Can Menu Sell

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Menu design: can menus sell
John T. Bowen Anne J. Morris

Article information:
To cite this document:
John T. Bowen Anne J. Morris, (1995),"Menu design: can menus sell", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 4 - 9
Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596119510091699 Downloaded on: 24 November 2014, At: 00:21 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 16 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6806 times since 2006*
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD At 00:21 24 November 2014 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Paul Morrison, (1996),"Menu engineering in upscale restaurants", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 17-24 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596119610119949
Clark S. Kincaid, David L. Corsun, (2003),"Are consultants blowing smoke? An empirical test of the impact of menu layout on item sales", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 Iss 4 pp. 226-231 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596110310475685 Syed Saad Andaleeb, Carolyn Conway, (2006),"Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: an examination of the transaction#specific model", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 Iss 1 pp. 3-11

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 422267 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

4

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT 7,4

Menu design: can menus sell?
John T. Bowen and Anne J. Morris

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD At 00:21 24 November 2014 (PT)

Focuses on the menu as a sales tool in a full-service restaurant

Objectives of a menu include communication, providing tangible evidence and selling. Managers must consider all these elements when they create a new menu. Menus have been compared to speeches by professional speakers[1].
Carefully chosen words in a speech can make it exciting and memorable. The same is true for menus. Smart managers involve their audience (the customers) in the menudesign process, ensuring the intended message is the received message. The menu also provides tangible evidence and should be a reflection of the restaurant’s image.
The design, colours, paper, illustrations and type should reinforce the image of the restaurant. The menu becomes an extension of the personality of the restaurant[2].
All three of these objectives are important; however, the focus of this article is on the menu as a sales tool in a fullservice restaurant. The authors designed an experiment to investigate the effectiveness of using menu design techniques to sell a specific menu item. The experiment’s results are presented in this article. Four propositions relating to the effectiveness of the menu as a selling tool are presented.
In terms of the restaurant’s profitability, restaurant consultants claim the value of the menu designed as a sales tool supersedes its value as a simple communication device[3-5]. Menu consultant and author Miller[6] states,
“the principle[sic] duty of the menu writer is to direct the patron’s attention to those items that you, the operator, desire to sell”. One menu designer states, “The primary job of the menu is to sell to the public what a restaurant most wants to sell – to build the check”[7]. Ideally, the menu will promote items the guest perceives as good value, are unique to the restaurant and provide a good return. By highlighting the correct items the menu can be used to sell profitable items, resulting in satisfied customers. Designing a menu as a selling tool
Menu designers claim that copy, colour, paper, typeface, layout and other elements of design can be used to create
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No. 4,
1995, pp. 4-9 © MCB University Press Limited, 0959-6119

a menu that will draw the guest’s attention to the item the restaurant wants to sell. Outlining the designated item with a box, putting it in bold print, using a larger than normal type size, or adding a colour photograph are some frequently recommended ways to attract attention to menu items and thus increase sales[4,5,8]. If used judiciously, experts claim these techniques can effectively sell targeted items.
Menu design consultants give advice on how to lay out a menu in trade magazines and books. In conversations with restaurant managers, they have claimed that a change in menu design has increased sales. However, despite this anecdotal evidence there have been few scientific studies. Even in the related area of advertising design there is a paucity of scientific studies (for a review of this literature see[9]).
Gaze-motion studies
Location on the menu is important. A commonly accepted way of focusing attention on an item is through its strategic placement in the menu’s most visible location, a strategy that follows from the advertising maxim, “unseen is unsold”[10]. Gaze-motion studies have identified how someone looks at a menu. The research uses video cameras that record the places a reader’s eyes land, the time span a reader looks at a particular place and the pattern of vision as the eyes scan a printed page. These studies support the proposition that, as people read, their vision travels across the page in predictable patterns.
The location where the reader gazes first, “the sweet spot”, is the best location on the menu. This idea is based on the assumption that people remember best the first and last things that they say or hear, the rule of primacy and recency. Additionally, gaze-motion studies propose that the number of times the reader’s eyes focus on a given location is an important factor in promoting sales.
According to the argument, the more an item is seen, the more likely it is to be ordered.
The initial focal point on a one-page menu is the area just above the middle of the page. On a two-page spread, the initial focal point is on the right-hand page, again just above the middle (see Figure 1). The eye then travels to

MENU DESIGN: CAN MENUS SELL?

