Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27:324333, 2010 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1054-8408

8 print / 1540-7306 online DOI: 10.1080/10548401003744792

WTTM

RELATING THE ZONE OF TOLERANCE TO SERVICE FAILURE IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY

Noor Azimin Zainol Andrew Lockwood Elmar Kutsch

Zainol, Lockwood, and Kutsch

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this study was to explore the zone of tolerance concept in relation to
perceptions of service encounters, specifically when service failures are likely to occur. A simulated restaurant experience consisting of a series of dining service encounters was conducted with a sample of academic staff and research students. Results showed that individuals have different perceptions with different variability in their zone of tolerance; individuals appear to have a larger zone of tolerance when dealing with negative encounters and a narrower zone of tolerance for positive encounters. In addition, an initial negative encounter predisposes customers to future negative encounters. Failure is seen as a difficult concept to judge as individuals have diverse perceptions of what constitutes a failure and when it starts. Further research directions are proposed.

KEYWORDS. Zone of tolerance, service failure, encounter, restaurant

INTRODUCTION
The zone of tolerance concept has been cited in the service quality and customer satisfaction literature over the past decades to model the relationship between different expectation levels (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991; Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithaml, 1991; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1993). It represents both a range of expectations and an area of acceptable outcomes in service encounters (Johnston, 1995; Gwynne, Devlin, & Ennew, 2000) and is based on the assumption that customers recognize and are willing to accept a degree of variability in service quality (Johnston; Liljander & Strandvik, 1993, Parasuraman et al., 1991; Zeithaml et al., 1993).

Expectations have become an important theoretical concept among zone of tolerance scholars. For most authors, customer expectations are seen as beliefs about future service delivery that serve as a reference point against which performance is judged (Zeithaml et al., 2006). Expectations of what constitutes good service vary from one individual to another, one business to another, and one encounter to another (Lovelock, 2001). Johnston and Clark (2005) argue that knowing what customers expect is very important in delivering quality service, as it is essential to manage and manipulate those customer perceptions during the service delivery process in order to achieve the desired level of overall satisfaction.

Noor Azimin Zainol (E-mail: n.zainol@surrey.ac.uk) is a Doctoral Candidate and Andrew Lockwood (E-mail: A.Lockwood@surrey.ac.uk) is the Forte Professor of Management in the Faculty of Management and Law at the University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom. Elmar Kutsch is a Lecturer in Project and Program Management of the School of Management at Cranfield University, Cranfield, United Kingdom (E-mail: elmar.kutsch@Cranfield.ac.uk). Address correspondence to: Noor Azimin Zainol at above address.
324

Zainol, Lockwood, and Kutsch

325

FIGURE 1. The Zone of Tolerance Concept (Parasuraman et al., 1991).

Adequate Desired

Zone of Tolerance Service level expectation

Low High

A commonly used visualization of expectations (Teas, 1993; Zeithaml et al., 1993; Johnston, 1995) is a continuum along which different possible types of service expectations are portrayed from high expectations (ideal or desired expectations) to low ones (minimum tolerable expectations). Johnston further suggests that customers who enter the service process with their predetermined expectations can exit with three possible outcomesa more than acceptable, acceptable, or unacceptable outcome. The more than acceptable outcome refers to service performance which delights customers by exceeding their expectations, while the unacceptable outcome relates to performance which is below expectations and hence dissatisfying. The acceptable outcome means that, although the service may not be a perfect fit to expectations in all respects, customers are willing to accept these variations within a specified range of performance while still being satisfied with the outcome. This zone of acceptable outcome is referred to as the zone of tolerance. Thus, the generally accepted notion of the zone of tolerance is the recognition that it falls between two expectation standardsthe desired service level and the adequate service level (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991; Lovelock, 2001; Zeithaml et al., 1993). Figure 1 illustrates the zone of tolerance concept as suggested by Parasuraman et al. (1991). Desired service is defined as a blend of what can and should be provided, while adequate service refers to the minimum level of service performance a customer considers acceptable (Parasuraman et al., 1994). If a service is delivered above the desired service level then the customer will be satisfied, if not delighted; whereas if a performance falls below the adequate level of expectation, customers might be

