Report Students coffee consumptions

Running head: STUDENTS AND COFFEE CONSUMPTIONS 1

Students and Coffee Consumptions:

Factors that Influence College Students’ Coffee Consumptions

Nimisha Sharma, Qianlin Lu, Xinghe Dong, Qiuyao Lu

Boston University

October 8, 2015

STUDENTS AND COFFEE CONSUMPTIONS

2

Content

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3

II. THE CLIENT, THE COMPETITION, AND THE INDUSTRY .................................................. 3

THE CLIENT ..................................................................................................................................... 3

THE COMPETITION ........................................................................................................................ 5

THE INDUSTRY ................................................................................................................................ 6

III. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 7

SCHOLARLY JOURNALS .................................................................................................................. 7

NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES ................................................................................................. 14

INDUSTRY & TRADE PUBLICATIONS .......................................................................................... 17

IV. PROPOSED PREDICTORS ...................................................................................................... 19

V. MEASURES: ............................................................................................................................ 23

VI. INSTRUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 35

VII. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 45

VIII. RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 46

ANALYSIS OF MEASURES ........................................................................................................................ 46

ANALYSIS OF VARIATION OF MEASURES ............................................................................................... 52

CORRELATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 82

IX. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 92

DEPENDENT VARIABLE ........................................................................................................................... 93

DEMOGRAPHICS ...................................................................................................................................... 94

CONSTRUCTS ........................................................................................................................................... 94

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 96

X. ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................................... 96

MEASURES .............................................................................................................................................. 96

INSTRUMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 98

XII. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 108


3

I. Introduction

To help Starbucks expand its market share, especially among college students of the United

States, we will conduct a research study and analyze the primary question of what explains the

coffee consumption among college students? Our team will summarize possible variables after

literature review, and then find how various factors influence college students to buy coffees. In

the end, our team will generate some recommendations according to the findings.

II. The Client, The Competition, and The Industry

The Client

Starbucks was found in 1971 in Seattle, named by Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. The

company developed and expanded rapidly. As of today, Starbucks has 22519 stores in 65

countries, holding around 33% of the market share for U.S. (Starbucks Company Profile, 2015).

According to the official annual report in 2014, the revenues of America took 73% of all its

revenue, with US holding the most important market. The revenue of Starbucks is primarily from

the sales of “Beverages” and “Food”, taking separately 73% and 18% of the $16.447 billion

revenues, followed by “Packaged and single-serve coffees and teas” (Starbucks Annual Report,

2014, p.4).

Starbucks has been establishing the image of high quality coffee and service, with a mission

stated as follows: “to inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup and one

neighborhood at a time” (Starbucks Mission Statement, 2010, ¶1). Therefore, the target clients of

Starbucks are mostly adults aged 25 to 40 with relatively high income (Starbucks Target Market.


4

n.d.). Young adults, especially the college students, also are a significant part of Starbucks’s

target group, attracted by its convenient service and culture (Starbucks Target Market, n.d.).

To correspond with the company mission, Starbucks provides coffee and tea beverage as

well as other beverage related products with rigorous standards, multiplex special choices and

reliable grocers (Starbucks Annual Report, 2014). To appeal to the clients, the stores also offer

fresh food as options. While with a relatively higher price, Starbucks provides high-quality

service as well as comfortable environment with free Wi-Fi and electrical sources to offer a

better in-store experience. The stored value cards are promoted to the clients as a method of

convenient payment and consumer’s loyalty. (Starbucks Annual Report, 2014, p.5)

Starbucks also highlights its corporate social responsibility. It is known for its

environmentally friendly attitude. For example, in 2004, Starbucks reduced its solid waste

production by 18000000 LB by reducing the size of its paper cups (Starbucks global

responsibility report goals & progress, 2014). In 2006, the stores began to use 10% recycled

paper in the cups for a better environment and won the National Recycling Coalition Recycling

Works Award in 2005 (Kurland & Zell, 2005).

These actions created positive associations and appealed more consumers for Starbucks. To

follow the technology trends, Starbucks started its service through social media like Facebook in

2008 and also launched its own App to connect their clients (York, 2010). The trial was a

success and its MyStarbucksIdea was declared as the most embracing social media application in

2008 (York, 2010).

In recent years, Starbucks has adopted a strategy of expanding across the world to maintain

their dominant market position, especially as it faced competition from other coffee shops, food

and beverages chains.The strategy is challenging for its pace can be too fast to maintain the


5

interests and costs. But it still works especially in some countries like China (Harrison, et al.,

2005).

In this report, we would only focus on the enterprise in the United States and we will discuss

the competition in the next section.

The Competition

Starbucks competes with not only with coffee houses but also with fast food restaurants and

beverage chains. The biggest competitors for Starbucks in the U.S. are McCafe and Dunkin’

Donuts. Still, Starbucks keeps its dominant position in the market with the record of revenue last

year and the over 21000 stores worldwide (Starbucks Annual Report, 2014, p.3).

McCafe, the subordinate brand of McDonald’s, was founded in 2009 (McDonald’s History,

n. d.). It provides limited kinds of coffee beverage including lattes, cappuccinos and mochas. To

attract consumers and differentiate itself from Starbucks, McCafe highlights its relatively low

price but good quality. It has declared the product concept as the “cheapest and best”, which

attracts many consumers who have low income and appeals students (Reiley, 2009). McCafe

also offers a warm atmosphere in stores with free wireless internet to complement the in-store

experience (McDonald’s History, n.d.).

Dunkin’ Donuts was established in Canton, Massachusetts in 1950 (Dunkin’ Donuts, n.d.).

With the supply of doughnuts, bagels and other food, Dunkin’ Donuts emphasizes the beverage

sales, too. To compete with other coffee chains, Dunkin’ Donuts introduced a new line of lattes

cappuccinos and espressos (Dunkin’ Donuts, n.d.). The mission of Dunkin’ Donuts is states with

the keywords like “quick” and “quality”, meeting the demands of people “who are busy”

(Dunkin’ Donuts, n.d.). Compared to Starbucks, the price of Dunkin’ Donuts is at least 20%


6

lower (Brizek, 2014). Dunkin’ Donuts’ initial strategy of expanding worldwide has now

changed as it recently announced to lose over 100 stores attributed to the failure in maintaining

the balance between costs and interests (“Dunkin' Donuts franchisee closing 100 stores”, 2015).

In the next section we will introduce the history and recent situation of the coffee house

industry.

The Industry

The first coffeehouse was opened in 1530 in Damascus. In 17th century, as coffee appeared in

Europe, it gained popularity soon. And plenty of coffee houses were founded during the late 17th

century in England (Berry, 2005). Then coffeehouses expanded in the following years among the

western countries. In 20th century, coffee houses gradually established in the United States.

The development of coffeehouse cannot be separated from the popularity of coffee culture.

Coffee was introduced to the Americans, and as the habit of drinking coffee was acquired,

coffeehouses prevailed. According to Gaille, now 83% of Americans say they drink coffee

(Gaille, 2013).

Nowadays, the shops not only provide various coffee beverages, but also sell food and other

related products. Coffee houses often have musicians performing. People consider the coffee

houses as places for friends and families to meet and relax as well as good places to work

(Thompson & Arsel, 2004).

As compared with making coffee at home, buying a cup of coffee in coffeehouses is more

convenient. Comparing with instant coffee, brew coffee in coffeehouses is of better flavor and

quality. Besides, the consumptions in coffeehouse is not merely for coffee, but also for the

service, the friendly environment for both work and relax.


7

Currently, there are more than 20000 coffeehouses in the United States. According to

Mintel’s report 2014, total sales of coffeehouses and donut shop has reached $17.4 billions. The

annual growth increased from $13.8 billion in 2009 to $17.4 billions with the percentage of 26%

(Mintel, 2014). The report also predicts that the industry will still increase and eventually reach

$22.2 billion in 2019 (Mintel, 2014).

The industry also faces some challenges from other beverage industry. Also, the preference

of making coffee at home and the controversial issues on caffeine and health are likely to

threaten the position of this industry (Mintel, 2015).

III. Literature Review

Scholarly Journals

A cup of coffee can mean various things to different individuals; it can reenergize them,

offer them a place for casual conversations or the joy of socializing, or it can create a statement.

Coffee consumption is now ubiquitous and coffee shops offer much more variety than ever

before. Our study aims to understand what drives coffee consumption among college students.

Oldenburg (2000) introduced the concept of “the third place” as a “home away from home”

which essentially meant a place other than home or work place that could level and unify

individuals from different walks of life, provide them with a common platform to connect and

engage in conversations and bring in them a sense of community. He introduced various

characteristics of the third place. In line with what he proposed, Tumanan and Lansangan (2012)

conducted a research among Filipinos who frequented coffee shops to understand if they

experienced place attachment. It was revealed that the Filipinos viewed coffee consumption as

an experience and not just a product, and a coffee shop could fulfill most parameters laid down


8

by Oldenburg (2000) within the concept of the “third place”. The emotions and attitudes were

measured with respect to attachment or no-attachment with respect to coffee shops. The findings

suggest that physical characteristics namely “design and product”, and social characteristics such

as “people, culture and presence” represent place attachment for Filipinos, and this “third place”

concept has permeated different cultures.

Several studies have also tried to examine the consumers’ perception of Starbucks as a

“third place” (Oldenberg, 2012). Lin (2012) conducted a study on the Starbucks consumer

culture and its relationship with lifestyle among consumers in Taiwan. Lin (2012) concluded that

Starbucks had influenced consumer culture due to word-of -mouth.She also found that “lifestyle

and coffee consumption have a significant relationship” (Lin, 2012, p.20). “Hope, dreams and

image was the first factor indentified indicating that Starbucks consumers” feel trendy,

sophisticated and prestigious (Lin, 2012, p. 20). Lin (2012) identified the second factor as

surroundings and atmosphere and the third factor as total quality. In total, six factors constituted

the consumer culture of Starbucks, and the remaining three factors were identified as social

function, basic function and reputation.

Talpau and Boscor (2011) also focused on Starbucks as the “third place” – the place

between home and work, so that customers would spend more time in its stores and buy more

products. In order to satisfy its customers, the employees are encouraged to build special

relationships with customers to create unique experiences for customers (Talpau & Bosnor,

2012). There are several ways Starbucks gains an edge, as baristas are given blind tests to

differentiate between coffee flavors and promoted to a coffee master accordingly, another even

creates customized CD’s for its consumers. (Talpau & Bosnor, 2011).


9

According to Schmitt (1999), experiential marketing is a marketing tactic focused more

on the processes or stages of customers’ experiences like how the customers feel after attending

activities or perceiving stimulation. To test the relationship between experiential marketing and

customer satisfaction and loyalty, Yuan and Wu (2008) conducted a survey among 420

respondents in Starbucks at four different places. The measures are divided into four groups

including sense perception, feel perception, think perception and service quality (Yuan & Wu,

2008). The study revealed that experiential marketing “has a positive significant influence on

customer satisfaction and could induce customer loyalty”(Yuan & Wu,p. 2008).

Since customer loyalty may not always be related to purchase intention, another study

was conducted by Liang, Chen and Duan (2013) to find the underlying relationship between

experiential marketing and purchase intention towards chain coffee shops. The study was done

among 300 respondents from the coffee chains to examine the relationship between the purchase

intentions, gender differences and five experiential values, including sensory, emotional,

cognitive, behavioral and relational values. The results confirmed that all the five experiential

values induce purchase intention (Liang, et al., 2013). But there’s no significant relationship

between the genders and values (Liang, et al., 2013).

Along with experience marketing, there are some studies which also emphasize the

importance of service quality. Chen and Hu (2010) designed an empirical investigation to find

the “determinant attributes of service quality and how they influence customer-perceived value”

towards Australian coffee outlet industry” (Chen & Hu, p. 531, 2010). 834 respondents were

chosen randomly from chains and independent coffee outlets and asked to fill a questionnaire

(Chen & Hu, 2010). The author analyzed the data and found that service quality influences

perceived value significantly (Chen & Hu, 2010). The findings also reveal that “the determinant


10

attributes of service quality in coffee outlet industry are coffee quality, service, food and

beverage, and extra benefits” (Chen & Hu, p. 540, 2010). “When it comes to perceived value,

quality of product, service and experience are important factors that stand out” (Chen & Hu, p.

545, 2010).

To further examine the hypothesis that experience quality is more important than product

quality and service quality, Yu and Fang (2009) conducted a survey among 147 college student

customers of Starbucks in Taiwan. They found that the experience quality is not the always most

important one (Yu & Fang, 2009). The sequence of significance depends on different situations

(Yu & Fang, 2009). For people with low salaries and who buy coffee less frequently in

Starbucks, the product and service quality is more important than experience quality (Yu &

Fang, 2009).

Another pertinent aspect of coffee consumption is the underlying motivation of coffee

consumers. Those who drink coffee for sensory enjoyment (hedonic motivation) were compared

with those who drink coffee for stimulation (functional motivation) in a study by Labbe, Ferrage,

Tytz, Pace, and Martin (2015). For this experiment, the consumers were involved across the four

stages of coffee production namely water heating, jar handling, cup preparation and cup drinking

(Labbe, et al., p. 56, 2015 ) and asked to fill up a questionnaire. Those who were

motivated by sensory enjoyment depicted positive emotions throughout the coffee process

whereas those who were motivated by stimulation did not rate pleasantness very high during the

water heating and coffee handling stage (Labbe, et al., 2015).

Jervis, Lopetcharat, and Drake (2012) examined the different attributes that influence

coffee purchase in the latte beverage category by applying Ethnographic observation and

Conjoint Analysis techniques. The researchers collected data at Starbucks, Caribou, Dunkin


11

Donuts and McDonald's in Raleigh/Durham, NC area. As predicted, the Conjoint

Analysis (CBC) survey revealed that even as fast food restaurants offered lower costs, the utility

score for fast food restaurant was lower than those coffee houses with a culture (Jervis et al,

2012). The Ethnographic observations allowed researchers to deduce that “the social factor may

be a compounding factor to coffee purchases as compared to convenience and/or price”. (Jervis,

et al., 2012, Results and Discussion section, 6). Jervis et al., (2012) concluded that the location,

due to its convenience and coffee-culture attributes, is the most important factor influencing

purchase. The study also revealed some more important attributes such as coffee lightener, fat

content, sweetener content, and additional flavor as indicators of purchase. (Jervis, et al., 2012).

The coffee consumption also varied across the different time bands in a day as the people

entering the shop in the morning mainly consumed the coffee “on the go”, people in the

afternoon spent more time in the store and people in the evening bought more indulgent coffee.

(Jervis, et al., 2012)

Since, store environment is an important aspect of sensory enjoyment, it is also important

to understand how it influences purchase decisions. Liao, Huang C. W., Huang T. Y. and

Deeseentham (2012) conducted a survey separately in Starbucks of Taiwan and America to

examine the relationship between the store environment and purchase intention. Three kinds of

measures were captured, including social cues, atmospheric cues and design cues (Liao, et al.,

2012). The findings show that a good store environment could induce the consumer’s intention

to buy coffees (Liao, et al., 2012). It also suggests that for American consumers, design cues

have the biggest influence, followed by atmospheric cues and social cues (Liao, et al., 2012).

Yusop, Tiong, Aji, and Kasiran (2011) gauged the relationship between the supply of free

WiFi and competitive power in fast food outlet. They chose a fast food outlet by a survey and


12

observation first, and then took interviews with the manager based on Porter’s 5 forces

competitive model. The results showed that the revenue of the fast food outlet could increase by

50% with the supply of free WiFi, which would in turn strengthen the competitive power of the

outlet (Yusop, et al., 2011).

The emergence of social media is changing the relationships between customers and

companies everyday. Companies are increasingly using social media to support their customer

knowledge management (CKM). Alton Chua and Banerjee (2013) revealed that Starbucks has

widely used social media tools to support CMK since 2008. Starbucks uses tweets to promote

new products and campaigns and with the help of these platforms, Starbucks is also managing

rumors and misconceptions (Chua & Banerjee, 2013). Starbucks’ Facebook has garnered

35,930,673 likes and it provides consumers knowledge, locations and culture of the company. It

also uses Foursquare and My Starbucks, which can interact with consumers and generate new

ideas from consumers (Chua & Banerjee, 2013). The social media tools for CKM help branding

and marketing Starbucks. It can also adjust and make changes based on consumers’ feedbacks.