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD At 00:21 24 November 2014 (PT)

the upper right-hand corner, moves counter-clockwise to the left upper corner, then down to the left lower corner and diagonally back again through the menu’s centre to the upper right side. A similar path is followed in reading a three-page menu, except the middle panel receives the first gaze and the eyes focus on that spot two more times before the menu is completely read.
On a two-page menu one expert feels the eyes follow the path of the dotted lines in Figure 1, going from the bottom left-hand corner to the bottom right-hand corner and then to the top right-hand corner, rather than from the bottom right-hand corner to the top left of the next page[3,6,11,13].
In both models, the dotted line model or the solid line model, the gaze first rests on the upper section of the righthand page and returns to that point at least once before the menu is completely read. The shaded area represents the area that is the recommended placement for menu items to gain the attention of the reader. The centre (also the upper-right side) of a three-page menu and the upper centre of a single page are recommended positions for the placement of menu items to receive the greatest exposure to the guest.
The primacy and recency rule is said to apply as much to the order of items within lists as it does to the placement of items in the layout. Experts claim that the best positions for items in a list, such as those grouped under appetizers, are at the top or bottom of the list[14]. Because of the importance of “recency” in advertising theory, the final item in a column, or the most recently one seen, is another preferred spot. While research supports the eye movements in Figure 1, the authors were unable to find any research supporting the claim that placing menu

Figure 1. Eye movement across a two-page menu
3

1

6

5

Note : The shaded area represents the location that will create the greatest awareness
Source: Adapted from [6, 11, 12]

items in the shaded area of a two-page menu will increase sales of those items.
The results of a 1987 Gallup study[14] (commissioned by
Nation’s Restaurant News) pointed to the need for additional research on this subject. Gallup tracked the eye movements of people reading one-, two- and three-page menus. The only gaze-motion diagram the study confirmed was the one-page menu diagram. In multiple-page menus the subjects started at the top of the first page and read down to the bottom, then moved to the top of the next page and read down to the bottom.
The Gallup study’s failure to support the proposition that placing menu items in the “sweet spot” would increase their sales could have been affected by several factors. For example, on the two-page menu the most strategic place, the upper right-hand side, was used for entrées. Entrées and house specials will sell whatever their location on the menu and should not be placed in the most visible spots[15]. The study did support the concept of recency.
The report says that “there was some evidence that the items in a list of six or more were more likely to be ordered when they appeared at the top of a column”. The
Gallup study does not disprove the diagrams developed from the gaze-motion research; nor does it disprove that visibility on the menu will enhance sales. It does cast doubt, though.

Menu study
An experiment was conducted to investigate the proposition that special design techniques and the location of a menu item can increase the sales of that item. The research was carried out in Eric’s, a restaurant at the
University Hilton Hotel, located on the University of
Houston campus. The restaurant is a casual, full-service restaurant with 104 seats and a bar.

2
5

4

5

Eric’s made an ideal test location because its present menu was a simple, straightforward list of all dishes available for sale. Every item on the menu was treated identically. The menu contained no boxes, special graphics, type variations or other attention-getting devices. The restaurant had been renovated and was reopened for almost three months before the start of the study. This gave the restaurant sufficient time to settle down after reopening. Eric’s clientele consisted of faculty, staff, students, campus visitors and guests of the University Hilton, the location of
Eric’s restaurant. Hotel guests accounted for about 25 per cent of Eric’s business. The campus business was split between regulars and those who used the restaurant for special occasions. The study used the lunch menu, because this was Eric’s busiest period. The restaurant served about
106 people at each lunch.

