SMEs are those companies which follow two main criteria: First, they employ a limited amount of people, and their profits or assets are subject to specification either by the World Trade Organisation or the country’s’ law (Gümüs and Kütahyali, 2017)). In Colombia, these companies operate under the law 905 of 2004. They are composed of a maximum number of 200 employees and assets of up to 30,000 times the minimum monthly wages (Table 2) (Congreso Colombiano, 2004).
Company Number of employees Total Assets (SMMLV) Total Assets (COP) Total Assets (Pounds Sterling )
Micro company Under 10 Under 500 Under $390,621,000 £97,655.25
Small Between 11 and 50 Between 501 and 5000 Between $391,402,242 and $3,906,210,000 Between £97,851.06 And £976,552.5
Medium Between 51 and 200 Between 5001 and 30,000 Between $3,906,991,242 and $23,437,260,000 Between £976,747.81 and £5,859,315
Table 2 Definitions SME in Colombia (Congreso Colombiano, 2004, p. 1)
Many different experts consider that SMEs are in charge of generating the growth of the world’s economy (O’Dwyer, Gilmore and Carson, 2011; Eggers et al., 2013; Sok, O’Cass and Sok, 2013; Gümüs et al, 2017). They represent a substantial percentage of the existent companies and they are a flexible source of employment creation (Eggers et al., 2013). In Colombia, these companies generate 80.8% of the country’s employment, with a contribution of 45% to the GDP (Diaz, 2016), where restaurants represent the GDP’s 5% and provide more than 600,000 employments (Huanca Villaverde, 2016).
Nonetheless, they face great pressure on their development, and it is due to the availability of resources, the adoption of new technologies, especially SMP; and marketing activities (Sok et al, 2013; Lepkowska-White, 2017). Usually, what becomes the main reason for a company’s failure is one of the factors mentioned above. The recommendation that some experts make is for companies to focus on their marketing activities and make an effort to include technology to reach more customers and satisfy their needs (Gümüs et al, 2017).
Moreover, as shown by Lepkowska-White's (2017) study, SMEs tend to not see the benefits of using technology and especially social media (SM). Most of the times, it is used in a passive way by inexpert employees (Gümüs et al, 2017). This study is further supported by previous literature from DiPietro, et al., (2012) who explains that the SMEs, especially in the restaurant industry, are slow adopters of technologies. However, they acknowledge that over the years there has been some progress using inventory, scheduling software and point of sale technology.
Additionally, several studies show how SMEs lack resources to have extensive and intense marketing strategies (Spence and Essoussi, 2010; Lamprinopoulou and Tregear, 2011; O’Dwyer et al 2011), and therefore brand building and marketing strategies must follow an innovative path and include the proactive use of strategic alliances (Spence et al 2010; Lamprinopoulou et al 2011; Naudé et al., 2014). An example of this is given by Lamprinopoulou et al (2011) in their study where they show how producers of olive oil in Greece got together in cooperatives to create a brand for their product and sell it more easily, the most recognized one is Blauel Organic Olive Oil, in southern greece, where more than 200 producers are working together in a single brand since 2002 to produce more than 800 tonnes of oil and successfully sell it all across the country.
2.2. Marketing Strategy
2.2.1. Strategic Alliances, Generalities
Strategic alliances can be defined as the ‘agreement between two or more partners to share knowledge or resources which could be beneficial to all parties involved’ (Webster, 1992; O’Dwyer et al, 2011). They can be formalised through the creation of contracts or tacit and informal (Kylänen and Rusko, 2011; Franco and Haase, 2015). The main objective is to take advantage of presented market opportunities (O’Dwyer et al, 2011) but this cannot be done by themselves due to many situations, for example, to enter a new country in which the company has no knowledge about or expertise, so it engages with a bigger and local companies to be able to enter the new market successfully (Doole, Lowe and Kenyon, 2016).
To get better results, authors recommend to have compatible and well defined objectives for the alliance (O’Dwyer et al, 2011; Franco et al, 2015; Agostini, 2016b), select partners carefully (O’Dwyer et al, 2011; Franco et al, 2015), have similar drivers and motivation (Franco et al, 2015) and avoid developing a relationship asymmetrically, where one of the parts gets more benefits than the other one (Lyons, 1991).
These strategic alliances can be done either in a vertical level (customer, supplier and producer service provider networks) or in a horizontal level (producer networks, industry-university linkages) (Zeng, Xie and Tam, 2010).