However, when a corporation is so deeply committed to creating consumer experiences

and holds the consumer at the core of its strategies, not echoing the consumer sentiments can

backfire, especially in sensitive political situations. People can purchase or boycott the product

of a company based on their political requirements (Simon, 2011). People think of corporate

houses as partners in the community and influencers of public policy (Simon, 2011). For

example, in Seattle, in 2001 when people protested against police accountability and racial

discrimination, Starbucks maintained a neutral stand. After protesting, marching, begging and

writing letters, they chose to not spend money on the company (Simon, 2011). The buying

behavior along with some new media become the easiest way to express their political opinions


13

and the pursuit of justice rather than voting booth (Simon, 2011). The research concludes that

“Many consumers have shifted their political focus from the electoral arena to the market”

(Simon, 2011, p. 146).

Similarly, in terms of ethical concerns, the Fair Trade Coffee policies of coffee houses

are also worth examining. Obermiller, Burke, Talbott & Green (2009) investigated several coffee

houses that concentrated on positioning of FT coffee. The study showed that brand preference

and taste are more important than FT coffee labels when consumers make purchase decisions,

and consumers are unlikely to buy FT coffee in large volume. However, the study also indicated

that organizations which convey a sense of CSR for FT coffee have a better effect on promotion

than those passively involved in FT (Obermiller, et al., 2009).

Wang, Qiao and Peng (2014) focused on whether consumers’ engagement with brand’s

social media can be influenced by community and interactive features. They made a case study

on Starbucks’ branded blogs. They found that individual’s social activities in online communities

contribute to “the affective and evaluative valence of proactive engagement” (Wang, Qiao &

Pang, 2014, ¶1). “The evaluative valence of proactive engagement has a positive relationship”

with purchase intention, which indicates that emotional process has something to do with

purchase intention. (Wang, et al., 2014,¶4 )

The eco-friendly practices of companies are gaining more significance as consumers

become more sensitive to the environment and prefer eco-friendly products. Coffee shops’ green

practice like take-out containers, recycling waste can help build a green image for a company

and affect consumers’ perception reveals a research conducted by Jeong, Jang, Day and Ha

(2014). If consumers are aware of the green practices of a restaurant, they can be positively


14

influenced to adopt the services of the restaurant. In sum, the green image building can influence

the consumers’ purchasing behavior (Jeong, et al., 2014).

Besides the civic engagement and environment practice, Starbucks also helps their

employees to finish their college (Ripley, 2015). In the summer of 2014, it collaborated with

Arizona State University and help employees to cover their tuition and get the degree if the

employees worked more than 20 hours per week. The employees had no obligations to the

company after finishing the degree (Ripley, 2015).

Another factor that may influence coffee consumption among students is their adherence

to deadlines (Vallen, Block & Eisenstein, 2014). They found that if students miss deadlines their

coffee consumption increases (Vallen, et al., 2014). Being late can also inturn lead to more

indulgent purchases in order to regulate affect (Vallen, et al., 2014).

Talpau and Boscor (2011) also reported that the time spent in a coffee shop differs

culturally. While 85 % of people in Europe spend time in coffee shops only 14 % of people

spend time in US, 86 % preferring to have their coffee “to go”. This is an important finding,

considering Starbucks is all about experience. Another study done by Appel and Emdad (2014)

suggests that the amount of time spent in a store also depends the choices consumers make when

they select food products.

Newspapers and Magazines

Newspapers have also covered the topic of coffee consumption. Because of the

popularity of Starbucks, an article published in January, 2012 told us Checkers stores had

Starbucks on their shelves because it was trying to attract high-market customers who demand

great-tasting coffee (Checkers grows Starbucks range, 2012, January 23). Similarly, other chain


15

operators such as Circle K Sunkus Co., Seven-Eleven Japan Co., also hope to offer tasty coffee

at a reasonable price which can attract consumers and prompt them to visit their stores regularly

(Convenience stores to offer fresh coffee, 2012, May 28) A September, 2015 article claims that

more and more convenience stores and restaurants are trying to expand their coffee sales and

improve the quality of their coffee. Consumers have the demand of better coffee products and

coffee in convenience store has a huge profit margin at 60%. There is also a 20% rise of coffee

sales in convenience store from 2014-2015 (Fleming, 2015, September 3). In Japan, a cup of

black coffee cost US$1 is the most popular beverage in convenience store (Japan gets taste for 7-

Eleven coffee - $1 cups drive surge in consumer demand, 2015, August).

Coffee was described as legal drug choice in a June, 2013 article because caffeine

addiction and withdrawal had been classified as mental disorder by American Psychiatric

Association. It means medicine and psychiatrist are required this caffeine addiction (Kings,

2013, June 8). According to Walker’s (2013, September) report, drinking too much coffee (more

than 28 cups of coffee) may be harmful for young people’s health. Research shows that people

who drink coffee a lot are more likely to be smokers, and the possibility for them to get

cardiorespiratory diseases is higher (Walker, 2013, September).

There is also increasing number of coffee brands such as Point Blank Cold Brew which

are targeting the health and fitness market for its no sugar, no additives, no added flavor

ingredients and consumers can enjoy it with milk, cream or spirit at home (Hall, 2015, April 2).

The packaging of coffee can also affect consumers’ purchasing intention. According to

the research conducted by Kobayashi and Benassi (2015), customers preferred bright color,

image of foam, steam, coffee beans on refill package and modern shape of glass jar. With these

elements, packaging and price are much more important to consumers rather than brand.


16

Another research find the visual design of coffee can influence people’s expectation to

the coffee and the price they are willing to pay. The existence of a latte art on a milk-based

coffee can increase people’s satisfaction of coffee, thus, they are willing to pay more and the

shape on the cappuccino can also influence consumers’ perception of the taste and quality.

Visual presentation can affect people’s feeling toward the food (Doorn, Colonna-Dashwood,

Hudd-Baillie & Spence, 2015).

To enhance the customer experience, Starbucks has also launched many digital projects

which include “Web, mobile, social media, digital marketing, loyalty programs and e-commerce,

WiFi, Starbucks’ digital network and emerging store technologies” (Fitzgerald, 2013, ¶16).

Starbucks refined its point-of-sale payment system to improve customer experiences. The time

for electronic transaction has been decreased, and saves 10 seconds each time the Starbucks card

is swiped (Fitzgerald, 2013). This can save 900,000 hours for customers per year (Fitzgerald,

2013).It also offers free WiFi, with a dynamic interesting landing page (Starbucks’ digital

network), which in turn enhances customers’ brand perception (Fitzgerald, 2013).

The story behind the coffee may also be a factor lead to students’ coffee consumption.

According to the Food Service Director, a coffee shop called Daisy’s cafe in school has a

specially made coffee for the college called “Sweet Brew Roast”. As an all women college, the

story behind the coffee is attractive to students, because they are using beans from a female

plantation owner in India and she is very active in women’s issues (“Exclusive Coffee Roast

Debuts”, 2009, February 15).

Huang, Chang, Yeh and Liao (2013) found price promotions can have positive effect on

consumer’s attitude toward the coffee shop and repurchasing behavior. It can be a reward to

customers especially college students who don’t have high income and care more about the price


17

(Huang, et al., 2013). This price promotion should be used based on the good quality of food and

drink. If it was used too frequently, it may negatively influence the brand equity (Huang, et al.,

2013).

Starbucks has just introduced an application which will allow consumers to pre-order

coffee and this application will reduce the time they have to stand in lines. Its competitors such

as Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald's are also testing similar apps. This is important considering

that the application merchants will take a 5-10% cut of each transaction, and the consumers may

have to pay the price (Kharif, 2014, November).

Doorn, and Verhoef (2015) analyzed the motives to buy organic food product and found

that health and quality motives are not important drivers of organic purchase in categories with

heavy promotion. On the contrary, people who are concerned more about the environment i.e.

biospheric consumers buy organic products irrespective of the category. Organic products in

categories that do not have many price promotions also appeal to consumers because they are

less influenced by alternatives available (Doorn & Verhoef, 2015).

Industry & Trade Publications

In terms of health, today’s customers are becoming increasingly conscious. A consumer

research done for energy drinks shows that a quarter of those consuming coffee have turned to

energy drinks or shots instead of coffee (Mintel, 2014). Coffee house customers are also

reportedly unhappy with the lack of healthy options in coffee shops and high caffeine content in

their beverages (Mintel, 2015). It is recommended that coffee houses offer variety of options in

terms of caffeine content and healthy ingredients (Mintel, 2015a).


18

Coffee consumers are also increasing wary of increase in prices for coffee and many of

them make their coffee at home (Mintel, 2014). While 53 % of the consumers still visit the

coffee shops at the same rate as the previous year, 35 % percent say that they prepare food at

home (Mintel, 2014). According to a report by Mintel, Consumers have become more price

conscious and are careful of how much they spend in coffee shops as 71 % of them wish that

coffee houses and donut shops offered better discounts. More importantly, 47 % of them also

consider this an important aspect while deciding which shop to visit (Mintel, 2014).

The same report also suggests that coffee houses will have to be more careful with

increasing the prices of coffee as 30% of consumers are using coupons, loyalty programs or other

deals more often and 29% focus on price point. This is highly relevant, especially in context of

home brewed coffee, which is emerging as a threat for conventional coffee shop models as home

brewed coffee is a cheaper option for them (Mintel, 2014). Jane Westgarth, a senior retail analyst

at Mintel in her report “Creating Indulgent Food at Home - 27 July 2015” also suggests that that

more and more people are trying to replicate coffee shop quality in their own homes by

purchasing premium coffee makers (Mintel, 2015b). This report by her also mentions that 42 %

people drink standard instant coffee at least once in a day, while only 8 % drink coffee made

from pods once day and 46 % of pod drinkers also drink standard instant coffee once in a day

(Mintel, 2015b). When we focus on the Ready to Drink category of coffee, the percentage of

those drinking RTD coffee is still very low at 11 %, however it is worth noting that most of the

coffee drinkers in this category are millennials. While 36 % of older millennials are heavy

drinkers, 31 % are moderate drinkers. This is an important concept considering that most

students fall into millennial category (Mintel 2015a).


19

On the other hand, there is another perspective which highlights how increase in the

coffee raw material can also impact coffee prices. For example, a report by Mintel also states that

as a result of drought and disease in Brazil, Columbia and Asia, there has been a decrease in

supply, moreover many people are not still confident of the financial situation (Mintel, 2014).

The age group that patronizes coffee the most comprises of millennials and a large segment of

this group is unemployed, and coffee is especially popular among Hispanics, 69 % of which say

that coffee at home tastes as good as coffee in stores, and these factors can have a direct impact

on purchasing power and intent to purchase coffee (Mintel, 2014).

A report by Mintel also mentions that seasonal offerings also influence how people

mention and interact with their peers online with Starbucks generating maximum mentions

online (Mintel 2014). Seasonal offering brings brand loyalty and passion among consumers

(Mintel, 2014).

In order to bring a wider variety to consumers, restaurants are also offering non-dairy

milk sweeteners such as coconut milk. Many non-dairy milk brands such as Silk, Blue Diamond

and SO Delicious have also launched RTD non-dairy flavored coffee beverages (Mintel, 2014).

Coffee consumption can also represent a seasonal trend and variation. Mintel’s beverage

tracker reveals that while at-home and foodservice iced coffee consumption decreased in winter

and spring, it increased in June 2015 to 26 % from 22% percent in December 2014 (Mintel,

2015a).

IV. Proposed Predictors

People Factors

Influence of purchase timing (Jervis, Lopetcharat & Drake, 2012)


20

Intention to stay in a coffee store (Talpau and Boscor, 2011)

Intention of repeat purchase (Yuan & Wu, 2008) (Liang, Chen & Duan, 2013)

Intention to buy coffee from convenience stores (“Checkers grows Starbucks range”, 2012,

January 23) (“Convenience stores to offer fresh coffee”, 2012, May 28) (Fleming, 2015,

September 3) (“Japan gets taste for 7-Eleven coffee - $1 cups drive surge in consumer

demand”, 2015, August)

Brand Factor

Perception of coffee houses as a “third place” (Lin, 2012) (Oldenburg, 1999) (Oldenburg,

2000) (Oldenberg 2012) (Talpau & Boscor 2011)

Perception of visual design (Doorn, Colonna-Dashwood, Hudd-Baillie & Spence, 2015).

Customer Service Factors

Perception of coffee houses on service quality (Chen & Hu, 2010) (Yuan & Wu, 2008) (Yu

& Fang, 2009)

Perception of coffee houses on their experimental marketing (Schmitt,1999) (Yuan & Wu,

2008) (Liang, Chen & Duan, 2013)

Money Factors

Price sensitivity of students for coffee (Huang, Chang, Yeh & Liao, 2013) (Mintel, 2014)

Perception of price promotion (Huang, Chang, Yeh & Liao, 2013)

Health Concern


21

Intention to regulate caffeine consumption (Mintel, 2014) (Kings, 2013, June 8) (Walker,

2013, September) (Mintel, 2015)

Intention to buy organic coffee (Doorn and Verhoef, 2015)

Intention to buy low fat coffee ((Jervis, Lopetcharat & Drake, 2012)

Ethical Factors

Intention to buy Fair Trade Coffee (Obermiller, Burke, Talbott & Green, 2009)

Perception of CSR Practices (Obermiller, Burke, Talbott & Green, 2009) (Starbucks global

responsibility report goals & progress, 2014) (Kurland & Zell, 2005)

Product Factors·

Intention to buy non-dairy milk brands for coffee (Mintel, 2014)

Perception of packaging (Kobayashi & Benassi, 2015)

Other Variables

Intention to buy take-home coffee (Mintel, 2015a)

Intention to buy home brewed coffee (Mintel, 2015a)

Intention to buy Ready to Drink Coffee (Mintel 2015a)

Intention to buy instant coffee (Mintel, 2015b)

Intention to buy coffee maker (Mintel, 2015b)

Perception of social media initiatives (York, 2010) (Chua & Banerjee, 2013) (Fitzgerald,

2013) (Mintel 2014)

Motivations to purchase coffee (Liao, Huang, Huang & Deeseentham, 2012)


22


23

V. Measures:

In order to understand what drives coffee consumption among students, we organized the

predictors gathered through the literature review across seven categories such as brand factors,

price factors, health factors, product factors, ethical factors, innovation factors, and other factors

which measured their willingness to buy different types of coffee.

As there were more than 25 variables across the proposed predictors, we narrowed down

our variables to a list of 20 predictors, since we felt that these predictors most accurately

captured the information we required. We eliminated similar constructs after analyzing that one

predictor could also help us deduce other habits. For example, we decided to eliminate Intention

to Buy Coffee from convenience Stores as we had already incorporated predictors such as

Intention to Drink Ready-to-drink Coffee or Intention to Consume Instant Coffee and we realized

through our literature research that convenience stores mostly had RTD or instant coffee options.

We eliminated the predictor covered under people factors such as intention of staying in a coffee

store, as we had already incorporated “Perception of Brand Community” that could broadly help

us identify how students associated themselves to a store instead of focusing too much on just

one aspect of time spent in the store. We also eliminated several predictors such as Influence of

Purchase Timing, Intention to buy non-dairy milk brands for coffee, Perception of coffee houses

on their experiential marketing, Intention to buy home brewed coffee or Intention to buy coffee

maker as we felt that these predictors would have narrowed the scope of our study.