frustrated and dissatisfied. If the service performance is within the range of the zone of tolerance, performance is acceptable and customers will be satisfied. Gronroos (2001) indicated that the zone of tolerance assumes that customers do not have expectations of a service attribute at only one given level. The inherent nature of services not only makes consistent service delivery difficult but also means that perceptions may vary among customers, and from transaction to transaction for the same customer (Gilbert & Gao, 2005). Some customers may have a narrow zone of tolerance, requiring a more consistent level of service from providers, whereas other customers may tolerate a greater range of service performance. The zone of tolerance might expand or contract for an individual customer dependent on factors such as price, competition, or specific service attributes (Zeithaml et al., 2006). It is suggested that the more critical or important the service attribute, the narrower the zone of tolerance would be and vice versa. Johnston (1995) also raised the notion that a failure in a single element of the service encounter may add a negative score toward the overall service experience. In addition, an initial service failure may also sensitize customers to more negative perceptions in upcoming service elements; thus, resulting in a narrower zone of tolerance. Individuals accept a degree of variability in the service offering through the zone of tolerance mechanism; however, to date, there has been little published work exploring the dynamic fluctuations of the zone of tolerance during the service delivery process in order to become aware of the tipping point where a failure actually starts (Johnston). The purpose of this study is to explore the zone of tolerance concept in the context of a

326

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

simple restaurant dining experience and its link to perceptions of individual service encounters. The dining experience is operationalized as a series of separate interactions between the service provider and a customer. The specific study objectives are to: (a) examine the customers degree of variability when dealing with positive and negative encounters; (b) identify customers level of agreement/disagreement on the nature of individual service encounters; (c) determine whether there is any relationship between perceptions of these negative and positive encounters; and (d) explore whether there is any difference between specific groups in terms of the service encountered.

negative statements given to customers to encapsulate the dining experience. Respondents were asked to answer statements on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being negative and 10 being positive. Respondents were also asked to rate their overall response to this dining experience from 1 to 10, with 1 being dissatisfied and 10 being satisfied. The instrument was piloted with expert colleagues to check for face validity and wording of the statements. Statements were modified based on comments received (see Appendix).

Procedures
The workshop was divided into three parts. First, respondents were asked to picture themselves in a mid-priced restaurant that they might have visited in the past few months; they were then given the survey instrument and asked to respond directly to this scenario. Next, respondents formed small groups of three or four to discuss their individual answers, with particular attention to similarities and discrepancies for individual responses. Statements receiving the highest level of agreement and disagreement were noted on a flipchart for presentation and discussion. Finally, each groups findings were presented and possible reasons for the differences were discussed. Data collected were then transferred, coded, and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS version 12.0). Findings discussed in this article are based largely on the results of the first part of the workshop but interpretation has been informed by the subsequent discussions. A series of data analyses were conducted, including descriptive statistics, box plot analysis, correlations, and t-test analysis.

METHODOLOGY Sample
This exploratory study was conducted as a workshop exercise in the Hospitality and Food Management Group at a major university in the United Kingdom, with a total of 14 academic staff and PhD students. The small sample, while recognized as a study limitation, was deemed appropriate at this initial exploratory stage.

Research Instrument Design

Most studies investigating zones of tolerance used surveys as a means of data collection (Gilbert & Gao, 2005; Nadiri & Hussain, 2005; Durvasula, Lobo, Lysonski, & Mehta, 2006; Yap & Sweeney, 2007). Lesser used data collection methods were telephone interviews (Michel, 2004), scenario-based studies (Teas & DeCarlo, 2004), and cluster analysis (Gwynne et al., 2000). The instrument used in the workshop was designed to elicit participants perceptions in a simulated restaurant experience based on similar experiences they may have had recently in a mid-priced restaurant. It followed a customers journey through a typical meal experience. Each step was described as a specific service encounter which had a researchers predetermined positive or negative connotation. There were a total of 11 positive statements and 9

RESULTS Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for each service encounter and also shows its predetermined status (positive or negative). As expected, the predetermined positive encounters received higher mean scores while

