ADVT 530 – Final Project

A D V T 5 3 0 – F I N A L P R O J E C T

Chick-fil-A

Minsoo Kim | Kelsey Robinson | Elizabeth Floyd

T h e A T e am – F i n a l P r o j e c t – A DV T 5 3 0 2

Ke lsey Robinson A d v e r t i s i n g G r a d u a t e S t u d e n t C o l l e g e o f C o mm u n i c a t i o n a n d I n f o r m a t i o n E m a i l : k r o b i n 3 0@ v o l s . u t k . e d u

M insoo K im P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s G r a d u a t e S t u d e n t C o l l e g e o f C o mm u n i c a t i o n a n d I n f o r m a t i o n E m a i l : m k i m 4 1@ v o l s . u t k . e d u

E l i zabeth F loyd P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s G r a d u a t e S t u d e n t C o l l e g e o f C o mm u n i c a t i o n a n d I n f o r m a t i o n E m a i l : e f l o y d 2@ v o l s . u t k . e d u


1 . E x e c u t i v e S u mm a r y p . 4

2 . S i t u a t i o n A n a l y s i s p . 5

2 . 1 I n d u s t r y O v e r v i e w p . 5

2 . 2 C l i e n t P r o f i l e p . 1 1

2 . 3 C o m p e t i t o r A n a l y s i s p . 1 4

2 . 4 C o n s u m e r A n a l y s i s p . 2 2

3 . R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s a n d H y p o t h e s e s p . 2 4

4 . R e s e a r c h M e t h o d s p . 2 6

5 . A n a l y s i s o f D a t a a n d F i n d i n g s p . 2 7

6 . C o n c l u s i o n s a n d R e c o mm e n d a t i o n s p . 3 1

6 . 1 T a r g e t A u d i e n c e p . 3 2

6 . 2 R e c o mm e n d e d T a c t i c s p . 3 3

6 . 3 P r o p o s e d F u t u r e R e s e a r c h p . 3 6

7 . W o r k s C i t e d p . 3 7

8 . A p p e n d i x I – E m a i l R e q u e s t p . 3 8

9 . A p p e n d i x I I – F a c e b o o k P o s t s p . 3 9

1 0 . A p p e n d i x I I I – S u r v e y p . 4 0


This report was created to provide research, insight, and recommendations into the identification of potential marketing communication strategies that Chick-‐fil-‐A can use to improve its overall marketing efforts and to reach a wider range of fast food consumers. In order to develop these strategies it was crucial to understand current trends and insights about the fast food industry as a whole, to analyze how Chick-‐fil-‐A compares to competitors in the industry, and to better understand the demographic, psychographic, and behavioristic characteristics of Chick-‐fil-‐A consumers. A thorough observation of the fast food industry enabled us to identify certain key trends and insights that could be significant to Chick-‐fil-‐A. A major insight found was the increasing importance that consumers are placing on health when choosing to eat at fast food and also an increasing preference for customizability from restaurants. Other insights revealed that as consumer confidence increases and these new trends emerge, the competition in the fast food industry is also increasing and new strategies must be implemented to stay afloat in the market. After observing major trends and insights in the fast food industry as a whole, an analysis of competitors was conducted. Primary competitors identified were McDonald’s, Zaxby’s, Popeyes, and Kentucky Fried Chicken based on their similar offerings of chicken products. Secondary competitors included Subway, Panera, and Chipotle based on their high-‐perceived health by consumers. Major results of the analysis indicated that Chick-‐fil-‐A ranked second in terms of sales among both primary and secondary competitors. Additionally, Chick-‐fil-‐A was on the lower end of the spectrum in terms of advertising expenditures and share of voice, indicating the potential to increase its reach. By analyzing the situation in terms of industry, competitors, and consumers we were able to develop research questions that we felt would be the most beneficial to improving Chick-‐fil-‐A’s current marketing communications. Our research questions asked which channels potential Chick-‐fil-‐A customers were receiving Chick-‐fil-‐A nutritional information and other health information, how Chick-‐fil-‐A consumers perceive Chick-‐fil-‐A’s healthiness in comparison to competitors, which specific health factors of Chick-‐fil-‐A food were perceived to be better than competitors, and if these perceptions differed among different ages and genders. Our last research question asked how Chick-‐fil-‐A’s stance against same sex marriage affects potential customers’ willingness to purchase Chick-‐fil-‐A food. A survey of respondents was taken and various SPSS tests were conducted to answer our research questions. Results indicated that females and older adults place significantly more importance on healthy options when choosing to eat at Chick-‐fil-‐A. In general healthy options were found to be important among consumers. Results also showed that those with a liberal political stance were less likely to purchase at Chick-‐fil-‐A, while those with a conservative stance were more likely to purchase at Chick-‐fil-‐A. Fresh ingredients were found to be the most important food quality in consumers’ choice for healthy food at a fast food restaurant. Based on our findings recommendations include placing a higher emphasis on fresh ingredients and healthy aspects in Chick-‐fil-‐A advertising and putting special emphasis on the female and older adult markets when doing this. Another recommendation includes putting a campaign in place for Voter Appreciation Event to encourage people of all political stances to stand up for what they believe in and vote.


This situation analysis analyzes the external and internal factors that affect the business of Chick-‐fil-‐A, including a look at the quick serve industry, Chick-‐fil-‐A’s profile, and competitors to Chick-‐fil-‐A, as well as Chick-‐fil-‐A consumers. Information about these four factors can affect the success of Chick-‐fil-‐A and aid in understanding the organization.

2 .1 FAS T FOOD INDUSTRY OVERV IEW

Brief History

Although fast food, also known as quick serve, is thought to be a major aspect of American culture and history, the fast food industry really only has been around for about 50 years (Wilsdon & Gaspaire, 2003). It began when an opportunity was identified to make money and reduce costs for restaurants by improving automation (Schlosser, 2000). These new methods became an important aspect of the industry’s development, as it allowed fast food restaurants to use a cheap, unskilled labor force (Schlosser, 2000). McDonald’s Corporation was the leader of the fast food industry in the 1950s and continues to be the largest industry player to this day (Wilsdon & Gaspaire, 2003). Fast food restaurants quickly spread, becoming regular, everyday stops for consumers and a symbol of American culture. Schlosser (2000) writes, “A hamburger and French fries became the quintessential American meal in the 1950s, thanks to the promotional efforts of the fast food chains” (para. 14). Despite the industry’s widespread acceptance and growth over the years, many issues have been raised about the ethical practices of the industry. In his book, Fast Food Nation, Schlosser (2000) writes, “Hundreds of millions of people buy fast food every day without giving it much thought, unaware of the subtle and not so subtle ramifications of their purchases. They rarely consider where this food came from, how it was made, what it is doing to the community around them” (para. 23). Throughout history however, this has not been the case. Now consumers are putting more thought into fast food purchases. Demands and preferences are quickly changing and people are expecting more from these fast food restaurants if they want to continue to thrive. Consumer Trends With a rising awareness of health problems related to obesity, weight, and unhealthy food consumption over the past five years, consumers have started to take their health more into account when choosing between food alternatives. As fast food restaurants are typically known to offer unhealthy and low quality meals, the increase in health conscious consumers subsequently has decreased demand for fast food over the past 5 years. Fast food restaurants have reacted to this trend by adding healthier options to their menus. Despite a general decrease in demand, sales have modestly increased over the past five years as consumers continue to seek the convenience that these meals provide. During the recession, consumer expenditures were low thus fast food consumption was low, but as the economy continues to improve, consumer spending and fast food consumption is also expected to increase (Alvarez, 2015). Technology Technological change is moderate in the Fast Food Restaurant industry. Many are taking advantage of engagement opportunities of the Internet with the use of social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook. Likewise some are using technology to offer online systems for at-‐home orders while others are using apps with online menus that allow customers to order beforehand with their mobile devices (Fast-‐food & quick-‐service restaurants, 2015). Additionally, companies are using technology “to boost profit margins, improve service levels and to help minimize labor costs, reducing food waste, improving business processes and improving meal experiences” (Alvarez, 2015, p 12.).