A particular example of these networks is when the alliance is made between competitors. The general opinion and the most known theories present the competitors as someone to override and get advantage from, but few consider the option of gaining mutual benefits by working together (Luo, Rindfleish and Tse, 2007). When this happens, it is known as co-opetition (Figure 1) (Gnyawali and Park, 2011).
Figure 1 Strategic alliances (Rusko, 2011, p. 312)
2.2.2. Co-opetition
Co-opetition is defined as the ‘strategy embodying simultaneous cooperation and competition between firms’ (Gnyawali and Park, 2011). This kind of relationship can be complex because it includes two inverse logic of interactions (Bengtsson and Kock, 2000) but, in the end, the interactions are not completely opposites. Instead, the firms divide the activities into two sets, those where they are competing and those where they are cooperating (Lindström and Polsa, 2016). As suggested by Bengtsson and Kock (1999), the cooperative side is based on accordance and functional aspects of the value chain and the competitive side are where the power lies in the position and strength of each company.
Thus, the group of firms get together, adapt their processes and activities to work with each other, share the experience and common problems (Zeng, Xie and Tam, 2010; Akdoğan and Cingšz, 2012). But to achieve this mutual interdependence, greater trust and reciprocity are necessary (Tomlinson and Fai, 2013). One example is how food retailers allied with banks to achieve advantages toward the competitors improving their offers on new financial products and services getting the skills and expertise; and on the banks side, gaining a bigger and cheaper coverage without the need of opening branches (Martinelli and Sparks, 2003).
Co-opetition might include economic and non-economic exchanges (Bengtsson and Kock, 1999) and the decision to create this kind of alliance is, according to Agostini (2016a), when the firms:
Are located geographically close
Belong to the same industry, so they share inputs or outputs
Interact with each other for a specific outcome
The objectives to seek co-opetition can be widely varied, and it includes the pursuit of know-how, access to new technologies or new markets (including new geographical markets or new segments), reach economies of scale in research or production, share and mitigate the risk associated with R&D (Zeng, Xie and Tam, 2010; Tomlinson and Fai, 2013), develop new process, products or technological growth; diversification and expansion of innovative opportunities (Tomlinson and Fai, 2013) and exceed insecurities and uncertainties (Akdoğan and Cingšz, 2012).
For SMEs, these objectives also include the opportunity to increase competitiveness and compete with larger firms (Agostini, Filippini and Nosella, 2015), expand the resources (O’Dwyer, Gilmore and Carson, 2011; Tomlinson and Fai, 2013), gain access to hard to get knowledge and technologies (Tomlinson and Fai, 2013; Lin and Lin, 2016); overcome problems with experience and credibility and gain reputation and visibility (Lin and Lin, 2016). This last statement is exemplified with destination marketing in the tourism sector. Different sizes of hotels and restaurants get together to promote one specific geographical area. Through this they increase the sales as an overall for all the members and gain bigger visibility, especially useful to the smaller (von Friedrichs Grängsjö, 2003).
These relationships can also reduce costs, for example when it is used to enter a different country, reducing transaction and coordination costs, as can be seen in associations of producers or famers where the costs of transport of their final product is shared, therefore lower for each member (Lamprinopoulou and Tregear, 2011). Consequently, the companies can perceive positive effects in the financial performance, sustain and improve competitive advantage, given that they build their relationships wisely in an innovative way that is smart with their limited resources (O’Dwyer, Gilmore and Carson, 2011; Tomlinson and Fai, 2013). The relationships must be well thought because extensive intensiveness can create problems of free riding and too scarce can reduce overall effectiveness (Luo et al, 2007; Naudé et al., 2014)
Taking this into account, it is clear that a dilemma may arise between working together to create value and benefits for all the members, or take advantage of the situation taking a bigger share of the outputs by being opportunistic (Gnyawali and Park, 2011). Between the risks in the alliance, there is the possibility of technology leakage to the competitors, hence losing competitive advantage; a loss of control over the process itself (Tomlinson and Fai, 2013) and increased rivalry, mainly because of goal differences (Agostini, Filippini and Nosella, 2015).
