back of positive developments and presence of massive investments. Currently, market growth is largely fuelled by the rising young population, working women, hectic schedules, and increasing disposable income of the middle-class households. Some of the unique properties of fast food like quick served, cost advantage, etc are making it highly popular among the masses.. According to this new research report, “Indian Fast Food Market Analysis”, the Indian Fast Food Industry is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of around 34% during 2011-2014.(Ardyth M. H. Gillespie, 3rd November,2009)  We love to eat out and street food has always been a very popular part of our out-of-home experience. No wonder that organised food service retail is one of the fast growing sectors in the retail market in India. (Youngsters prefer eating out over home cooked meals: Study, 2013 )  Consequently, the main objectives of this study were to explore the differences in fast food consumption between Indians adults (35 to 65 years of age) living in high- and low-income neighbourhoods in India and to explore if the difference in neighbourhood income affects their patronage of fast food restaurants and their perception of fast food itself. (Singh, 2007)  Furthermore, a question on buying food from a local street vendor was included in the questionnaire, given that in developing countries such as India, buying food from a street vendor is an affordable and convenient meal option when eating outside the home. (Waterloo)

6. Hypotheses Testing 1) Hypo 1 H0:There is no relationship between Occupation and eating out decision of eating out. H1:There is a relationship between Occupation and eating out decision of eating out. IV- Decision(freq.) DV - Occupation 2) Hypo 2 H0:There is no relationship between Frequency of eating out and Place of eating out decision. H1:There is a relationship between Frequency of eating out and Place of eating out decision IV - Place DV- frequency

7. Cont.  3) Hypo 3 H0:There is no relationship between Peer group and Eating out decision. H1:There is a relationship between Pears group and Eating out decision. IV-Decision(freq.) DV-Peer group 4) Hypo 4 H0: There is a relationship between Distance and Eating out decision. H1:There is an inverse relationship between Distance and Eating out decision. IV-Decision(freq.) DV-Distance 5) Hypo 5 H0:There is no relationship between Time and Eating out decision. H1: There is a relationship between Time and Eating out decision. IV- Decision (freq). DV-Time

8. Cont. 6) Hypo 6 H0:There is no significant difference between Hygiene/environmental factor and Eating out decision. H1:There is a relationship between Environmental factor and Eating out decision. IV-Decision (freq.) DV-Environment factor 7) Hypo 7 H0: There is no relationship between Freq of eating out and money. H1:There is a relationship between Freq of eating out and money IV: Freq DV: Money 8) Hypo 8 H0:There is no significant difference between Various factor and Eating out decision. H1:There is a relationship between Various factor and Eating out decision. IV-Decision (freq.) DV-Various factor

9. Analysis Chi-Square Tests Valuedf Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square2.743 a 2.254 Likelihood Ratio3.4792.176 Linear-by-Linear Association2.1971.138 N of Valid Cases32 a. 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is.44.

11. ANOVA No of visit in a month Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig. Between Groups21.50445.37645.159.000 Within Groups3.21427.119 Total24.71931 No of visit in a month Duncan Spending on foodNSubset for alpha = 0.05 1234 Rs. 0-3031.00 Rs.30-6051.00 Rs.60-9061.50 Rs.90-12072.43 More than Rs.120113.00 Sig.1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 5.355. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

12. Case Processing Summary Cases ValidMissingTotal NPercentN N Friend * No of visit in a month 3294.1%25.9%34100.0% Friend * No of visit in a month Cross tabulation Count No of visit in a monthTotal 2 times or less3-4 times5 or more Friend Too much extend4004 Much extend75012 To an extend02810 Not so much0044 Not much0022 Total1171432 Chi-Square Tests Valuedf Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square31.210 a 8.000 Likelihood Ratio41.6088.000 Linear-by-Linear Association20.5611.000 N of Valid Cases32 a. 14 cells (93.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is.44.

13. ANOVA No of visit in a month Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig. Between Groups20.11036.70340.723.000 Within Groups4.60928.165 Total24.71931 No of visit in a month Duncan Distance from homeNSubset for alpha = 0.05 12 <500 meter131.15 500-700 meters122.58 700-1000 meters33.00 More than 1000 meters43.00 Sig.1.000.122 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 5.379. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

14. Case Processing Summary Cases ValidMissingTotal NPercentN N Environmental factor * No of visit in a month 3294.1%25.9%34100.0% Environmental factor * No of visit in a month Cross tabulation Count No of visit in a monthTotal 2 times or less3-4 times5 or more Environmental factor crowded1001. pleasant107724 calm and Quite0077 Total1171432 Chi-Square Tests Valuedf Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square13.030 a 4.011 Likelihood Ratio15.9084.003 Linear-by-Linear Association10.0911.001 N of Valid Cases32 a. 6 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is.22.

15. Case Processing Summary Cases ValidMissingTotal NPercentN N Favourable time slot * No of visit in a month 3294.1%25.9%34100.0% Favourable time slot * No of visit in a month Cross tabulation Count No of visit in a monthTotal 2 times or less 3-4 times5 or more Favorable time slot After noon3003 Evening87722 Night0077 Total1171432 Chi-Square Tests Valuedf Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square16.463 a 4.002 Likelihood Ratio19.6684.001 Linear-by-Linear Association12.2301.000 N of Valid Cases32 a. 7 cells (77.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is.66.

16. Group Statistics No of visit in a monthNMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error Mean Factors 2 times or less1117.642.873.866 3-4 times722.43.535.202 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means FSig.tdfSig. (2-tailed)Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower UpperUpper Factors Equal variances assumed4.980.040-4.31916.001-4.7921.110-7.144 -2.440-2.440 Equal variances not assumed-5.38711.063.000-4.792.890-6.749 -2.836-2.836

17. Findings:  In India now a days the eating out is increases subsequently and various factor affecting this eating out decision of Indian.  As we all know the no of shifting of people increase form home to the other states for job and educational purpose the volume of eating out also increases, although there are other factors which are effecting the eating out decision of a person those are Environmental factor, Pears group, Quality, Quantity of food Place and spending on fast-food.

18. Suggestions  There is an ample of scope for the marketer to grab the opportunity and invest into this fastest growing sector,. According to this new research report, “Indian Fast Food Market Analysis”, the Indian Fast Food Industry is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of around 34% during 2011-2014.  It will fetch ample of profits to them and if they come out and do it in a well maintained manner then in the future they can expand their business overseas which will support Indian economy as this sector holds ample of future opportunity and a bright future ahead.