FAST FOOD PROJECT WAVE 1 CAMPAIGN: PREPARED FOR: "La Plazza" PREPARED BY: "Your Company Name" CREATED ON: 26 May 2014

Similar documents
18 May Primary Production Select Committee Parliament Buildings Wellington

Introduction. Welcome! Breakfast Frequency. Why not eat breakfast at school?

Comparative Analysis of Fresh and Dried Fish Consumption in Ondo State, Nigeria

De La Salle University Dasmariñas

Q1 How frequently do you ride Kitsap Transit's fast-ferry service across the Puget Sound? Would you say...

APPENDIX 1 THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT - QUESTIONNAIRE

Attitude and Opinion June, On dining out, restaurant cleanliness, and MBPJ performance. Survey of MBPJ Residents

US Chicken Consumption. Presentation to Chicken Marketing Summit July 18, 2017 Asheville, NC

I am in grade. What is your gender? Figure/Table 1: Grade Distribution of Survey Responders

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT

RESEARCH UPDATE from Texas Wine Marketing Research Institute by Natalia Kolyesnikova, PhD Tim Dodd, PhD THANK YOU SPONSORS

Missing value imputation in SAS: an intro to Proc MI and MIANALYZE

INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM BINA NUSANTARA UNIVERSITY. Major Marketing Sarjana Ekonomi Thesis Odd semester year 2007

The Effects of Dried Beer Extract in the Making of Bread. Josh Beedle and Tanya Racke FN 453

A Web Survey Analysis of the Subjective Well-being of Spanish Workers

Texas Wine Marketing Research Institute College of Human Sciences Texas Tech University CONSUMER ATTITUDES TO TEXAS WINES

FAST FOOD & FOOD DELIVERY SERVICES STUDY. October 2018

1) What proportion of the districts has written policies regarding vending or a la carte foods?

The Role of Calorie Content, Menu Items, and Health Beliefs on the School Lunch Perceived Health Rating

Comparative report on Fast Food study in Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam in 2015

Hamburger Pork Chop Deli Ham Chicken Wing $6.46 $4.95 $4.03 $3.50 $1.83 $1.93 $1.71 $2.78

Pomegranate Production and Consumer Analysis

EFFECT OF TOMATO GENETIC VARIATION ON LYE PEELING EFFICACY TOMATO SOLUTIONS JIM AND ADAM DICK SUMMARY

Hamburger Pork Chop Deli Ham Chicken Wing $7.78 $5.06 $4.34 $3.38 $2.15 $2.26 $2.24 $2.70

Wine On-Premise UK 2016

Emerging Local Food Systems in the Caribbean and Southern USA July 6, 2014

COMPARISON OF CORE AND PEEL SAMPLING METHODS FOR DRY MATTER MEASUREMENT IN HASS AVOCADO FRUIT

The National Pork Board Pork Champion Quantitative Study Spring RAC 2014

Transportation demand management in a deprived territory: A case study in the North of France

5-8 Student Survey (Long Survey)

Characteristics of U.S. Veal Consumers

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SOFT DRINK CONSUMPTION IN PRESCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN IN SRI LANKA.

PROCEDURE million pounds of pecans annually with an average

Multiple Imputation for Missing Data in KLoSA

Oregon Wine Board Consumer Study. December 18, 2015

International Journal of Business and Commerce Vol. 3, No.8: Apr 2014[01-10] (ISSN: )

MBA 503 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric

Problem Set #3 Key. Forecasting

Cambridge International Examinations Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education

Feeser s Fall Meeting Soup Overview Soup Promotion. Campbell s Soup Company & Key Impact Sales October

Administration Table of Contents

Volume 30, Issue 1. Gender and firm-size: Evidence from Africa

Table A.1: Use of funds by frequency of ROSCA meetings in 9 research sites (Note multiple answers are allowed per respondent)

Lake County in the Marketplace. Christian Miller Lake County Winegrape Commission Momentum Seminar January 23, 2014

Citation for published version (APA): Goossens, N. (2014). Health-Related Quality of Life in Food Allergic Patients: Beyond Borders [S.l.]: s.n.

