Say It Ain T So! Is This the Real Thing?

Full file at

Case 1

Say It Ain’t So! Is This the Real Thing?

Objective: The purpose of this case is for students to gain experience with qualitative research.

Summary: David Ortega is the lead researcher for an upscale restaurant group hoping to add another chain that would compete directly with the upscale Smith and Wollensky restaurants ( Smith and Wollensky is also considering opening a lesser priced “Grill.” David wants to learn what people are willing to pay for and what sacrifice can be made to deliver a satisfying if not luxurious experiences, and how can he create a unique experience at a lower price?

David decides a qualitative research approach will be useful. He wants to understand how the fine dining experience offers value and what intangibles create value for consumers. He uses a phenomenological approach, and the primary tool of investigation is conversational interviewing. He enters into casual conversations with businesspeople in the lounge of the Ritz Carlton by commenting on the wine he is sipping by saying, “It ain’t bad, but it’s hard to believe they get $15 for a glass of this stuff.”

Comments of the five consumers he conversed with are given verbatim, and he decides to use a word count to try to identify the main themes. He hopes this will clarify the business problem and provide a better understanding of the total value proposition offered by restaurants, wines, hotels, and other products.

Questions:

1.Comment on the research approach. Do you feel it was an appropriate choice?

David is using a qualitative research approach, which is research that addresses marketing objectives through techniques that allow the researcher to provide elaborate interpretations of market phenomena without depending on numerical measurement. Its focus is on discovering true inner meanings and new insights. Qualitative research has many uses, and one of them is to develop an understanding of some phenomena in great detail and in much depth, which is how David is using it in this case. There are several qualitative research orientations (i.e., phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory, and case studies), and David selected a phenomenological approach. This approach represents a philosophical approach to studying human experiences based on the idea that human experience itself is inherently subjective and determined by the context in which they live. This approach seems appropriate for David’s purposes. The specified technique he used, conversations, is use of an unstructured dialogue recorded by the researcher that can allow the researcher to gain unique insights from enthusiasts, can cover sensitive topics, and is less expensive than depth interviews or focus groups. However, it is easy to get off course and interpretations are very researcher dependent.

2.[Ethics Question] David did not inform these respondents that he was doing marketing research during these conversations. Why do you think he withheld this information and was it appropriate to do so?

Recall that research participants and researchers have rights and obligations. One obligation of participants is to be truthful, so one of their rights is to be dealt with truthfully. Most marketing research is conducted with the research participant’s consent, especially when actively participating. In some cases, participants are not informed when participation is passive (i.e., monitoring scanner data). The ethical responsibilities vary depending on whether participation is active or passive. In this case, respondents’ participation is active, but they are not told that their conversations are being noted verbatim and used for research purposes. Research participants have a right to be told that they are actively participating in research, and researchers have an obligation to let respondents know that they are participating in a research study.

David probably thought people would not be open with him if they were told that he was conducting research. However, if he was truly conversing with enthusiasts, it would seem as though they would still behave the same way even if they knew they were participating in research.

3.[Internet Question] Using the Internet, try to identify at least three restaurants that Smith and Wollensky competes with and three with whom the new S&W grill may compete.

Ruth’s Chris is certainly a nationwide chain of fine steakhouses that compete in this category. Students will be able to find several competitors by merely searching “steakhouses” in Google, and one of the first links is a directory of the top ten USDA prime fine steakhouses around the country (e.g., Donovan’s, Bob’s, New York Prime, Charley’s Steakhouse, Chicago Chop House, Spencer’s, and Ringside to name a few). Determining competitors for the new S&W grill will depend on how students conceptualize this type of restaurant. They may name steakhouses (i.e., Long Horn) that are considered nice, but not fine dining.

4.Try to interpret the discussions above. You may use one of the approaches discussed in the text. What themes should be coded? What themes occur most frequently? Can the different themes be linked together to form a unit of meaning?

Students’ answers will vary, but they should demonstrate an understanding of concepts presented in chapter 5. For example, hermeneutics is an approach to understanding phenomenology that relies on analysis of texts in which a person tells a story about him or herself. Meaning is then drawn by connecting text passages to one another or to themes expressed outside the story. These connections are usually facilitated by coding the key meanings expressed in the story. A hermeneutic unit refers to a text passage from a respondent’s story that is linked with a theme from within this story or provided by the researcher. Students most likely do not have access to software package that analyzed qualitative data of this type. Another useful component of computerized approaches is a word counter, which students can actually do in this case. Often, frequently occurring words suggest a key theme. One key theme that seems to appear within all five conversations is that respondents want something to be genuine, regardless of the price.

What should become obvious from this exercise is that subjectivity influences interpretation. Students’ answers should vary, and this should provide a good illustration of the subjectivity inherent in qualitative research.

5.What is the result of this research? What should David report back to the restaurant group?

It appears, from this very limited number of conversations with respondents, that something has to be “real” and “genuine” for the price that is being charged. That doesn’t mean that a high price is always called for, just that the price is right for the level of genuineness.

However, students should point out that exploratory research cannot take the place of conclusive, confirmatory research. Since many qualitative tools are best applied in exploratory design, they are likewise limited in the ability to draw conclusive inferences. One of the biggest drawbacks is the subjectivity that comes along with “interpretation.” When only one researcher interprets the meaning of what a few respondents said in a conversation, which appears to be the case here, one should be very cautious before major marketing decisions are made based on these results. Also, are these results replicable, meaning the same conclusion would be reached based on another researcher’s interpretation? Objectivity and replicability are two characteristics of scientific inquiry.