Zainol, Lockwood, and Kutsch

327

TABLE 1. Descriptives for Individual Encounters

Item Chocolate Main course Olives Toilet 5 minutes Booking Decor Water Farewell Table Menu Starter Entrance Noise Bill Black pepper Service charge Wrong starter Abrupt Wine Overall Note. n = 14. Min. 7 6 6 5 5 4 5 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 Max. 10 9 9 10 9 8 8 10 10 9 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 5 6 7 8 Mean 8.57 8.00 7.50 7.36 7.36 6.86 6.86 6.57 5.93 5.86 5.29 5.00 4.36 4.29 3.93 3.57 3.36 2.71 2.50 1.93 5.36 Std. deviation .938 .961 .855 1.447 1.393 1.406 .864 1.869 2.269 1.875 2.128 1.710 1.646 1.684 1.639 1.399 1.985 1.490 1.557 1.774 1.598 Predetermined positive/negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Positive

the predetermined negative encounters received lower means. Chocolates have the highest mean (8.57) with minimum value of 7 and maximum value of 10 which has also resulted in a low standard deviation (.938). This is followed by main course with a mean of 8 and a slight higher standard deviation compared to chocolates (.96). The lowest mean relates to wine (1.93) followed by abrupt service (2.5) and wrong starter (2.71). The lowest standard deviation is derived from olives (.855) followed by dcor (.864) and chocolates (.938), while the highest standard deviations are associated with farewell (2.269), menu (2.218), and service charge (1.985). The value ranges for the positive encounters are smaller as compared to the ones for negative encounters. The only positively determined item to receive a negative score (i.e., below the cut-off point of 5.5) is the item menu. This related to the waiter informing the guests that two items on the printed menu were not available that evening. With a mean of 5.29 and a standard deviation of 2.13, this encounter would seem to be perceived as negative by the group as a whole but with limited consistency of opinion. Apart from this

item, the predetermined classification of encounters has been supported. A box plot analysis was employed to convey graphically data variability, especially when comparing several statements simultaneously. Figure 2 shows the spread of individual encounter scores, grouped by their predetermined classification (positive/negative) while also being organized in descending order of the means of individual encounters, represented by the line across the inter-quartile range. The box plot highlights some interesting data patterns. Items predetermined as positive have scored, with a single exception, above the scale mid-point of 5.5. Indeed, the mean of all these items is just over 6.9 with a standard deviation of 1.45. The corresponding data for the negative items was 3.5 and 1.65. As expected, the means fit clearly with the predetermined classification. The picture in relation to the level of agreement amongst the sample about the scores for individual items is less clear. It would appear that the standard deviation for the positive items is lower than that for the negative items. This would suggest more agreement about things going right and less agreement

328

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

FIGURE 2. Box Plot of Encounter Scores.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Olives Fiveminutes Chocolate Maincourse Booking Farewell Wine Bill Servicecharge Entrance Wrongstarter Blackpepper Overall Toilet Starter Abrupt Table Menu Water Decor Noise

10

Negative items

9 8 7 6 5 4

Positive items

3 2 1 0

about things going wrong. In other words, while people seem to be able to agree about what constitutes a good service experience, there is less consensus when an element of that experience is seen as bad or when a failure has occurred. However, a closer inspection of the positive items shows considerable discrepancy with some items, such as olives, dcor, chocolates, and main course, having a standard deviation of less than 1; and others, such as water, table, menu, and farewell, having a standard deviation higher than 1.8 higher than any of the negatively classified items. The evidence, therefore, is inconclusive as to the nature of the tolerance levels for different service situations and needs further clarification.

and wine added to bill (.634), and between noise and the slow bill (.621). As for positive statements, at the 99% level there was strong correlation between water and olives (.818), toilet and main course (.664), and water and chocolates (.633); while at the 95% level the correlations were between water and chocolates (.633), table and menu (.628), and dcor and olives (.625). In terms of correlations between positive statements and negative statements, at the 95% level the only significant result was between entrance and water (.804); while at the 95% level they were between table and menu (.628), table and 5 minutes (.539), and service charge and overall performance (.636).