Sample. TO: Prof. Hussain FROM: GROUP (Names of group members) DATE: October 09, 2003 RE: Final Project Proposal for Group Project

Feasibility Project for Store Brand Macaroni and Cheese

Consumer Preferences Trends

RESULTS OF THE MARKETING SURVEY ON DRINKING BEER

UNIV OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM US10066

Debt and Debt Management among Older Adults

New from Packaged Facts!

In the eye of the beer holder: thoughts on color, bubbles and the meaning of life. Charlie Bamforth

The Incidence of Greening and Canker Infection in Florida Citrus Groves from September 2007 through August

INFLUENCES ON WINE PURCHASES: A COMPARISON BETWEEN MILLENNIALS AND PRIOR GENERATIONS. Presented to the. Faculty of the Agribusiness Department

Previous analysis of Syrah

Awareness, Attitude & Usage Study Executive Summary

Supply & Demand for Lake County Wine Grapes. Christian Miller Lake County MOMENTUM April 13, 2015

A C E. Answers Investigation 1. Review Day: 1/5 pg. 22 #10, 11, 36, 37, 38

Experiment # Lemna minor (Duckweed) Population Growth

China Coffee Market Overview The Guidance For Selling Coffee In China Published November Pages PDF Format 420

Gender and Firm-size: Evidence from Africa

Lesson 4: Potatoes on MyPlate

Mischa Bassett F&N 453. Individual Project. Effect of Various Butters on the Physical Properties of Biscuits. November 20, 2006

Characteristics of Wine Consumers in the Mid-Atlantic States: A Statistical Analysis

Study of Selection Behavior of Wine for Different Markets

Survey for the International Riesling Foundation

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TOWARDS KFC AND MCDONALDS RAJKOT

TEACHER NOTES MATH NSPIRED

Wine Australia Wine.com Data Report. July 21, 2017

IFPTI Fellowship Cohort V: Research Presentation Matthew Coleman, R.S., CP-FS

Northern Region Central Region Southern Region No. % of total No. % of total No. % of total Schools Da bomb

Wine-Tasting by Numbers: Using Binary Logistic Regression to Reveal the Preferences of Experts

Which of your fingernails comes closest to 1 cm in width? What is the length between your thumb tip and extended index finger tip? If no, why not?

An Advanced Tool to Optimize Product Characteristics and to Study Population Segmentation

Tips for Writing the RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

2017 Food Attitudes & Behaviors

Biologist at Work! Experiment: Width across knuckles of: left hand. cm... right hand. cm. Analysis: Decision: /13 cm. Name

Caffeine And Reaction Rates

CCSB Contact: Allison L. Austin Telephone (703) Item Description Class

Jake Bernstein Trading Webinar

Rituals on the first of the month Laurie and Winifred Bauer

A Study on Consumer Attitude Towards Café Coffee Day. Gonsalves Samuel and Dias Franklyn. Abstract

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BEER TOURISM IN KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Structures of Life. Investigation 1: Origin of Seeds. Big Question: 3 rd Science Notebook. Name:

A Note on a Test for the Sum of Ranksums*

Missouri State University

Gender-associated differences in risk attitudes and perceptions among farmers in Mali

Plate 2.1 City map of Puducherry showing selected areas for the study

Retailing Frozen Foods

Buying Filberts On a Sample Basis

Table 1a Doctoral programs- Clarity and relevance of G&P domains summary statistics

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report

Nutrition Environment Assessment Tool (NEAT)

Wine Writers Symposium. Meadowood, February 19, 2014

Ex-Ante Analysis of the Demand for new value added pulse products: A

Growth in early yyears: statistical and clinical insights

Understanding the Current Conditions of Tourism Product and Tourism Perceptions in As-Salt City, Jordan

