Hospitality Review

Volume 10
Article 3
Issue 2 Hospitality Review Volume 10/Issue 2

January 1992

Customer Perception of Drive-Thru Service

Sharon Hearne Morcos
Kansas State University, [email protected]

Jinmee Tak
Kansas State University, [email protected]

Mary B. Gregoire
Kansas State University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/hospitalityreview

Part of the Hospitality Administration and Management Commons

Recommended Citation
Morcos, Sharon Hearne; Tak, Jinmee; and Gregoire, Mary B. (1992) "Customer Perception of Drive-Thru Service," Hospitality Review:
Vol. 10 : Iss. 2 , Article 3.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/hospitalityreview/vol10/iss2/3

This work is brought to you for free and open access by FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hospitality Review by an
authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Customer Perception of Drive-Thru Service
Abstract
The rapid growth of off-premise dining and, consequently, drive- thru service, presents the challenge of
building customer loyalty in a highly competitive marketplace. In this study, customer perceptions of drive-
thru service associated with quick service restaurants were examined. Results suggest that service time
appears to differ among quick service restaurants, even those within the same chain. Employee courtesy was
rated positively at all restaurants, as was food quality. The implications of these results for restaurateurs who
offer drive-thru service are discussed.

Keywords
Sharon Hearne Morcos, Jinmee Tak, Mary O. Gregoire, Customer Perceptions of Drive-Thru Service, Speed
of Service, Accuracy of Service, Quick Service Restaurant (QSR), Food Quality

This article is available in Hospitality Review: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/hospitalityreview/vol10/iss2/3

 Customer Perceptions
of Drive-Thru Service

by
Sharon Hearne Morcos
and
Jinmee Tak
and
Mary 0. Gregoire

The rapid growth of off-premise dining and, consequently, drive-

thru service, presents the challenge of building customer loyalty in
a highly competitive marketplace. In this study, customer
perceptions of drive-thru service associated with quick service
restaurants were examined. Results suggest that service time
appears to differ among quick service restaurants, even those
within the same chain. Employee courtesy was rated positively at
all restaurants, as was food quality. The implications of these
results for restaurateurs who offer drive-thru service are discussed.

Lifestyle changes in recent years have generated a n increased

d e m a n d for m a n y t i m e - s a v e r services, i n c l u d i n g m e a l
preparation.' The desire for speed and convenience is reflected in
the dramatic growth of off-premise dining.2 On-premise customer
traffic grew only 2 percent between 1982 and 1989, compared to a
38 percent gain in off-premise dining. Drive-thru service has
emerged as the largest contributor to off-premise growth a t quick
service restaurants, accounting for 33 percent of orders."
Consumer perception that fast food restaurants are no longer
as fast as they used to be,? however, finds operators scrambling to
speed up service in a highly competitive market comprised of less
than loyal customers. The industry, attempting to disassociate the
"fast food" concept from "junk food" by using the term "quick"
service, puts a n even greater premium on speed.
Innovative drive-thru technology appears to be one solution to
the speed problems of quick service restaurants. The drive-thru's
popular today have come a long way from their roots in the Pig
S t a n d drive-ins of t h e 1 9 2 0 s . 3 m p l o y e e s using automated
windows, remote headsets, and computerized registers with video
readouts to food and beverage preparation areas have replaced the
car hops of the '50s. Double booth drive-thru's help prevent traffic
bottlenecks occurring during preparation of special or unusually
large orders, while computerized order boards allow customers to
enter their own requests6 Burger King and Rally's are testing