People Factors

● Influence of purchase timing (Jervis, Lopetcharat & Drake, 2012)

● Intention to stay in a coffee store (Talpau and Boscor, 2011)


24

● Intention of repeat purchase (Yuan & Wu, 2008) (Lian, Chen & Duan, 2013)

● Intention to buy coffee from convenience stores (“Checkers grows Starbucks range”, 2012,

January 23) (“Convenience stores to offer fresh coffee”, 2012, May 28) (Fleming, 2015,

September 3) (“Japan gets taste for 7-Eleven coffee - $1 cups drive surge in consumer

demand”, 2015, August)

Brand Factor

● Perception of visual design (Doorn, Colonna-Dashwood, Hudd-Baillie & Spence, 2015).

Customer Service Factors

● Perception of coffee houses on their experimental marketing (Schmitt,1999) (Yuan & Wu,

2008) (Liang, Chen & Duan, 2013)

Money Factors

● Perception of price promotion (Huang, Chang, Yeh & Liao, 2013)

Ethical Factors

● Intention to buy Fair Trade Coffee (Obermiller, Burke, Talbott & Green, 2009)

Product Factors·

● Intention to buy non-dairy milk brands for coffee (Mintel, 2014)

Other Variables


25

● Intention to buy home brewed coffee (Mintel, 2015a)

● Intention to buy coffee maker (Mintel, 2015b)

We used the Marketing Scales Handbook Volume 5, 6 and 7 by Gordon C. Bruner to

develop our scales along with few scales from Mintel’s study on LSR: Coffee Houses and Donut

Shops (2014), in order to capture coffee specific questions that were not available in the

Marketing Scales Handbooks. We measured the responses across 105 respondents on a 5 point

semantic differential Likert scale with responses ranging from “Strongly Disagree, Disagree,

Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree.” We also used the five point Likert scale for other scores such

as “Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Very Often.”

While filtering our scales and relevant constructs, our first priority was to find scales that

were both valid and reliable. However, if our literature review suggested a strong pattern towards

one trend, we also developed some new scales if we didn’t find them in the Marketing Scales

Handbook. For instance, our literature review revealed that many individuals prefer making

coffee at home, hence we incorporated several questions based on their frequency of consuming

various types of take-home or ready-to-drink coffee. Similarly, we also wanted to measure their

intentions to regulate caffeine consumption and their intention to see seasonal items on the menu

year around, however these scales were better captured in Mintel’s industry specific reports. We

preferred using those scales over scales from Marketing Scales Handbooks, as Mintel’s questions

were more specific and representative of the consumer choices for coffee.

This section summarizes all the constructs and predictors that we chose to analyze for the

survey. We also arranged the constructs in the survey in a way that would not bias the


26

respondents’ answers. The below mentioned predictors describe the predictors in the order in

which they appeared in the questionnaire.

Perception of price promotion:

Price sensitive (consciousness) Definition: The scale is composed of various, Likert-type

items measuring the degree to which a consumer focuses on sales and trying to get the “best

price.” The cronbach α values ranged between 0.67 to 0.87 across the scale. These items below

and/or inspiration for them came from an early classic study of psychographics by Wells and

Tigert (1971).The scale was selected from the Marketing Scales Handbook Volume 5, by Bruner

(2009). The scale comprised of the following items.

1. I shop a lot for "specials."

2. A person can save a lot of money by shopping around for bargains.

3. I usually purchase the cheapest item.

4. I will shop at more than one store to take advantage of low prices.

The next scale aimed to measure the belief of innovativeness for the products. This scale

was used to “measure a consumer's belief that he/she is among the first to try and/or buy new

products when they become available” (Bruner, 2013, p. 190). The scale was chosen from the

Marketing Scales Handbook Volume 7, by Bruner (2013). This scale was first used by

Steenkamp and Geilens (2003) who reported a reliability with a Cronbach α of 0.87 and provided

evidence in support of validity as well. It had the following items on it.

1. When I see a new product on the shelf, I am reluctant to give it a try

2. In general, I am among the first ones to buy a product when it appears on the market

3. If I like a brand, I rarely switch from it to buy something new

4. I rarely buy brands about which I am uncertain on how they will perform.


27

The next scale measured the Visual Aesthetic Centrality among students. The scale

Perception of visual Aesthetics centrality assessed “the degree that the look and beauty of a

product play an important role in a consumer’s purchase decisions and product usage” (Bruner,

2013, p. 386). This scale was retrieved from the Marketing Scales Handbook, Volume 7. The

scale was developed by Bloch, Peter H., Frédéric F. Brunel, and Todd J. Arnold (2003) who

reported reliability with a Cronbach α of 0.89. Their study also provided support on the scale’s

validity.

1. Owning products that have superior designs makes me feel good about myself.

2. I enjoy seeing displays of products that have superior designs.

3. When I see a product that has a superior design, I feel a strong urge to buy it.

4. Sometimes the way a product looks seems to reach out to me and grab me.

The next set of questions aimed to measure the response of respondents with respect to their

specific coffee brand in mind. The next scale measured Brand Relevance. The scale measured

“the role played by brands in the purchase decision due to their ability to communicate meaning

to others about one's self-concept” (Bruner, 2013, p.107). The scale was first constructed by

Fisher, Volckner, and Sattler (2010). They reported reliability with a Cronbach's α of 0.90 for the

scale. They also provided evidence in support of the scale’s validity. The scale was retrieved

from the Marketing Scales Handbook Volume 7, (Bruner, 2013). The scale contained the

following items:

1. To me a brand is indeed important because I believe other people judge me on the basis

of it

2. I purchase a particular brand because I know that other people notice them

3. I purchase a brand because I have much in common with the buyers of that brand


28

4. I pay attention to the brand because its buyers are just like me.

The next scale measured Perception of Brand Community to report the commitment a person

has to being a member of a community of brand users and his/her intention to continue being a

member. (Bruner, 2009, p. 263). The scale was first used by Algesheimer, Dholakia, and

Herrmann (2005), and they reported a reliability of 0.89 for the scale. They also provided

evidence in support of the scales validity. The scale was first used by them in German. The

following items were used for the scale:

1. It would be very difficult for me to leave this brand community.

2. I am willing to pay more money to be a member of this brand community than I would

for membership in other brand communities.

3. I intend to stay on as a brand community member.

The next scale measured the Perception of CSR Practices by reporting “the degree to which a

person believes a certain company is making a positive impact on society and minimizing its

negative impact” (Bruner, 2013, p.239). The scale was retrieved from Marketing Scales

Handbook, Volume 7 (2013). The scale reported reliability with a Cronbach α that ranged

between 0.88 and 0.90 in two studies. The scale was developed by Wagner, Lutz and Weitz

(2009). Their analysis also provided support and evidence for the scales validity. The following

items were used on the scale. However, since we wanted to measure the coffee perception

1. _____________gives back to communities in which it does business

2. __________ is concerned about improving the well-being of society.

3. __________ is a socially responsible company

4. ___________ high ethical standards.


29

The next few scales measured the perception of respondents with respect to a coffee store

ambience and employees. The questions were grouped together asking the respondents to think

about their favorite coffee brand store. The first scale was to measure Store Atmosphere and the

construct was defined as “the degree to which a customer holds positive perceptions of a retail

store’s facilities, particularly with regard to interior design factors such as color scheme and

organization of merchandise” (Bruner, 2009, p. 913). This scale was first used by An Baker,

Grewal, and Parasuraman (1994) who reported reliability of the scale with a Cronbach's α of

0.74. They also provided evidence in support of validity. The following items were used on the

scale

1. The color scheme was pleasing.

2. The physical facilities were attractive.

3. The merchandise in the store appeared organized.

Since many studies had addressed the importance of store design for a coffee brand, we also

incorporated this scale in the study. This scale measure Store Atmosphere and the construct for

this scale was defined as “the degree to which a customer holds positive perceptions of a retail

store, particularly with regard to the pleasantness of the shopping environment” (Gordon, 2009,

p. 909). This scale was developed by Baker, Grewal, and Parasuraman (1994) who reported a

Cronbach's α of 0.81. The validity of this scale was not specifically addressed by Baker et al

(1994). The following items were used for the scale.

1. This store would be a pleasant place to shop.

2. The store has a pleasant atmosphere.

The next scale measured the Perception of Service Quality of the Employees and the

construct was defined as the extent to which a customer believes that a service provider was


30

helpful and allowed the customer to explain the problem. The scale was developed by Brady,

Michael and Garry (2005) based on recommendations by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry

(1985). The Cronbach's α for the scale varied between 0.79 and 0.92. We used two items from

this scale and one item of the scale was created by us. The third item asked people about the

attitude of employees working at the coffee store. This is because Starbucks emphasizes a lot of

service quality and greeting customers with a smile is part of their job description and Starbucks

differentiates itself based on its service quality.

1. During my visit to the store, the employees appeared to be helpful.

2. I receive enough individual attention from their employees.

3. The employees had a good attitude.

The next few items on the scale measured health related perceptions of students. The first

scale was aimed at understanding their perception about coffee consumption and measured their

intention to regulate coffee consumption. We defined the construct i.e. Intention to regulate

caffeine consumption as “a person’s concern about the consumption of a specific type of coffee

based on its caffeine value”. The caffeine related scales were taken from Mintel (2015) report on

the LSR, Coffee Houses and Donuts report for 2014. Since the scales were retrieved from

Mintel’s study, data about its reliability was not available. However, our literature search

revealed that people are increasingly looking for health conscious options on the menu and we

thought it was essential to incorporate this scale. The scale used the following items to measure

the students’ intention to regulate caffeine consumption.

1. I limit the number of caffeine-based beverages I have each day

2. I prefer to drink low caffeine coffee.

3. I am concerned about the levels of caffeine in coffee


31

The next scale measured the intention among students to consume low-fat coffee. We defined

the construct i.e. the intention to consume low-fat coffee as a customer's attitude for a healthier

low-fat option of the menu. Just like the previous scale for caffeine regulation, the items of this

scale were also retrieved from the Mintel’s study on LSR: Coffee Houses and Donuts (2014).

Therefore data about the scale's reliability is unknown. However, since our literature search

revealed that low-fat is an important concern for health conscious consumers, we created a scale

and aimed to test the reliability of the scale with the survey. The scale had four items, which

were as follows:

1. When I am on diet, I feel guilty to drink whole milk coffee.

2. I feel it’s healthy to drink low-fat coffee

3. I prefer low-fat coffee than others.

4. I would like to add low-fat lightener in my coffee beverages.

The next predictor measured the intention to consume organic coffee. The construct for

Intention to Consume Organic coffee was defined as a person’s belief about the healthiness of a

consuming coffee based upon the information provided about it. The scale for this study was

taken from the Marketing Scales Handbook, Volume 6 (Bruner and Gordon, 2009). The scale in

the Marketing Scales Handbook was general and was adapted to low-fat coffee category. This

scale was first used by Shiv and Nowlis (2004) who reported an alpha of .97 for the scale. No

information about validity was reported for the scale. The scale contains three items which are as

follows

1. I think it is wise to drink low-fat coffee

2. I think organic coffee is good for my health

3. I think non-organic coffee is bad for my health


32

The next predictor was based on the preference and tastes for seasonal items. The construct

was defined as the attitude towards season flavors on the menu. The scale was taken from

Mintel’s study LSR: Coffee Houses and Donut Shops from December 2014. Based on literature

review, we analyzed that seasonal flavors allowed brands to differentiate themselves and we

wanted to investigate whether students would be interested in these flavors becoming available

permanently. Data about the scales reliability and validity was not available. The scale used 3

items that are as follows:

1. I prefer my drinks be cold (iced) in the summer and warm (hot) in the winter

2. I would like to see more seasonal items (eg pumpkin, peppermint flavors)

3. I wish you could get seasonal flavors (eg pumpkin, peppermint) year-round

The next predictor measured the student’s intention of impulsive eating. The construct

measured “the degree to which a person expresses the desire to consume food impetuously,

without much thinking or planning” (Bruner, 2012, p. 355). The scale was chosen from the

Marketing scales Handbook, Volume 6.

The scale was first developed and extensively tested by Rook and Fisher (1995) who reported

a cronbach α that ranged between 0.80 and 0.88 between two studies conducted by them. They

also provided evidence I support of the scales validity. The following items were used on the

scale:

1. I often eat/drink coffee spontaneously

2. Just eat/drink coffee describes the way I eat

3. Eat/drink coffee now think about it later describes me

4. Sometimes I feel like drinking/eating coffee on the spur of the moment


33

5. I eat/drink coffee according to how I feel at the moment

The next predictor measured the student’s Attitude towards word of mouth (online) which

measured the “attitude about reading product reviews online as well as his/her willingness to use

the information provided by others” (Bruner, 2013, p. 88). The scale was chosen from the

Marketing scales handbook 7. The scale has been used many times by Khare, Labrecque and

Asare (2011), however information about the original source of this scale is unavailable. In the

various uses of the scale the reliability (Cronbach's α value) ranged from 0.80 to 0.88 between

the four studies they conducted. No information is available on the scale’s validity. The

following items were used on the scale.

1. I like using online reviews to help me make decisions about a product or service

2. I like deciding my purchases based on what I read online

3. I like to discuss my product/services experience with others

4. I like to learn about others product and service experiences

The next predictor was based on the preference for consuming coffee on the go or at home.

The scale was based on the frequency of drinking coffee at home or on the go. The question we

asked was “How often, if at all, do you drink the following types of coffee made at home to

either drink at home or on the go?” The scale was taken from Mintel’s study on the coffee

industry from September, 2015. Based on literature review, we analyzed that more and more

people were opting to make coffee at home and ready-to-drink coffee segment was also picking

up in sales. Since the scale was a manifest scales asking students to report frequency, therefore

reliability and validity tests were not done on the scale. The scale had a four-point rating system,


34

with frequency ranging from none, once a month, once a week to more than once a week. The

scales items were as follows:

1. Instant coffee mixes (mixes such as cappuccino, iced coffee such as Starbucks VIA

instant or coffee powder such as Nescafe, Folger)

2. Ready-to-drink (eg Starbucks Frappuccino, Doubleshot)

3. Made on a coffee-maker at home (single Serve Coffee pods, Roasted/ground)

The next questions with respect to our dependent variable. To gauge the frequency of use,

we asked the following question: “Which coffee brand did you buy most of the time last week?”

We asked the participants to list the number of times and the place they consumed coffee

last week.

The next few questions were related to an individual’s likelihood of consuming coffee in

the future. Participants were asked “If you were to buy a cup of coffee tomorrow, how likely buy

from the following coffee stores?” The options listed were Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts,

McDonald's, and Other.

The last section of the questionnaire contained questions pertaining to demographics such

as academic level, and gender. Participants were next asked to circle their academic level. The

choices given to them were “freshman”, “sophomore”, “junior”, “senior”, “graduate”, and

“none”. Participants were also asked to circle their gender. Finally, participants were asked to

write their age and select the best estimate of their disposable income per month from the options

given.


35

VI. Instrument

1. These questions are about shopping. For each of the following statements, please tell us how much

you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by checking the box corresponding with

your choice.

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Feel

Neutral

Agree Strongly

Agree

A person can save a lot of money by shopping

around for bargains.

I pay attention to sales and specials.

If I like a brand, I rarely switch from it to buy

something new

I will shop at more than one store to take advantage

of low prices.

When I see a new product on the shelf, I am

reluctant to give it a try

In general, I am among the first ones to buy a

product when it appears on the market

I prefer buying the cheapest item with the best deal

Student Opinion Survey

We are conducting this study to learn about students’ opinions concerning a variety of

current topics. Thank you for taking the time to complete our survey. Your responses are

anonymous.


36

I rarely buy brands about which I am uncertain on

how they will perform.

2. The next questions are about packaging. For each of the following statements, please tell us how

much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by checking the box corresponding

with your choice.

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Feel

Neutral

Agree Strongly

Agree

Owning products that have superior designs makes

me feel good about myself.

Sometimes the way a product looks seems to reach

out and grab me.

When I see a product that has a really great design,

I feel a strong urge to buy it.

I enjoy seeing displays of products that have

superior designs.

3. Among the following place to drink coffee, which one is your favorite:

Starbucks

Dunkin’ Donuts

McDonalds

Others________(Please write your answers in the box )


37

Keep the coffee brand you chose in mind, then answer the following questions from 4 to 6.