There are many studies on the co-opetitive relationship between companies and almost all of them are focused on the managerial side. These include, a successful partner selection (Holmberg and Cummings, 2009; Swoboda et al., 2011), network developing process (Agostini, Filippini and Nosella, 2015; Agostini, 2016b), the different structures and effectiveness of the networks (Carson, Gilmore and Rocks, 2004; Rocks, Gilmore and Carson, 2005; Nyuur, Brečić and Simintiras, 2016). Likewise, including topics like how is the best manager profile (Cavazos and Varadarajan, 2012; Agostini, Filippini and Nosella, 2015). Agostini et al. (2015), show in their study how in four cases of networks in Italy each one of the alliances uses an intermediary, either an owner of one of the companies or hire someone, to supervise and control the network. From their results, they conclude that it is necessary to have someone to manage the alliance, internal or external, but actively involved to have successful results.
In general, these studies are focused on R&D and upstream value chain activities (Lyons, 1991; McEvily, Eisenhardt and Prescott, 2004; Lamprinopoulou and Tregear, 2011; Agostini, 2016b), due to these high technology industries facing bigger challenges and opportunities, and obtaining more advantages when using this strategy, sharing the risk to access and combine sophisticated technologies (Gnyawali and Park, 2011). This includes the examples of how Samsung and Sony got together to develop the 7th generation display for televisions and creating a revolution in the industry (Gnyawali and Park, 2011).
In the gastronomic industry, there are different types of alliances like restaurants with hotels or airports to get a bigger geographical reach; participation in other types of restaurants, like McDonald's and Chipotle Mexican Grill; and alliances with famous chefs to reach a different segment or improve their menu (Michaelides, 2000).
One of the most renown examples of co-opetition in the gastronomic industry are the food fairs and festivals, where a variety of chefs and personalities, suppliers and cooperatives (formed by groups of farmers and ranchers) get together to share new and more diverse experiences with all the event attendees (PR Newswire, 2017).
Food festivals are alliances that help the economic development of the participants, tourism development of the region where is held, promotion of local companies (Axelsen and Swan, 2010), improvement and development of participant’s brands (Lee and Arcodia, 2011; Frost and Laing, 2013; Johnson Morgan, 2015). Equally they try to promote social messages, championing and promoting the latest trends in the food industry, such as the status of authenticity, artisanal and high profile (Frost and Laing, 2013).
For SMEs, and in particular for restaurants, participating into this type of alliances can become an innovative marketing strategy that would allow them to overcome many obstacles as stated before in this chapter.
2.3. Innovative Marketing
Innovative marketing can be defined as ‘creative, novel or unusual solutions to problems (…) the innovation lies in its unique application to a particular company or situation’, it promotes the alteration of traditional marketing activities to respond to the requirements of the market according to the current situation of the company’ (O’Dwyer, Gilmore and Carson, 2011, pg 92).
With the latest technological trends, these innovative marketing activities are highly based on SM platforms, the internet, and are used by companies of the different size to fulfil their strategies and present their advertisement (Gümüs and Kütahyali, 2017). Additionally, creativity plays an important role to support brand image and awareness (Spence and Essoussi, 2010). An efficient and creative brand building and management can help the SMEs to succeed, especially if they find low cost communication schemes, continue the entrepreneur’s vision, beliefs and values (Spence and Essoussi, 2010) and even co-creation with the help of alliances and consumers (Mäläskä, Saraniemi and Tähtinen, 2011).
2.3.1. SM and eWOM
SM can be defined as ‘Internet applications that help consumers share opinions, insights, experiences, and perspectives.'( Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009, p. 565 cited in DiPietro et al., 2012). They are one of the most used vehicles to advertise and promote in the restaurant industry (Kim et al., 2015) and, as some studies show, SMEs can benefit from SM’s low costs, and must therefore use them (Lepkowska-White, 2017).
SM can control and expand the reach of the target customers, promote brands, generate loyalty, keep track of their customers, identify preferences, opinions and consumer behaviour (Gümüs and Kütahyali, 2017). It also helps to generate interaction, engagement and relationships with actual and potential customers (Nobre and Silva, 2014; Lepkowska-White, 2017); create communities, get information quickly, generate electronic Word Of Mouth (eWOM), manage reputation, learn about problems when they occur (Lepkowska-White, 2017), and generate differentiation from the competition (Nobre and Silva, 2014).
From the customer perspective, SM is the most popular option where they would go to get informed about brands, their offerings, get in touch, or even read and analyse reviews which has the potential influence their purchasing decisions (Nobre and Silva, 2014; Lepkowska-White, 2017). DiPietro et al., (2012, p. 270) show that ‘approximately 56% [of the customers] feel a stronger connection with companies and feel better served by companies who use SM to interact with consumers’.