Group Discussions
Group discussions identified statements where respondents showed either agreement or disagreement on those being positive or negative. Respondents agreed on 10 statements (7 positive and 3 negative ones). Three groups confirmed their agreement on chocolates, olives, and main course, which were all positive items. Two out of the four groups agreed on abrupt staff as negative. The other statements where the groups felt they had similar ratings were sitting near the entrance, booking, incorrect bill, dcor, toilet, and pleasant farewell. On the other hand, there were 11 statements that showed limited agreement among

Correlation Analyses
Relationships between all statements were investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Regarding negative statements, at the 99% level of significance there was a strong correlation between noise and black pepper (.873), noise and abrupt staff (.763), wine added to the bill and abrupt staff (.822), and starter and abrupt staff (.708); while at the 95% level there was significant correlation between the starter arriving in 15 minutes and noise (.641), starter arriving in 15 minutes

Zainol, Lockwood, and Kutsch

329

respondents. Seven were negative statements while four were positive statements. The positive statements were being given free water, the menu issue, the farewell, and chocolates. Negative statements were slow delivery of the bill, wrong delivery of a starter, service charge added, black pepper problems, being directed to a table near the entrance, incorrect bill, and the starter arriving after 15 minutes.

Independent t Tests
In order to test whether there was a difference between those participants seeing the overall experience as positive and those seeing it as negative, the group was split into two, based on the overall satisfaction score. There were seven people placed in the dissatisfied group and seven people in the satisfied group. An independent sample t test was carried out to test whether there was a significant difference between the two groups in relation to each of the statements. Results showed that there were only three statistically significant differences in scores for the statements, namely service charge, toilet, and water. The results for service charge showed a mean for the satisfied group of 4.86 (SD = .90) and for the dissatisfied group of 1.86 (SD = 1.57). This difference was significant at the 99% level. The corresponding scores for toilet were 8.14 (SD = 1.215) and 6.57 (SD = 1.27) at the 95% confidence level. For water the scores were 7.57 (SD = 1.51) and 5.57 (SD = 1.72), again at the 95% level.

DISCUSSION
A number of interesting insights were gained from this exploratory study. In general, positive encounters received higher means whereas negative encounters attracted lower means, supporting the researchers initial classification of items, with the only exception being the menu item. When assessing the data spread, positive items showed mostly a narrower range of scores than negative items, suggesting that zones of tolerance are more varied for negative outcomes compared to positive ones.

Furthermore, while there was general agreement that a particular action could be classified as a failure there was much less agreement about how bad that failure was. Failure seems to be a more difficult concept for individuals to judge than success. Furthermore, the more negative outcomes toward the end of the dining experience have resulted in lower means as respondents seem to become more disposed toward negative experiences. For example, the item On leaving the restaurant, the manager wishes you a pleasant evening and says that he hopes to see you again soon was classified as positive, with a mean score of 5.93, and a range of scores from 1 to 10. Saying goodbye to customers is seen as good hospitality practice and yet many of the respondents saw it as negative. This was, however, the final item in the exercise and it is possible that previous events that were seen as negative have had an influence on some of the respondents perceptions, narrowing the zone of tolerance. According to Johnston (1995), a dissatisfying or a satisfying encounter might have an impact on the zone of tolerance, with a dissatisfying experience having more influence on the tolerance zone, and the individual being more negatively disposed toward future encounters. The suggestion here is that dissatisfying experiences raise the general level of adequate service expectations so that a previously unnoticed irritation in a service transaction might subsequently be a potential source of service failure. Results also suggest that the zones of tolerance might contract not only for each individual encounter but also influence the overall evaluation of the experience. However, in the existing data there is no conclusive supporting evidence, opening an area for further research. Limited research has been conducted which discusses the level of agreements/disagreements among individuals about a service encounter, in particular service problems. The purpose of this work was to relate the concept of zone of tolerance to perceptions of service encounters by attempting to manipulate respondents tolerance zones on positive and negative statements. It was found that respondents agreed mostly on statements that lead to positive outcomes and go