Overall, the fast-‐food industry does not seem to be going anywhere. With small but stable growth and changing products and practices to accommodate the changing consumer, fast-‐food restaurants will maintain their position in the mature stage of the product life cycle.

Sales

As the graph above demonstrates, revenue in the fast food restaurant industry has gradually increased over the past 5 years, from $197,880,500,000 in 2011 to expected revenue of $207,814,600,000 in 2015. This represents an overall slow but steady growth. Sales pick up momentum between 2013 and 2015.

Identification of competitors

Competition is high in the fast food restaurant industry as internal competitors compete on factors such as price, quality, and menu selection. According to an IBISWorld industry report by Alvarez (2015), 152,651 businesses make up this large US industry. Some of the major primary competitors in the fast food restaurant industry are those with the largest market share. These consist of McDonald’s Corp. with 17% market share, Yum! Brands Inc. (owner of Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and KFC) with 10.8%, Subway with 6.7%, and Wendy’s Company with market share of 4.4% (Alvarez, 2015). Other notable companies in terms of market share include Burger King Corporation with 4.4% and Domino’s Inc. with 1.8% market share. Chick-‐fil-‐A currently has 2.5% share of the fast food market.

The fast food restaurant industry is segmented by the type of food served, but many fast food restaurants do not fit perfectly into one segment. The products and services segmentation of this industry can be described as 42% burgers, 14% sandwiches, 10% Asian, 10% chicken, 9% pizza and pasta, 8% Mexican, and 7% other (Alvarez, 2015). The largest chain restaurants that make up the chicken segment consist of Chick-‐fil-‐A, KFC, and Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen (Alvarez, 2015).

F i g u r e 2 . 1 : F a s t F o o d i n d u s t r y r e v e n u e h a s i n c r e a s e d o v e r t h e p a s t 5 y e a r s . A l v a r e z , 2 0 1 5 .


Not only does the Fast Food Industry compete internally, but external sources are a major form of competition for the industry as well. For instance, other forms of food retailers such as convenience and grocery stores that offer deli and prepared food options can be considered indirect competitors for this industry (Fast-‐food & quick-‐service restaurants, 2015). Additionally, there has been an increase by secondary competitors as fast casual restaurants have been experiencing large growth over the past few years, with sales that grew 11 percent in 2013 (Alvarez, 2014; Fast-‐food & quick-‐service restaurants, 2015). These restaurants “do not offer table service, but provide a higher quality of food and ambiance compared with traditional fast food restaurants” (Alvarez, 2015, p. 8). These fast casual restaurants, such as Chipotle, Five Guys, and Panera are stealing market share from the fast food category as healthier options are in demand, the economy begins to improve, and consumers begin to spend more on eating out. With meals that are customizable and a common emphasis on promoting healthy and organic ingredients, consumers are starting to choose these types of restaurants over traditional fast food restaurants as they perceive them to be higher quality alternatives (Alvarez, 2015; Fast-‐food & quick-‐service restaurants, 2015).

Advertising expenditures for Quick Service Restaurants

Each year for the past five years advertising expenditures in the quick service restaurants category has increased. Starting at about $2,865,562,600 in 2010 and increasing almost 450 million by 2013, it is obvious advertising has become more important to fast food companies in recent years. However, despite this large increase in spending from 2010 to 2013, ad expenditures have had considerably slower growth from 2013 (at $3,315,351,600) to 2014 ($3,322,680,300 in ad spending).

I m a g e 2 . 2 : A d v e r t i s i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s h a v e i n c r e a s e d o v e r t h e p a s t f i v e y e a r s . H o w e v e r f o r t h e p a s t t w o , t h e y h a v e r e m a i n e d t h e s a m e . K a n t a r M e d i a , 2 0 1 5 .


Seasonality

There seems to be few consistent seasonal patterns occurring in the Quick Service Restaurant category. In 2013 and 2014 there was more ad spending during the first and second quarters of the year. However, aside from these past two years, the seasons have not seemed to have any significant impact on ad spending.

I m a g e 2 . 3 : E x c e p t f o r t h e p a s t t w o y e a r s , t h e s e a s o n s h a v e n o t h a d a s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t o n a d v e r t i s i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s . K a n t a r M e d i a , 2 0 1 4 .


Growth Potential/Forecasts

Despite the growing health concerns of consumers, the Fast Food Restaurant industry has done fairly well compared to other hospitality services due to its low prices and convenience. As the economy continues to recover and consumers still look for convenient food alternatives, the industry is expected to see some slow but steady growth.

Additionally, as fast food operators continue to adapt to the changing consumer with expanded menus, new products, and technological advancements as well as expand internationally, growth in the industry is not expected to stagnate any time soon. According to an IBISWorld industry report, “revenue is expected to grow at an annualized rate of 1.9% over the next 5 years to 2020 to $228.5 billion” (Alvarez, 2015, p. 5). This slow and steady growth is consistent with the mature stage of the product life cycle.

The Economy

Higher unemployment rates have led to lower consumer spending in the past, which in turn has led to decreased spending on fast food. As unemployment rates gradually decline and the economy continues to improve, people are more willing to spend money on eating out, thus consumer spending on fast food is expected to increase (Alvarez, 2015).

According to IBISWorld (2014), the consumer confidence index was estimated to be 86.1 in 2014 and is projected to have a compound growth of 3.8% over the next five years with a forecasted index of 103.6 in 2019. As the consumer

I m a g e 2 . 4 : T h e F o o d s e r v i c e I n d u s t r y h a s g r o w n f r o m 2 . 9 % t o 4 % i n t h e p a s t y e a r . w w w . t e c h n o m i c . c o m

T h e A T e am – F i n a l P r o j e c t – A DV T 5 3 0 1 0

confidence index increases, consumers are expected to be more confident in spending money on discretionary items such as fast food. Consumer spending is forecasted to increase at an average of 2.7% annually to 2020 (Alvarez, 2015). Though consumers are turning to the convenience and competitive pricing of fast food restaurants, as their spending and confidence increases, so does their spending on full service restaurants. This increases competition and moderates the growth of the Fast Food Restaurant industry (Alvarez, 2015).

Legal/Regulatory Issues

Fast food restaurants, similar to all restaurants, have a high obligation to utilize the best practices and food-‐handling procedures to ensure food safety as they serve millions each day and are extremely susceptible to food contamination reports for causing various sicknesses (Fast-‐food & quick-‐service restaurants, 2015). A moderate amount of laws at the state and federal levels regulate the restaurant industry, and the amount is increasing. The regulations cover “a range of areas, from food safety and standards, to labor conditions and franchising requirements” (Alvarez, 2015, p.35).

The US Food and Drug Administration mainly helps ensure food safety and standards by creating laws and “best-‐practice” guidelines to regulate such things as food handling, preparation, food storage, and nutrition (Alvarez, 2015; Hanks, n.d.). Additionally, the FDA requires proof for health-‐related “claims like ‘low fat’ or ‘heart healthy’” and recently has stated requirements for the gradual elimination of trans fats by industry participants (Alvarez, 2015, p.35). Other laws such as the Affordable Care Act are taking steps to increase health standards by requiring fast food restaurants to reveal calorie counts on their menus (Alvarez, 2015). Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) takes measures to regulate unfair and manipulative advertising by requiring that “Advertising cannot be misleading, cannot make false claims or claims that advertisers cannot back up and cannot be unfair” (Thompson, n.d., para. 2). Overall, as health-‐related issues related to unhealthy food consumption are becoming such a widespread concern, laws and regulations seem to be increasingly working to improve healthy food standards for the restaurant industry.

