A Project Report On Zomato

Dissertation
On
“A Study on Consumer Decision Making

Variables of Zomato”
In partial fulfilment of the requirements of Dissertation in the Post Graduate Diploma
Program of N.R. Institute of Business Management
N. R. Institute of Business Management (NRIBM-PGDM)
Under the guidance of
Prof. Jaineel Shah

Assistant Professor
Submitted by
Sachin Joshi
P-1722
Batch -2017-19
NR Institute of Business Management- PGDM
Opp, Law Garden, Ellisbridge , Ahmedabad – 380006, India
Phone : 26447636 Fax: 26445958
Website: www.nribm.org
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. Sachin Joshi Roll No. P-1722 student of NR Institute
of Business Management- PGDM have successfully completed their
Dissertation on “A study on consumer decision making variables of
Zomato” in partial fulfillment for the requirements of the PGDM programme.
This is their original work and has not been submitted elsewhere.
_________________ Prof. Jaineel Shah

Dr. Hitesh Ruparel Assistant Professor
Director
Date:
_________________
Place:
Ahmedabad
I|Page
Declaration
I am hereby declaring that my dissertation Report entitled “A study on consumer decision
making variables of Zomato” submitted in partial fulfilment of the dissertation
programme is original and is not substantially the same as one which has already been
submitted in part or in full for any such similar qualification to the university to the best of
our knowledge.
Sincerely,
SACHIN JOSHI
N.R. INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
BATCH 2017-19
DATE:
PLACE - AHMEDABAD
II | P a g e
Preface
Technical study is incomplete without the practical knowledge. No doubt theory provides
the fundamental stone for the guidance of practice examines the element of truth lying in
the theory.
There is a well-known proverb “without practical knowledge no one can achieve success”.
It is like “experience is the best teacher” on that base we can say, a person who wants to
be successful in the life she has to have knowledge about theoretical as well as practical
knowledge and step into the giant world.
Practice make man prefect as it said that study with knowledge you know only theoretical
work and with experience you know that exact practical functioning and meaning.
I am obliged to represent my dissertation report on “Consumer decision making variables

on Zomato”. The dissertation report is all about a survey conducted of several respondents
who are users of Zomato and then carried out further analysis, interpretation and prepared
a detailed report.
III | P a g e
Acknowledgement
I frequently say that “Knowledge is Power”. But this statement is true only when we apply
our knowledge in practical things. To achieve this, our college, N R Institute of Business
Management, provided us the opportunity to work with real industry. I am declaring our
humble thanks to my college for providing such opportunities to the students.
I am thankful and obliged to Director Dr. Hitesh Ruparel and my internal guide Prof.
Jaineel Shah and all the faculty members of NRIBM for providing all the necessary support
from their side. Without their continuous guidance and support, it would have been difficult
for us to complete the project on time and in such a successful manner.
Sincerely,
SACHIN JOSHI
IV | P a g e
Executive Summary
This report has been prepared with a specific purpose in mind. It outlines the history and
current scenario of Zomato globally and locally. The first part of the study takes us
through the present state of affairs of the online food industry.
The report contains a brief introduction of Zomato and a detailed view of the tasks, which
have been undertaken to analyse the market of Zomato i.e. we have evaluated the company
on Michael Five force model, PESTLE analysis and SWOT analysis of Zomato in order to
identify areas of potential growth for Zomato.
The main objective of the study is to evaluate performance and acceptability in terms of
security, user friendliness, accuracy and reliability and to understand consumer behaviour
and perception towards Zomato and also to study the consumer decision making variables
regarding Zomato.
The study is conducted through primary and secondary data and the sample size is 150
respondents. Time budget of the study is 2 months. The primary data is collected from
respondents who are users of Zomato.
Hypothesis test is conducted in the research project, chi-square test, one sample test and
factor analysis are conducted to show the relationship between consumer decision making
variables and various services offered by Zomato.
Some of the major findings from the study are as majority of the respondents found the
food ordered by Zomato is somewhat hygienic. Most of the people trust on Zomato and are
satisfied with the delivery services of Zomato. Youngsters who are students are attached to
the online food ordering through Zomato and majority of them found the delivery charges
medium.
Keywords: Online food industry, Service quality, website/application quality and

easiness, product quality and freshness.
V|Page
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER CONTENT PAGE

NO. NO.
COLLEGE CERTIFICATE I
DECLARATION II
PREFACE III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V
1 INTRODUCTION OF STUDY 1
 Introduction of online food delivery

 Introduction of the industry
 History of online food delivery industry
 Online food service in India
 Major players of online food delivery
marketplace
 model of online food delivery business
 Market size globally
 Market size in india
 Pestel analysis
 Porter’s five forces model
2 COMPANY PROFILE 16
 Introduction of company
 History of Brand Zomato
 Swot Analysis
 Revenue Model Of Zomato
3 LITERATURE REVIEW 28
NRIBM [BATCH 2017-19]