SM presents the opportunity for the customers to share their opinions, preferences and experiences (Nobre and Silva, 2014). This is a way that eWOM gains a crucial role in the creation of attitudes and shaping behaviours, dissemination of products and services (Cheung and Lee, 2012; Nobre and Silva, 2014). It influences awareness, expectations, perceptions, and can push up an individual onto the loyalty ladder from a prospect to a customer (Buttle, 1998).
This becomes critical for restaurants as eWOM becomes a tangible way to attract new customers (Kim et al., 2015; Bahtar and Muda, 2016). It is a more persistent and accessible communication in comparison with traditional WOM (Cheung and Lee, 2012). As stated by Yang, (2017) the main factors that affect eWOM are: the experience, the motivation, and the platform features.
One of the ways companies should gain positive eWOM for their products and services is through digital or SM influencers. Freberg et al. (2011, p. 90) defines SM influencers as ‘third party endorser who shape audience attitudes through blogs, tweets and the use of other SM’. They have the ability to affect behaviour and attitudes (Liu et al., 2015) of individuals with similar interests because they consider them as reference point, or opinion leaders who pass authentic and trustworthy information (Uzunoǧlu and Misci Kip, 2014)
2.3.2. SM in Restaurants
Considering everything that has been mentioned, it is proposed that companies, specially restaurants, take advantage of the SM platforms to promote their brand. They should try to increment the number of reviews and comments, considering that consumers now spend a lot of time and effort looking for information before trying a new restaurant (Lepkowska-White, 2017). Furthermore, try to engage with bloggers or influencers (Uzunoǧlu and Misci Kip, 2014), and create traffic by offering sales promotions, sharing menus and news and by retweeting positive feedback (Lepkowska-White, 2017).
The challenges that studies have identified in the advertising through SM are the definition of the target audience, present creative and consistent pieces, management of the negative comments, stay current and relevant, come up with quality posts and use SM overall in an effective way (DiPietro et al., 2012; Lepkowska-White, 2017).
Other studies in SM that have focused in SMEs include the definitions for brand building (Spence and Essoussi, 2010) focused on co-branding strategies in cooperation; how to create a better post (DiPietro et al., 2012; Frost and Laing, 2013; Zhang, Moe and Schweidel, 2017; Ha and Lee, 2018) and how reviews and their management affect the performance (Kim et al., 2015; Kim, Li and Brymer, 2016; Ha and Lee, 2018)
2.4. Consumer Behaviour
2.4.1. Motivation
Studies present that consumers engage in a specific action because they get motivated from an unfulfilled need that makes them create goals and behaviours, which are modelled according to their identity, perceptions, experiences and attitudes (Rojas Cívico, 2014). This theory considers those situations where the individual does not act through rational thoughts but act through emotional motivations. The rational motivations include all the behaviour that was carefully considered and researched while emotional motivations is created through the demonstration of identity and social connection (Rojas Cívico, 2014).
The identity of an individual can be defined as the self-concept the person has for himself (Liu et al., 2015) can be shaped according to practices, attributes and experiences (Santosa, 2010) However, Hall-Phillips et al. (2016, p. 485) states that an ‘individual creates self-concept through the perceived similarities between the self and a group. If the individual identifies with the group based upon perceived similarities to the group's characteristics and values, an emotional attachment to the group is formed’.
Individuals have the need to identify with a group and feel like they belong, where they are able to self-express, feel connected and augment their self-concept, in other words create a social identity (Longart, 2010; Rojas Cívico, 2014; Liu et al., 2015; Hall-Phillips et al., 2016; Bartosik-Purgat, Filimon and Hinner, 2017). This can be translated to brand association where the individuals feel identified to what the brand stands for and then they can create engagement and commitment (Rojas Cívico, 2014; Gao and Feng, 2016; Habibi et al, 2016). This association helps the brand to create value and push the individuals up the loyalty ladder, especially if they feel close and connected to the brand (Habib et al, 2016).
The act of belonging in a group changes the behaviour of the individual and generates social influence. This influence is accepted to maintain relationships with family and friends, and to be approved inside the reference group (Perez Vega, 2016). It can be explicit, for example, peer pressure; or subtle, as for example through opinion leaders (Shepherd et al., 2011).
The literature indicates that there are two types of influences: informational, where individual seeks for information to make a decision, usually prior the purchase; and normative, where the action is inflicted as an attempt to be accepted in the group, through conformity and internalisation of the group’s acceptance rules and context (Longart, 2010; Bilgihan, Peng and Kandampully, 2014; Perez Vega, 2016).