Societal/Cultural Considerations

Many societal and cultural trends have an impact on restaurants in the fast food industry. As previously discussed, society’s increasing awareness of the many problems linked to obesity and unhealthy food consumption is causing a threat to traditional fast food. Fast food restaurants must adapt their menus to include healthier and lower calorie options to address these concerns in order to maintain growth. Similarly, the trend of “factory fear” is becoming commonplace as companies are becoming more transparent to meet demands of their consumers, and thus consumers are learning more information about the food than ever before (Gallo-‐Torres, 2015). As consumers are learning more about toxic additives, ingredient intolerances, and other harmful facts about their food, they are essentially starting to gravitate toward more natural alternatives (Gallo-‐Torres, 2015). This is an important trend for fast food restaurants to keep in mind as other foodservices are already beginning to respond by listing their foods that contain GMOs, and some are even working toward menus that are GMO-‐free (Gallo-‐Torres, 2015).

Another trend in today’s society and culture is the movement toward going green and sustainability. Fast food restaurants would likely benefit from focusing on sustainable and eco-‐friendly practices not only to capture this growing trend but also to reduce their own costs. An industry profile from First Research reports, “QSRs that promote their use of locally sourced ingredients can tap into a growing segment of customers concerned with sustainability and food quality” (Fast-‐food & quick-‐service restaurants, 2015, n.p). Additionally, solar panels and other green technological systems in place may aid restaurants in reducing energy costs (Fast-‐food & quick-‐service restaurants, 2015).


2 .2 CHICK- F I L -A PROF I LE

Armed with a greater understanding of the fast food or quick service industry, we would like to introduce our client: Chick-‐fil-‐A. Chick-‐fil-‐A’s profile will begin with a brief history and current framing of the organization, and then we will discuss company sales, advertising expenditures, and Chick-‐fil-‐A’s share of voice.

About Chick-‐fil-‐A: From Humble Beginnings to #1 Chicken Fast Food Restaurant

The pioneer of Chick-‐fil-‐A was Truett Cathy, who began his career in customer service with a newspaper route in Georgia. He opened his first restaurant in 1946, the Dwarf Grill in Hapeville, Georgia, and is credited with the invention of the boneless chicken breast sandwich. Chick-‐fil-‐A was founded by Cathy in the early 1960s and was named “Chick-‐fil-‐A” because he wanted his chicken fillets to be seen as grade “A”. Chick-‐fil-‐A has grown to become the largest fast food chicken restaurant chain in the United States, surpassing KFC in 2013 with annual sales of $5.1 billion. Chick-‐fil-‐A is a privately held and family owned restaurant with deep seeded Christian values. It operates via franchises, but has been in the media multiple times for Equal Opportunity employer infringements (firing a pregnant woman, only hiring married men and women as managers, etc.) and the CEO’s statement that Chick-‐fil-‐A does not support same sex marriage. Chick-‐fil-‐A has a strong and unique positioning in the fast food industry as it is a corporation whose aim is “to glorify God” and does this through all of its business decisions. Chick-‐fil-‐A also aims to have a “customer-‐centric dining experience and a healthier alternative to hamburger franchises” (Steven, 2014). Creatively, Chick-‐fil-‐A promotes its restaurant through advertisements featuring cows. The cows wear misspelled signs that read things such as “Eet Mor Chikn”. The restaurant uses these to engage the families that visit and even offers free meals to anyone who dresses up in a cow costume on special event days. The newest developments for Chick-‐fil-‐A include new menu items (chicken tortilla soup, grilled chicken bites, frozen lemonade, etc.) and “Free Coffee February,” where the restaurant invited customers to try their new Thrive Farmers coffee for free with the purchase of a breakfast menu item. Next year, Chick-‐fil-‐A will celebrate its 70th year in business.

Chick-‐fil-‐A Sales

Business over the past 5 years has increased at Chick-‐fil-‐A, so much that the fast food chicken restaurant has become the leader in its category. In 2013, Chick-‐fil-‐A passed KFC as largest fast food chicken restaurant. Chick-‐fil-‐A is expected to continually increase sales.

Table 2.1: Chick-‐fil-‐A sales in USD per year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

$3,164,600,000 $3,526,900,000 $3,992,600,000 $4,620,000,000 $5,100,000,000


Chick-‐fil-‐A Advertising Expenditures

Advertising expenditures, or ad spend, is one way that competitive businesses can track each other’s progress in the field of advertising. As business has increased at Chick-‐fil-‐A, over the past 5 years, as expected, so did money spent on advertisings. Chick-‐fil-‐A’s 2013 ad spend was almost exactly 1% of its sales for that year. For exact advertising expenditures for the past 5 years, see the “Total” row in the table below.

Chick-‐Fil-‐A Media Allocation

Media are broken into several categories that are tracked using Kantar Media, these include: Network television, cable television, syndications, spot television, magazines, national newspapers, newspapers, network radio, national radio, interior displays and outdoor displays. Chick-‐fil-‐A has spent varying amounts in each category from 2010 to 2014, but the organization’s most consistent, highest spend media outlets are network television and outdoor display advertisements, followed closely by spot television, cable television and interior displays.

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Chick-‐fil-‐A Media Allocation (5-‐year trend)

Network TV

Cable TV

Interior Display

Outdoor Display

Spot TV

I m a g e 2 . 5 : C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A A d v e r t i s i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s h a v e i n c r e a s e o v e r t h e p a s t 5 y e a r s . K a n t a r M e d i a , 2 0 1 4 .


Table 2.2: Chick-‐fil-‐A Media Allocation in USD per year Media 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Network TV $9,092,300 $10,917,000 $12,238,800 $11,501,300 $25,754,900 Cable TV $2,426,700 $6,705,200 $4,473,900 $2,629,000 $4,561,900 Spot TV $6,236,400 $4,392,100 $6,451,600 $4,741,500 $5,707,800 National Newsp. - - - - $486,400 Newspaper $145,000 $79,000 $78,900 $47,500 $91,000 Network Radio $18,000 $18,500 $18,500 - - National Radio $1,211,000 $222,900 $228,700 $319,900 $384,100 Interior Display $249,600 $1,107,600 $164,900 $1,807,600 $2,485,900 Outdoor Display $5,307,700 $6,343,600 $7,466,200 $9,148,300 $10,421,900 Total $24,687,000 $29,786,100 $31,121,600 $30,204,000 $49,894,300

Chick-‐fil-‐A Share of Voice

Share of voice refers to how much one business is spending on advertising compared to everyone else in the market. In the fast food industry, there are several advertising powerhouses that make up as much as 10% of the share of voice individually. For example, we will discuss later on that McDonald’s made up 25% of the share of voice for the fast food industry in 2010 alone. Chick-‐fil-‐A averages about 1% of share of voice for advertising in the fast food industry.

Table 2.3: Chick-‐fil-‐A Share of Voice in Percent per year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

0.86% 1.01% 1.01% 0.93% 1.54%


2 .3 CHICKEN FAS T FOOD COMPET I TOR ANALYS I S

The competitors that we have identified are broken into three groups: Primary, secondary, and indirect. Our original primary competitors were discovered through informal interviews. These were refined using sales and advertising data from the fast food industry to identify four primary competitors to Chick-‐fil-‐A: McDonald’s, KFC, Popeyes and Zaxby’s. Our secondary competitors were identified through customer perception of healthy food. Quick-‐serve industry customers perceive Chipotle, Panera Bread, and Subway as healthy fast food options. Our indirect competitors were identified through their connection to Christianity. Wendy’s, In N Out Burger, and Cook Out are all Christian-‐run quick service restaurants.

