i. Desk Research
The purpose the desk research was to gain an understanding of Takeaway.com as a brand and the market it is operating in. Three key documents were identified: the 2016 Thuisbezorgd Annual Report, the Mckinsey & Company report (World food delivery market) and the Priori Data report (European food delivery market).
The 2016 Thuisbezorgd Annual Report gave us an overview of the company and its priorities. From this we realized that it’s market strategy focused on company acquisitions, making several throughout the year. In addition, it gave us an insight into the importance of market dominance in a region.
The Priori Data report ‘Food Delivery Tech: Battle for the European Consumer’ helped us to understand the position of Takeaway.com in the market, reiterated the importance of market dominance and outlined the different business models that companies adopted.
The Mckinsey & Company report ‘The Changing Market for Food Delivery’ outlined the importance of waiting time in customer satisfaction and the value of customer retention. In comparing with our initial analysis of Takeaway.com, we observed a significant difference in their retention vs. new platforms (56% vs. 77%).
- Waiting time is critical
- The potential for Customer Retention
- Importance of Market Dominance
ii. Field research
The purpose of the field research was to gather insights to identify customer’s pain points that we could not get from our desk research. The questionnaire was focused on the actual feelings that customers experience, as well as the thoughts behind those feelings. We decided we wanted two types of insights out of our questionnaire: on the one hand we wanted to be able to compare how the moment of delivery compares with the other moments in the process of using Takeaway.com, and on the other hand we wanted to be able to understand if and how the moment of delivery “as is” differs from the moment of delivery “to be”.
We first compiled a timeline of all moments the customer engages with Takeaway.com during the use phase (navigate/choose, placing order/payment, waiting time, delivery, consumption, review). ￼ Before formulating questions to ask, we first identified who the interviewee should be. To make the results useful, we set hard and soft criteria. Our hard criteria being that the interviewee used Takeaway.com at least once. The soft criteria were mainly around the diversity of the interviewees in terms of academic background, age, living situation, etc. Also, we noted down that it would be crucial to take into account the experience and needs of the deliverer (if it does indeed turn out that the moment of delivery was problematic).
In formulating the research questions we did an attempt to avoid asking leading questions and implying bias. Once our questions were formulated, we decided on a practical way of collecting the data.
We agreed on conducting the interviews at Zuidas and B. Amsterdam. We had a consistent and structured way of leading the interviews, with a clear task division in our group: interview conduction, note taking and video recording. We then sorted out the average answers per question and attempted to understand and contextualize them in relation to the desk research. We mainly concluded that we should consider the difference between regular and incidental users as there seemed to be a pattern in how they experienced and needed the delivery experience to be.
We plotted the customer satisfaction level with every stage of the ordering process in a graph to discover trends. In doing so we discovered that there were two key insights from the field research: the biggest pain points for the customers we interviewed were a) Long waiting time, and b) Consumption of food
We argued that a) is an understandable ‘pain point’ for users, and that b) was mainly a result of a). Our insight was that because Takeaway.com serves fast food, customers expect instant gratification. The clash between the concept of fast food and delayed gratification is conflictual for customer experience, meaning that it is likely the source of frustration. Once we drew this parallel across the user’s expressed pain points, we argued that b) was a problem out of our control, and therefore we would focus mainly on finding a solution to a).
We understood the complexity of making the actual waiting time shorter. That was also when we realized that we should not even attempt to shorten the time it takes to prepare and deliver an order; instead, we would focus on changing the customer’s perception of time.