4. These questions are about your preference for brands. For each of the following statements,

please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by checking the

box corresponding with your choice

Think about your preferred coffee brand Strongly

Disagree Disagree

Feel

Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree

It would be very difficult for me to leave a coffee

brand community that I am part of.

I prefer the coffee brand giving back to

communities in which it does business.

I intend to stay on as my preferred coffee brand’s

community member.

I purchase a this brand because I know that other

people notice them

I prefer the coffee brand concerned to improve the

well-being of society.

I am willing to pay more money to be a member of

a brand community

I prefer the coffee brand following high ethical

standards.


38

I pay attention to the brand because its buyers are

just like me.

I purchase a brand because I have much in

common with the buyers of that brand

I prefer buying coffee from a socially responsible

company.

To me this brand is indeed important because I

believe other people judge me on the basis of it

5. The next questions are about the reasons why you consume at a coffee store. For each of the

following statements, please tell us how well it describes you by checking the box corresponding with

your choice.

Think about your preferred coffee brand store

Doesn’t

describe

me at all

Doesn’t

really

describe

me

Can’t

really

tell

Sometimes

describes

me

Definitely

describes

me

The employees had a good attitude.

The color scheme of the store is pleasing.

During my visit to the store, the employees

appeared to be helpful.


39

The physical facilities of the store were

attractive.

The coffee store has a pleasant atmosphere.

This store would be a pleasant place to buy

coffee

The merchandise in the store appeared

organized.

I receive enough individual attention from

their employees.

6. The next questions are about coffee. For each of the following statements, please tell us how much

you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by checking the box corresponding with

your choice.

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Feel

Neutral

Agree Strongly

Agree

I think organic coffee is good for my health

I would like to add low-fat lightener in my

coffee beverages.

It is wise to drink organic coffee.

When I am on diet, I feel guilty to drink whole

milk coffee.

I think non-organic coffee is bad for my health.

I feel it’s healthy to drink low-fat coffee


40

I prefer to drink low-caffeine coffee.

I limit the number of caffeine-based beverages

I have each day

I am concerned about the levels of caffeine in

coffee

I prefer low-fat coffee than others.

7. The next question is about your preference and tastes across different seasons. For each of the

following statements, please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements by checking the box corresponding with your choice.

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

agree

I prefer my drinks be cold (iced) in the summer and

warm (hot) in the winter

I would like to see more seasonal items (eg. pumpkin,

peppermint flavors) on the menu

I wish you could get seasonal flavors (eg. pumpkin,

peppermint) year-round

8. The next questions are about eating habits. For each of the following statements, please tell us

how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by checking the box

corresponding with your choice.


41

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Feel

Neutral

Agree Strongly

Agree

I often drink coffee spontaneously

“Just drink” coffee describes the way I drink coffee

“Drink coffee now, think later” describes me

Sometimes I feel like drinking coffee on the spur of the

moment

I drink coffee according to how I feel at the moment


42

9. How often, if at all, do you drink the following types of coffee, made at home to either drink at

home or on-the-go?

Once a

month

Once a

week

More than

once a week

None of

the above

Instant coffee mixes ( mixes such as cappuccino, iced

coffee such as Starbucks VIA instant or coffee powder

such as Nescafe, Folger)

Ready-to-drink (eg. Starbucks Frappuccino, Doubleshot)

Made on a coffee-maker at home (single Serve Coffee

pods, Roasted, ground)

10. The next few questions are about internet and social media. For each of the following

statements, please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by

checking the box corresponding with your choice.

Strongly

Disagree Disagree

Feel

Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree


43

I like using online reviews to help me make decisions

about coffee

I like deciding my coffee purchases based on what I

read online

I like to discuss my coffee product/services

experience with others

I like to learn about others coffee experiences online

Frequency of coffee consumption

Intention to consume coffee in the future

If you were to buy a cup of coffee tomorrow, how likely would you buy from:

Very

Unlikely

Unlikely Not

sure

Somewhat

likely

Very

Likely

Starbucks

Which coffee brand did you buy most of the time last week

□Starbucks □ Dunkin’ Donuts □ McDonalds □ Others_________(Please write your answers here)

Approximately how many times have you consumed coffee in the past week? (If none, please write “0”)

_______

How likely are you to buy coffee in the next week?

□ Very Unlikely □ Unlikely □ Not sure □Somewhat Likely □ Likely □Very Likely


44

Dunkin’ Donuts

McDonalds

Others:______(Please write your answers here)

Year in School

Which one of the following describes your current academic level? (please tick the appropriate box)

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Masters Doctoral

Gender

Age

Disposable Money

Are you male or female?

□Male □Female

How old are you? _______

How much do you usually spend per month?

□ Below $500 □ $501~$1000 □ $1001~$1500 □ $1501~$2000 □ $2000~$3000 □ Over $3000


45

VII. Methodology

We decided to choose Starbucks coffee as our client, because it’s part of the college

students’ life. After discussion, we chose “how to increase the coffee consumption among

college students” as our research question. Through this research, we wanted to figure out the

factors that influence college students’ coffee consumption and ways to expand Starbucks’

market share. Our team first did a literature review on previous studies about coffee

consumption. Through studying the related article on scholarly journals, newspapers and

magazines, industry and trade publications, we had a basic understanding of our topic and know

more about our client Starbucks, its competitors and the coffee industry. This process helped us

to answer the research question we raised at the beginning. Our two dependent variables are:

frequency of coffee consumption in the past week and likelihood to buy Starbucks coffee in the

future. At first, we raised 24 predictors and then we chose 15 most relevant variables and used

different measures for these variables. Most of our measures came from The Marketing Scale

Handbook volume 5 and volume 6, we use the definitions and measures. To some other

variables, we use the literature review and developed its definitions and measures through group

discussion.

We designed our questionnaires with 18 questions and distributed this self-report survey

randomly to 120 college students at the Boston University George Sherman Union Building. Our

team chose the suppertime and sent out our questionnaires from October 23rd, from 5:00 p.m. to

8:00 p.m. Finally, we collected 105 valid questionnaires back, 33 male and 72 female. All of our


46

participants were Boston University students. Their age ranged from 17-34, most of them are

undergraduate students and some of them are masters and doctors.

After collecting all the questionnaires back, we numbered all the questionnaires in sequence.

Then our group input all the data into the SPSS system and reverse coded two items. We tested

the frequency and distribution of our data. Then we test the reliability of all the constructs and

check the results. On the basis of Cronbach’s alpha, we delete the unreliable construct “belief of

innovation”, because its reliability was too low. We also deleted some items in the construct to

make sure each measure was reliable enough. We create one variable for each construct through

SPSS and calculate the frequencies including means, mode and median for each construct. Using

the frequencies and distributions of the constructs, demographics and dependent variables, we

calculated the confidence interval to 95% for each construct and dependent variables. We had the

trend and range of each variable that can be applied to the students in Boston University.

In order to check the relationship between dependent variables and independent variables

(including manifest ones), we used the Pearson’s coefficient to calculate and find some of the

probability values are less than .05, which can be used to generalize the relation.

VIII. Results

Analysis of Measures

We entered all the data into SPSS after collecting all questionnaires, after that we used

SPSS to analyze the data. First, we cleaned the data by reverse coding some measures, testing

each construct’s reliability, checking the reliability, deleting some items to increase the

reliability, and gathering all the information related to the frequency of the data.


47

The first construct we measured was Impulsive Eating. There are five items under this

construction and we used a five-point Likert type questions. The reliability of this construct

is .769, and our group thought this is a very good reliability.

The second construct was Belief of Innovativeness, used four five-point Likert type

questions. The construct had a reliability of -.151, which is negative and too low to be used.

Even deleted one or two items of the four, the reliability is still below .50. So we decided to

delete this construct.

Next, we measured attitude towards Word of Mouth Online, used a four five-point Likert

type questions and had a Cronbach’s alpha reliability of .873, but after deleting the item “I like to

discuss my coffee product/ services experience with others”, we had the final reliability of .891.

Our group thought that was an excellent level of reliability.

The next construct, Perception of Brand Relevance, used a four five-point Likert type

questions and had a Cronbach’s alpha reliability of .838, which is considered as an excellent

level of reliability.

The proceeding construct, Perception of Brand Community, used a three five-point Likert

type questions and had a Cronbach’s alpha reliability of .623 at first. Our group thought the

reliability was at a low level. In order to increase the overall reliability of this construct, we

decide to remove the item “I am willing to pay more money to be a member of a brand

community”. Our final reliability of this construct was .695 and our group thought this is a good

reliability.

Perception of Packaging was our next construct. There are four items under this

construction and we used a five-point Likert type questions. We had a Cronbach’s alpha

reliability of .745, which is a good level of reliability.


48

Next, we measured the construct Perception of Store Design, used a three five-point

Likert type questions and had a Cronbach’s alpha reliability of .820, which is considered as a

very good reliability by our group.

Continuing, the next construct in our survey was Perception of Service Quality of the

Employees, used a three five-point Likert type questions and the original reliability was .846,

which is good. However, if we remove the item “The employee had a good attitude”, our final

reliability would be .858. Our group thought that was an excellent level of reliability.

Our next construct, Perception of Store Atmosphere, we had a two five-point Likert type

questions and a Cronbach’s alpha reliability of .852. Our group though it was an excellent level

of reliability.

The proceeding construct, Perception of CSR Practices, used a four five-point Likert type

questions. The reliability of this construct was .746 and was considered as a good level of

reliability by our group.

Next we measured Price Consciousness, used four five-point Likert type questions and

had a Cronbach’s alpha reliability of .667, which our team considered to be a good level of

reliability.

The next construct was Intention to Buy Organic Coffee and we used a three five-point

Likert type questions at first and the reliability was .566 and our group thought this reliability

was too low. After discussion, we decided to delete the item “I think non-organic coffee is bad

for my health” from the construct in order to increase the overall Cronbach’s alpha reliability.

After removing this item, we test the reliability again and the final result was .768, which is a

good level of reliability.


49

Intention to Buy Low-fat Coffee was our next construct that also used a four five-point

Likert type questions. The reliability of this construct was .735 and was considered as a very

good reliability by our group.

The next construct we measured was Intention to Buy Low-caffeine Coffee using a three

five-point Likert type questions. The resulting Cronbach’s alpha reliability was .718, which is a

good level of reliability.

The last construct we measured was Perception of Seasonality using a fine-point Liker

type questions. The reliability of this construct was .469, which was too low to be used. So we

decided to delete one item: “I prefer my drinks be cold (iced) in the summer and warm (hot) in

the winter.” After removing this item, the reliability was .751. And the reliability is very good.

The other three constructs are single and cannot test reliability.

The values of reliability could be found in Table II as follows.

Table II: Reliability of Single- and Multi- Item Constructs

Construct Cronbach’s

Alpha

Number of

Items

Items Removed

Impulsive eating 0.769 (Very

Good)

5 none

Belief of

Innovativeness

-.151

(Unacceptable)

4 If I like a brand, I rarely switch from

it to buy something new.

When I see a new product on the

shelf, I am reluctant to give it a try.


50

In general, I am among the first ones

to buy a product when it appears on

the market.

I rarely buy brands about which I am

uncertain on how they will perform.

Attitude towards

word of mouth

(online)

0.891

(Excellent)

3 I like to discuss my coffee

product/services experience with

others.

Perception of

Brand Relevance

0.838

(Excellent)

4 none

Perception of

Brand

community

0.695 (Good) 2 I am willing to pay more money to

be a member of a brand community.

Perception of

packaging

0.745 (Very

Good)

4 none

Perception of

Store Design

0.820

(Excellent)

3 none

Perception of

Service Quality

of the Employees

0.858

(Excellent)

2 The employees had a good attitude.


51

Perception of

Store

Atmosphere

0.852

(Excellent)

2 none

Perception of

CSR Practices

0.746 (Very

Good)

4 none

Price

Consciousness

0.667 (Good) 4 none

Intention to Buy

Organic Coffee

0.768 (Very

Good)

2 I think non-organic coffee is bad for

my health.

Intention to Buy

Low-fat Coffee

0.735 (Very

Good)

4 none

Intention to Buy

Low-caffeine

Coffee

0.718 (Very

Good)

3 none

Seasonality 0.751 (Very

Good)

2 I prefer my drinks be cold (iced) in

the summer and warm (hot) in the

winter.

Frequency of

Consuming

Instant coffee

mix

n/a 1 none


52

Frequency of

Consuming

Ready-to-drink

Coffee

n/a 1 none

Frequency of

Consuming coffee

via a coffee

maker at home

n/a 1 none

Analysis of Variation of Measures

Since all most all the construct expert for “Belief of Innovativeness” had acceptable

reliability values with Cronbach’s Alphas calculated at above the unacceptable level of 0.50, we

analyzed the variation of all the 13 acceptable constructs as well as our two dependent variables

and other demographics factors. We used the SPSS frequency and statistics function to calculate

the frequency as well as the mean, median, and mode for each of our 105 data composites. These

values can be found in Table III.

Then we calculate a confidence interval for sampling error to 95% for each construct by

using the most frequent data values(p) and the corresponding sample size(N), which could be

found in Table IV. To obtain the trend toward positive or negative relation, we combined two

responses for some constructs. The calculated confidence interval would give us a range of

confidence, to a 95% level, that our sample was representative of the population of students at

the George Sherman Union Building. For this range we rounded the calculated percentage range


53

up at 0.5 annd over to the nearest whole percentage point. We used the following equation to

calculate the confidence interval at 95%:

𝑆𝐸𝑝 = √𝑝(1 − 𝑝)

𝑁× 1.96

Analysis of Variation of Constructs

For the first construct, Impulsive Eating, we received 104 valid responses. This construct

is assessed on a five-point Likert scale. The statistics for this construct are as follows: the mean

is 3.28, the median is 3.40, and the mode is 3.40. 4 (3.8%) of them are very negative; 11 (10.6%)

are negative; 46 (44.2%) are neutral; 36(34.6%) of them are positive; and 7(6.7%) of them are

very positive. Although the trend is mostly neutral, there is a trend toward positive relation to the

contrast. The sampling error calculated at a 95% confidence interval for neutral responses is

±10%, indicating a range of 35% to 54% for representation within the population. Given the

neutral frequency of the data set and the neutral mean, median, and mode, these results indicate

very negative, 3.8%, 4%

negative , 10.6%,

10%

neutral, 44.2%,

44%

positive, 34.6%,

35%

very positive, 6.7%, 7%

IMPULSIVE EATING


54

that while students are neutral on whether they could have the desire to consume food

impetuously without much thinking or planning, some students show negative attitudes.

The construct, Word of Mouth online, have 105 valid responses. This construct is

measured using a five-point Likert scale. The statistics for the construct are as follows: the mean

is 2.47, the median is 2.33, and the mode is 1.00. 24 (22.9%) are very negative; 29 (27.6%) are

negative; 37 (35.2%) are neutral; 15 (14.3%) are positive; and none (0%) of them is very

positive. There is a slightly trend toward a neutral relation to the construct, although the trend is

mostly negative, over half of the respondents hold a negative attitude. The sampling error

calculated at a 95% confidence interval for negative responses is ±10%, indicating a range of

41% to 60% for representation within the population. These results indicate that students are

unwilling, or neutral on reading product reviews online as well as using the information provided

by others.

very negative,

22.9%

negative , 27.6%

neutral, 35.2%

positive, 14.3%

WORD OF MOUTH ONLINE


55

Our next construct is Brand Relevance and we have 101 valid responses. The construct is

assessed using a five-point Likert scale. The statistics for Price Increase are as follows: the mean

is 2.46, the median is 2.50, and the mode is 3. 11 (10.9%) are very negative; 36 (35.6%) are

negative; 43 (42.6%) are neutral; 11 (10.9%) are positive and none (0%) is very positive. There

is a trend toward a neutral relation with the construct, although the trend is mostly negative. The

sampling error calculated at a 95% confidence interval for negative responses is ±10%,

indicating a range of 37% to 56% of the population. These results indicate that while many

student’s attitudes are that whether a brand is correspond with one’s self concept, it wouldn’t

affect their purchase decision, some students are neutral on it.