FIU Hospitality Review, Volume 10, Number 2, 1992

Contents © 1992 by FIU Hospitality Review. The reproduction of any
artwork, editorial or other material is expressly prohibited without written
permission from the publisher.
video drive-thrus that provide face-to-face communication and
permit customers to double-check orders and bill totals displayed
on the ~ c r e e n .Cafeterias
~ are beginning to capitalize on the drive-
thru trend as well.8
The quest for speed also has led to the emergence and steady
growth of drive-thru only operations.' By returning to the original
fast food basics of limited menus, low prices, and no frills, speedy
service, t h e s e freestanding kiosks a r e considerably more
economical to build and operate.1°
Consumers are not interested only in speed, however. Food
quality, consistency, service, and price are also part of their value
perception.'' According to a recent CREST report, more than
half the quick service customers select a restaurant based upon
the service offered. Good service was ranked second only to
quality of food a s the major reason for choosing a fast food
restaurant. Service now is viewed as a major influencer of the
initial choice to visit any restaurant, as well as whether or not to
return.''
Quality is determined by the customer's perception in any
service encounter.13 I n t h e 1990s, t h e vocabulary of t h a t
perception may mean quality i s equated with hassle-free
performance, and convenience with time control.14 Although each
restaurant's concept of service quality is unique, Martin suggested
t h a t excellent service is a combination of two major factors:
procedures, which are the technical systems involved in delivering
products to the customer, and conviviality, which is the server's
ability to relate graciously to the customer.15
The purpose of t h i s s t u d y was to examine customer
perceptions associated with the drive-thru service at quick service
restaurants; specifically, perceptions of speed of service, courtesy
of employees, and quality of food were examined.

Students Are Targeted For Data Collection

Students in hotel and restaurant management and in dietetics
a t Kansas State University purchased food a t the drive-thru
window of 12 quick service r e s t a u r a n t s a n d completed a
questionnaire evaluating their experiences. Date, time of visit,
and name of r e s t a u r a n t were recorded. Time of arrival a t
intercom, employee response, arrival a t pick-up window, and
departure also were recorded. Students rated speed of service,
courtesy of staff, and quality of food using a four-point scale
ranging from 1, poor, to 4, excellent. Students described the
condition of the parking lot, readability of the menu board, and
quality of intercom reception; they also evaluated employee
courtesy upon arrival at the intercom, during payment, and upon
receipt of order.
Programs in the Statistical Analysis System were used for
data analysis.16 The general linear model analysis of variance

FIU Hospitality Review, Volume 10, Number 2, 1992

Contents © 1992 by FIU Hospitality Review. The reproduction of any
artwork, editorial or other material is expressly prohibited without written
permission from the publisher.
procedure was used to determine if elapsed time and ratings for
speed of service, courtesy of staff, and quality of food differed by
restaurant or time of day.
D a t a were collected from 8 5 visits to 12 r e s t a u r a n t s
representing eight different restaurant companies in Manhattan,
Kansas. Most students (80 percent) ordered one to three items per
visit. The most frequent visiting times were between 10 a.m. and
noon (20 percent) and between 6 and 8 p.m. (18 percent).

Speed of Service Differs at Drive-Thru's

Table 1 shows average elapsed time during the drive-thru
process at the 12 restaurants. Total elapsed time (time between
arrival a t intercom and departure with food from pickup window)
ranged from 2.27 to 5.07 minutes, with a n average of 3.32
minutes. This compares favorably with a n informal survey
reported in Restaurants & Institutions1", in which the average
total elapsed time for drive-thru's of three chain operations was
3.22 minutes. Interestingly, the industry's goal is 30 seconds from
the time the order is placed until it is received." Some drive-thru
operations adhering to a limited menu concept are paring average
service times down to the 30 to 60-second range.lg
Results of analysis of variance indicated time spent waiting for
employee response at the intercom differed significantly (p 1 0.05) by
restaurant; restaurants C and E, which were not part of the same
chain, were significantly slower than most other restaurants. No
significant differences were found between restaurants for total
elapsed time, time spent waiting for employee interaction upon
arrival at the drive-through window, or time between arrival and
departure. In addition, time of day did not have a significant impact
for any of the elapsed time categories.

Fast But Friendly Service Is the Goal

Speed of service, employee courtesy, and food quality were rated
using a four-point scale and results are summarized in Table 2. In
most cases, all three variables were rated as good or excellent.
Results of analysis of variance indicated speed of service
ratings differed significantly (p 5 0.05) among restaurants; as
might be expected, restaurants with longer service times (Table 1)
tended to have lower speed of service ratings. No significant
differences were found for ratings of employee courtesy and
quality of food among restaurants; ratings, however, were
significantly lower (p 5 .05) during the 8 to 10 p.m. time period,
possibly suggesting fatigue after a busy meal period. McMahon
and Schmeizer suggested t h a t the brevity of the interaction
between employee and customer in a typical fast food encounter
makes the quality of that interaction all the more i m p ~ r t a n t .In
~~
a drive-thru setting, the sense of personal touch is even more
difficult to convey due to the intermediary of the intercom.