Primary Competitor Histories

McDonald’s began in 1940 with Dick and Ray McDonald opening McDonald’s Bar-‐B-‐Q in San Bernadino, CA. The brothers closed their BBQ joint, and then opened McDonald’s, a self-‐service, drive-‐in restaurant. The chain quickly grew and opened their 100th restaurant in 1959. McDonald’s is now positioned as the global leader in fast food restaurants and can be found by their iconic “Golden Arches”.

Zaxby’s is a more recent addition to the chicken segment, founded in 1994. Over 490 fast-‐casual restaurants are franchised and operated by Zaxby’s. Its tagline is currently “Indescribably Good,” and is known for using celebrity endorsers in its commercials as its main promotional tactic. Its most recent celebrity is Duck Dynasty’s Si Robertson promoting Zaxby’s with its ‘Chickenflage’ commercial.

Popeyes Chicken first opened in 1972 by Alvin C. Copeland as “Chicken on the Run” in New Orleans and sold traditional fried chicken. After a lack luster opening, Popeyes reopened with the current name and sells New Orleans-‐style chicken. With other menu items such as Buttermilk Biscuits, Popeyes is positioned as a Cajun-‐style chicken restaurant.

Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) KFC is based in Louisville, Kentucky. According to KFC.com, it began 70 years ago when cook, Colonel Harland Sanders made the now world-‐famous recipe that is KFC’s original chicken recipe with “11 herbs and spices.” From this recipe sprang what KFC claims is “the world’s most popular chicken restaurant chain.” KFC is widespread with more than 18,000 outlets in 115 countries around the world. KFC’s previous tagline was “finger-‐lickin’ good” but has changed to ones such as “Nobody does chicken like KFC” and “So good.” Currently its market strategy revolves around the tagline #HowDoYouKFC.

Competitor Demographic Analysis

Age distribution Median age of Chick-‐fil-‐A customers is the lowest among those of KFC, McDonald’s and Zaxby’s. Large portion of Chick-‐fil-‐A customers consists of relatively young population.


.

Gender 54.7% of Chick-‐fil-‐A customers are female, while KFC, McDonald’s and Zaxby’s (52.4%, 51.8% and 51.9%). However, 49.1 % of Popeyes customers are female.

Income (Median household income) Chick-‐fil-‐A ($74,566) > McDonald’s $65,409 > Popeyes $59,412 > KFC $57,216 > Zaxby’s $49.269

Race The ratios of white customers to African American customers are similar between Chick-‐fil-‐A, KFC and McDonald’s (Chick-‐fil-‐A: White 71.8% Black 16.7%, KFC: White 67.2% Black 19.2%, McDonald’s: White 74.1% Black 13.3%). However, Zaxby’s customer consists 63.4% of White and 28.6% of Black, and Popeye’s customers consists of 46.7% of White and 35.6% of Black.

Geographic Because of their locations, Chick-‐fil-‐A’s portion of customers from South is higher than those of KFC and McDonald’s but lower than Zaxby’s. 37.8% of KFC customers and 34% of McDonald’s customers from South. However, 81.9% of Zaxby’s customers are from South (South East 73.5%, South West 8.46%). 46.7% of Popeyes customers are from South (South East 24.3%, South West 22.6%).

Health conscious / Price Chick-‐fil-‐A customers are 15% more likely to agree that they like the trend toward healthier fast foods than total population, while others are close to the average (index 100). 61.4% of respondents who agree to that eating fast food helps them stay in their budget visit McDonald’s, and Popeyes and Zaxby’s customers are 57% more likely to agree this. However, Chick-‐Fil-‐A does not seem competitive in terms of price.

0

5

10

15

20

25

18-‐24 25-‐34 35-‐44 45-‐54 55-‐64 66+

Customer age distribution

Chick fil a KFC McDonald's Zaxby's Popeyes

I m a g e 2 . 6 : C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A a n d c o m p e t i t o r c u s t o m e r a g e . K a n t a r M e d i a , 2 0 1 4


Primary, Secondary and Indirect Competitor Sales

Among each set of competitors, Chick-‐fil-‐A ranks second. For primary competitors, McDonald’s 2013 sales were $36,626,000,000 compared to Chick-‐fil-‐A’s $5,100,000. For secondary (healthy) competitor sales, Subway’s 2013 sales

0

5,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

15,000,000,000

20,000,000,000

25,000,000,000

30,000,000,000

35,000,000,000

40,000,000,000

Chick-‐fil-‐a McDonalds KFC Popeyes

Primary Competitor Sales

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

T a b l e 2 . 4 : C o m p a r i s o n o f l i k i n g t o e a t h e a l t h y f a s t f o o d , a n d s t a y i n g w i t h i n b u d g e t b y C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A c o m p e t i t o r

I m a g e 2 . 7 : C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A a n d p r i m a r y c o m p e t i t o r s a l e s i n U S D b y y e a r .


were $12,120,000,000. Lastly, for indirect (Christian) competitor sales, Wendy’s 2013 sales were $24,900,000,000. Each of these three fast food restaurants are high performing restaurants, and with Chick-‐fil-‐A reaching top sales for the chicken fast food sector, it is natural that they should be second place among larger sectors such as hamburgers or subs.

0

2,000,000,000

4,000,000,000

6,000,000,000

8,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

12,000,000,000

14,000,000,000

Chick-‐fil-‐a Subway Chipotle Panera

Secondary Competitor Sales

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

0 5,000,000,000 10,000,000,000 15,000,000,000 20,000,000,000 25,000,000,000 30,000,000,000

Indirect Competitor Sales

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

I m a g e 2 . 8 : C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A a n d s e c o n d a r y c o m p e t i t o r s a l e s i n U S D b y y e a r .

I m a g e 2 . 9 : C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A a n d i n d i r e c t c o m p e t i t o r s a l e s i n U S D b y y e a r .


Advertising Expenditures

McDonald’s, as with sales, is also the highest when it comes to spending money on advertising, followed by Subway, KFC and Wendy’s. The middle players are Chick-‐fil-‐A, Popeyes, Zaxby’s, and Panera Bread. Chick-‐fil-‐A, as previously mentioned, spent $51,228,300 on advertising in 2013, compared to McDonald’s at $760,953,200, Subway at $500,512,100, KFC at $243,673,900, and Wendy’s at $233,670,000.

0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000

Competitor Advertising Expenditures

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

I m a g e 2 . 1 0 : C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A a n d c o m p e t i t o r a d v e r t i s i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s i n U S D b y y e a r


Share of Voice

Although ad spend does not ensure reach, it is a relatively accurate indicator. This section uses advertising spend to predict share of voice among media channels. Because media spend of a company divided by total media spend for the industry is how share of voice is determined, the same ranking as the previous section, Advertising Expenditures, will be evident among competitors.

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

Share of

Voice

Primary Competitors Share of Voice

Chick-‐fil-‐a

KFC

McDonalds

Popeyes

Zaxby's

I m a g e 2 . 1 2 : C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A ( o r a n g e ) a n d s e c o n d a r y c o m p e t i t o r s s h a r e o f v o i c e i n P e r c e n t f o r 2 0 1 4 . K a n t a r M e d i a , 2 0 1 4 .

I m a g e 2 . 1 1 : C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A ( c o v e r e d b y P o p e y e s ) a n d p r i m a r y c o m p e t i t o r s i n P e r c e n t f o r 2 0 1 4

0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00%

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

Share of

Voice

in Perce

nt (%

)

Secondary Competitors Share of Voice

Chick-‐fil-‐a

Chipotle

Panera

Subway


Media Allocation

Recalling that Chick-‐fil-‐A habitually allocates media dollars to network television and outdoor advertising, we notice that primary competitors have their media allocation set up differently. McDonald’s, KFC, Popeyes and Zaxby’s all spend the largest portion of their advertising budget on television, but outdoor advertising is not listed.

