Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Client 3. Scope 4. Methodology 5. SWOT Analysis 6. Conclusion 2
INTRODUCTION
Our Team Ajay Andy Nikhil 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 Concessions Convenience Franchises Cafes Stores 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 SWOT Competitive Customer Analysis Research Profiles 10 Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion
METHODOLOGY
Data Collection & Analysis Surveys Focus Groups 45 Respondents 15 Participants Respondents from varying population groups Respondents from varying population groups (year, gender, housing, dining plans, faculty) (year, gender, housing, dining plans) Respondents were asked to describe their Respondents were asked to quantify their UMD experience while shopping at UMD Dining Dining experience Respondents choose to go to Route 1 for ➢ 30% of all respondents have never ➢ a better atmosphere and food experience previously heard of Tapingo; only 2% have used it Students on Dining Dollars are less price ➢ Overwhelming majority of respondents ➢ sensitive spend more on Route 1 locations than UMD 12
Market Research 13 Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion
Comparative Research 14 Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion
SWOT ANALYSIS 15
S W Convenience Perceived Quality Accessibility Product Quality Dining Dollars Product Volume/Mix Modernization Location Atmosphere O T Dining Dollar Plans Route 1 Developments Operations New Market Entrants Niche Markets Retail Promotions Technology (Tapingo) Food Delivery Services Price Differentiation Community/Promotions 16 Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion
Route 1 Analysis T Mobile Loyalty Promotions Payment Programs Systems Fundraising Niche Partnerships Offerings 17 Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion
Price Differentiation Route 1 UMD Retail Cereal Cereal ➢ ➢ Honey Bunches of Oats - $5.95 Honey Bunches of Oats - $4.69 ○ ○ Cheerios -$6.35 Cheerios - $4.99 ○ ○ Snacks Snacks ➢ ➢ Salsa - $3.89 Salsa - $3.49 ○ ○ Queso - $3.89 Queso - $3.99 ○ ○ Drinks Drinks ➢ ➢ Gatorade - $3.09 Gatorade - $2.39 or 2 for $3.33 ○ ○ Starbucks Double Shot - $3.59 Starbucks Double Shot - $2.99 ○ ○ Coffee Coffee ➢ ➢ Small - $1.79 Small - $1.59 ○ ○ Medium - $1.99 Medium - $1.79 ○ ○ Large - $2.19 Large - $1.99 ○ ○ Ice Cream Ice Cream ➢ ➢ Ben & Jerry’s - $6.79 Ben & Jerry’s - $5.79 ○ ○ 18
Opportunities O Experience Dining Dollars Point of Sales Customers are less price UMD Dining has not yet More than the product sensitive when using DD adapted to new itself, customers look for an technological systems excellent experience Increase availability & Better data collection ➢ ➢ ➢ Enhance UMD Dining customization for DD and forecasting atmosphere plans Increase prevalence ➢ ➢ Increase social value ➢ Marketing strategy to of mobile payment add of UMD retail increase DD users systems locations 19 Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion
CONCLUSION
Retain customers Maximize satisfaction Increase value-add 21 Introduction Client Scope Methodology SWOT Conclusion
Spring 2018 22
Appendix
Appendix I-A: SWOT Insights (1) - 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 25
Appendix I-B: SWOT Insights (2) - 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 26
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) 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 ● 32
Appendix III-B: External Comparative Analysis (2) 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) 33
Appendix III-C: External Comparative Analysis (3) 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 34
Appendix III-D: External Comparative Analysis (4) 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 35
Recommend
More recommend