330

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

beyond a customers satisfaction; that is, being given free chocolates, free olives, and a good presentation of the main course. These actions demonstrate good, quality, and hospitable service which should always be offered in the service industry. However, in other areas, individuals view the encounters differently. Individuals might have their tolerance level constructed based on past experience, word-of-mouth, marketing influence by the service provider, etc., or may be influenced by their personality traits. A perfectionist, for example, will require the service to be timely and accurate at all times, and thus have a higher level of lower limit of their tolerance zone while a more relaxed person might have a lower level of lower limit of their tolerance zone and thus, accept a few minutes delay in the delivery of the main course, for example, as being perfectly acceptable. In general, a problem might be regarded as severe to one individual (with a narrow zone of tolerance) but might be less severe to someone else (with a wider zone of tolerance). It can be assumed that the level of agreement between individuals varies from one another, depending on their expectations and perceptions. This insight has not previously been highlighted in the literature. It was also shown that there was a higher intercorrelation between negative items than between positive items, and little intercorrelation between positive and negative items. This suggests that once individuals have perceived something as negative they are likely to perceive other occurrences as negative, too. Conversely, one positive occurrence does not seem to result in individuals seeing other things more positive, and seeing something as positive would not appear to offset seeing other things as negative. From a managerial perspective then, avoiding getting things wrong is much more significant to customers overall perceptions than getting things obviously right.

ones, suggesting that respondents have diverse perceptions as to what constitutes a failure and the tipping point at which failure actually starts. Indeed, the key interest here is at the bottom end of the zone of tolerancethe tipping point from success to failurerather than at the top end of the zone where little evidence has been revealed. It was found that customers have different perceptions with different degrees of variability in terms of their zones of tolerance when facing positive or negative encounters. Specifically, customers have a larger zone of tolerance when facing negative encounters and a narrower zone of tolerance when dealing with positive encounters. In addition, customers will be more predisposed to more negative encounters following initial negative encounters. It is crucial for managers to identify service shortfalls (performance below the tipping point of adequate service) and concentrate their corrective efforts on those attributes that are central to customers quality perceptions. This will result in higher quality service and greater operational efficiency. However, the issue here is at what point a service weakness is likely to turn into a failurethe tipping point at which customers are no longer tolerant toward the service performance. This is an area that needs to be explored further. By recognizing the zones of tolerance of customers, service providers can determine where service problems might exist and hence prevent dissatisfying experiences before they occur.

STUDY LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This research was exploratory in nature and has clear limitations, particularly the small sample size. While it does offer initial empirical support for a zone of tolerance concept that has been largely theoretical, it is exploratory and applied to a single restaurant context only. More research needs to be conducted, in particular in relation to defining service failures from different perspectives, and testing in other service

CONCLUSION
The key contribution of this article lies in the discovery of greater variances in perceptions of negative encounters compared to positive

Zainol, Lockwood, and Kutsch

331

contexts. The simulation exercise is limited in explaining emotions and risks involved, and the context of the situation as compared to a real life situation. Also, it is devoid of knowledge of past experiences of patronizing the restaurant which may affect customers expectations and subsequent evaluation.

REFERENCES
Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1991). Marketing services: Competing through quality. New York: The Free Press. Durvasula, S., Lobo, A. C., Lysonski, S., & Mehta, S. C. (2006). Finding the two sweet spot: A two industry study using the zone of tolerance to identify determinant service quality attributes. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 10(3), 244259. Gilbert, D., & Gao, Y. (2005). A failure of UK travel agencies to strengthen zones of tolerance. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(4), 306321. Gronroos, C. (2001). Service management and marketing: A customer relationship approach (2nd ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Gwynne, A. L., Devlin, J. F., & Ennew, C. T. (2000). The zone of tolerance: Insights and influences. Journal of Marketing Management, 16, 545564. Johnston, R. (1995). The zone of tolerance: Exploring the relationship between service transaction and satisfaction with overall service. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6(2), 4661. Johnston, R., & Clark, G. (2005). Service perations management: Improving service delivery (2nd ed.). Essex, UK: Prentice Hall. Liljander, V., & Strandvik, T. (1993). Estimating zones of tolerance in perceived service quality and perceived service value. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 4(2), 628.