A Comparison of X, Y, and Boomer Generation Wine Consumers in California

Aging, Social Capital, and Health Care Utilization in the Province of Ontario, Canada

Transcription:

$$$[71CA428447DA488C86439BF0C08A8D46]$$$ CAMAIGN: WAVE 1 FAS FD RJEC REARED FR: "La lazza" REARED BY: "Your Company Name" CREAED N: 26 May 2014 Copyright 2014

1CHAER RJEC VERVIEW his chapter contains information that allows you to identify behavior patterns that you can incorporate in your policy making. It shows all questions where strong correlations are statistically significant. his indicates where current procedures are effective or where they need reviewing. Definitions: Sample Size otal number of surveys submitted for this project. Randomness Measures the degree of variation in responses to the questions selected for "Randomness" checking. o have characteristics of a random sample there must be no recognizable patterns or regularities. Response imes he number of responses grouped by length of time needed to complete the survey. Scale is in minutes. Response by Hour he actual number of responses received in each one hour time period. Response by Day he actual number of responses received for each day of the week. op Answer he most frequently provided answer to each individual question. Conclusions he number of all Strong correlations that are statistically significant. Responses he number of responses to each individual question.

roject verview Fast Food roject 13 Slides 11 Questions Launched: 2014-05-24 163 1 2 3 Sample Size Strong Randomness Response imes Response by Hour Response by Day Question op Answer Conclusions Responses 4 5 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 11pm Su Mo u We h Fr Sa How often do you visit Fast Food restaurants? At what time do you visit Fast Food restaurants? Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 years? What do you usually order when you visit Fast Food restaurants? How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? How would you grade the Service of the Fast Food restaurants? Daily; Weekly 35.0% - 163 Daytime 39.9% - 163 Agree 40.1% 2 162 Burger 35.8% - 162 Satisfied 49.1% 2 163 43.6% 3 163 Very good 31.3% 1 163 Could you please, share your opinion about the Fast Food restaurants? Analyze Comments - 163 You are: Your age is: Male 74.2% - 163 18-24 55.2% - 163 Your annual income is: $0 -$24,000; $25,000 - $49,000 41.4% - 162

2CHAER CNCLUSINS his chapter contains an overview of your main project parameters, allowing you to quickly assess vital information including sample size, sample randomness, top answers and conclusions. All questions are listed with response totals. op answers for each question are shown with percentages for better perception. Conclusions allow you to identify behavior patterns that you can incorporate in your policy making. Definitions: op Answer he most frequently provided answer to each individual question. Conclusions he number of all Strong correlations that are statistically significant. Responses he number of responses to each individual question. Correlation Shows if, and how strongly pairs of questions are related to each other. Scaled from +1 to -1. he closer it is to +1 or -1, the closer two questions are related. Significance Shows how likely a result is to be true. nly values less than 0.05 are considered accurate.

Conclusions Question op Answer Conclusions Responses Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 years? Agree 40.1% 2 162 Related to Question How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? Correlation - + Strong ositive 0.8922 - + Strong ositive 0.7595 Significance Significant 0.0001 Significant 0.0001

Conclusions Question op Answer Conclusions Responses How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? Satisfied 49.1% 2 163 Related to Question Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 years? he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? Correlation - + Strong ositive 0.8922 - + Strong ositive 0.7057 Significance Significant 0.0001 Significant 0.0001

Conclusions Question op Answer Conclusions Responses he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? 43.6% 3 163 Related to Question Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 years? How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? How would you grade the Service of the Fast Food restaurants? Correlation - + Strong ositive 0.7595 - + Strong ositive 0.7057 - + Strong ositive 0.7078 Significance Significant 0.0001 Significant 0.0001 Significant 0.0001

Conclusions Question op Answer Conclusions Responses How would you grade the Service of the Fast Food restaurants? Very good 31.3% 1 163 Related to Question he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? Correlation - + Strong ositive 0.7078 Significance Significant 0.0001

3CHAER CRSS ABULAIN his chapter contains information on the relationship between questions with strong correlations that are statistically significant. Results are shown in both table and chart view. he linked answers between questions and the percentage of respondents that provided them are shown. his will reveal areas of interest in the customers behavior patterns. Definitions: Correlation Shows if, and how strongly pairs of questions are related to each other. Scaled from +1 to -1. he closer it is to +1 or -1, the closer two questions are related. Significance Shows how likely a result is to be true. nly values less than 0.05 are considered accurate.