FIU Hospitality Review, Volume 10, Number 2, 1992

Contents © 1992 by FIU Hospitality Review. The reproduction of any
artwork, editorial or other material is expressly prohibited without written
permission from the publisher.
 Table 1
Average Elapsed Time (Seconds) During Drive-Thru Process

Time Spent Waiting

restaurant

A
B
total
elapsed'

mins
4.02
2.75
employee
response2

<seconds
11
21
window
arrival3

94
54
- window
departure4

136
90
C 5.00 79 81 140
D 4.37 1 111 150
E 3.68 60 56 105
F 3.60 16 9 161
G 2.68 6 55 100
H 2.27 14 74 48
I 5.07 13 153 138
J 2.45 7 76 64
K 2.48 3 79 67
L 3.18 4 66 121
average 3.32 17 73 109

Number varies from 2-14 responses per restaurant.

1 .
time between arrival a t intercom and departure from pickup window
2 .
time spent waiting for employee response a t intercom
time spent waiting to arrive a t window
4 .
time spent waiting to depart with order

Inconveniences May Influence Customer Loyalty

In Table 3, inconveniences occurring during the drive-thru
process are described. Payment delays accounted for 49 percent
of inconveniences; product delays 32 percent; and missing or
incorrect food items, 19 percent. In 50 percent of the cases in
which product delays occurred, nothing was said or done to
compensate for the customers' inconvenience. An apology or
explanation was given 35 percent of the time, and an explanation
combined with receipt of free beverage or food was provided in
only 15 percent of the incidents.
Ten respondents drove away before realizing their order
contained an error. For those who noted the error while still a t
the drive-thru window, the incorrect item was either exchanged
or a discount given. Receipt of correct items was ranked as the
most important fast food service variable in the 1990 CREST
survey.21 T h e inconvenience caused by inaccuracy can

FIU Hospitality Review, Volume 10, Number 2, 1992

Contents © 1992 by FIU Hospitality Review. The reproduction of any
artwork, editorial or other material is expressly prohibited without written
permission from the publisher.
 Table 2
Customer Ratings of Speed of Service, Courtesy,
and Food Quality of Drive-Thru Restaurant1

restaurant speed of courtesy quality

service2 of food
f---------- mean3 ---------+

varies 2-14 responses per restaurant

p 50.05
"tale from 1,poor, to 4, excellent

permanently damage a restaurant's reputation in the eyes of a

consumer, negating any benefit from improved speed.22 Fifty-one
percent of t h e CREST respondents indicated that poor service
would influence their decision to return to a particular quick
service r e ~ t a u r a n t . ' ~

First Impressions Are Important

Students were asked to provide their initial impression of
the restaurant upon arrival. Comments indicated menu board
readability, quality of intercom reception, a n d p a r k i n g lot
condition were adequate to good. The condition of the parking
lot was most often described a s clean and in good repair, and
problems with intercom reception were noted most frequently.
Impressions of employee courtesy during t h e drive-thru
process ranged from a scripted performance to a more friendly
approach. Comments were similar between restaurants a n d
stages of the drive-thru process (greeting, payment, and receipt
of food). Less positive comments on courtesy were given more
often between 8 to 10 p.m. than a t many other times during the
day, again suggesting fatigue or perhaps preoccupation with
closing procedures.

FIU Hospitality Review, Volume 10, Number 2, 1992

Contents © 1992 by FIU Hospitality Review. The reproduction of any
artwork, editorial or other material is expressly prohibited without written
permission from the publisher.
 Table 3
Inconveniences Occurring In Drive-Thru Process

Types of inconvenience
payment delay 30 49

product delay 20 32

item missing or incorrect

1 item missing 7 11
1item incorrect 5 8

Handling of inconvenience
product delay
nothing said or done 10 50
apology or explanation given 7 35
explanation provided and free
beveragelfood 3 15
item missing or incorrect
item exchanged or given discount 2 16