6

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT 7,4

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD At 00:21 24 November 2014 (PT)

A salad bar was added during the renovation because of the growing demand for entrée-type salads. However, the sales of the salad bar disappointed the manager. The salad bar offered an opportunity for faster service, since there was no preparation time. Turning tables was critical during the lunch period, as guests often had to wait for a table. On busy days many refused to wait, opting for other restaurants on campus. Getting guests to choose the salad bar as their main course would turn tables more quickly, resulting in more customers and revenue. The manager was interested in increasing the use of the salad bar to help turn tables, thus the salad was the menu item targeted in this study.
The listing for the salad bar on the menu did not receive any special menu treatment on the original menu. The price of the salad bar, US $3.95, was in the mid-range of the other menus items. Sandwiches were priced from US $2.75 to US $5.25 and main courses were priced from US $3.50 to
US $5.95.
The study was carried out over a period of five weeks, with two weeks in each of the pre-treatment and post-treatment phases and a one-week break between them. During the first two weeks the existing menu was used, with the new menu introduced at the beginning of the post-treatment period. In a similarly designed study testing for customer’s reactions to changes in price on a printed menu, the changes in consumer behaviour were evident in the first week of the post-treatment[16]. In that study the first week of the post-treatment was consistent with the results achieved in weeks two to three of the post-treatment.
Therefore, we feel comfortable using a two-week pre- and post-treatment. Menu item sales counts were generated by the restaurant’s computer system. For the first two weeks, the restaurant’s existing menu was used. The redesigned menu was used in the last two weeks. The total number of salad sales was counted, as was the total number of sales items in the following categories (as labelled on the menu): “Hot entrées”, “Hearty and healthy”, and “Sandwiches”. These three categories, plus the salad bar and soup and salad combination, made up the restaurant’s main dishes. A patron ordering a typical lunch would choose an item from one of those four categories.
A popularity index was developed for salads, using the main dishes mentioned above as the relevant menu items.
The popularity index indexes the item’s sales as a percentage of the total number of portions sold of all relevant menu items[13]. The index was calculated on a daily basis for total salads (salad bar), salad bar, soup and salad, and soup. The index in the pre-treatment period was compared with the index in the post-treatment period to test for significant changes.

Menu treatment
The new menu (Figure 2) was identical to the original twopage menu except the special treatment given to the salad item, called “Soup and salad extravaganza”. The title of the category was the same on both the old and new menu items. All changes in the salad listing were for the purpose of increasing its visibility from that of a small, obscure item on the original menu to the focus of attention on the new one. The location was changed from the top of the lefthand page to the top of the right-hand page. Other changes included the following: descriptive copy was added a double-line box was drawn around the item, a small line illustration was added and the type size of the title was increased to match the type size of the other menu categories. An important side-effect of these changes was that the space the item occupied increased from about 2 square inches on the original menu to more than 8.5 square inches on the revised version.
The authors made every possible effort to control variables that could affect the study. Prices for the pretreatment and post-treatment menu were the same. No items were added to or deleted from the new menu. The restaurant agreed to refrain from promotions during this study. Management did not tell the servers about the study, as this might have encouraged them to push the salad bar more than usual. According to the hotel’s books, there were no large or unusual groups in the hotel during the period of the study and no unusual weather.
Results
The authors hypothesized the salad popularity index would increase in the second part of the study because of the “special treatment” given to the salad item on the post-treatment menu. This did not occur, as salad sales were similar across the four weeks. The difference between the pre-treatment and post-treatment periods was not statistically significant. There was a significant increase in guests ordering soup with their salad in the post-treatment period. The increased soup orders with the salad were additional orders and not cannibalization of the individual soup orders. Table I compares the pretreatment popularity index with week 3 of the first week of the post-treatment.
The management of the restaurant forgot the agreement not to have any promotions during this period and added specials during week four. These specials disrupted the study, but did not change the overall findings. The specials were one of the most popular menu items for the week, achieving a popularity index of 0.14. The specials were complete hot meals, including vegetables and often soup. Guests ordering a special usually did not have any additional food items, except a beverage and possibly a dessert. The sales of salads was analysed several differ-

MENU DESIGN: CAN MENUS SELL?

