Professor: Dr. Trappey Students: 陳嘉麟 9562503 蔡林龍 9562502

1. Comparing the competitive advantages between McDonald and KFC, for young consumers in Hsinchu area. Professor: Dr. Trappey Students: 陳嘉麟 9562503 蔡林龍 9562502 吳晉瑋 952028

2. Introduction

3. Literature review • In Taiwan, McDonald grew up fast and successfully with flexible • marketing strategies and QSC&V (Guang-Shiash Hu, 2000), Although • McDonald adopted the marketing strategy of cutting prices, the consumers • will not increase their consuming amount. (Wei-Hua Chen, Chia-Chun • Tsai, 2003) Only the improvement of utility and enjoyment will raise • up consuming amount (Yi-Wen Wang & Ming-Tsung Lee,2005). • Define the problem and market research questions. • Comparing the competitive advantages between McDonald and KFC. • The target population is the young consumers (under 30) in • Hsinchu City.

4. Methodology

5. Hypotheses Survey Statistical Analysis Research Finding Conclusions suggestions Research Framework:

6. We will use the approach of setting up a questionnaire concerning customers’ preference. and collect results from young consumers in Hsinchu area, to compare the advantages between Macdonald and KFC when customers choose western fast food chains. The Hypothesis were shown below

7. Data Collection Plan: What:to compare with the advantages of Macdonald and KFC in young consumers in Hsin-Chu Where: Macdonald and FKC in kung-Fu Rd. Who: Young Consumers (under 30 years old) When: 23 May How: Adopting questionnaires How many: 70 valid questionnaires

8. Results and Finding

9. Beliefs of Young Consumers: When young consumers selected a fast food restaurant, they care about the service and taste of food most.

10. Hypothesis 1 : To compare with KFC，”Environment” is a competitive • advantage of McDonald • Hypothesis: Ha: μM>μKFC Two-sample T for Mac. vs KFC N Mean StDev SE Mean Mac. 70 33.50 8.05 0.96 KFC 70 33.46 6.20 0.74 Difference = mu (Mac.) - mu (KFC) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 0.04 P-Value = 0.486 DF = 13 P-value>0.05, Do not Reject H0, Environment is not a competitive advantage of McDonald

11. Hypothesis 2 : To compare with KFC，”Food selection” is a • competitive advantage of McDonald • Hypothesis: Ha: μM>μKFC Two-sample T for Mac vs KFC N Mean StDev SE Mean Mac 70 33.74 7.08 0.85 KFC 70 33.74 5.59 0.67 Difference = mu (Mac) - mu (KFC) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = -0.00 P-Value = 0.500 DF = 138 P-value>0.05, Do not Reject H0, Food selection is not a competitive advantage of McDonald

12. Hypothesis 3 : To compare with KFC，”Price” is a competitive • advantage of McDonald • Hypothesis: Ha: μM>μKFC Two-sample T for Mac vs KFC N Mean StDev SE Mean Mac 70 34.0 11.3 1.4 KFC 70 30.87 8.81 1.1 Difference = mu (Mac) - mu (KFC) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 1.81 P-Value = 0.037 DF = 130 P-value<0.05, Do not Reject H0, Price is a competitive advantage of McDonald

13. Hypothesis 4: To compare with KFC，”Brand image” is a \ • competitive advantage of McDonald • Hypothesis: Ha: μM>μKFC Two-sample T for Mac vs KFC N Mean StDev SE Mean Mac 70 34.40 9.76 1.2 KFC 70 32.16 8.61 1.0 Difference = mu (Mac) - mu (KFC) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 1.44 P-Value = 0.076 DF = 138 P-value>0.05, Do not Reject H0, Brand image is not a competitive advantage of McDonald

14. Hypothesis 5: To compare with KFC，”Service” is a competitive • advantage of McDonald • Hypothesis: Ha: μM>μKFC Two-sample T for Mac vs KFC N Mean StDev SE Mean Mac 70 38.21 8.82 1.1 KFC 70 35.96 8.51 1.0 Difference = mu (Mac) - mu (KFC) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 1.54 P-Value = 0.063 DF = 138 P-value>0.05, Do not Reject H0, Service is not a competitive advantage of McDonald

15. Hypothesis 6: To compare with KFC，”Taste of Food” is a • competitive advantage of Macdonald • Hypothesis: Ha: μM>μKFC Two-sample T for Mac vs KFC N Mean StDev SE Mean Mac 70 37.66 8.01 0.96 KFC 70 36.70 7.36 0.88 Difference = mu (Mac) - mu (KFC) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 0.74 P-Value = 0.231 DF = 138 P-value>0.05, Do not Reject H0, Food is not a competitive advantage of McDonald

16. Summary Table of Test:

17. Conclusions &Suggestions

18. Conclusions: • When young consumers selected a fast food restaurant, they care about the • service and taste of food most. In order to increase the market share of young • consumers, restaurants have to put most effort on the service and taste of food. • (2) Young consumers consider that the McDonald provided a more reasonable • price than KFC. To McDonald, it’s a advantage to KFC and should be maintained. • On the other hand, KFC should make a detail research about the reason why young • consumers have such recognition about the price of two restaurants. • (3) We found that every factor, the all standard deviation of McDonald were greater • than KFC. It possibly means that young consumers give the more diverse rating • on McDonald. • (4) We got the marginal p-value on service and taste of food and that could be • the latent competitive advantages of McDonald.

19. Suggestions: This is just an explorative research. Seventy questionnaires maybe not sufficient to get the precise results. Enlarge the number of the respondents is the first suggestion in future research. Moreover, most our respondents are senior high school students, we may lack the opinions of college students and others who are under 30 years old. Why young consumers think the price of McDonald are more reasonable, a detail research is needed.

20. Thanks for your Attention Professor: Dr. Trappey Students: 陳嘉麟 9562503 蔡林龍 9562502 吳晉瑋 952028