Lovelock, C. (2001). Services marketing: People, technology and strategy (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Michel, S. (2004). Consequences of perceived acceptability of a banks service failures. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 8(4), 367377. Nadiri, H., & Hussain, K. (2005). Diagnosing the zone of tolerance for hotel services. Managing Service Quality, 15(3), 259277. Parasuraman, A, Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Understanding customers expectations of service. Sloan Management Review, 32(3), 3948. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1994). Alternative scales for measuring service quality: A comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 193199. Teas, R. K. (1993). Expectations, performance, evaluations and consumers perception of quality. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1834. Teas, R. K., & DeCarlo, T. E. (2004). An examination and extension of the zone-of-tolerance model: A comparison to performance-based models of perceived service quality. Journal of Service Research, 6(3), 272286. Yap. K. B., & Sweeney. J. C. (2007). Zone of tolerance moderates the service quality-outcome relationship. Journal of Services Marketing, 21(2), 137148. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and determinants of customer expectations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 112. Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. G. (2006). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm (International ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

SUBMITTED: January 14, 2009 FINAL REVISION SUBMITTED: May 15, 2009 FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED: July 1, 2009 ACCEPTED: July 12, 2009 REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY

332

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

APPENDIX Instruction Sheet For Workshop Participants

Think about a mid-priced restaurant (meal price range from 1015 per person) which you have visited last few months. You are given a list of statements (20 statements) concerning a dinner experience you had with your partner in the restaurant. You are asked to rate these statements on the scale of 110 points, ranging from 1 = Negative to 10 = Positive. You have 10 minutes to complete this part of exercise. You are then asked to score your overall rating for their dinner experience in the restaurant on a scale of 1 to 10 (not satisfied to satisfied). In groups of four, you are asked to discuss the similarities or discrepancies of your answers and state WHY. Please note down your answers on the flipcharts given for discussion/presentation thereafter. List of Statements: You called the restaurant at about 5 p.m. to make a last minute booking for two to celebrate your partners promotion, looking for a table at about 6 p.m. The receptionist replies that the restaurant is fully booked but if you come along at about 6:30 p.m., they should be able to find a table for you. (Booking) When you arrive at the restaurant, your discussion about a table reservation has not been recorded, but they do find a table for you. (Table) You are directed to a table near the entrance although you would have preferred a table near the window. (Entrance) After being seated, you are brought a bottle of filtered water, free of charge. (Water) You notice that the interior dcor inside the restaurant; e.g, the curtains, paintings, etc., is pleasant. (Dcor) The waiter brings the menu for you. The waiter informs you that two of the items are not available but all the others are. (Menu) You place your order. The waiter then brings you a bowl of olives and a selection of Italian breads with olive oil, free of charge. (Olives) Your starter takes 15 minutes to arrive. (Starter) You go to the toilet and find that it is very clean and smells fresh. (Toilet) When your starter is delivered, you find that it is not the starter that you ordered. (Wrong starter) While having dinner, the restaurant manager approaches you and your partner. He presents a box of chocolates to your partner as he understood the dinner was a celebration for her. (Chocolates) Your starters are cleared and your main courses arrive in 5 minutes. (Five minutes) The main courses are both well presented. (Main course) The customers at the next table are making a noise that you find rather disruptive. (Noise) You raised your hand to ask for extra black pepper but none of the waiters noticed it. (Black pepper) You asked for the bill and it takes 10 minutes to prepare it and handed it to you. (Bill) The member of staff who presents you with the bill is rather abrupt. (Abrupt) Rate

Zainol, Lockwood, and Kutsch

333

You checked the bill and find that a glass of wine has been included that you did not order. (Wine) You notice that a 15% service charge has been added to the bill. (Service charge) On leaving the restaurant, the manager wishes you a pleasant evening and says that he hopes to see you again soon. (Farewell) Your overall rating of the dinner experience on a scale of 1 to 10 (not satisfied to satisfied) = _____.

Copyright of Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.