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD At 00:21 24 November 2014 (PT)

Figure 2. Pre-treatment menu, left and right pages

7

8

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT 7,4

Table I. Popularity index of soup and salad items
Items

Pre-treatment index Post-treatment index

Salad bar
Soup and salad bar
Total salad bar
Soup

0.227
0.118
0.345
0.099

0.179*
0.162**
0.341
0.102

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD At 00:21 24 November 2014 (PT)

* Significant at 0.05
** Significant at 0.10

P1: Selling specific items through menu design will be more effective in quick-service restaurants than in restaurants offering more formal service.
The service person has great influence
In our study the specials sold extremely well. These specials were promoted by the service person. This supports the proposition that the server can have a major influence on the choice of a menu item. There was no mention of specials on the menu. The sole communication and selling of the specials was through the servers:
P2: In full-service restaurants, the service person has the opportunity to influence the guest’s purchase decision. ent ways to investigate the effect of the addition of the specials. All the methods of comparing sales in the pretreatment with the post-treatment found no significant difference in the popularity index of total salad sales.
Thus, although the specials disrupted the study, it did not appear that they had any significant effect on the study’s outcome. The specials, in fact, added a useful, albeit unplanned, dimension to the study. The addition of specials allowed us to track the impact of specials promoted by service persons, showing how much influence a service person has on the purchase decision. There is no space on the menu for specials. The only way the specials were communicated was through the efforts of the service persons.

Discussion
The redesign of the menu did not support the proposition that increased visibility of a menu item results in proportionally greater sales of that item. From a single study, one cannot refute a body of literature. However, we have developed the following propositions regarding menu design. Merchandising power increases as customer contact decreases The only empirical study we could find was for a quickservice restaurant. In that study a change in menu design increased sales by 8 per cent[12]. In our study, the change in menu design did not create a significant change. The restaurant in our study was a casual service restaurant.
Therefore the interaction between the service person and the customer was greater in Eric’s than it would be in a quick-service restaurant. In a quick-service restaurant customers are often under the pressure of their own time constraints and pressures from the queue. They are in a hurry to place their orders. The menus in quick-service restaurants are usually common items that need little explanation. In quick-service restaurants menus are effective sales tools:

Full-service restaurants
The sales of salads did not increase significantly because of the redesigned menu. The service personnel were instructed not to promote menu items. In full-service restaurants the service person should use the menu as a tool to promote selected items. The highlighting of certain menu items makes it easy for the service person to point to these items on the menu. Without the aid of the service person, the menu has a limited ability to sell specific items:
P3: In full-service restaurants the menu should be used as a tool by the service person to be effective. The menu can create sales of complementary items
Our study suggests that the new menu was effective in getting people to order soup with their salad. If a guest ordered a salad bar because the service person suggested it or because they saw the salad bar as they walked into the restaurant, he or she may not have known that the salad bar had soup as an additional item, and ordered the salad bar alone. The menu description for the salad bar promoted soup and salad, as it was centred under the description, with the salad off to the side. Thus, the menu can “sell” a soup with the salad:
P4: Complementary menu items can be brought to the forefront by effective menu design, creating additional sales.

Summary
This study and the Gallup study provided little support for the proposition that menu design can influence the sale of selected items by placing these items in suggested areas on the menu. This study did support the proposition that menu design can increase the sales of additional items that may normally accompany the guest’s main order. There was also support for the proposition that in a full-service restaurant, service persons can play a major role in the guest’s purchase decision process. The specials

MENU DESIGN: CAN MENUS SELL?

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD At 00:21 24 November 2014 (PT)

became the most popular menu choice when promoted solely by the server.
The study is not conclusive enough to say that menu design cannot influence the sale of specific menu items.
This study and the Gallup study found that menu design could increase the sales of items, but neither study gave support to the notion that placing the item in the suggested areas of a menu would increase sales. The Gallup study found that items at the top of a list sold better than items in the middle of a list. Our study provided support for the notion that a menu may remind the guest of complementary menu items, resulting in sales of those items.
The study suggests menu design alone is not sufficient to increase sales in a full-service restaurant. The service person is a key part of that process and should use the menu as a selling tool.
There are few scientific studies relating to menu design.
In this article we presented four propositions. We encourage other researchers to test these propositions and carry out scientific research in this area.
References
1. Kreck, L., Menu Analysis, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, NY, 1984.
2. Radice, J. and Arpaia, D.C., “Designer menus”,
Restaurateur, 25 December 1986, pp. 4-5+.
3. Masse, P.H., “Some menu design reminders”, Club Management, Vol. 65 No. 5, May 1986, pp. 32-4.
4. Stoner, C.L., “Menus: design makes the difference”,
Lodging Hospitality, Vol. 42 No. 9, September 1986, pp. 70-2.