For the next construct, Brand Community, we receive 102 valid responses. The construct

is assessed using a five-point semantic scale. The statistics for the construct are as follows: the

very negative, 10.9%

negative , 35.6%

neutral, 42.6%

positive, 10.9%

BRAND RELEVANCE

negative , 15.7%

neutral, 41.2%

positive, 38.2%

very positive,

4.9%

BRAND COMMUNITY


56

mean is 3.16, the median is 3, and the mode is 4. None (0%) of them is very negative; 16

(15.7%) are negative; 42 (41.2%) are neutral; 39 (38.6%) are positive and only 5 (5.0%) are very

positive. There is a trend toward a neutral relation with the construct, although the trend is

mostly positive. The sampling error calculated at a 95% confidence interval for positive

responses is ±10%, for a range of 33% to 53% within the population. This indicates that while

some students have a neutral attitude toward celebrity endorsement of a product, many of the

students are willing to being a member of a brand community.

For the construct, Packaging, we receive 104 valid responses. This construct is assessed

on a five-point Likert scale. The statistics for this construct are as follows: the mean is 3.77, the

median is 3.75, and the mode is 4. None (0%) of them is very negative; only 3 (2.9%) are

negative; 21 (20.2%) are neutral; 62 (60%) are positive and 18 (17.3%) are very positive. There

is a strong trend toward positive relation to the construct. The sampling error calculated at a 95%

confidence interval for positive responses is ±8%, indicating a range of 69% to 85% for

representation within the population. Given the positive frequency of the data set and the neutral

mean, median, and mode, these results indicate that most students care about product packaging.

negative , 2.9%

neutral, 20.2%

positive, 59.6%

very positive,

17.3%

PACKAGING


57

The construct, Store Design, have 105 valid responses. This construct is measured using a

five-point Likert scale. The statistics for the construct are as follows: the mean is 3.57, the

median is 3.67, and the mode is 4.00. Only 7 (6.7%) are very negative; 8 (7.6%) are negative; 25

(23.8%) are neutral; 50 (47.6%) are positive and 15 (14.3%) are very positive. There is a strong

trend toward positive relation to the construct. The sampling error calculated at a 95%


representation within the population. These results indicate that many students are positive on a

good store design.

very negative,

6.7%

negative , 7.6%

neutral, 23.8%positive,

47.6%

very positive,

14.3%

STORE DESIGN

very negative,

6.7% negative , 6.7%

neutral, 21.9%positive,

46.7%

very positive,

18.1%

SERVICE QUALITY OF EMPLOYEES


58

The next construct, Service Quality of Employees, have 105 valid responses. This

construct is measured using a five-point Likert scale. The statistics for the construct are as

follows: the mean is 3.49, the median is 3.50, and the mode is 4.00. Only 7 (6.7%) are very

negative; 7 (6.7%) are negative; 23 (21.9%) are neutral; 49 (46.7%) are positive and 19 (18.0%)

are very positive. There is a trend toward positive relation to the construct. The sampling error

calculated at a 95% confidence interval for positive responses is ±9%, indicating a range of 56%

to 74% for representation within the population. These results indicate that the more helpful a

service provider is, the more satisfaction the students would think.

For the construct, Store Atmosphere, we receive 104 valid responses. This construct is

assessed on a five-point Likert scale. The statistics for this construct are as follows: the mean is

3.90, the median is 4, and the mode is 4. Only 5 (4.8%) are very negative; 4 (3.8%) are negative;

9 (8.6%) are neutral; 53 (51.0%) are positive and 33 (31.7%) are very positive. There is a strong

trend toward positive relation to the construct. The sampling error calculated at a 95%


representation within the population. Given the positive frequency of the data set and the neutral

very negative, 4.8%

negative , 3.8%

neutral, 8.7%

positive, 51.0%

very positive, 31.7%

STORE ATMOSPHERE


59

mean, median, and mode, these results indicate that most students are positive on a good store

atmosphere.

The next construct, CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), we receive 103 valid

responses. This construct is assessed on a five-point Likert scale. The statistics for this construct

are as follows: the mean is 3.44, the median is 3.50, and the mode is 3.75. None (0%) is very

negative; only 5 (4.9%) are negative; 43 (41.7%) are neutral; 45 (43.7%) are positive and 1

(9.7%) are very positive. There is a trend toward a neutral relation with the construct, although

the trend is mostly positive. The sampling error calculated at a 95% confidence interval for

positive responses is ±10%, indicating a range of 44% to 63% for representation within the

population. Given the positive frequency of the data set and the neutral mean, median, and mode,

these results indicate that while some students are neutral toward a particular company’s support

for nonprofit organizations, with an emphasis on those nonprofits in the local community., many

students are positive on CSR Practices.

negative , 4.9%

neutral, 41.7%

positive, 43.7%

very positive,

1.0%

CSR


60

For the construct, Price Consciousness, we receive 102 valid responses. This construct is

assessed on a five-point Likert scale. The statistics for this construct are as follows: the mean is

3.75, the median is 3.75, and the mode is 3.50. None (0%) of them is very negative; only 3

(2.9%) are negative; 30 (29.5%) are neutral; 46 (45.1%) are positive and 23 (22.5%) are very

positive. There is a strong trend toward positive relation to the construct. The sampling error

calculated at a 95% confidence interval for positive responses is ±9%, indicating a range of 59%

to 77% for representation within the population. Given the positive frequency of the data set and

the neutral mean, median, and mode, these results indicate that most students focus on sales and

try to get the “best price”.

negative , 2.9%

neutral, 29.4%

positive, 45.1%

very positive,

22.5%

PRICE CONSCIOUSNESS


61

The construct, Organic, have 104 valid responses. This construct is measured using a

five-point Likert scale. The statistics for the construct are as follows: the mean is 3.18, the

median is 3, and the mode is 3. Only 4 (3.8%) are very negative; 9 (8.7%) are negative; 49

(47.1%) are neutral; 33 (31.7%) are positive; 9 (8.7%) are very positive. There is a trend toward

a positive relation to the construct, although the trend is mostly neutral. The sampling error

calculated at a 95% confidence interval for neutral responses is ±10%, indicating a range of 38%

to 57% for representation within the population. These results indicate that students are neutral to

buy organic coffee, or are positive toward organic coffee.

very negative,

3.8% negative , 8.7%

neutral, 47.1%

positive, 31.7%

very positive,

8.7%

ORGANIC

very negative,

3.0% negative , 16.8%

neutral, 53.5%

positive, 21.8%

very positive,

3.0%

LOW FAT


62

The next construct, Low Fat, have 101 valid responses. This construct is measured using

a five-point Likert scale. The statistics for the construct are as follows: the mean is 2.96, the

median is 3, and the mode is 3. Only 3 (5.0%) are very negative; 17 (16.8%) are negative; 54

(53.5%) are neutral; 22 (21.8%) are positive; 3 (5.0%) are very positive. There is a trend toward

a neutral relation to the construct. The sampling error calculated at a 95% confidence interval for

neutral responses is ±10%, indicating a range of 44% to 63% for representation within the

population. These results indicate that students are neutral toward purchasing a low-fat coffee.

For the construct, Low Caffeine have 102 valid responses. This construct is measured

using a five-point Likert scale. The statistics for the construct are as follows: the mean is 2.89,

the median is 3, and the mode is 3. 7 (6.9%) are very negative; 27 (26.5%) are negative; 44

(43.2%) are neutral; 19 (18.6%) are positive and only 5 (4.9%) are very positive. There is a trend

toward a neutral relation to the construct. The sampling error calculated at a 95% confidence

interval for neutral responses is ±10%, indicating a range of 34% to 53% for representation

within the population. These results indicate that while some students do not care whether the

caffeine in the coffee is high or not, many students are neutral toward coffee consumptions.

very negative,

6.9%

negative , 26.5%

neutral, 43.1%

positive, 18.6%

very positive,

4.9%

LOW CAFFEINE


63

Next, Seasonality have 105 responses, measured by a five-point Likert scale. The

statistics for the construct are as follows: the mean is 3.07, the median is 3.00, and the mode is 3.

6 (5.7%) are very negative, 15 (14.3%) are negative, 43 (41.0%) are neutral, 32 (30.5%) are

positive and 9 (8.6%) are very positive. There is a trend toward neutral relation to the construct.

The sampling error calculated at a 95% confidence interval for neutral responses is ±9%,

indicating a range of 32% to 50% for representation within the population. These results indicate

that while many students are neutral on more special offers in different seasons, some students

prefer seasonal beverages.

very negative,

5.7%negative ,

14.3%

neutral, 41.0%

positive, 30.5%

very positive,

8.6%

SEASONALITY


64

The following construct, Frequency of Consume Instant coffee mixes have 105 responses.

It is measured using a four Likert scale. The statistics for the construct are as follows: the mean

is 1.91, the median is 1 and the mode is 1. 54 (51.4%) are less than once a month, 23 (21.9%) are

once a month, 11 (10.5%) are once a week and 17 (16.2%) are more than once a week. The trend

of the frequency is toward less than once a week.

The next construct, Frequency of Consume Ready-to-drink Coffee have 105 responses. It

is measured using a four Likert scale. The statistics for the construct are as follows: the mean is

2.71, the median is 3 and the mode is 4. 25 (23.8%) are less than once a month, 17 (17.1%) are

Less than once a month, 51.4%

once a month, 21.9%

once a week, 10.5%

more than once a week, 16.2%

INSTANT COFFEE


once a month, 16.2%

once a week, 22.9%


READY-TO-DRINK COFFEE


65

once a month, 24 (22.9%) are once a week and 38 (36.2%) are more than once a week. The trend

of the frequency is toward more than once a week.

The construct, Frequency of Consume Hone-made Coffee have 105 responses. It is measured

using a four Likert scale. The statistics for the construct are as follows: the mean is 2.31, the

median is 2 and the mode is 1. 44 (41.9%) are less than once a month, 15 (14.3%) are once a

month, 15 (14.3%) are once a week and 31 (29.5%) are more than once a week. The trend of the

frequency is toward less than once a week.

Analysis of Variation of Dependent Variables

For the first dependent variable, Frequency of Coffee Consumption in the Last Week,

have receive 105 responses. The variable is an open question. The statistics are as follows: the

mean is 5.52, the median is 5 and the mode is 5. 11 (10.5%) are 0; 5 (4.8%) are 1; 12 (11.4%) are

2; 9 (8.6%) are 3; 10 (9.5%) are 4; 17 (16.2%) are 5; 5 (4.8%) are 6; 12 (11.4%) are 7; 3 (2.9%)

are8; 1(1.0%) are 9; 13 (1.0%) are 10; 1(1.0%) are 12; 1 (1.0%) are 14; 2 (1.9%) are 15; 2 (1.9%)

are 21; and 1 (1.0%) are 24. There is a trend toward 4 to 7 to the construct. The sampling error


once a month, 14.3%

once a week, 14.3%


HOME-MADE COFFEE


66


to 51% for representation within the population. These results indicate that many students bought

4 to 7 times coffee last week.

Next, Coffee brand purchased mostly last week have 95 responses. We ask the

respondents to choose the coffee brand they bought most times in the past week. The statistics

are as follows: 76 (80.0%) are Starbucks, 11 (10.6%) are Dunkin’ Donuts, 1 (1.1%) is

McDonalds and 7 (7.4%) are other brands. There is a trend toward Starbucks for this dependent

variable. The sampling error calculated at a 95% confidence interval for neutral responses is

±8%, indicating a range of 72% to 88% for representation within the population. These results

indicate that most students consumed coffee at Starbucks mostly in the past week.

For the next dependent variable, Likelihood to Consume Coffee in the Future, have

receive 105 responses, using a six-point Likert scale. The statistics are as follows: the mean is

4.61, the median is 6 and the mode is 6. 11 (10.8%) are very negative, 2 (1.9%) are negative, 6

(5.7%) are neutral, 24 (22.8%) are positive and 55 (52.4%) are very positive. There is a trend

toward positive relation to the variable. The sampling error calculated at a 95% confidence

interval for neutral responses is ±8%, indicating a range of 67% to 83% for representation within

the population.

For the dependent variable, Likelihood to Consume Coffee Brand in the Future, we

receive 102 valid responses for Starbucks, 95 for Dunkin’ Donuts, 94 for McDonalds and 37 for

other brands. We used a five-point Likert scale to assess this variable. For Starbucks, the mean is

4.25, the median is 5 and the mode is 5. 11 (10.8%) are very negative, 2 (2.0%) are negative, 3

(2.9%) are neutral, 20 (19.6%) are positive and 66 (64.7%) are very positive. There is a trend


67

toward positive relation. The sampling error calculated at a 95% confidence interval for neutral

responses is ±7%, indicating a range of 77% to 91% for representation within the population.

For Dunkin’ Donuts, the mean is 3.06, the median is 3 and the mode is 4. 18 (18.9%) are

very negative, 22 (23.2%) are negative, 11 (11.6%) are neutral, 24 (25.3%) are positive and 20

(21.1%) are very positive. There is a trend toward positive relation. The sampling error


to 56% for representation within the population.

For McDonalds, the mean is 1.78, the median is 1 and the mode is 1. 51 (54.3%) are very

negative, 23 (24.5%) are negative, 12 (12.8%) are neutral, 6 (6.4%) are positive and only 2

(2.1%) are very positive. There is a trend toward negative relation. The sampling error calculated

at a 95% confidence interval for neutral responses is ±8%, indicating a range of 70% to 87% for

representation within the population.

For other brands, the mean is 2.97, the median is 3 and the mode is 5. 10 (27.0%) are

very negative, 8 (21.6%) are negative, 4 (10.8%) are neutral, 3 (8.1%) are positive and 12

(32.4%) are very positive. There is a trend toward negative relation. The sampling error


to 65% for representation within the population.

The results indicate that students are likely to consume coffee in the Starbucks in the near

future. Students are also likely to consume coffee in the Dunkin’ Donuts, but not as likely as in

the Starbucks. They are unlikely to consume coffee in the McDonalds or other brands in the near

future.


68

Analysis of Variation of Demographics

We ask the respondents to choose their academic level and receive 105 responses. There

are six choices, freshman (1), sophomore (2), junior (3), senior (4), masters (5) and doctoral (6).

The mean is 1.69, the median is 3 and the mode is 2. Only 33 (31.4%) are male and 72 (68.6%)

are female. The largest part of our sample is Junior students.

We also ask the respondents to write their age in the questionnaire and receive 105

responses. The mean is 20.72, the median is 20 and the mode is 20. Only 1 (1.0%) is 17; 20

(19.0%) are 18; 19 (18.1%) are 19; 21 (20.0%) are 20; 14 (13.3%) are 21; 6 (5.7%) are 22; 10

(9.5%) are 23; 8 (7.6%) are 24; 2 (1.9%) are 25; 1 (1.0%) is 26; 1 (1.0%) is 28; 1 (1.0%) is 28; 1

(1.0%) is 32 and 1 (1.0%) is 34. The largest part of our sample is 20 years old.

The last thing we ask the respondents to answer is their disposable money. There are six

choices: Below $500 (1), $500~$1000 (2), $1001~$1500 (3), $1501~$2000 (4), $2001~$3000

(5) and $Over $3000 (6). The valid responses are 103. The mean is 1.84, the median is 1, and the

mode is 1. Most students’ disposable money are below $500.