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

Share of

Voice

in Perce

nt (%

)

Indirect Competitors Share of Voice

Chick-‐fil-‐a

Cook Out

In-‐N-‐Out Burger

Wendy's

39%

20%

4%

20% 4%

0% 0%

0% 0% 2% 11%

McDonalds Media Allocation

(% Breakdown of Total Media Dollars Spent in 2014)

NETWORK TV

CABLE TV

SYNDICATION

SPOT TV

MAGAZINES

I m a g e 2 . 1 3 : C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A ( o r a n g e ) a n d i n d i r e c t c o m p e t i t o r s s h a r e o f v o i c e i n p e r c e n t f o r 2 0 1 4 . K a n t a r M e d i a , 2 0 1 4 .

Image 2

.14:

McDonald

s M

edia

All

ocati

on i

n P

ercent

for 2

014

Kanta

r M

edia

, 2014

.


40%

36%

19%

3%

1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

KFC Media Allocation (% Breakdown of Total Media

Dollars Spent in 2014)

NETWORK TV

CABLE TV

SYNDICATION

SPOT TV

MAGAZINES

Popeyes Media Allocation (% Breakdown of Total

Media Dollars Spent in 2014 NETWORK TV

CABLE TV

SYNDICATION

SPOT TV

5% 6% 0%

82%

1% 1% 5%

Zaxby's Media Allocation (% Breakdown of Total Media

Dollars Spent in 2014) NETWORK TV

CABLE TV

SYNDICATION

SPOT TV

MAGAZINES Image 2

.16:

Zaxby’s

Media

All

ocati

on i

n P

ercent

for

2014

. Kanta

r M

edia

, 2014

.

Image 2

.16:

Popeyes M

edia

All

ocati

on i

n P

ercent

for

2014

. Kanta

r M

edia

2014

.

Image 2

.15:

KFC M

edia

All

ocati

on i

n P

ercent

for 2

014

. Kanta

r M

edia

2014

.


2 .4 CHICK- F I L -A CONSUMER ANALYS I S

Image 2

.17:

The d

em

ographic

pro

file

of

Chic

k-‐f

il-‐A

adult

custo

mers.


What do Chick-‐fil-‐A Customers look like?

Of Chick-‐Fil-‐A customers who had visited Chick-‐fil-‐A in 2014, 71.4 % are white, 16.9% are African American, 12.8% are Hispanic. The median age of Chick-‐Fil-‐A customers is 40.6. 22.2% of customers are between 25-‐34, 20.7% are between 35-‐44, 17.3% are between 45-‐54, 15.8% are between 18-‐24, 13.2% are between 55-‐64, and 10.9% are 65 or more. 45.3% are male customers and 54.7% are female customers. The median household income is $74,566. The TGI Socio-‐economic results show that Chick-‐fil-‐A customers are generally not from level 1. The results were 30.1% are from level 4, 29.9% are from level 3, 25.7% are from level 2, and 14.3% are from level 1, where level1: top 10%, level2: next 20%, level3: next 30%, level4: next 40%. Of Chick-‐fil-‐A customers, 57.5% of customers are from South (South East 37.9%, South West 19.6%). However, these percentages are lower than 3 years ago (e.g. According to 2011 statistic, Of Chick-‐fil-‐A customers, 64.2 % are from South; 43.9% are from South East and 20.3% are from South West).

When do Chick-‐fil-‐A Customers Visit?

Of Chick-‐Fil-‐A customers who replied that they went to Chick-‐fil-‐A in 2014, 54.5% of them visited Chick-‐Fil-‐A once or twice, 20.6% visited 3-‐5 times, 15.7% didn’t visit, 5.78% 6-‐9 times and 3.47% visited 10 or more times within the last 30 days from the time the survey was conducted. The number of quick-‐service restaurant customers is higher during lunch compared to dinner, breakfast, or snack times. According to Statista.com, Chick-‐Fil-‐A has the most visitors during lunchtime. Quick-‐service customers visit during breakfast time alone more than with other adults or children under 12. During lunch and dinner times, they visit with other adults more often than alone.

54%

21%

6%

3%

16%

Visited Chick-‐fil-‐A in the Last 30 Days

Once or Twice

3-‐5 Times

6-‐9 Times

10+

None

I m a g e 2 . 1 8 : M o s t p e o p l e v i s i t e d C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A o n c e o r t w i c e ( 5 4 % ) i n t h e l a s t 3 0 d a y s , b u t a l a r g e p o r t i o n d i d n o t v i s i t ( 1 6 % ) . K a n t a r M e d i a , 2 0 1 4 .


Chick-‐fil-‐A Customers and Healthy Fast Food

Of Chick-‐fil-‐A customers, 63.3% agree that they try to eat healthier foods currently, and Chick-‐fil-‐A customers are 5% more likely to agree that they try to eat healthier foods than the general population. (56.6% of KFC customers, 58% of McDonald’s customers, and 58.5% of Zaxby’s customers agree that they try to eat healthier foods) (Index: KFC 94, McDonald’s 96, and Zaxby’s 97). 63% of Chick-‐fil-‐A customers agree that they like the trend toward healthier fast food. This percentage is higher than those of KFC, McDonald’s and Zaxby’s. (54%, 55.3%, 54.2%) Also, Chick-‐fil-‐A customers are 15% more likely to agree that they like the trend toward healthier fast food than the general population. (Index: KFC 99, McDonald’s 101, and Zaxby’s 99). 45.5% of Chick-‐fil-‐A customers agree that they prefer to eat foods without artificial additives, while 39.3% of KFC, 42.1% of McDonald’s and 41.9% of Zaxby’s customers agree with this. Furthermore, Chick-‐fil-‐A customers are 39% more likely to agree that fast food fits their busy life style.

Chick-‐fil-‐A Customers’ Political and Religious Preferences

Chick-‐fil-‐A customers are 20% more likely to have any conservative outlook than the general population, while they are 18% less likely to have liberal political orientation than the general population (Simmons OneView, 2014). However, this might be highly associated with regions (South). Chick-‐Fil-‐A customers are 35% more likely to be Republican than the total U.S. population, while they are less likely to be Democrats and 8% less likely to be Independent. More than half of Chick-‐Fil-‐A customers (52.9%) agreed that "it is important to be attractive to the opposite sex". Of Chick-‐Fil-‐A customers, 58.6% agree that it is important to them to attend religious services, and they are 24% more likely to agree to this than the total population. 39.3% of Chick-‐Fil-‐A customers consider themselves to be conservative, evangelical Christians. Additionally, Chick-‐Fil-‐A customers are 26% more likely to consider themselves this way than the total population. (These percentages are relatively higher than KFC, McDonald’s, and Zaxby’s). Chick-‐Fil-‐A customers are 39% less likely to be original traditionalists than the general population, while KFC, McDonald’s, and Zaxby’s customers are less likely (Simmons OneView, 2014).

RESEARCH QUES T IONS

We have identified several key items in our situation analysis that guided our research. We discovered in the Industry Overview and Chick-‐Fil-‐A Customer Profile that 63.3% of Chick-‐Fil-‐A customers agree that they try to eat healthier foods. As fast food customers become increasingly aware of the quality of ingredients used, they are gravitating toward natural alternatives.

RQ1: Which qualities rank highest in terms of desirability for healthy fast food (i.e. low calorie, low fat, etc.)?


RQ2: Through which channels are potential Chick-‐fil-‐A customers receiving Chick-‐fil-‐A nutritional information and

other health information?

RQ3: What are perceptions of Chick-‐fil-‐A’s healthiness based on gender and age?