9

5. Zuckerman, D., “How to’s of menu design and marketing”, Restaurant Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, February
1988, pp. 50-4.
6. Miller, J., Menu Pricing and Strategy, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY, 1987.
7. Radice, J., Menu Design, PBC International, New York,
NY, 1985.
8. Lefebvre, J., “Menu making”, Foodservice Marketing,
Vol. 45 No. 2, February 1983, pp. 59-63.
9. Chamblee, R. and Sandler, D.M., “Business-to-business advertising: which layout style works best?”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 32 No. 6, November 1992, pp. 39-46.
10. Von Keitz, B., “Eyemovement research: do consumers use information they are offered?”, European Research,
Vol. 16 No. 4, November 1988, pp. 217-23.
11. Kotschevar, L.H., Management by Menu, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY, 1987.
12. Lorenzini, B., “Menus that sell by design”, Restaurants and Institutions, Vol. 102 No. 7, 11 March 1992, pp. 106-12.
13. Dittmer, P.R. and Griffin, G.G., Principles of Food and
Beverage and Labor Cost Controls for Hotels and
Restaurants, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY,
1989.
14. “Through the eyes of the consumer”, Gallup Monthly
Report on Eating Out, No. 9, October 1987, pp. 1-9.
15. Beals, P., “Menu design for effective merchandising”,
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, November 1978, pp. 38-46.
16. Carmin, J. and Norkus, G.X., “Pricing strategies for menus: magic or myth?”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, November 1990, pp. 45-50.

John T. Bowen is Director of Graduate Programs and Research and Associate Professor of Hospitality Marketing at the
William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration at The University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA. Anne J. Morris received her Master of Hospitality Management degree from the University of Houston, Texas, USA.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD At 00:21 24 November 2014 (PT)