Cross tabulation Questions Correlation Significance Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 years? How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? - + Strong ositive 0.8922 Significant 0.0001 7.41% 6.17% Neither agree, nor d / Neutral 37.04% Agree / Satisfied 24.69% Strongly agree / Extremely satisfied 5.56% Strongly agree / Satisfied 3.70% Strongly disagree / Extremely dissatisfi 2.47% 1.85% 1.23% 1.23% 4.32% Disagree / Dissatisfied 1.85% Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 y How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? Strongly agree Extremely satisfied 40 (24.69%) Satisfied 9 (5.56%) Neutral Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied Agree Extremely satisfied Satisfied 2 (1.23%) 60 (37.04%) Neutral 2 (1.23%) Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied 1 (0.62%)

Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 y Neither agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? Extremely satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied Extremely satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied Extremely satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied 10 (6.17%) 12 (7.41%) 3 (1.85%) 1 (0.62%) 1 (0.62%) 4 (2.47%) 7 (4.32%) 1 (0.62%) 3 (1.85%) 6 (3.70%)

Cross tabulation Questions Correlation Significance Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 years? he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? - + Strong ositive 0.7595 Significant 0.0001 8.02% 4.94% 4.32% 19.14% Strongly agree / Strongly agree / 32.10% Agree / 3.70% 2.47% 1.85% 10.49% Neither agree, nor d / 3.09% 2.47% 1.85% 1.85% 1.23% 1.23% Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 y he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? Strongly agree 31 (19.14%) 13 (8.02%) 5 (3.09%) Agree 4 (2.47%) 52 (32.10%) 7 (4.32%) 2 (1.23%)

Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 y Neither agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? 2 (1.23%) 3 (1.85%) 17 (10.49%) 4 (2.47%) 3 (1.85%) 8 (4.94%) 2 (1.23%) 3 (1.85%) 6 (3.70%)

Cross tabulation Questions Correlation Significance How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 years? - + Strong ositive 0.8922 Significant 0.0001 7.41% 6.17% Neutral / Neither agree, nor d 37.04% 24.69% 5.56% 3.70% 2.47% Satisfied / Agree Extremely satisfied / Strongly agree Satisfied / Strongly agree 1.85% 1.23% 1.23% 4.32% Dissatisfied / Disagree 1.85% How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 Extremely satisfied Strongly agree 40 (24.69%) Agree 2 (1.23%) Neither agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Satisfied Strongly agree Agree 9 (5.56%) 60 (37.04%) Neither agree, nor disagree 10 (6.17%) Disagree 1 (0.62%) Strongly disagree

How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? Neutral Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 2 (1.23%) 12 (7.41%) 4 (2.47%) 3 (1.85%) 7 (4.32%) 3 (1.85%) 1 (0.62%) 1 (0.62%) 1 (0.62%) 6 (3.70%)

Cross tabulation Questions Correlation Significance How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? - + Strong ositive 0.7057 Significant 0.0001 8.59% 6.75% 6.13% Satisfied / Dissatisfied / Neutral / 31.90% Satisfied / 14.11% Extremely satisfied / I strongly agree 8.59% Extremely satisfied / 3.68% 3.07% 7.98% Satisfied / 3.07% How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? Extremely satisfied 23 (14.11%) 14 (8.59%) 5 (3.07%) 1 (0.61%) Satisfied 14 (8.59%) 52 (31.90%) 13 (7.98%) 1 (0.61%)