Table III: Analysis of Variation of Single- and Multi- Item Measures

Construct N Frequency Mean Median Mode

Impulsive

eating

104 Very Negative: 4 (3.8%)

Negative: 11 (10.6%)

Neutral: 46 (44.3%)

Positive: 36(34.6%)

Very Positive: 7 (6.7%)

3.28 3.40 3.40a


69

Neutral 46 (44.3%)

Word of

Mouth

(online)



Neutral: 37 (35.2%)

Positive: 15 (14.3%)

Very Positive: 0 (0%)

2.47 2.33 1.00

Negative/Very

Negative

53 (50.5%)

Brand

Relevance



Neutral: 43 (42.6%)


Very Positive: 0 (0%)

2.46 2.50 3.00

Neutral 47 (46.5%)

Brand

Community

102 Very Negative: 0 (0%)


Neutral: 42 (41.2%)



3.16 3.00 4.00

Positive/Very

Positive

44 (43.1%)

Packaging 104 Very Negative: 0 (0%) 3.77 3.75 4.00


70

Negative: 3 (2.9%)

Neutral: 21 (20.2%)

Positive: 62 (60%)


Positive/Very

Positive

80 (76.9%)

Store Design 105 Very Negative: 7 (6.7%)

Negative: 8 (7.6%)

Neutral: 25 (23.8%)



3.57 3.67 4.00

Positive/Very

Positive

65 (61.9%)

Service

Quality of

Employees


Negative:7 (6.7%)

Neutral: 23 (21.9%)



3.49 3.50 4.00

Positive/Very

Positive

68 (64.8%)

Store

Atmosphere


Negative: 4 (3.8%)

3.90 4.00 4.00


71

Neutral: 9 (8.6%)



Positive/Very

Positive

86 (82.7%)

CSR 103 Very Negative: 0 (0%)

Negative: 5 (4.9%)

Neutral: 43 (41.7%)



3.44 3.50 3.75

Positive/Very

Positive

55 (53.4%)

Price

Consciousness

102 Very Negative: 0 (0%)

Negative: 3 (2.9%)

Neutral: 30 (29.5%)



3.75 3.75 3.50a

Positive/Very

Positive

69 (67.6%)

Organic 104 Very Negative: 4 (3.8%)

Negative: 9 (8.7%)

Neutral: 49 (47.1%)

3.18 3.00 3.00


72



Neutral 49 (47.1%)

Low-fat 101 Very Negative: 3 (5.0%)


Neutral: 54 (53.5%)



2.96 3.00 3.00

Neutral 54 (53.5%)

Low-caffeine 102 Very Negative: 7 (6.9%)


Neutral: 44 (43.2%)



2.89 3.00 3.00

Neutral 44 (43.2%)

Season 105 Very Negative: 6 (5.7%)


Neutral: 43 (41.0%)



3.07 3.00 3.00

Neutral 43 (41.0%)


73

Instant coffee

mixes

105 Less than once a week: 54 (51.4%)

Once a month: 23 (21.9%)

Once a week: 11(10.5%)

More than once a week: 17 (16.2%)

1.91 1.00 1

Less than once a

week

54 (51.4%)

Ready-to-

drink



Once a week: 24 (22.9%)


2.71 3.00 4

More than once a

week

38 (36.2%)

Home-made

coffee



Once a week: 15 (14.3%)


2.31 2.00 1

Less than once a

week

44 (41.9%)

Approximatel

y how many

times have

you consumed

105 0 – 11 (10.5%)

1 – 5 (4.8%)

2 – 12 (11.4%)

3 – 9 (8.6%)

5.52 5.00 5


74

coffee in the

past week

4 – 10 (9.5%)

5 – 17 (16.2%)

6 – 5 (4.8%)

7 – 12 (11.4%)

8 – 3 (2.9%)

9 – 1 (1.0%)

10 – 13 (1.0%)

12 – 1 (1.0%)

14 – 1 (1.0%)

15 – 2 (1.9%)

21 – 2 (1.9%)

24 – 1 (1.0%)

4 to 7 44 (41.9%)

Which coffee

brand did you

buy most of

the time last

week

95 Starbucks: 76 (80.0%)

Dunkin’ Donuts: 11 (11.6%)

McDonalds: 1 (1.1%)

Others: 7 (7.4%)

1.36 1.00 1

Starbucks 76 (80.0%)

How likely

are you to buy


Negative: 2 (1.9%)

Neutral: 6 (5.7%)

4.61 6.00 6


75

coffee in the

next week



Positive/Very

Positive

87 ( 75.2%)

Likelihood to

consume

coffee in the

Starbucks in

the future


Negative: 2 (2.0%)

Neutral: 3 (2.9%)



4.25 5.00 5

Positive/Very

Positive

86 (84.3%)

Likelihood to

consume

coffee in the

Dunkin’

Donuts in the

future



Neutral: 11 (11.6%)



3.06 3.00 4

Positive/ Very

Positive

44 (46.4%)

Likelihood to

consume

coffee in the



Neutral: 12 (12.8%)

1.78 1.00 1


76

McDonalds in

the future

Positive: 6 (6.4%)


Negative/Very

Negative

74 (78.7%)

Likelihood to

consume

coffee in the

other brands

in the future


Negative: 8 (21.6%)

Neutral: 4 (10.8%)

Positive: 3 (8.1%)


2.97 3.00 5

Negative/Very

Negative

18 (48.6%)

Year in

School

105 Freshman: 21 (20.0%)

Sophomore: 21 (20.0%)

Junior: 24 (22.4%)

Senior: 16 (15.2%)

Masters: 20 (19.0%)

Doctoral: 3 (2.9%)

3.02 3.00 3

Junior 24 (22.4%)

Gender 105 Male: 33 (31.4%)

Female: 72 (68.6%)

1.69 2.00 2

Female 72 (68.6%)

Age 105 17 – 1 (1.0%) 20.72 20.00 20


77

18 – 20 (19.0%)

19 – 19 (18.1%)

20 – 21 (20.0%)

21 – 14 (13.3%)

22 – 6 (5.7%)

23 – 10 (9.5%)

24 – 8 (7.6%)

25 – 2 (1.9%)

26 – 1 (1.0%)

28 – 1 (1.0%)

32 – 1 (1.0%)

34 – 1 (1.0%)

20 21 (20.0%)

Disposable

Money

103 Below $500: 59 (57.3%)

$500~$1000: 18 (74.8%)

$1001~$1500: 14 (13.6%)

$1501~$2000: 9 (8.6%)

$2001~$3000: 1 (1.0%)

Over $3000: 2 (1.9%)

1.84 1.00 1

Below $500 59 (57.3%)

Table IV: Confidence Intervals


78

% of

Most

Frequent

Responses

N 95%

Confidence

Interval

FOR

Sampling

Error + or

-

Confidence

Interval

Name of Construct Most Frequent

Responses

44.3% 104 10% 35%~54%

Word of Month

(online)

Negative/Very

Negative

50.5% 105 10% 41%~60%

Brand Relevance Negative/Very

Negative

46.5% 101 10% 37%~56%

Brand Community Positive/Very

Positive

43.1% 102 10% 33%~53%

Packaging Positive/Very

Positive

76.9% 104 8% 69%~85%

Store Design Positive/Very

Positive

61.9% 105 9% 53%~71%

Service Quality of

employees

Positive/Very

Positive

64.8% 105 9% 56%~74%


79

Store Atmosphere Positive/Very

Positive

82.7% 104 7% 75%~90%

CSR Positive/Very

Positive

53.4% 103 10% 44%~63%

Price

Consciousness

Positive/Very

Positive

67.6% 102 9% 59%~77%

Organic Neutral 47.1% 104 10% 38%~57%

Low-fat Neutral 53.5% 101 10% 44%~63%

Low-caffeine Neutral 43.2% 102 10% 34%~53%

Seasonality Neutral 41.0% 105 9% 32%~50%

Frequency of

coffee

consumption last

week

4~7 41.9% 105 9% 32%~51%

Coffee brand

purchased mostly

last week

Starbucks 80% 95 8% 72%~88%

Likelihood to

consume coffee in

the future

Positive/Very

Positive

75.2% 105 8% 67%~83%

Likelihood to

consume coffee

Positive/Very

Positive

84.3% 102 7% 77%~91%


80

next week in

Starbucks

Likelihood to

consume coffee

next week in

Dunkin’ Donuts

Positive/Very

Positive

46.4% 95 10% 36%~56%

Likelihood to

consume coffee

next week in

McDonalds

Negative/Very

Negative

78.7% 94 8% 70%~87%

Likelihood to

consume coffee

next week in

others

Negative/Very

Negative

48.6% 37 16% 32%~65%


81

Constructs of Highest Significance

The chart above mentioned constructs had the highest significance and positive responses

and will be used to generate recommendations for the client. The first most significant construct

was that of Store Atmosphere with 83 % responses in favor. The second construct Packaging

was also a strong positive with 77 % positive responses. The third construct price consciousness

was a positive with 68 % responses in favor. The fourth construct service quality was positive

with 65 % responses in favor. The fifth construct Store Design was a positive with 62 %

responses in favor. Each construct had a margin of +/- 10 % however, even in that case the

lowest construct would have 52 % responses in favor which is still a majority and shows a trend

among individuals leaning towards those variables as predictors of their preferences.

62%

65%

68%

77%

83%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

store design

service quality

price consciousness

packaging

store atmosphere

Constructs of Highest Significance


82

Correlations

Next, our team analyzed the data to figure out the strength and the significance of the

correlational relationship between our dependent and independent variables. During this process,

we discovered that there are several correlations between these variables separately,and we can

summarize some recommendations from these data to our client. Using the SPSS program, we

analyzed the likelihood of the respondents consuming coffee with the coffee brands and

relationship of different constructs with depedent variables.

For previous coffee consumption, there were four correlations which were significant and

generalizable.

First, for the construct of low caffeine, we found that there is a strong negative and

statistically significant correlation between an individual’s previous coffee consumption and low

caffeine preference (r=-0.401, p<0.05). Individuals who consumed coffee last week are less

likely to care about low caffeine.

Second, for the variable of instant coffee mixes (mixes such as cappuccino, iced coffee

such as Starbucks VIA instant or coffee powder such as Nescafe, Folger), statistics show that

there is a moderate positive and statistically significant correlation between past coffee

consumption and consumption of instant coffee mixes (r=0.212, p<0.05). This means individuals

who consumed coffee last week are more likely to consume instant coffee mixes.

Third, Ready-to-drink coffee (such as Starbucks Frappuccino, Doubleshot) was also

considered to have something to do with correspondents’ past coffee consumption habit. For this

variable, we had an (r) of 0.269 and a (p) < 0.05, which shows a moderate and statistically

significant relationship between previous coffee consumption and the preference to Ready-to-


83

drink coffee. In other words, respondents who drank coffee last week are more likely to consume

Ready-to-drink coffee.

Finally, for the variable Homemade coffee (made on a coffee-maker at home, such as

single Serve Coffee pods, Roasted,ground), there is a moderate positive and statistically

significantly relationship between the variable and previous coffee consumption (r=0.214,

p<0.05). This demonstrates that consumers who drank coffee last week tend to make coffee on a

coffee-maker at home.

This same process of analyzing the correlation has been repeated in figuring out the

relationship between future coffee consumption and different variables. Again, among all the

variables we analyzed, we found that there were altogether two generalizable correlational

relationships. The first one came from the construct of Brand Community. We found that there is

a moderate positive and statistically significant relationship between an individual’s perception

of brand community and his/her likelihood to purchase coffee in the future (r=0.269, p<0.05). In

this case, the higher a person’s perception of being a member of a community of brand users and

his/her intention to continue being a member (Bruner, 2009, p. 263), the more likely he/she is to

purchase coffee in the near future.

The second relevant construct is low caffeine. Statistics show that there is a moderate

negative and statistically significant correlation between an individual’s perception of low

caffeine and his/her likelihood to purchase coffee in the future (r=-0.374, p<0.05). Under the

circumstances, the more individuals concern about low caffeine, the less likely they are to

purchase coffee in the future.

Our team also analyzed the brand preference in the future coffee consumption. For

Starbucks, we found that it has a correlation with the variable Ready-to-drink, with (r)=0.236 and


84

(p)<0.05. It implies that there is a moderate positive and statistically significant relationship

between an individual’s ready-to-drink coffee consumption and his/her likelihood to purchase

coffee from Starbucks in the future. It means the more ready-to-drink coffee an individual drinks,

the more likely he/she are to purchase coffee from Starbucks. Then, we also found that coffee

consumption in McDonald’s has a moderate positive and significant relationship with age

(r=0.265, p=0.010). This means the older the consumers are, the more likely they are to consume

coffee from McDonald’s.

The research study also revealed a generalizable correlation between Likelihood to

Consume Coffee in Dunkin’ Donut in the Future and price consciousness. There was a

moderately positive, but statistically significant relationship between an individual’s price

consciousness and his/her likelihood to purchase coffee from Dunkin’ Donuts in the future

(r=0.25, p <0.05). In other words, “the more individuals focus on sales and try to get the “best

price”, the more likely they are to purchase coffee from Dunkin’ Donuts in the future.

There were four different constructs that measured the likelihood to consume coffee

from other brands. Although the number of correspondents for this dependent variable were

relatively small (around 34), we could still find something valuable for our recommendation. For

impulsive eating, it has an (r) of 0.350 and (p)<0.05, showing that there is a moderate positive

and statistically significant relationship between individuals’ likelihood to buy coffee from other

brands and their impulsive eating degree. In this case, the more an individual expresses the desire

to consume food impetuously without much thinking or planning (Bruner, 2012, p. 356), the

more likelihood he/she is to purchase coffee from other brands.

For Brand Community, we found that there was a moderate positive and statistically

significant correlation between an individual’s perception of brand community and his/her


85

likelihood to consume coffee from other brands (r=0.352, p<0.05). In other words, the higher a

person’s perception of being a member of a community of brand users and his/her intention to

continue being a member (Bruner, 2009, p. 263), the more likely he/she is to purchase coffee

from other brands in the future.

Meanwhile, we found that there is a strong negative and statistically significant

correlation between construct of low-fat and consumption from other brands (r=-0.434, p<0.05),

as well as the construct of low caffeine and consumption behavior in other brands (r=-0.418,

p<0.05). Statistics indicate that the more individuals concern about low caffeine or low-fat, the

less likely they are to purchase coffee from other brands in the future

Based on literature review, our team also decided to analyze if there is any relationship

between, the likelihood of coffee consumption in Starbucks and packaging, experiential

marketing (including store design, store atmosphere and service quality), price consciousness,

and CSR. However, statistics showed that the significance of the relationships between

individuals’ likelihood to purchase coffee from Starbucks and the constructions mentioned above

are relatively low: for packaging, the (p) is 0.190 (>0.05); for store design, the (p) is 0.254

(>0.05); for store design, the (p) is 0.399 (>0.05); for service quality, the (p) is 0.519 (>0.05); for

price consciousness, the (p) is 0.371 (>0.05); and for CSR, the (p) is 0.067 (>0.05).

In addition, the absolute value of relationships between the dependent and independent

variables are quite small: for packaging, the (r) is 0.131 (<0.19); for store design, the (r) is 0.114

(<0.19); for store atmosphere, the (r) is 0.085 (<0.10); for service quality, the (r) is 0.065

(<0.10), for price consciousness, the (r) is -0.091 (absolute value <0.10); and for CSR, the (r) is -

0.185 (absolute value <0.19). Therefore, according to the data we collected, we cannot conclude


86

that there is any linear correlation between the dependent and independent variables mentioned

above.