According to Fu, Ju and Hsu (2015), within a SM environment, the motivations to participate in communities are the desire for social interaction, concern for other consumers, the potential to increase the perceived self-worth, and the sense of belonging, just like in offline communities. Further on Rojas Cívico's (2014) division of motivations, implies that in SM, the rational motivations are those that consist in sharing knowledge and opinions related to an issue or a product, while the emotional motivations are those activities done because of subjective reasons, or in words of Gao and Feng (2016, p. 869) to ‘gratify their social and psychological needs’, that could be entertainment, social interaction, self-expression, and impression management.
Individuals share or ‘broadcast’ themselves to show who they are, what they like, and what they stand for, as a way to self-verify, maintain self-knowledge, give positive impressions, promote self-status and enhance self-esteem (Gao and Feng, 2016; Dimitriu and Guesalaga, 2017). This is done through sharing information, being part of discussions, or communicating through purchase, consumption or experience (Dimitriu and Guesalaga, 2017). As said by Perez Vega, (2016) ‘engagement behaviours with brands, (…) could be also part of the construction of the self-concept (…). Furthermore, sharing content from a certain brand would also provide elements with which to construct and present the self to others.’
An example of this can be seen with the Colombian entrepreneurship award-winning burger chain called ‘Chef Burger’, the leader of casual restaurants (Redacción Emprendimiento, 2017). In 2017, their SM campaigns revolved around two things: get people to come to Chef Burger with friends and family because that is the best way to enjoy time together (see Figure 2) and you can be whatever you want but burgers are the one thing that bring us together (see Figure 3).
Figure 2 Advertisement Chef Burger 2017-2018.
On the left translated: ‘Come and enjoy this Friday with friends, you will see that is the best plan’. In the middle: ‘Let’s start this year right with the people you love the most… in Chef Burger’. On the right ‘ when they invite you to go out but there are no burgers’. (Chef Burger, 2017)
Figure 3 Advertisement Chef burger 2017
We found what bring us together. On the left ‘She likes burgers with double meat and guys, she likes burgers with double meat and was a guy’. In the middle ‘He likes to turn down the volume and all the sauces in the burger, she likes to go up the stage and all the sauces in the burger’. On the right ‘she likes vegan burger and control the company like no other man, she likes vegan burger and control heels like no other girl’ (Chef Burger, 2017)
2.4.2. Behaviour in SM
There are studies about how consumers interact on SM and why they participate on eWOM and reviews (Rojas Cívico, 2014). The online reviews depend on the relationship with the company and retribution that is sought from each individual (Dimitriu and Guesalaga, 2017). Nonetheless, several studies agree on how SM gives the option to create a better feedback for companies for many reasons. This reasons include customers feelings empowered (Yuksel, Milne and Miller, 2016), the opportunity to construct and refine what they say, to create better and more interesting comments (Dimitriu and Guesalaga, 2017) and the feeling of moral obligation to benefit the public disclosing their opinion with their own discontent or content with the product or service (Fu, Ju and Hsu, 2015).
Related to restaurants, positive behaviours from the customers have become a part of the restaurants’ SM and a sufficient base for positive eWOM (Gao and Feng, 2016; Lepkowska-White, 2017), especially for millennials and generation Z, where around the 75% of them rely and exchange eWOM about their dining experiences (Lepkowska-White, 2017), This leads to creating more positive eWOM and brand loyalty (Longart, 2010; Gao and Feng, 2016; Lepkowska-White, 2017).
Food consumption has gone through a wide change where it was initially considered to be a basic need and regular activity. But now it has transformed to be considered as a leisure activity and a way to ‘explore new ideas’ and ‘generate new experiences to overcome this boredom’ (Astuti and Hanan, 2016). It is also considered as an expression of social identity and adds a sense to belonging to a particular social group, empowering symbolic benefits that create social status and group memberships if a specific restaurant is visited (Bhuyan, 2011; Astuti and Hanan, 2016; Tersen and Wecken, 2017).
In situations like these, individuals tend to share their experiences through multiple SMP to influence their friends and be accepted (Bilgihan, Peng and Kandampully, 2014). As stated by Bilgihan et al. (2014, p. 362), ‘In other words, when people post a restaurant review, they do it to project their identity.’
Therefore, the restaurants can use SM to create brand meaning and attract the right target audience and that they can relate. Several studies show that the correct way to attract their audience is to showcase their food through beautiful and attractive photos of the dishes (see Figure 4) (Santosa, 2010; Bilgihan, Peng and Kandampully, 2014; Ashley and Tuten, 2015; Lepkowska-White, 2017) .