How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? Neutral Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? 5 (3.07%) 10 (6.13%) 3 (1.84%) 11 (6.75%) 2 (1.23%) 1 (0.61%) 2 (1.23%) 6 (3.68%)

Cross tabulation Questions Correlation Significance he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 years? - + Strong ositive 0.7595 Significant 0.0001 8.02% 4.94% 4.32% 19.14% / Strongly agree / Strongly agree 32.10% / Agree 3.70% 2.47% 1.85% 10.49% / Neither agree, nor d 3.09% 2.47% 1.85% 1.85% 1.23% 1.23% he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 Strongly agree 31 (19.14%) Agree 4 (2.47%) Neither agree, nor disagree 2 (1.23%) Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree 13 (8.02%) 52 (32.10%) Neither agree, nor disagree 3 (1.85%) Disagree 3 (1.85%) Strongly disagree

he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 5 (3.09%) 7 (4.32%) 17 (10.49%) 2 (1.23%) 4 (2.47%) 8 (4.94%) 3 (1.85%) 2 (1.23%) 6 (3.70%)

Cross tabulation Questions Correlation Significance he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? - + Strong ositive 0.7057 Significant 0.0001 8.59% 6.75% 6.13% / Extremely satisfied / Dissatisfied / Neutral 31.90% / Satisfied 14.11% 8.59% / Satisfied 3.68% 3.07% 7.98% / Satisfied 3.07% he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? Extremely satisfied 23 (14.11%) Satisfied 14 (8.59%) Neutral Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied Extremely satisfied Satisfied 14 (8.59%) 52 (31.90%) Neutral 5 (3.07%) Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied

he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? Extremely satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied Extremely satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied Extremely satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied 5 (3.07%) 13 (7.98%) 10 (6.13%) 1 (0.61%) 1 (0.61%) 1 (0.61%) 3 (1.84%) 11 (6.75%) 2 (1.23%) 2 (1.23%) 6 (3.68%)

Cross tabulation Questions Correlation Significance he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? How would you grade the Service of the Fast Food restaurants? - + Strong ositive 0.7078 Significant 0.0001 21.47% / Very good 12.88% / Excellent 6.13% 5.52% / Fair 4.29% 3.68% 3.07% 2.45% / Fair 15.95% 7.98% 6.13% / Excellent 1.23% / Good / Good / Fair 3.07% 2.45% 1.84% he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? How would you grade the Service of the Fast Food restaurants? Excellent 21 (12.88%) Very good 10 (6.13%) Good 5 (3.07%) Fair 1 (0.61%) Bad Excellent Very good 6 (3.68%) 35 (21.47%) Good 26 (15.95%) Fair 4 (2.45%) Bad

he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? How would you grade the Service of the Fast Food restaurants? Excellent Very good Good Fair Bad Excellent Very good Good Fair Bad Excellent Very good Good Fair Bad 2 (1.23%) 5 (3.07%) 13 (7.98%) 9 (5.52%) 1 (0.61%) 4 (2.45%) 10 (6.13%) 3 (1.84%) 1 (0.61%) 7 (4.29%)

Cross tabulation Questions Correlation Significance How would you grade the Service of the Fast Food restaurants? he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? - + Strong ositive 0.7078 Significant 0.0001 21.47% Very good / 12.88% Excellent / 6.13% Fair / 5.52% Fair / 4.29% 3.68% 3.07% 2.45% 15.95% 7.98% 6.13% Excellent / 1.23% Good / Good / 3.07% 2.45% 1.84% How would you grade the Service of the Fast Food restaurants? he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? Excellent 21 (12.88%) 6 (3.68%) 2 (1.23%) Very good 10 (6.13%) 35 (21.47%) 5 (3.07%) 1 (0.61%)

How would you grade the Service of the Fast Food restaurants? Good Fair Bad he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? 5 (3.07%) 26 (15.95%) 13 (7.98%) 4 (2.45%) 1 (0.61%) 4 (2.45%) 9 (5.52%) 10 (6.13%) 1 (0.61%) 3 (1.84%) 7 (4.29%)