Table 5: Correlation Between Constructs and Dependent Variable

Construct r Probability trend

wouldn’t project to

population(p)

Instant coffee mixes 0.212 0.030

Ready-to-drink 0.296 0.002

Made on a coffee-maker at home 0.214 0.029

Year in School -0.108 0.271

Gender 0.107 0.279

Age -0.119 0.228

Disposable Money 0.113 0.254

Impulsive Eating 0.175 0.075

Word-of-month Online 0.010 0.919

Brand Relevance -0.142 0.158

Brand Community 0.100 0.316

Packaging -0.129 0.192

Store Design -0.057 0.562

Service Quality of Employees 0.047 0.635


87

Store Atmosphere -0.058 0.559

CSR Practices -0.084 0.398

Price Consciousness -0.107 0.283

Organic -0.121 0.221

Low-fat 0.013 0.896

Low caffeine -0.401 0.000

Season -0.087 0.378



population(p)





Gender -0.042 0.669

Age -0.088 0.370



Word-of-month Online -0.035 0.722



Packaging 0.035 0.728


88


Service Quality of Employees -0.024 0.810




Organic -0.020 0.840

Low-fat 0.021 0.834


Season -0.020 0.841



population(p)





Gender 0.039 0.696

Age -0.149 0.134

Disposable Money -0.052 0.608



Brand Relevance 0.140 0.168


89

Brand Community -0.116 0.255

Packaging 0.131 0.190

Store Design 0.114 0.254


Store Atmosphere 0.085 0.399



Organic -0.050 0.619

Low-fat 0.052 0.612

Low caffeine 0.013 0.902

Season -0.189 0.057



population(p)

Instant coffee mixes -0.086 0.408

Ready-to-drink -0.124 0.230


Year in School 0.100 0.333

Gender 0.028 0.785

Age 0.123 0.235

Disposable Money -0.061 0.560



90


Brand Relevance 0.029 0.781

Brand Community -0.010 0.922





CSR Practices 0.153 0.144

Price Consciousness 0.249 0.017

Organic 0.099 0.343

Low-fat 0.003 0.979


Season 0.068 0.515



population(p)



Made on a coffee-maker at home -0.072 0.491


Gender -0.023 0.822

Age 0.265 0.010


91


Impulsive Eating -0.033 0.753








CSR Practices 0.110 0.299


Organic 0.079 0.454

Low-fat -0.088 0.411

Low caffeine 0.122 0.249

Season 0.153 0.140

Construct R Probability trend


population(p)

Instant coffee mixes -0.142 0.403





92

Gender 0.020 0.906

Age -0.041 0.809



Word-of-month Online -0.020 0.904









Organic -0.207 0.218

Low-fat -0.434 0.010


Season -0.298 0.073

IX. Discussion


93

Dependent variable

In our research, we examined two dependent variables that drive coffee consumption among

Boston University students: The Likelihood to consume coffee in the Future and the Frequency of

Previous Coffee Consumption. As to the likelihood to consume coffee in the future, we found that

84.3% of our respondents were positive or very positive in their likelihood to consume coffee in

Starbucks in the near future. For this aspect, the closest competitor is Dunkin’ Donuts. In our

survey, 46.4% of students indicated that they were positive or very positive to consume coffee in

Dunkin’ Donuts in the near future. When it comes to another competitor, McDonald's, only 8.5%

of our respondents showed positive or very positive in their likelihood to consume coffee in the

near future. This allowed us to conclude that the percentage of students who would prefer

consuming coffee from Starbucks is significantly higher that those who would prefer the

Starbucks competitors.

Our survey indicated there was one factor, the intention to buy ready-to-drink coffee,

influence students’ likelihood to consume coffee in Starbucks in the near future. In other words,

an individual who prefer to buy ready-to-drink coffee is more likely to consume coffee in

Starbucks in the future. This was an interesting finding as the literature review had also revealed

the increasing shift to convenience stores, and ready to drink segment for coffee brands.

Starbucks’ competitors have different factors that influence students’ likelihood to

consume. For Dunkin’ Donuts, the only influential factor is price consciousness, which means

the more individuals focus on sales and try to get the “best price”, the more likely they are to

purchase coffee from Dunkin’ Donuts in the future. For McDonald’s, only age showed a

significant correlation with the likelihood of its coffee consumption. In this case, the older the

consumers are, the more likely they are to buy coffee from McDonald’s in the future.


94

We also had a finding about the frequency of students’ previous coffee consumption. We

found that 41.9% of respondents consumed coffee 4-7 times in the past week.

Demographics

The demographic profiles provide us with the respondents’ information and help us to

identify the target audience among students for Starbucks. Our most respondents are junior

students, followed by freshman and sophomore. Among the 105 students, only 33 are male,

taking 31.4% of all. 72 are female, taking 68.6%. The majority of our respondents are between

18 to 21, accounting for 57.4% of the sample. Most students have less than $500 disposable

money one month.

Constructs

For our constructs, Packaging, we found that most students prefer products with good

packaging. In other words, good packaging could appeal to more audience, which is consistent

with the research conducted by Kobayashi and Benassi (2015). The research states that

customers’ preferred bright color, image of foam, steam, coffee beans on refill package and

modern shape of glass jar (Kobayashi and Benassi, 2015).

Our team also found that Store Design is also important for students. They would like to

consume coffee in a store with good design. The finding is also consistent with Liao, Huang

C.W., Huang T. Y. and Deeseentham’s report (2012). They thought store design is one of the

significant factors influencing customers’ sensory of enjoyment.


95

The next construct, Store Atmosphere, which is also extracted Liao’s report, demonstrates

that students prefer coffee stores with good atmosphere. The finding also matches their survey

(Liao, et al., 2012). They also found among all the factors, store design have the biggest

influence (Liao, et al., 2012). However, in our report, the construct Store Atmosphere has a

bigger influence than Store Design. Our team thought the reason could be our sample is smaller

than theirs and they use a 6-Likert scale, which is more precise than ours.

For the construct, Service Quality of Employees, students thought it is important, which is

consistent with the survey from Yuan and Wu (2012). They concluded that service quality along

with sense perception, feel perception and think perception together build up the perception of

experiential marketing, which induce customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (Yuan & Wu,

2008). Another research also emphasizes the importance of service quality. Chen and Hu (2010)

stated that service quality influences perceived value significantly. Furthermore, Yu and Fang

(2009) found the product and service quality is even more important than experience quality.

Our team also found students are sensitive to price. The construct, Price Consciousness,

indicates that students are willing to buy things with lower price or promotion. The finding

matches the statement made by Huang, Chang, Yeh and Liao (2013). They concluded that price

promotions can have positive effect on consumer’s attitude toward the coffee shop and

repurchasing behavior (Huang, et al., 2013). They also found that the price promotion should be

along with good product quality, otherwise it may have negative influence. Our finding is also

consistent with Mintel’s report (2014). It states that customers are price conscious and careful

about how much they spend (Mintel, 2014). The customers also wish coffee houses and donut

shops offer better discounts (Mintel, 2014). Some of them consider price is an important aspect

while deciding which shop to visit (Mintel, 2014).


96

Summary

In our study, we conducted a survey among students of Boston University, to see what

factors motivated students to consume coffee. Our study showed that Starbucks is a popular

coffee brand for students to consume coffee when compared with its competitors.

Our survey indicated that the general age of coffee consumers is between 18 and 21. This

would be our recommended age group for Starbucks to target on Boston University. What’s

more, respondents in our survey demonstrated that among multiple coffee brand choices, the

factors that most influenced students consume coffee in a certain brand in the future are

packaging, store design, service quality of employees, store atmosphere and price consciousness.

Students were also somewhat favorable, even though to a lesser extent to some other factors

such as word of mouth online, CSR, low-fat. They considered these factors were also important

when consuming coffee in a certain coffee brand. Moreover, we found out that students who

prefer ready-to-drink coffee are more likely to buy coffee in Starbucks in the future. Based on

our survey, we have some recommendations for Starbucks to expand its coffee consumptions

among students that will be discussed in the following section.

X. Assessment

Measures

Most of the measures used by us the survey were from the Marketing Scales Handbook Volume 5

to 7. Although our first priority was to use tried and tested scales from the Marketing Handbook,


97

we also referred to Mintel reports for industry specific surveys and incorporated a few of those

survey questions in our questionnaires. This is because, some questions such as “organic coffee”,

“intention to regulate coffee consumption”, “seasonality” and other manifest variables such as

frequency of drinking “ready-to-drink”, “instant mixes” “made on a coffee maker at home”,

were not available in the Marketing Scales Handbook.

While designing the survey on Mintel questions we were careful about the language and

interpretation of the questions in order to eliminate any risks of low reliability.

One of our constructs “belief of innovativeness” scored negative on reliability and it was

eliminated from the analysis. This was a surprising finding given the fact that the scale has been

taken from the Marketing Scales Handbook, Volume 7.

Due to low reliability of certain items, we also had to omit a few scales from constructs.

The first such construct was “Attitude towards word of mouth”. The item “I like to discuss my

coffee product/services experience with others” was deleted from this construct. A possible

reason for the low reliability of this item can be, while others items measured the influence

online reviews make in their purchase decision, this scale attempted to measure whether students

discuss products online, which is more like a behavioral tendency instead of a psychological

tendency. For the construct “Perception of Brand Community” the item “I am willing to pay

more money to be a member of a brand community.” was deleted a possible reason behind the

low reliability for this construct could be that while other scales measured an individual’s

intention to be a part of a brand community, this scale measured whether they would actually

buy a product because of brand community. We feel while brand community may play an

important role in decision making process, it cannot be the sole reason for students to buy a

product. For the construct “perception of service quality” the item “The employees had a good


98

attitude.” was deleted. A possible reason behind this items low reliability could be the difference

in interpretation and clarity of the scale, while “good attitude” is a general term, the measured

“individual attention from employees” and “they appeared helpful” were more specific in terms

of service quality and were easier to interpret. Similarly for the construct “intention to consume

organic coffee” the item “I think non-organic coffee is bad for my health” was deleted, this was

scale that perhaps confused the students due to the double negatives in the sentence. For the

construct seasonality the item “I prefer my drinks be cold (iced) in the summer and warm (hot) in

the winter.” was deleted. This scale was taken from Mintel LSR: Coffee Houses and Donut

Shops survey. However, while other items measured the intention to see seasonal menus all year-

round, this scale measured their preference for the hot/cold nature of drinks which was somewhat

unrelated to their intention of seeing a variety of options on the menu.

Instrument

We used a 67-item scale for our survey. We made conscious efforts to not keep the

survey just four pages long and comparatively shorter as we realized that long surveys lead to

mental fatigue and individuals cannot accurately answer all questions of the survey by the time

they reach the end. Even though we grouped our questions across common heads such as brand

community, health, coffee store or type of coffee categories, we organized questions from

different constructs randomly so that we could eliminate bias. However, since no method is

foolproof, we can never be fully confident that bias can has been completely eliminated.

We also divided each section according to common topics and gave separate headings

such as “think about your favorite coffee brand store” for questions pertaining to service quality


99

and “think about your favorite coffee brand” for questions pertaining to coffee brand community

or perception of CSR activities of the brand on the whole. We did not keep parts in the survey

that were meant to be skipped and a majority of our questions measured responses with respect

to an individual’s favorite coffee brand/store. We also asked them questions pertaining to

dependent variables many times in the survey. However, one of our dependent variable for past

week’s coffee consumption was not on a Likert scale but just choice based, and several people

chose more than one option, which forced us to eliminate the response for this question from any

correlation based analysis. Such scales require a different technique of analyzing correlation.

Hence, we feel this mistake could have been avoided. We have captured the response to this

question in the frequency distribution section.

Furthermore, some questions are imprecise or a little hard to understand, which could

lead a different answer to the same question. Although most of them are extracted from the

handbook, we could make the sentences easier to understand. For some questions like “How

many did you consume instant mixes?”, we could make the scales more precise.

Methodology

We distributed the questionnaire among students at the George Sherman Union. While

68.2% of our respondents are female and only 31.8% are male, we think the number might not

reflect the distribution of male and female students in Boston University evenly. If possible, we

would suggest choosing a bigger sample in a more scientific way. Even though we believe we

were able to capture data accurately, since many students are generally hard pressed for time, we

can never be completely sure of the accuracy of the data.


100

Also, there is a chance that we made some errors during the process of inputting data into

SPSS. Although we have double-checked our work, it is likely to leave errors in the SPSS. If we

have more time, we will check more times to make sure all the data are correct.

Since our literature review was exhaustive and a lot of work has been done on understanding

the factors that drive coffee consumption, we also believe that the process of elimination we

followed for the predictors may not be foolproof. We may have eliminated some predictors that

significantly drive coffee consumption among college students. However since it is not possible

to measure so many variables without compromising the accuracy of the survey, we also believe

that a focus group could have allowed to add or eliminate our variables/predictor in a more

methodical way. However, we did not have adequate time to conduct a focus group discussion

and we would recommend that future studies conduct focus group reviews.

XI. Conclusion and Recommendations

Most of our respondents often drink Starbucks. They love coffee and don’t object to

drink other coffee brands. At the same time, they are also willing to consume coffee outside the

store. Since the findings have revealed a correlation of ready-to-drink coffee with Starbucks, we

can conclude that students buy “ready-to-drink” coffee from Starbucks(eg. some coffee

beverage). Some students also like making coffee with coffee machine or instant coffee at home,

as revealed by the positive correlation between last week’s coffee consumption and frequency of

making coffee at home. Contrary to the popular perception, Starbucks is now more than a third-

place, because it is a need for the consumers. People drink coffee from Starbucks, irrespective of

whether they stay in the store or whether they consumer it on-the-go or at home. Coffee has


101

evolved as a need as students are also not very conscious of the amount of caffeine they

consume. Starbucks is leader in the category which is now a need. It occupies a substantial

position in terms of market share, and mind-share, and strategy revolves around towards

positioning Starbucks as a generic trademark for coffee as a category. For instance, Google is

now synonymous with search, Aspirin is now synonymous with pain killers, Thermos is now

synonymous with flasks and Xerox is synonymous with photostat. Since Starbucks is a leader in

the coffee industry, we recommend that it plays on its strength of being the market leader, and

launches a campaign which positions Starbucks at par with coffee to help it evolve as a generic

trademark, where Starbucks would essentially be positioned a s verb . We have the following

recommendations based on our research:

1. #Have you Starbucked today? Promote Starbucks tagline on social media. Let

“Starbucks” replace the usage of “coffee” (i.e I Starbucked today)

Our findings reveal that since Starbucks has a correlation with ready-to-drink coffee, it

has penetrated our day to day lives in more ways that we can imagine, and Starbucks is not just

confined to store culture anymore. We suggest that Starbucks launches a 360 marketing

campaign over traditional and digital media to show how it forms an integral part of our day to

day life. It can consist of ads on traditional media, showing people consuming coffee not just at

the Starbucks store, but on the go, and consuming coffee just for the love of coffee. We

recommend that Starbucks makes the word “coffee” synonymous with “Starbucks” in people’s

minds. To promote this concept, we suggest Starbucks posting topics like #HaveyouStarbucked

on Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms. They could encourage customers to post

stories with new usage of the word “Starbucks”, which can be changed from a noun to a verb.


102

2. Promote Membership card/ community

Our research shows that the higher a person’s perception of being a member of a

community and his/her intention to continue being a member, the more likely he/she is to

purchase coffee from that brand in the future.. Besides, there is a strong relation between price

consciousness and buying Dunkin’ Donuts. In order to imbibe a sense of community, and yet not

compromise on pricing, we propose that Starbucks emphasizes on its membership plans and

incentivizing students. We suggest Starbucks promotes its membership system and mobile

application aggressively to attract more customers join the Starbucks community.

3. Expand the Functions of Starbucks APP

Since Starbucks in a brand that can not reduce its pricing in order to maintain its premium

imagery, we suggest that it adds more incentives in its app system in order to appeal to the more

price conscious student. That way Starbucks can have the best of both worlds and promote

specific parts of the application by tying it back to the campaigns it carries forward on. For

instance The “Have you Starbucked?” campaign can talk about a Starbucks experience of

consuming coffee, asking people to try out different coffee flavors, and sharing their story on

social media through the app. The app could also have a function where it can capture the mood

of an individual based on the coffee choices and social media words used by him/her. Finally, as

an incentive the individual's story can be published on the cup with a specific coffee personality,

based on the number of coffee cups an individual might have consumed, additionally discounts

can also be offered to the individual. This strategy also blends perfectly with another finding in

the study that college students are not conscious about caffeine consumption, as our study


103

revealed a strong negative correlation between intention to consume coffee in the future

and their coffee consumption in the past week. Our team also suggests that Starbucks develops

more functions in their application, including sharing the story and including more rewards

systems, and linking the application with users’ social media accounts and Google calendar.

Since the users can share their emotions, activities and coffee consumption habits in the app,

Starbucks can build a database to collect all these information, and analyze the individual

behaviour, and give some recommendations when users plan to make an order. For example, if

the Google calendar shows the user will have a class at 2 p.m., and based on the data, the user

often consume a latte before class, then the app can provide a “1-click purchase” button from

1:30 p.m. to 2 p.m and keep the coffee rady for the individual with having him/her to wait in

long lines.