Additionally, we identified the negative media exposure that resulted from the Chick-‐fil-‐A CEO announcing to the public that Chick-‐fil-‐A did not support same sex marriage. We also found that Chick-‐fil-‐A customers are 35% more likely to be Republicans and that 52.9% of Chick-‐fil-‐A customers agreed, “It is more important to be attractive to the opposite sex.” Because of these from key items that were uncovered, we would like to inquire:

RQ4: How does Chick-‐fil-‐A’s stance against same sex marriage affect potential customers’ willingness to purchase

Chick-‐fil-‐A food?

HYPOTHESES

Through our research, we have identified additional trends that lead us to make these predictions. First, because fast food customers are gravitating toward natural alternatives, we hypothesize:

H1: Natural foods will be desired more than other healthy fast food qualities (i.e. low calories, low fats, local

ingredients, etc.).

Chick-‐fil-‐A spends most of its general advertising budget on network television advertisements. So, we hypothesize:

H2: Most respondents will indicate that they received nutrition and other health information for Chick-‐fil-‐A via

television advertisements.

Because 63.3% of Chick-‐Fil-‐A customers agree that they try to eat healthier foods, we hypothesize that:

H3: Potential customers will perceive Chick-‐fil-‐A as healthier than other fast food options. Additionally, females will

place more importance on healthy options when choosing to eat at Chick-‐fil-‐A and younger respondents will also place more importance on healthy options when choosing to eat at Chick-‐fil-‐A.

Although there is not empirical evidence to predict the result of our second research question, through the backlash that Chick-‐fil-‐A received in the media and from the LGBTQAA community, we believe that:

H4: Willingness to purchase food at Chick-‐fil-‐A will be affected negatively by homosexual orientation, liberal political

stance and will be affected positively by heterosexual orientation, conservative political stance and Southeastern location.


In order to answer our research questions and identify if our hypotheses were correct, we administered a questionnaire. The exact survey instrument, including the 25 questions, accurate formatting, and question logics before each question, is located in Appendix I. We used convenience and a small amount of snowball sampling to distribute our questionnaire. The survey was conducted online and was open for one week. In that time we each emailed the link with an email request to our contact lists. A screen shot of the exact email request is located in Appendix II. We also shared the survey link on Facebook and Twitter. Screen shots of those exact posts are located in Appendix III. Because of our sampling method, we were unable to calculate response rate. However, a total of 355 individual respondents completed the questionnaire.

We have proposed four hypotheses. In order to test these, we analyzed specific questions. We used question 5, “How important are low calories, low carbohydrates, low fat, fresh ingredients, natural ingredients, unprocessed or local/farm fresh ingredients when you are choosing healthy food at a fast food restaurant?” to measure which factors were the most important to respondents. We used question 11.5, “How important are healthy options in your decision to eat at Chick-‐fil-‐A?” and demographic information to measure the importance of healthiness of Chick-‐fil-‐A to consumers. We used question 13, “Through which channels have you learned about nutrition and other health information for Chick-‐fil-‐A?” to measure the ways in which consumers received health information about Chick-‐fil-‐A food. We used questions 10, “When selecting a restaurant to purchase food quickly, how likely are you to choose Chick-‐fil-‐A?” and question 15, “How familiar are you with Chick-‐fil-‐A’s public stance against same sex marriage?” along with demographic information to measure if the respondents willingness to purchase Chick-‐fil-‐A food was affected by their political stance or sexual orientation.

In order to measure our four hypotheses, we used SPSS to run ANOVA tests and frequency analyses. The A Team found two hypotheses to be supported, and two not to be supported. The next section will discuss those findings.


DATA ANALYS I S

Q1 Results: Which factors rank highest in terms of desirability for healthy fast food (i.e. low calorie, low fat,

etc.)

A frequency analysis was conducted to reveal which factors ranked the highest when choosing healthy food at a fast food restaurant. By combining the respondent selections “Somewhat Important” and “Very Important,” we found that fresh ingredients were more important to respondents than any other factor (85.1% of respondents). The second most important factor to respondents was natural ingredients with 71% of respondents indicating that this factor was “Somewhat Important” or “Very Important” when choosing healthy food at a fast food restaurant.

RQ2 Results: Through which channels are potential Chick-‐fil-‐A customers receiving Chick-‐fil-‐A nutritional

information and other health information?

A frequency analysis indicated that more respondents had heard about Chick-‐fil-‐A through the nutritional menu in store or through the drive through more than any other channel (40.56% of respondents). The second most had heard of Chick-‐fil-‐A’s health info through the billboard menu (29.86% of respondents). The third most was through the Chick-‐fil-‐A website (32.11% of respondents). Through a co-‐worker/friends/or family was the fourth most frequent channel with 13.8% of respondents having heard through this platform and through a TV ad was the fifth most frequent channel at 11.83%.

3.45% 4.60% 6.90%

32.47%

52.59%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Not at All Important

Not Very Important

Neither Important

nor Unimportant

Somewhat Important

Very Important

Q: How important are these factors when you are choosing healthy food at a fast food

restaurant? -‐Fresh Ingredients

% of Respondents

F i g u r e 5 . 1 : A b o u t 5 3 % o f r e s p o n d e n t s r e p l i e d t h a t F r e s h I n g r e d i e n t s w a s a n i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r w h e n c h o o s i n g t o e a t a t a h e a l t h y f a s t f o o d r e s t a u r a n t


RQ3 Results: What are perceptions of Chick-‐fil-‐A’s healthiness based on gender and age?

ANOVA was performed to reveal whether there were group differences among age and gender in how participants ranked Chick-‐fil-‐A on certain health factors in comparison to other fast food restaurants. The factors examined include: low calories, low fat, low carbohydrates, and natural ingredients. No significant group differences between age groups and gender were found for perception of Chick-‐fil-‐A in terms of each of these factors. To understand the perceptions of respondents as a whole, a frequency analysis was performed. Results indicated that more people ranked Chick-‐fil-‐A as better than other fast food restaurants on all factors given, including low calories, low fat, low carbohydrates, natural ingredients, and great taste.

Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of healthy options in their decisions to eat at Chick-‐fil-‐A on a 5-‐point scale from “Not at All Important” to “Extremely Important.” Frequencies were conducted to determine how important healthy options are in consumers’ choices to eat at Chick-‐fil-‐A. Results revealed that more consumers felt healthy options were important (37.31%) than unimportant (18.8%). However, the majority of consumers were indifferent with 43.89% indicating that healthy options were “Neither Important nor Unimportant” in their decisions to eat at Chick-‐fil-‐A.

A Univariate ANOVA was conducted to reveal whether there were group differences among age and gender in how participants ranked importance of healthy options when deciding to eat at Chick-‐fil-‐A. A summary of results is presented in the table below. Main effects revealed that the importance placed on healthy options when choosing to eat at Chick-‐fil-‐A was significantly different among consumers of differing age groups, F(4, 297) = 3.77, p=.005, partial 𝜂2=.048. Importance was also significantly different for consumers based on gender, F(1, 297) = 8.05, p=.005, partial 𝜂2=.026. Bonferroni’s post hoc test was conducted to determine which age groups were significantly different in terms

9.40% 9.40%

43.89%

26.65%

10.66%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Not at all Important

Very Unimportant

Neither Important

nor Unimportant

Very Important

Extremely Important

How Important are Healthy Options in Your Decision to Eat at Chick-‐fil-‐A?

% of Consumers

F i g u r e 5 . 2 : A b o u t 4 4 % o f r e s p o n d e n t s r e p l i e d t h a t h e a l t h y o p t i o n s a r e n e i t h e r i m p o r t a n t n o r u n i m p o r t a n t w h e n c h o o s i n g t o e a t a t C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A .


of the importance they placed on healthy options when choosing Chick-‐fil-‐A. Results revealed that those in age groups of 17-‐22 (mean of 2.863) ranked the importance of healthy options significantly lower than those in age group 51 and up (mean of 3.567). Similarly, those in age group 25-‐30 (mean of 2.907) ranked healthy options significantly lower than those 51+ (mean of 3.567). Mean estimates indicated that females (mean of 3.335) rated healthy options as more important than males (mean of 2.947). These results could suggest that Chick-‐fil-‐A may benefit from aiming its health-‐related messages and ads particularly at older generations and females.

