Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Client 3. Scope 4. Methodology 5. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

2

Agenda

1. Introduction 2. Client 3. Scope 4. Methodology 5. SWOT Analysis 6. Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

Ajay Nikhil Andy

Our Team

Suraj

4

Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion

OUR CLIENT

Allison Tjaden Assistant Director New Initiatives

6

Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion

UMD Dining Dining Halls Retail Franchises Cafes Convenience Stores Concessions

7

Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion

SCOPE

“Develop a framework that UMD Dining Services can utilize in building strategies to effectively compete in the retail food market within College Park, Maryland.”

• Allison & CYC Team

9

Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion

Deliverables

10

Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion

SWOT Analysis Customer Profiles Competitive Research

METHODOLOGY

Surveys

45 Respondents

Data Collection & Analysis Focus Groups

15 Participants Respondents from varying population groups (year, gender, housing, dining plans) Respondents were asked to quantify their UMD Dining experience ➢ 30% of all respondents have never previously heard of Tapingo; only 2% have used it ➢ Overwhelming majority of respondents spend more on Route 1 locations than UMD Respondents from varying population groups (year, gender, housing, dining plans, faculty) Respondents were asked to describe their experience while shopping at UMD Dining ➢ Respondents choose to go to Route 1 for a better atmosphere and food experience ➢ Students on Dining Dollars are less price sensitive

12

13

Market Research

Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion

14

Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion

Comparative Research

15

SWOT ANALYSIS

16

T

Route 1 Developments New Market Entrants Retail Promotions Food Delivery Services

O

Dining Dollar Plans Operations Niche Markets Technology (Tapingo) Price Differentiation Community/Promotions

S Convenience Accessibility Dining Dollars Modernization W Perceived Quality Product Quality Product Volume/Mix Location Atmosphere

Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion

17

Route 1 Analysis

Loyalty Programs Fundraising Partnerships Niche Offerings Promotions Mobile Payment Systems

Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion

T

UMD Retail Price Differentiation Route 1

➢ Cereal ○ Honey Bunches of Oats - $5.95 ○ Cheerios -$6.35 ➢ Snacks ○ Salsa - $3.89 ○ Queso - $3.89 ➢ Drinks ○ Gatorade - $3.09 ○ Starbucks Double Shot - $3.59 ➢ Coffee ○ Small - $1.79 ○ Medium - $1.99 ○ Large - $2.19 ➢ Ice Cream ○ Ben & Jerry’s - $6.79 ➢ Cereal ○ Honey Bunches of Oats - $4.69 ○ Cheerios - $4.99 ➢ Snacks ○ Salsa - $3.49 ○ Queso - $3.99 ➢ Drinks ○ Gatorade - $2.39 or 2 for $3.33 ○ Starbucks Double Shot - $2.99 ➢ Coffee ○ Small - $1.59 ○ Medium - $1.79 ○ Large - $1.99 ➢ Ice Cream ○ Ben & Jerry’s - $5.79

18

19

O

Opportunities

Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion

More than the product itself, customers look for an excellent experience ➢ Enhance UMD Dining atmosphere ➢ Increase social value add of UMD retail locations Customers are less price sensitive when using DD ➢ Increase availability & customization for DD plans ➢ Marketing strategy to increase DD users UMD Dining has not yet adapted to new technological systems ➢ Better data collection and forecasting ➢ Increase prevalence

• f mobile payment

systems

Experience Dining Dollars Point of Sales

CONCLUSION

21

Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion

Retain customers Maximize satisfaction Increase value-add

22

Spring 2018

Appendix

Appendix I-A: SWOT Insights (1)

25

• Dining Services isn’t very flexible when it comes to variety and customizability (especially considering

dietary restrictions)

• Students are becoming increasingly health conscious, and feel like route 1 has more options in this

regard

• Other schools use better notations for healthier or dietary-specific options at cafes
• Tapingo: It is unclear if there is a true need or want
• Students recognize the name, but not its function
• Dining Services hasn’t properly conveyed the value-add of using Tapingo
• The hassle of using it isn’t worth skipping the line or the discounts that are given
• Students naturally are too impulsive to warrant the use of Tapingo
• Students choose to use Dining Services retail locations almost exclusively for convenience
• Students feel like there isn’t enough seating at cafes, which limits student visits and engagement
• Students feel like there is insufficient product variety/mix across different cafe locations
• Perceived quality of cafes is very low and “that’s just what we’ve come to expect”
• Students feel that customer service is not very important to their experience

Appendix I-B: SWOT Insights (2)

26

• Students go to Route 1 for the holistic social experience, they don’t feel like they can find the same

experience with UMD Dining locations

• Students feel like convenience stores/cafes do not cultivate the best atmosphere (cramped space,

non-cleanliness)

• Students want variety, but a very specific type of variety. Look into better shelving or product mix
• Students feel like convenience stores don’t have the items they are looking for or not enough of them
• Students feel that locations are difficult to find (especially cafes)
• Certain cafe locations can be open later than they close now. Cost benefit analysis needed to

determine whether this is profitable or not

• Students not aware of many options Dining Services provides (dining plans, cafes, etc.)
• Students feel much less price sensitive if they are on DD plans. More customization,

subscription-based model, more outreach to increase understanding of benefits

Appendix II-A: Customer Segmentation

27

Appendix II-B: Customer Segmentation

28

Appendix II-C: Customer Segmentation

29

Appendix II-D: Customer Segmentation

30

Appendix II-E: Customer Segmentation

31

Appendix III-A: External Comparative Analysis (1)

32

Rutgers Univ:

• High volume of students leads to heavy traffic - students less likely to

frequent cafes

• More convenience and variety at off-campus locations
• Convenience stores offer limited amount of pre-paid dollars per visit

Appendix III-B: External Comparative Analysis (2)

33

Univ of Delaware:

• Cafes hold reputation of being very overpriced
• Students visit off-campus locations because they are more “fun” and

sometimes more convenient

• On-campus options usually unhealthier than off-campus
• Cafes/Convenience stores located on opposite ends and middle of

campus for most efficient access

• Cafes open during regular work hours; convenience stores open later

(~11am - 2am)

Appendix III-C: External Comparative Analysis (3)

34

Washington Univ in St. Louis:

• Visits convenience stores mostly to purchase beverages
• Convenience stores located in residential buildings for increased

convenience

• Large product variety at convenience stores and cafes
• Students pushing to attain more vegan/vegetarian friendly options
• Healthy items clearly denoted
• Cafes offer “Build-Your-Own Sandwich” option
• Cafes cater towards specific demographics

○ Sell “Kosher Packs” for large Jewish student population

Appendix III-D: External Comparative Analysis (4)

35

Univ of Virginia:

• Convenience stores located near freshmen housing and in center of

campus for ease of access

• Many cafe locations on-campus, always in close proximity, high variety
• Students can exchange meal swipes for certain meal options at cafes
• DD equivalent bears no sales tax, encouraging students to purchase plans,

increasing customer retention (can carry over between semesters)

• Times of cafes/convenience stores dependent on foot traffic of area
• Cafes do not include much seating for students/faculty
• Students enjoy going to cafes, sometimes even over off-campus options