Figure 4 Examples of advertising on SM (Burgerstacl.co, 2018; Officeburgermedellin, 2018; Thegrillstationburger, 2018)
2.4.3. Perceptions About Contests and Sweepstakes
Sales promotions is a strategy focused on incentive the purchase of the product usually with discounts or coupons (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). It tends to be a short-term looking to attract brand switchers and increase their sales, but also to get new-product trials, induce store switching, increase sales in complementary categories, or reach new segments, defined as dividing the market into smaller homogeneal groups to provide products tailored to their preferences (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010). Additionally, can be used to establish loyalty (Modi and Jhulka, 2012). Initially, the idea is to believe that promotions can decrease brand equity, but there are no indications that contest and sweepstakes create this effect (Kalra and Shi, 2010).
On the contrary, contests can create positive attitudes in consumers and employees (Murphy and Dacin, 2009). It can also grow sales (Kalra and Shi, 2010), gain new consumers and create deep consumer involvement (Liu, Geng and Whinston, 2007; Kim and Drumwright, 2016). For the brand, it can generate favourable associations, create brand knowledge, and even push the consumer up the loyalty ladder (Glejser and Heyndels, 2001; Palazón-Vidal and Delgado-Ballester, 2005).
Moreover, contests in SM engage customers and expand the reach of the company’s message, creating awareness and engagement simultaneously (Nisar and Whitehead, 2016). Consumers benefit from contest between competitors because they perceive less risk to try something new, as they associate that the ranking is done by experts and it is therefore safe, even though, according to the theory, the ranking would be the same in the long-term with full information but without the participation of such experts (Glejser and Heyndels, 2001).
Additionally, contests provides prizes and entertainment to the participants (Liu, Geng and Whinston, 2007). Contest participation however, depends on risk-aversion of the consumer, the perceived advantage of winning, and feeling towards the brand (Appendix C). If the individual is a follower of the brand there is no perceived advantage. Nonetheless, if the individual has no preferred brand they tend to perceive an advantage (Kalra and Shi, 2010).
2.5. Services Satisfaction and Evaluation
Customer loyalty is described as the most favourable attitude companies aim to create, which can potentially make consumers repurchase, spread positive WOM and ignore other influences and efforts of other brands to make them buy their product (Kim, Yang and Mattila, 2018). This concept comes from the relationship marketing theory where the focus of the company is, through commitment and trust, to establish and maintain a long lasting relationship with the customer (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Chenet, Tynan and Money, 1999).
In services, the customer loyalty is considered to be achieved through a series of attributes that create customer satisfaction and influences their decision to make them return (Chenet, Tynan and Money, 1999; Haghighi et al., 2012). However, it is not guaranteed that a satisfied customer will repeat the purchase, and it is therefore necessary to pay close attention to all possible factors that might affect their satisfaction (Haghighi et al., 2012).
Ha and Lee (2018) suggest that the service evaluation can be considered hard to do because of the intangible characteristics, and therefore tends to be made subjectively; but when it comes to evaluating dining experiences the problems are eliminated. The factors analysed by the consumers are food quality (including presentation, taste and temperature), the quality of service they perceive and the overall atmosphere (including the physical context where the consumption is made) (Booms and Bitner, 1981; Santosa, 2010; Jeong and Jang, 2011).
As stated by Yang (2017, p. 99), and confirmed by (Kozikowski, 2012), ‘Positive attitude or satisfaction arises if the perceived performance exceeds the expectation, and negative disconfirmation or dissatisfaction is experienced otherwise’. When this occurs participants tend to become loyal and engage with the brand (Nobre and Silva, 2014; Nisar and Whitehead, 2016; Flores-Zamora and García-Madariaga, 2017) but also tends to create positive WOM and/or eWOM (Fu, Ju and Hsu, 2015) which can lead to more visits to the restaurant (Flores-Zamora and García-Madariaga, 2017), as well as more expenditure and price premiums (Yang, 2017).
Expanding on this, theory suggests that a high quality service experience promotes customer’s altruistic behaviour and creates psychological tension to share the experience (Jeong and Jang, 2011; Kozikowski, 2012; Ha and Lee, 2018).
The proposed conceptual model creates a theoretical framework for the context explaining the different phenomena around the BM. This allows the investigation about which elements influenced the customers participation and with this the methodology for the recollection of the data and further analysis of the same.