RQ4: How does Chick-‐fil-‐A’s stance against same sex marriage affect potential customers’ willingness to purchase

Chick-‐fil-‐A food? At first, frequency analysis was performed to figure out how many participants are familiar with Chick-‐Fil-‐A’s stance on same sex marriage. A frequency analysis indicated that 94.4% of respondents had heard about Chick-‐Fil-‐A’s stance on same sex marriage. 32.7% of the respondents are extremely familiar with this, followed by 26.8% of very familiar and 24.2% of moderately familiar.

4.20% 10.70%

24.20% 26.80% 32.70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Not at All Familiar

Slightly Familiar

Moderately Familiar

Very Familiar Extremely Familiar

Q15: How familiar are you with Chick-‐fil-‐A's public stance

against same-‐sex marriage?

Table 5.1: Healthy options response tested on age and gender Source df F Sig. Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model 9 2.979 0.002 0.083 Intercept 1 2111.583 0.000 0.877 AgeGroups 4 3.768 0.005 0.048 Gender 1 8.054 0.005 0.026 AgeGroups * Gender

4 0.555 0.696 0.007

Error 297 Total Corrected 307 Total 306

F i g u r e 5 . 3 : A b o u t 9 5 % o f r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e a w a r e o f C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A ’ s s t a n c e a g a i n s t s a m e s e x m a r r i a g e .


Then ANOVA tests were performed to indicate whether there were group differences among sexual orientation and political stance in how they ranked their likelihood to choose Chick-fil-A when choosing a fast food restaurant. We assume that Customers’ sexual orientation and political stance influence willingness to eat Chick-‐Fil-‐A food.

The independent variables are sexual orientation and political stance, and the dependent variable is ‘how likely are they to choose Chick-‐Fil-‐A. According to the current study, interrelated significance of sexual orientation and political stance was .701, which means they were not significant and allow analysis of individual variables. The influence of political stance of customers on their willingness to choose Chick-‐Fil-‐A was statistically significant (.001). However, the influence of sexual orientation of customers was not statistically significant (.452), and this might be due to the small number or homosexual and bisexual participants compared to the number of heterosexual/straight participants.

Then, the current study found that customers who maintain radical left and extreme liberal political stance (mean of 1.83) are least likely to choose Chick-‐Fil-‐A. They showed the lowest mean regardless of their sexual orientations. The customers who maintain left wing and liberal political stance (mean of 2.29) were the second least likely to choose Chick-‐Fil-‐A.

To be specific, on the five point scale from not at all likely to very likely to choose Chick-‐Fil-‐A, radical left and extreme liberal customers’ mean was 1.83, which is between ‘not at all likely’ and ‘not likely’. Then, the mean of left wing and liberal customers was 2.29, which is close to ‘not likely’.

By and large, moderate, moderate conservative, and conservative customers were more likely to choose Chick-‐Fil-‐A than any extent of leftwing / liberal customers.

F IND INGS

H1 Result: Natural foods will be desired more than other healthy fast food factors (i.e. low calories, low fats,

local ingredients, etc.). Our first hypothesis was not supported. Our respondents said that they were more concerned with fresh ingredients compared to other healthy fast food qualities.

H2 Result: The highest ranked channel for receiving nutritional and other health information will be television

advertisements.

Table 5.2: Chick-‐fil-‐A purchases based on political and sexual orientation Source df F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared Corrected Model 19 4.855 0.000 0.207 Intercept 1 458.251 0.000 0.565 Sexual Orientation 2 0.988 0.452 0.006 Political 7 4.695 0.001 0.085 Sexual Orientation * Political 10 0.900 0.701 0.025 Error 284 1.242 Total 304 Corrected Total 303


Our second hypothesis was not supported. Our survey respondents said that they were made aware of nutritional and other health information via the Chick-‐fil-‐A menu (in store or drive thru) when compared to other advertising.

H3 Result: Potential customers will perceive Chick-‐fil-‐A as healthier than other fast food options. Additionally,

females will place more importance on healthy options when choosing to eat at Chick-‐fil-‐A and younger respondents will also place more importance on healthy options when choosing to eat at Chick-‐fil-‐A.

The first part of our third hypothesis was supported. Our respondents said that they thought Chick-‐fil-‐A was healthier than other fast food options on all health qualities given. Additionally, the second part of our third hypothesis was also supported. Results revealed that females place more importance on healthy options than males. However, the third part of our third hypothesis was not supported. Results revealed that older adults (age 51 and up) placed more importance on healthy options than younger adults (age 17-‐22 and 25-‐30).

H4 Result: Willingness to purchase will be affected negatively by homosexual orientation, liberal political

stance and will be affected positively by heterosexual orientation, conservative political stance.

Part of our fourth hypothesis was supported. We found that our respondents’ political stance affected their likelihood to choose Chick-‐fil-‐A, however homosexual orientation had no effect on Chick-‐fil-‐A purchasing habits.


F INAL NOTES In conclusion, the A Team had four research questions based on trends identified in the situation analysis. These ranged from healthy fast food factors that were most desired to perceived healthiness of Chick-‐fil-‐A, from which advertising channels Chick-‐fil-‐A customers were receiving health information to how political and religious tendencies might affect Chick-‐fil-‐A purchasing habits. Through an analysis of our data, the A Team supported two hypotheses. We found that FRESH foods were more desired than other healthy fast food factors. We found that left leaning participants are less likely to purchase Chick-‐fil-‐A than right leaning participants. However, among right leaning participants, heterosexual participants are more likely to purchase Chick-‐fil-‐A than homosexual participants. We found that Chick-‐fil-‐A customers normally find out nutritional and other health information on the Chick-‐fil-‐A menu. Finally, we found that our respondents believed Chick-‐fil-‐A to be healthier than other fast food options. Based on these findings, the A Team has 4 recommended tactics for the continued success of Chick-‐fil-‐A

6 .1 SUGGES TED T ARGET AUD IENCE Based on our findings, the A Team suggests that Chick-‐fil-‐A open their current target audience to include more left wing or liberally minded individuals. We also suggest that Chick-‐fil-‐A target females and consumers over 50. By opening up their target audience, Chick-‐fil-‐A could expand their reach and therefore sales.

I m a g e 6 . 1 : T a r g e t A u d i e n c e W o m e n a n d 5 0 + h t t p : / / w w w . l o r i e o b e r n a u e r . c o m /


6 .2 RECOMMENDED T ACT ICS FOR CHICK- F I L -A

Through our findings, the A Team has arrived at 5 recommended tactics for the continued success of Chick-‐fil-‐A advertisements and the company as a whole

Frequency analyses revealed that fresh ingredients were more important to respondents when choosing to eat healthy fast food than any other qualities. Based on this finding, we recommend:

1. C h i c k - f i l - A p l a c e a h i g h e r e m p h a s i s o n f r e s h i n g r e d i e n t s i n a l l

a d v e r t i s i n g t h a t i s r e l a t e d t o f o o d . T h e y c o u l d d o t h i s b y h i g h l i g h t i n g

t h e i r s a l a d s a n d w r a p s m o r e o f t e n

t h a n t h e i r c l a s s i c c h i c k e n

s a n d w i c h . T h i s w o u l d h e l p t o

p e r s u a d e t h o s e w h o m a y n o t

p e r c e i v e C h i c k - f i l - A t o b e a s

h e a l t h y a s o t h e r f a s t f o o d

r e s t a u r a n t s .