Well-Trained Employees Can Keep Customers Coming

Results of this study suggest that speed of service at the drive-
thru appears to differ among quick service restaurants, even among
restaurants within the same chain. Employee courtesy was rated
positively in all restaurants; however, the time of day during which
the interaction occurs may influence its perceived quality.
Several implications for restaurateurs who offer drive-thru
service can be drawn from this study. Employees who are assigned to
work at the drive-thru window become the primary link between the
company and the customer seeking convenient service. They thus
have a great deal of influence on the restaurant's reputation and the
customer's decision to return. The need for consistent, thorough
training for drive-thru personnel is critical. Accuracy as well as
courtesy are key service components. Customers who receive an
incorrect order may be less forgiving, especially if the mistake is not
discovered until arrival a t the dining destination. In addition,
standards may need to be established for drive-thru service,
especially in relation to the amount of time this service takes.
Results of this study suggest that additional research is needed
on factors affecting customer service from the restaurant drive-thru.
Customer-generated information can help restaurateurs assess the
quality of services offered.

FIU Hospitality Review, Volume 10, Number 2, 1992

Contents © 1992 by FIU Hospitality Review. The reproduction of any
artwork, editorial or other material is expressly prohibited without written
permission from the publisher.
 References
I Marian C. Spears, Foodservice Organizations: A Managerial and Systems

Approach, 2nd ed., (New York: Macmillan, 19911, p. 86.

Carol Casper, "Drive-Thru & Delivery," Restaurant Business, (July 1,
1990), p. 113.
CREST Reports on the Restaurant Industry: Learn From the Past ...Profit
i n the Future, (Park Ridge, IL: NPD Research, 1990), pp. 29, 123-124.
David Slater, "Operating a Window for Profit: Drive-Thrus," Restaurants
U S A , (March, 1987), p. 11; Jeff Weinstein, " F a s t i n F a s t Food Slipping,"
Restaurants & Institutions, (December 24, 1986), p. 18.
"hilip Langdon, Orange Roofs, Golden Arches: T h e Architecture o f
American Chain Restaurants, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986), pp. 59, 104.
"later, op. cit.
Peter 0. Keegan, "Video Drive-Thrus Speed - Fast-Food Service," Nation's
Restaurant News, (November 12, 19901, p. 3.
W e v i n F a r r e l l , "Take-Out a n d Drive-Thru," R e s t a u r a n t B u s i n e s s ,
(September 1, 1989), p. 150; Casper, op.cit., p. 116.
"REST, op. cit., pp. 125-126.
l o Slater, op. cit., pp. 11, 13.

Brian Quinton and Susie Stephenson, "The Need for Speed," Restaurants
& Institutions, (September 30, 1988),p. 44.
l 2 CREST, op. cit., pp. 140-141, 145.

l 3 Pamela S. McMahon and Claire D. Schmeizer, "The Role of the Customer

in the Food Service Encounter," Hospitality Education and Research Journal,

(Annual CHRIE Conference Proceedings, 1989), p. 427.
'"REST, op. cit., p. 244.
l 5 William B. Martin, "Defining What Quality Service Is for You," Cornell

Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, (February 19861, pp. 32-35.

'" SAS User's Guide Book, 5th ed., (Cary, NJ: SAS Institute, Inc., 1985).
Quinton and Stephenson, op. cit., p. 47.
l a Jeff Weinstein, "Is Drive-Thru Service Ever Fast Enough?" Restaurants &

Institutions, (May 13, 1987), p. 28.

IYCasper, op. cit., pp. 114, 120; Kevin Farrell, "Rally's: High Quality, Low
Prices, and Convenience Are This Chain's Keys to Success," Restaurant Business,
(March 20, 19901, p. 108.
" McMahon and Schmeizer, op. cit., p. 431.
21 CREST, op. cit., p. 144.

22 Mary Follin, "Two For t h e Road: Double Drive-Thru Restaurants,"

Restaurants U S A , (March 1991), p. 28.
23 CREST, op. cit.

Sharon Hearne Morcos is an adjunct instructor, Jinmee Tak is

a doctoral student, and Mary B. Gregoire is a n associate
professor in the Department of Hotel, Restaurant, Institution
Management and Dietetics at Kansas State University.

FIU Hospitality Review, Volume 10, Number 2, 1992

Contents © 1992 by FIU Hospitality Review. The reproduction of any
artwork, editorial or other material is expressly prohibited without written
permission from the publisher.