4CHAER ANSWERS DISRIBUIN his chapter contains information on answer distribution across all the questions in the project. he answer distribution is displayed graphically along with tabular data including the margin of error for each answer. op answers for each question are shown with percentages for better perception. Conclusions allow you to identify behavior patterns for investigation. Definitions: Sample Size otal number of surveys submitted for this project. Response imes he number of responses grouped by length of time needed to complete the survey. Scale is in minutes. op Answer he most frequently provided answer to each individual question. Response by Hour he actual number of responses received in each one hour time period. Conclusions he number of all Strong correlations that are statistically significant. Answer Shows the entire set of answers for the specific question. ercentage Shows the percentage of responses for each answer in the set. Error he margin of error expresses the amount of random sampling error in a survey's results. he larger the margin of error, the less confidence one should have in them.

Answers Distribution How often do you visit Fast Food restaurants? 163 Sample Size 1 2 3 4 Response imes 5 Daily; Weekly 35.0% op Answer 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 11pm Response by Hour - Conclusions Daily (35.0%) Weekly (35.0%) Monthly (21.5%) Less than a month (5.5%) I am not sure (3.1%) Daily Weekly Monthly Less than a month I am not sure 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Answer ercentage Error Daily 35.0 % 57-4.3 4.3% / 4.3% Weekly 35.0 % 57-4.3 4.3% / 4.3% Monthly 21.5% 35-2.9% / 2.9% Less than a month 5.5% 9-0.8% / 0.8% I am not sure 3.1% 5-0.5% / 0.5%

Answers Distribution At what time do you visit Fast Food restaurants? 163 Sample Size 1 2 3 4 Response imes 5 Daytime 39.9% op Answer 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 11pm Response by Hour - Conclusions Morning Morning (25.8%) Daytime Daytime (39.9%) Evening (27.6%) Evening Late night (6.7%) Late night 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Answer ercentage Error Morning 25.8% 42-3.4% / 3.4% Daytime 39.9 % 65-4.8 4.8% / 4.8% Evening 27.6% 45-3.6% / 3.6% Late night 6.7% 11-1.0% / 1.0%

Answers Distribution Do you feel that the Fast Food restaurants have gotten better over the past 3 years? 162 Sample Size 1 2 3 4 Response imes 5 Agree 40.1% op Answer 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 11pm Response by Hour 2 Conclusions Strongly agree (30.2%) Agree (40.1%) Neither agree, (16.0%) Disagree (8.0%) Strongly disagree (5.6%) Strongly agree Agree Neither agree, no Disagree Strongly disagree 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Answer ercentage Error Strongly agree 30.2% 49-3.9% / 3.9% Agree 40.1 % 65-4.8 4.8% / 4.8% Neither agree, nor disagree 16.0% 26-2.3% / 2.3% Disagree 8.0% 13-1.2% / 1.2% Strongly disagree 5.6% 9-0.8% / 0.8%

Answers Distribution What do you usually order when you visit Fast Food restaurants? 162 Sample Size 1 2 3 4 Response imes 5 Burger 35.8% op Answer 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 11pm Response by Hour - Conclusions Burger (35.8%) Cheeseburger (24.1%) Chicken pieces (21.6%) Salad (18.5%) French fries (0.0%) Burger Cheeseburger Chicken pieces Salad French fries 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Answer ercentage Error Burger 35.8 % 58-4.4 4.4% / 4.4% Cheeseburger 24.1% 39-3.2% / 3.2% Chicken pieces 21.6% 35-3.0% / 3.0% Salad 18.5% 30-2.6% / 2.6% French fries 0.0% 0 0% / 0%