I m a g e 6 . 2 : C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A S a l a d a n d W r a p s w w w . c h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ a . c o m


Frequency analyses revealed more respondents got their nutrition and health information about Chick-‐fil-‐A through the nutritional menu in store or through the drive-‐thru than any other channel. Although Chick-‐fil-‐A spends the majority of its advertising on television, results of the analyses revealed that a low percentage of respondents received their health information through this channel. Based on these findings, we recommend:

2 . H e a l t h i n f o r m a t i o n b e m o r e

p r o m i n e n t o n a d v e r t i s i n g , s p e c i f i c a l l y o n T V

a n d o u t d o o r a d v e r t i s e m e n t s , C h i c k - f i l - A ’ s

h i g h e s t a d v e r t i s i n g

e x p e n d i t u r e s . T h e y c o u l d d o

t h i s b y a l w a y s i n c l u d i n g

c a l o r i e c o u n t a n d o t h e r

r e l a t e d h e a l t h i n f o r m a t i o n o n

t h e i r a d v e r t i s e m e n t s .

I m a g e 6 . 3 : C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A B i s c u i t w w w . c h i c k -‐ f i l -‐a . c o m


ANOVA revealed that women find healthy options more important than men when choosing to eat at Chick-‐fil-‐A. Similarly, it revealed that those age 51 and up believed healthy options to be more important than younger generations. Based on these findings, we recommend:

3 . C h i c k - f i l - A t o f o c u s

o n h e a l t h r e l a t e d b e n e f i t s

s p e c i f i c a l l y w h e n t a r g e t i n g

f e m a l e s a n d t h o s e a g e d 5 1 a n d u p

i n o r d e r t o a t t r a c t m o r e

c u s t o m e r s f r o m t h e s e t w o

s e p a r a t e d e m o g r a p h i c s . T h e y

c o u l d d o t h i s b y h i r i n g a c r e d i b l e

c e l e b r i t y t h a t f i t s t h e s e

d e m o g r a p h i c s t o p r o m o t e t h e h e a l t h y a s p e c t s o f C h i c k - f i l - A , f o r e x a m p l e

M a r t h a S t e w a r t .

I m a g e 6 . 4 : M a r t h a S t e w a r t h t t p : / / v i d e o . p b s . o r g / v i d e o / 2 3 0 1 8 2 8 0 0 2 /


ANOVA revealed that left leaning customers are less likely to purchase Chick-‐fil-‐A foods. Because of this finding, we suggest:

4 . C r e a t i n g a V o t e r A p p r e c i a t i o n E v e n t .

O n t h i s d a y , m o s t l i k e l y a r o u n d N o v e m b e r 2 o f a

N a t i o n a l v o t i n g y e a r , C h i c k - f i l - A w o u l d o f f e r

f r e e f r i e s a n d a M e d i u m d r i n k t o a v o t e r ( f r o m

e i t h e r s i d e o f t h e p a r t y l i n e ) w h e n a C h i c k - f i l - A

o r i g i n a l c h i c k e n s a n d w i c h w a s p u r c h a s e d .

B e c a u s e i t w o u l d e n c o u r a g e a n y v o t e r t o c o m e t o

C h i c k - f i l - A , t h i s w o u l d i n c r e a s e p u r c h a s e s f r o m

c u s t o m e r s t h a t l e a n t o w a r d t h e l e f t , a n d

p o t e n t i a l l y b o t h s i d e s . T h i s w o u l d a i m t o h e l p

C h i c k - f i l - A c u s t o m e r s p e r c e i v e t h a t t h e

o r g a n i z a t i o n i s m o r e w e l c o m i n g o f a l l p o l i t i c a l

s t a n c e s .

6 .3 PROPOSED FUTURE RESEARCH FOR CHICK-F I L -A

Although it would be preferred to complete yearly or biyearly questionnaires, they can be time consuming and expensive. One way to continue research about the health information and political and religious affects on purchasing habits would be to continually monitor social media outlets and survey existing customers. Because purchasing habits can change, this would identify who purchases Chick-‐fil-‐A and who might be a necessary target audience. The A Team would not suggest taking on efforts that would not be worth the time and money of the company.

I m a g e 6 . 6 : A l l A m e r i c a n C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A C o w

w w w . c h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ a . c o m


A l v a r e z , A . ( 2 0 1 5 F e b r u a r y 2 ) . F a s t f o o d r e s t a u r a n t s i n t h e U S : I B I S W o r l d i n d u s t r y

r e p o r t 7 2 2 2 1 a . R e t r i e v e d f r o m I B I S W o r l d d a t a b a s e .

F a s t -‐ f o o d & q u i c k -‐ s e r v i c e r e s t a u r a n t s : I n d u s t r y p r o f i l e . ( 2 0 1 5 , F e b r u a r y ) .

R e t r i e v e d f r o m F i r s t R e s e a r c h ( M e r g e n t ) .

S t e v e n s , J L . ( 2 0 1 4 M a r c h 1 3 ) . S u c c e s s f u l b r a n d p o s i t i o n i n g : C h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ A . R e t r i e v e d

f r o m h t t p s : / / c r i s i s m a n a g e m e n t s o l u t i o n s . w o r d p r e s s . c o m / 2 0 1 4 / 0 3 / 1 3 / s u c c e s s f

u l -‐ b r a n d -‐ p o s i t i o n i n g -‐ c h i c k -‐ f i l -‐ a /

G a l l o -‐ T o r r e s , J . ( 2 0 1 5 J a n u a r y ) . D i n i n g o u t : A 2 0 1 5 l o o k a h e a d – U S . R e t r i e v e d

f r o m M i n t e l d a t a b a s e

H a n k s , G . ( n . d . ) . F D A r e g u l a t i o n s o n f a s t f o o d . H o u s t o n C h r o n i c l e . R e t r i e v e d f r o m

h t t p : / / s m a l l b u s i n e s s . c h r o n . c o m / f d a -‐ r e g u l a t i o n s -‐ f a s t -‐ f o o d -‐ 6 4 8 3 4 . h t m l

I B I S W o r l d ( 2 0 1 4 , N o v e m b e r ) . C o n s u m e r c o n f i d e n c e i n d e x : I B I S W o r l d b u s i n e s s

e n v i r o n m e n t p r o f i l e s . R e t r i e v e d f r o m I B I S W o r l d d a t a b a s e .

K a n t a r M e d i a . ( 2 0 1 5 ) . Q u i c k S e r v e R e s t a u r a n t s : T r e n d r e p o r t , b y q u a r t e r , 2 0 1 0 -‐ 2 0 1 4

[ D a t a ] . R e t r i e v e d F e b r u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 1 5 , f r o m A d $ p e n d e r d a t a b a s e .

S c h l o s s e r , E . ( 2 0 0 0 ) . F a s t f o o d n a t i o n : T h e d a r k s i d e o f t h e a l l -‐ A m e r i c a .

R e t r i e v e d f r o m h t t p s : / / w w w . n y t i m e s . c o m / b o o k s / f i r s t / s / s c h l o s s e r -‐ f a s t . h t m l

T h o m p s o n , T . ( n . d . ) . L a w s r e g a r d i n g f a l s e a d v e r t i s i n g o f f a s t f o o d . H o u s t o n

C h r o n i c l e . R e t r i e v e d f r o m h t t p : / / s m a l l b u s i n e s s . c h r o n . c o m / l a w s -‐ r e g a r d i n g -‐

f a l s e -‐ a d v e r t i s i n g -‐ f a s t -‐ f o o d -‐ 5 8 5 1 5 . h t m l

W i l s d o n , T . & G a s p a i r e , B . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . M a n i f e s t o o f t h e f a s t f o o d w o r k e r . R e t r i e v e d

f r o m h t t p s : / / l i b c o m . o r g / t a g s / t o n y -‐ w i l s d o n



4

Documents

ADVT 530 – Final Project