4. Introduce a $1 coffee with more variables/ pricing

Our research shows a moderate positive relationship between the consumption in Dunkin’

Donuts and price consciousness. As most of the students hope to get “the best price” when

buying Starbucks coffee, and Dunkin’ Donuts and Mcdonald's are more competitive in price. We

suggest Starbucks inventing a new product line that sell at about 1 dollar and promote this “one

dollar coffee” or “one dollar cookie”. With this strategy Starbucks can appeal to the more price

conscious Dunkin’ Donut customers as well, promising them high quality and a premium

experience of the store simultaneously.

5. Availability of Starbucks at other stores/ launching packaged coffee variants


104

Considering people’s willingness to consume multiple kinds of coffee like instant mixes and

ready-to-drink coffee, we think Starbucks could provide various flavors of different coffee

variants. This could be appealing for giving the customers more choices. Besides, it is also

important to expand the channels to sell the coffee variants. For example, Starbucks could

cooperate with a convenience chains to sell coffee. For example back in 2007, Dunkin Donuts

partnered with P & G that sold coffee on behalf of Dunkin Donuts, sharing with it a percentage

of its sales as royalty. Starbucks could also focus on in-store promotion and look at enhancing

partnerships with convenience stores or CPG brands to increase market share and sales from

supermarkets and convenience stores.

6. Enhance hedonic experiences: store design, packaging, service quality, atmosphere

Since the frequency distribution of Store Design, Store Atmosphere and Packaging was

positive for the respondents, hence our findings revealed that all their favorite brands were

offering similar kind of hedonic experiences, and students also have a preference for pleasant

atmosphere and amiable services in the coffee shop.

However, since no significant correlation was revealed with Starbucks and hedonic

experiences. The pleasure may come from several aspects, including store design, product

packaging, store atmosphere and service quality of employees. Based on that, our team suggest

Starbucks should first improve its visual design, which could attract potential customers. For

instance, it could cooperate with some famous designers or character images to push coffee mugs

with special appearance. We also suggest launching some activities to induce participation. For

example, they could call customers to upload their stories relating to coffee to social media and


105

Starbucks would choose the best story and make it as the appearance of the cup. This entire

strategy can also be linked to “Have you Starbucked campaign?” where people share their stories

and the ones with most interesting coffee anecdotes can be finally featured on a Starbucks cup

for a month. While people stand in lines, they can also put up their stories on the Starbucks

“Wall of Fame” to share their coffee experiences with other students. These Starbucks Wall of

Fames can not only enhance their in store experience, but also tie-in back to the original

campaign idea of “Have you Starbucked Today?”.

For store design and atmosphere, Starbucks could provide more facilities and pleasant

background music. They could also consider a special design in different places. For example,

making the store corresponding with the famous attractions nearby might. Starbucks could also

conduct surveys on background music preferences in different locations to please customers and

customize their in-store music accordingly.

As the service providers are important to a hedonic in-store experience. Thus, our team

recommend Starbucks to build a more complete training system for their employees as well as

establish an employee-rating platform for customers. For example, Starbucks baristas can also

share their coffee brewing stories online. Starbucks can also promote barista profiles on the

Facebook page (something on the lines of Human of New York), where the Baristas describe a

unique aspect of their story.

7. “I Love Coffee” Club

Starbuck also can develop its own coffee community, like “I love coffee” club, both

online and offline by building a coffee blog and official site. Starbucks can create specific coffee


106

merchandise such as student bags, mugs, key rings to promote this theme. The heart in the “I

Love Coffee” can be green to connote Starbucks brand imagery and color.

For the blog, they can upload some interesting stories or background knowledge about

coffee, and present them in an interesting way, sharing coffee trivia. The idea is to essentially

own coffee as a term. It can also do some search marketing campaigns by buying the keyword

coffee for a few months and linking these to the blogs and online communities where people

share their coffee experiences. These experiences may not necessarily be at the store, they can be

anywhere, even when consumers are drinking Starbucks on the go. Starbucks can interact with

consumers on these digital platforms. They can encourage consumers to share their own stories

or other information about Starbucks online. Those gain the most “likes” can be rewarded points,

and certain points can get presents.

8. Give Starbucks Secret Menu a new meaning

This recommendation is based on the fact that those who consumed coffee last week, will

make their coffee at home. This recommendation also ties back to the correlation of Starbucks

with ready-to-drink coffee. People are drinking coffee like a need, anywhere and everywhere. So

we can ask people who brew their coffee at home to come up with their own secret menus,. In

addition, we recommend Starbucks hold a “secret menu” competition online. So the social media

can inspire followers to share their special homemade coffee recipes. The one with the most

“likes” can get a present. Starbucks can also organize offline activities in this coffee club. Such

as the coffee workshop, to teach members in the coffee club how to make “Latte Arts.” Starbucks

can also publish a secret menu recipe book, which can be gifted to members of Starbucks clubs.


107

Starbucks can post videos tutorials about latte art on the “I love Coffee” blog so that they can

create their latte arts at home.


108

XII. References

Boscor, A. T. D. and Talpau, J. (2011). Customer-oriented marketing-a strategy that guarantees

success: Starbucks and McDonald’s. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Vol,

4(53). Retrieved October 4 2014, from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/docview/1009904745?accountid=9676

Brizek, M. G. (2014). Coffee wars: The big three: Starbucks, McDonald’s and Dunkin’Donuts.

Journal of Case Research in Business and Economics, 5, 1. Retrieved from

http://m.www.aabri.com/manuscripts/131646.pdf

Bruner II, Gordon C. (2013), Marketing Scales Handbook: Multi-Item Measures for Consumer

Insight Research (Volume 7), Ft. Worth, TX: GCBII Productions, LLC.

Bruner II, Gordon C. (2012), Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item

Measures for Consumer Behavior & Advertising (V6), Ft. Worth TX: GCBII Productions.

Bruner II, Gordon C. (2009), Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item

Measures for Consumer Behavior & Advertising (V5), Carbondale, IL: GCBII Productions.

Buzalka, M. (2004, Oct). Beyond Fair Trade. Food Management; 39, 11; Retrieved from

http://food-management.com/beverages/beyond-fair-trade


http://m.www.aabri.com/manuscripts/131646.pdf


109

Checkers grows Starbucks range. (2012, January 23). The Star (South Africa). Retrieved October

7, 2015, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-277931211.html?refid=easy_hf

Chen, P. & Hu, Hsin-Hui. (2010) "How determinant attributes of service quality influence

customer‐perceived value: An empirical investigation of the Australian coffee outlet industry",

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 Iss: 4, pp.535 - 551

Chua, A. Y., & Banerjee, S. (2013). Customer knowledge management via social media: the case

of Starbucks. Journal of Knowledge Management,17(2), 237-249.

DOI:10.1108/13673271311315196

Convenience stores to offer fresh coffee. (2014, Feb 24). The Daily Yomiuri. Retrieved October

2015, from

http://article.wn.com/view/2014/02/24/Convenience_stores_brewing_coffee/

Dunkin' Donuts franchisee closing 100 stores. (2015, October 02). Retrieved October 04, 2015,

from http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/10/02/dunkin-donuts-franchisee-closing-100-stores/

Dunkin' Donuts press kit. (n. d.). Dunkin’ Donuts Newsroom. Retrieved October 6, 2015, from

http://news.dunkindonuts.com/presskits/dunkin-donuts-press-kit

Dunkin' Donuts. (n.d.). Dunkin’ Donuts Newsroom. Retrieved October 6, 2015, from

http://news.dunkindonuts.com/about

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-277931211.html?refid=easy_hf

http://article.wn.com/view/2014/02/24/Convenience_stores_brewing_coffee/

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/10/02/dunkin-donuts-franchisee-closing-100-stores/


http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/content/mcd/our_company/mcdonalds-history.html



http://news.dunkindonuts.com/about


110

Exclusive Coffee Roast Debuts. (2009, February 15). Foodservice Director, 22, 2. Retrieved

October 6, 2015, from http://www.foodservicedirector.com/archive/archived-

content/articles/exclusive-coffee-roast-debuts

Fitzgerald M. (2013). How Starbucks Has Gone Digital, MITSloan Management Review,

Retrieved October 7, 2015, from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-starbucks-has-gone-

digital/

Fleming. M. M. (2015, Sep 3). Battling beans: convenience store coffee competition heats up.

Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-38715497/battling-beans-convenience-

store-coffee-competition

Gaille, B. (2013, October 29). 25 coffee shop industry statistics and trends - BrandonGaille.com.

Retrieved October 6, 2015, from http://brandongaille.com/25-coffee-shop-industry-statistics-and-

trends/

Gallo Torres, J. (2014, December). LSR: Coffee Houses and Donut Shops - US - December 2014

(Rep.). Retrieved October 6, 2015 from Mintel

http://academic.mintel.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/display/679896/#



http://www.foodservicedirector.com/archive/archived-content/articles/exclusive-coffee-roast-debuts



http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-starbucks-has-gone-digital/

https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-38715497/battling-beans-convenience-store-coffee-competition

https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-38715497/battling-beans-convenience-store-coffee-competition



http://brandongaille.com/25-coffee-shop-industry-statistics-and-trends/


111

Hall, J. (2015, April 2). Fenwick stocking new coffee brand Point Blank Cold Brew. Retrieved

Retrieved from October 7, 2015 from

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/

Harrison, J. S., Chang, E. Y., Gauthier, C., Joerchel, T., Nevarez, J., & Wang, M. (2005).

Exporting a north American concept to Asia Starbucks in China. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 275-283. DOI: 10.1177/0010880404273893

Huang, H. C., Chang, Y. T., Yeh, C. Y., & Liao, C. W. (2014). Promote the price promotion:

The effects of price promotions on customer evaluations in coffee chain stores. International

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(7), 1065-1082. DOI:10.1108/IJCHM-05-

2013-0204

Oldenburg, Ray (2000). Celebrating the Third Place: Inspiring Stories about the "Great Good

Places" at the Heart of Our Communities. New York: Marlowe & Company. ISBN 978-1-

56924-612-2.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-56924-612-2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-56924-612-2


112

Japan gets taste for 7-Eleven coffee - $1 cups drive surge in consumer demand. (2015, Augest 3).

The Bangkok Post. Retrieved October 7, 2015, from


Jeong, E., Jang, S. (., Day, J., & Ha, S. (2014). The impact of eco-friendly practices on green

image and customer attitudes: An investigation in a café setting. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 41, 10-20. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.

Jervis, S. M., Lopetcharat, K., & Drake, M. A. (2012). Application of ethnography and conjoint

analysis to determine key consumer attributes for latte-style coffee beverages. Journal of Sensory

Studies, 27(1), 48-58.

Kharif, O. (2014, November). These apps mean you'll never wait in line for coffee again.

Business Week, 1. Retrieved October 7, 2015, from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1636890191?accountid=9676

Kings, S. (2013, June 8). Coffee drives you crazy (give it up and see). Retrieved from






113

Kobayashi, M. L., & Benassi, M. D. T. (2015). Impact of packaging characteristics on consumer

purchase intention: Instant coffee in refill packs and glass jars. Journal of Sensory Studies. DOI:

10.1111/joss.12142

Labbe, D., Ferrage, A., Rytz, Andreas., Pace, J., Martin, N. (2015). Pleasantness and perceptions

induced by coffee beverage experience depend on the consumption motivation (Hedonic or

Utilitarian). Food Quality and Preference. 2015, Vol.44, p.56.

doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.03.017

Lin, E. (2012). Starbucks as the third place: Glimpses into Taiwan's consumer culture and

lifestyles. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 24(1-2), 119. Retrieved from


McDonald's history. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, October 6, from

http://www.aboutMcDonalds.com/content/mcd/our_company/McDonalds-history.html

Obermiller, C., Burke, C., Talbott, E., & Green, G. P. (2009). ‘Taste Great or More Fulfilling’:

The Effect of Brand Reputation on Consumer Social Responsibility Advertising for Fair Trade

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.03.017

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.03.017






114

Coffee. Corp Reputation Rev Corporate Reputation Review, 12(2), 159-176.

doi:10.1057/crr.2009.11

Richelieu, A., & Korai, B. (2014). The consumption experience of Tim Hortons’ coffee fans.

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 17(3), 192-208. Retrieved from:


Ripley, A. (2015, 05). How to graduate from starbucks. The Atlantic Monthly, 315, 60-66,68,70-

72. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1686812696?accountid=9676

Simon, B. (2011). Not going to Starbucks: Boycotts and the out-scouring of politics in the

branded world. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(2), 145-167. doi:10.1177/1469540511402448

Sisel, E. (Mintel, September, 2015). Coffee - US - September 2015. Retrieved, October 2015

from http://academic.mintel.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/display/716447/



http://academic.mintel.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/display/716447/


115

Smith Maguire, J., & Hu, D. (2013). Not a simple coffee shop: local, global and glocal

dimensions of the consumption of Starbucks in China. Social Identities,19(5), 670-684. doi:

10.1080/13504630.2013.835509

Starbucks annual report 2014. (2014). Retrieved October 7, 2015,

from http://investor.starbucks.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=99518&p=irol-reportsannual

Starbucks company profile. (2015). Retrieved October 7, 2015, from

http://www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information/starbucks-company-profile

Starbucks global responsibility report goals & progress 2014. (2014). Retrieved October 7, 2015,

from http://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/global-report

Starbucks mission statement. (2010). Retrieved October 7, 2015, from

http://www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information/mission-statement

Starbucks target market. (n.d.). Retrieved October 04, 2015,

from http://www.termpaperwarehouse.com/essay-on/Starbucks-Target-Market/162072.





http://www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information/starbucks-company-profile





http://www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information/mission-statement

http://www.termpaperwarehouse.com/essay-on/Starbucks-Target-Market/162072




116

Thompson, C., & Arsel, Z. (2004). The Starbucks brandscape and consumers’ (Anticorporate)

experiences of glocalization. J CONSUM RES Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 631-642.

doi:10.1086/425098

Tumanan, M. A. R., & Lansangan, J. R. G. (2012). More than just a cuppa coffee: A multi-

dimensional approach towards analyzing the factors that define place attachment. International

Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 529-534. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.012

Vallen, B., G. Block, L., & Eisenstein, E. (2014). How missed temporal deadlines influence

consumption behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing,31(5), 360-370. Retrieved from


Van Doorn, G., Colonna‐Dashwood, M., Hudd‐Baillie, R., & Spence, C. (2015). Latté Art

Influences both the Expected and Rated Value of Milk‐Based Coffee Drinks. Journal of Sensory

Studies, 30(4), 305-315.doi: 10.1111/joss.12159

Van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2015). Drivers of and barriers to organic purchase behavior.

Journal of Retailing, 91(3), 436-450. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2015.02.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.012



117

Walker, T. (2013). Heavy coffee consumption may endanger health in adults younger than 55.

Formulary, 48.9. Retrieved from


Wang, Y., Qiao, F., & Peng, W. (2015). Is the Size or the Valence of Proactive Engagement

Associated with Purchase Intention? A Case Study of Branded Blogs of Starbucks. International

Journal of Strategic Communication, 9(3), 197-216. doi:10.1080/1553118x.2014.924125

Westgarth, J. (2015, July). Creating indulgent food at home - 27th July 2015. Retrieved October

2015 from http://academic.mintel.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/display/743990/

Yuan., Yi-Hua Erin. & Wu., Chihkang. Relationships Among Experiential Marketing,

Experiential Value, and Customer Satisfaction Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

August 2008 vol. 32 no. 3 387-410

York, E. B. (2010). Starbucks gets its business brewing again with social media. Advertising

Age, 81(8), 34. Retrieved from http://vandymkting.typepad.com/files/2010-2-22-advertising-age-

starbuks-gets-its-business-brewing-again-with-social-media.pdf


http://academic.mintel.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/display/743990/

http://jht.sagepub.com/search?author1=Chihkang+%E2%80%9CKenny%22+Wu&sortspec=date&submit=Submit


118

Documents

Report Students coffee consumptions