Answers Distribution How satisfied are you with the cleanlines of the Fast Food restaurants? 163 Sample Size 1 2 3 4 Response imes 5 Satisfied 49.1% op Answer 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 11pm Response by Hour 2 Conclusions Extremely satisfied (26.4%) Satisfied (49.1%) Neutral (11.0%) Dissatisfied (8.0%) Extremely dissatisfied (5.5%) Extremely satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Extremely dissati 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Answer ercentage Error Extremely satisfied 26.4% 43-3.5% / 3.5% Satisfied 49.1 % 80-5.4 5.4% / 5.4% Neutral 11.0% 18-1.6% / 1.6% Dissatisfied 8.0% 13-1.2% / 1.2% Extremely dissatisfied 5.5% 9-0.8% / 0.8%

Answers Distribution he quality of the Fast Food restaurants met your expectations? 163 Sample Size 1 2 3 4 Response imes 5 43.6% op Answer 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 11pm Response by Hour 3 Conclusions (22.7%) (43.6%) (17.8%) (11.0%) (4.9%) 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Answer ercentage Error 22.7% 37-3.1% / 3.1% 43.6 % 71-5.0 5.0% / 5.0% 17.8% 29-2.5% / 2.5% 11.0% 18-1.6% / 1.6% 4.9% 8-0.7% / 0.7%

Answers Distribution How would you grade the Service of the Fast Food restaurants? 163 Sample Size 1 2 3 4 Response imes 5 Very good 31.3% op Answer 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 11pm Response by Hour 1 Conclusions Excellent Excellent (17.8%) Very good Very good (31.3%) Good Good (29.4%) Fair Fair (15.3%) Bad (6.1%) Bad 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Answer ercentage Error Excellent 17.8% 29-2.5% / 2.5% Very good 31.3 % 51-4.0 4.0% / 4.0% Good 29.4% 48-3.8% / 3.8% Fair 15.3% 25-2.2% / 2.2% Bad 6.1% 10-0.9% / 0.9%

Answers Distribution You are: 163 Sample Size 1 2 3 4 Response imes 5 Male 74.2% op Answer 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 11pm Response by Hour - Conclusions Female Female (25.8%) Male (74.2%) Male 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Answer ercentage Error Female 25.8% 42-3.4% / 3.4% Male 74.2 % 121-5.8 5.8% / 5.8%

Answers Distribution Your age is: 163 Sample Size 1 2 3 4 Response imes 5 18-24 55.2% op Answer 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 11pm Response by Hour - Conclusions 18-24 (55.2%) 25-34 (33.1%) 18-24 25-34 35-44 35-44 (8.6%) 45-54 45-54 (1.2%) 55-64 55-64 (0.0%) 65+ 65+ (1.8%) 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Answer ercentage Error 18-24 55.2 % 90-5.7 5.7% / 5.7% 25-34 33.1% 54-4.2% / 4.2% 35-44 8.6% 14-1.3% / 1.3% 45-54 1.2% 2-0.2% / 0.2% 55-64 0.0% 0 0% / 0% 65+ 1.8% 3-0.3% / 0.3%

Answers Distribution Your annual income is: 162 Sample Size 1 2 3 4 Response imes 5 $0 - $24,000; $25,000 - $49,00 41.4% op Answer 12am 6am 12pm 6pm11pm Response by Hour - Conclusions $0 - $24,000 (41.4%) $25,000 - $49,000 (41.4%) $50,000 - $74,000 (11.7%) $75,000 - $99,000 (4.3%) $100,000 - $149,000 (0.6%) $150,000+ (0.6%) $0 -$24,000 $25,000 - $49,000 $50,000 - $74,000 $75,000 - $99,000 $100,000 - $149,000 $150,000+ 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Answer ercentage Error $0 - $24,000 41.4 % 67-4.9 4.9% / 4.9% $25,000 - $49,000 41.4 % 67-4.9 4.9% / 4.9% $50,000 - $74,000 11.7% 19-1.7% / 1.7% $75,000 - $99,000 4.3% 7-0.7% / 0.7% $100,000 - $149,000 0.6% 1-0.1% / 0.1% $150,000+ 0.6% 1-0.1% / 0.1%