This article has been cited by:
1. Let the Show Commence: On the Start of the Perfect Meal 37-69. [CrossRef]
2. Bahattin Ozdemir, Osman Caliskan. 2014. A review of literature on restaurant menus: Specifying the managerial issues.
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 2, 3-13. [CrossRef]
3. Srikanth Beldona, Nadria Buchanan, Brian L. Miller. 2014. Exploring the promise of e-tablet restaurant menus. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26:3, 367-382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Jinkyung Choi, Jinlin Zhao. 2014. Consumers ' behaviors when eating out. British Food Journal 116:3, 494-509. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
5. Charles Feldman, Haiyan Su, Meena Mahadevan, Joseph Brusca, Heather Hartwell. 2014. Menu Psychology to Encourage
Healthy Menu Selections at a New Jersey University. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology 12:1, 1-21. [CrossRef]
6. Ewa Czarniecka-Skubina, Dorota Nowak. 2014. Japanese cuisine in Poland: attitudes and behaviour among Polish consumers.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:1, 62-68. [CrossRef]
7. Charles Feldman, Heather Harwell, Joseph Brusca. 2013. Using student opinion and design inputs to develop an informed university foodservice menu. Appetite 69, 80-88. [CrossRef]
8. Hung-Che Wu. 2013. An Empirical Study of the Effects of Service Quality, Perceived Value, Corporate Image, and Customer
Satisfaction on Behavioral Intentions in the Taiwan Quick Service Restaurant Industry. Journal of Quality Assurance in
Hospitality & Tourism 14:4, 364-390. [CrossRef]
9. Manuel Rivera, Amir Shani. 2013. Attitudes and orientation toward vegetarian food in the restaurant industry. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25:7, 1049-1065. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Sheng Fang Chou, Chin Yi Fang. 2013. Exploring surplus-based menu analysis in Chinese-style fast food restaurants.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 33, 263-272. [CrossRef]
11. Bahattin Ozdemir. 2012. A Review on Menu Performance Investigation and Some Guiding Propositions. Journal of Foodservice
Business Research 15:4, 378-397. [CrossRef]
12. Sybil S. Yang. 2012. Eye movements on restaurant menus: A revisitation on gaze motion and consumer scanpaths. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 31:3, 1021-1029. [CrossRef]
13. Larry Lockshin, Eli Cohen, Xin Zhou. 2011. What Influences Five-star Beijing Restaurants in Making Wine Lists?. Journal of Wine Research 22:3, 227-243. [CrossRef]
14. María Eugenia Ruiz-Molina, Irene Gil-Saura, Gloria Berenguer-Contrí. 2010. Instruments for Wine Promotion in Upscale
Restaurants. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 13:2, 98-113. [CrossRef]
15. Cathleen S. Jones. 2009. Taking Up Space? How Customers React to Health Information and Health Icons on Restaurant
Menus. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 12:4, 344-363. [CrossRef]
16. Gloria Berenguer, Irene Gil, María Eugenia Ruiz. 2009. Do upscale restaurant owners use wine lists as a differentiation strategy?. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28:1, 86-95. [CrossRef]
17. Irene Gil, Gloria Berenguer, María Eugenia Ruiz. 2009. Wine list engineering: categorization of food and beverage outlets.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 21:1, 69-84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. I. Gil Saura, G. Berenguer Contrí, M.E. Ruiz Molina. 2009. INSTRUMENTOS DE PROMOCIÓN DE LOS VINOS EN
LOS RESTAURANTES DE ALTO NIVEL. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa 15:2, 63-76.
[CrossRef]
19. Michael McCall, Ann Lynn. 2008. The Effects of Restaurant Menu Item Descriptions on Perceptions of Quality, Price, and
Purchase Intention. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 11:4, 439-445. [CrossRef]
20. Irene Gil Saura, Maria Eugenia Ruiz Molina, Gloria Berenguer Contrí. 2008. Qualitative and Quantitative Engineering Criteria of Restaurant Wine Lists. Journal of Wine Research 19:1, 19-31. [CrossRef]
21. Christine Lundberg, Lena Mossberg. 2008. Learning by sharing: waiters ' and bartenders ' experiences of service encounters*.
Journal of Foodservice 19:1, 44-52. [CrossRef]
22. Collin Ramdeen, Jocelina Santos, Hyun Kyung Chatfield. 2007. Measuring the cost of quality in a hotel restaurant operation.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19:4, 286-295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Inga-Britt Gustafsson, Asa Ostrom, Jesper Johansson, Lena Mossberg. 2006. The Five Aspects Meal Model: a tool for developing meal services in restaurants. Journal of Foodservice 17:2, 84-93. [CrossRef]
24. Kai Victor Hansen, Øystein Jensen, Inga‐Britt Gustafsson. 2005. The Meal Experiences of á la Carte Restaurant Customers.
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 5:2, 135-151. [CrossRef]
25. Dennis Reynolds, Edward A. Merritt, Sarah Pinckney. 2005. Understanding Menu Psychology. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration 6:1, 1-9. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD At 00:21 24 November 2014 (PT)

26. Leo Yuk Lun Kwong. 2005. The application of menu engineering and design in Asian restaurants. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 24:1, 91-106. [CrossRef]
27. Clark S. Kincaid, David L. Corsun. 2003. Are consultants blowing smoke? An empirical test of the impact of menu layout on item sales. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 15:4, 226-231. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Domingo Ribeiro Soriano. 2002. Customers’ expectations factors in restaurants. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 19:8/9, 1055-1067. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. John T Bowen, Beverley A Sparks. 1998. Hospitality marketing research. International Journal of Hospitality Management
17:2, 125-144. [CrossRef]
30. Peter Jones, Andrew Lockwood. 1998. Operations management research in the hospitality industry. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 17:2, 183-202. [CrossRef]
31. John T. Bowen. 1997. A market‐driven approach to business development and service improvement in the hospitality industry.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 9:7, 334-344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

References: 1. Kreck, L., Menu Analysis, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 1984. 6. Miller, J., Menu Pricing and Strategy, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 1987. 7. Radice, J., Menu Design, PBC International, New York, NY, 1985. 11. Kotschevar, L.H., Management by Menu, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1987. Restaurants, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 1989. 9. Manuel Rivera, Amir Shani. 2013. Attitudes and orientation toward vegetarian food in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25:7, 1049-1065 10. Sheng Fang Chou, Chin Yi Fang. 2013. Exploring surplus-based menu analysis in Chinese-style fast food restaurants. Journal of Hospitality Management 31:3, 1021-1029. [CrossRef] 13