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 34
 Objectives of the study

 Research design:
 Sampling
 Hypothesis
 Limitations of the research work
5 DATA ANALYSIS AND 38
INTERPRETATION
 Charts & Tables

 Hypothesis testing
 Interpretation
6 FINDINGS 85
CONCLUSION 88
BIBLIOGRAPHY 90
ANNEXURE ( QUESTIONNAIRE) 93

INDEX OF TABLES AND GRAPHS
SR.NO. TABLE PARTICULAR PAGE

NO. NO.
1 5.1 Is the food ordered by Zomato found to be 39
hygienic?
2 5.2 Help services of Zomato 40
3 5.3 Choice of restaurant 41
4 5.4 Delivery charge 42
5 5.5 Is it risky to share credit/debit card details 43

on Zomato?
6 5.6 Trustworthiness as a service quality of 44

Zomato
7 5.7 Responsiveness as a service quality of 45

Zomato
8 5.8 Politeness as a service quality of Zomato 46
9 5.9 Communication as a service quality of 47

Zomato
10 5.10 Competency as a service quality of Zomato 48
11 5.11 Delivery as a service quality of Zomato 49
12 5.12 Freshness of food ordered through Zomato 50
13 5.13 Quality of food delivered through Zomato 51
14 5.14 Website /application easiness of Zomato 52
15 5.15 Website/application quality of Zomato 53
16 5.16 Gender 54
17 5.17 Gender with respect to hygiene level of food 55

ordered through Zomato
18 5.18 Gender with respect to trustworthiness as a 56

service quality of Zomato
19 5.19 Gender with respect to ease of search in 57
website/application of Zomato

20 5.20 Gender with respect to logical sequence of 58
order in website/application of Zomato
21 5.21 Gender with respect to security in 59

22 5.22 Gender with respect to design of 60

23 5.23 Gender with respect to information in 61
24 5.24 Occupation 62
25 5.25 Occupation with respect to delivery charges 63

of Zomato
26 5.26 Your monthly Income 64
27 5.27 Income with respect to delivery charges of 65

Zomato
28 5.28 Marital status 66
29 5.29 Marital status with respect to help services 67

of Zomato
30 5.30 Marital status with respect to risk in sharing 68
debit/credit card details with Zomato
31 5.31 Hypothesis – 1 (Chi square test) 69
32 5.33 Hypothesis – 2 ( One sample T test) 70
36 5.43 Hypothesis – 6 (Factor Analysis) 73
37 5.45 Hypothesis – 7 (Independent sample T Test) 77
38 5.47 Hypothesis – 8 (Independent sample T Test) 78
39 5.49 Hypothesis – 9 (One Way Anova) 79

Chapter 1 –
Introduction of study
1|Page NRIBM [BATCH 2017-19]

1.1 Introduction of Online Food Delivery
Online food ordering is the process of food delivery or takeout from a local restaurant or
food cooperative through a web page or app. Much like ordering consumer goods online,
many of these services allow customers to keep accounts with them in order to make
frequent ordering convenient. A customer will search for a favorite restaurant, usually
filtered via type of cuisine and choose from available items, and choose delivery or pick-
up. Payment can be amongst others either by credit card, debit card, online payment or
cash, with the restaurant returning a percentage to the online food company.
The e-services market segment Online Food Delivery contains the user and revenue
development of two different delivery service solutions for prepared meals:
(1) Restaurant-to-Consumer Delivery
(2) Platform-to-Consumer Delivery
Revenue includes the gross merchandise value (GMV) which is defined as the total sales
dollar value for merchandise/food sold through the Online Food Delivery marketplace.
Figure: 1.1
Restaurant-to-
Consumer
Online Food Delivery
Delivery Platform-to-
Consumer
Delivery

Online Food Delivery comprises services which deliver prepared meals and food that was
ordered online for direct consumption. The Restaurant-to-Consumer Delivery segment
includes the delivery of meals carried out directly by the restaurants. The order may be
made via platforms or directly through a restaurant website (e.g. Domino's,).
The Platform-to-Consumer Delivery market segment focuses on online delivery services

that provide customers with meals from partner restaurants that do not necessarily have to
offer food delivery themselves. In this case, the platform (e.g. Zomato, Swiggy, Uber eats)
handles the delivery process.
1.2 Introduction of the Industry
1.2.1 History of Online Food Delivery Industry
The first online food order was a pizza from Pizza Hut in 1994. The first online food
ordering service, World Wide Waiter (now known as Waiter.com), was founded in
1995. The site originally serviced only northern California, later expanding to several
additional cities in the United States. By the late 2000s, major pizza chains had created
their own mobile applications and started doing 20-30% of their business online. With
increased smartphone penetration, and the growth of both Uber and the sharing economy,
food delivery startups started to receive more attention. Instacart was founded in 2012.] In
2013, Seamless and Grubhub merged.By 2015, online ordering began overtaking phone
ordering. As of September 2016, online delivery accounted for about 3 percent of the 61
billion U.S. restaurant transactions.
1.2.2 Online Food Service in India
A decade back eating out had not been a prominent feature in an Indian’s life but over the
years, due to changing consumption pattern, eating out has gained momentum. This
changing pattern has ensured constant growth for the Indian Food Services market. India’s
Food Services market has come a long way from early 1980’s when the number of
organized brands were countable and the market otherwise was dominated by un-organized
players. The revolution in this sector began in 1996 with the opening up of restaurants by

McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, and Domino’s followed by Subway, Haldiram’s, Moti Mahal and
Barbeque Nation etc. E-commerce in India is expected to grow from US $2.9 billion in
2013 to a mammoth US $100 billion by 2020, making it the fastest growing e-commerce
market in the world! E-commerce is also witnessing a spurt in online food & restaurant
service companies, which is expected to reach $2.7 billion by 2019. This white paper
explores drivers of the growth of such online food delivery companies in India, the current
competition and how this affects the brick-and-mortar restaurant business in India. Here’s
a look at the supply and demand drivers for online quick food services.
1.3 Major Players of Online Food Delivery Marketplace
Zomato
Swiggy
Foodpanda
Ubereats
Tastykhana

1.4 Model of Online Food Delivery Business
Figure: 1.2

Customers on food portal- First of all customers have to visit the on food portal either on
company’s website or on the mobile application.
Search and choose food with quantity- Then the customers have to search for the food
which they want to have and they can also order it from the desired restaurant with the
quantity of food they want to order.
Finalise order- After surfing the food with quantity customers just need to finalise the
order.
Payment by customer- After selecting the desired food customers have to make the
payment. It could be done via debit/credit card or else cash on delivery option is also
available for the customers.
Online store owner- The marketplace owner cuts commission & routes order to restaurant
for delivery.
Restaurant process order- Then the restaurant process and prepare the food which is
ordered.
Merchant or 3rd party delivery service- At the end food is prepared and it is delivered
either by the restaurant or by 3rd party delivery services.
1.5 Market Size Globally
 Revenue in the Online Food Delivery segment amounts to US$18,358m in 2019.

 Revenue is expected to show an annual growth rate (CAGR 2019-2023) of 7.3%,
resulting in a market volume of US$24,345m by 2023.
 The market's largest segment is Restaurant-to-Consumer Delivery with a market
volume of US$16,162m in 2019.
 In global comparison, most revenue is generated in China (US$38,411m in 2019).

1.6 Market Size in India
The meaning of foodtech has evolved over the years. Earlier, it referred to food processing
and the technology used for its manufacturing. Now, it pertains to the online food ordering
and delivery services market. Adequate funding and investments in this market space have
enabled companies to provide online food delivery services that have never been seen
before.
The popularity of online food delivery service can be attributed to the several benefits it
provides, such as food delivered to the doorstep of the customer, various payment options,
attractive discounts, rewards, and cashback offers. Restaurants and cafes also find it
profitable to sell their food through online mediums since it reduces a significant amount
of operational overheads. College students, working couples and office goers are the key
target audience of foodtech companies.
More than 80% of the orders that come on these online food delivery platforms are from
the top five Indian cities, out of the 20 where they are active. The report online food
delivery market in India (2018-2023) takes a look at the current market scenario, its
segmentations, drivers and deterrents of growth, investments, the competitive landscape,
and recent developments.
 Revenue in the Online Food Delivery segment amounts to US$8,167m in 2019.

 Revenue is expected to show an annual growth rate (CAGR 2019-2023) of 9.1%,
resulting in a market volume of US$11,569m by 2023.
 The market's largest segment is Restaurant-to-Consumer Delivery with a market
volume of US$7,477m in 2019.
 In global comparison, most revenue is generated in China (US$38,411m in 2019).

1.7 Pestle Analysis:
Figure: 1.3
Political
Any business firm wishing to enter the overseas market is highly prone to political risks.
The political decisions made by a host country are likely to affect the organisational
productivity and profitability. Extreme political actions can very detrimental. The digital
India campaign that was recently launched by the country's Prime Minister Narendra Modi
is more likely to allow the company to get more internet penetration in India and everyone
can easily access from every corner of the market. Zomato can exploit this opportunity to
cover many restaurants of cities using the Digital India Campaign. The Indian government
puts more focus on ease of doing business in the country because it encourages foreign
direct investment. In this regard, Zomato can be a beneficiary with such kinds of
investment. The government puts emphasis on skill development among the youths who
will eventually help many people with skills and knowledge. Zomato requires skilled
people to enable it to penetrate and establish itself in the market. In this case, Zomato can
hire skilled people from the Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana program that develops
skills of the youths.

Economic
Between the periods of 2011 and 2014, Zomato achieved an overwhelming growth by
1399%. This comes as a result of its tremendous achievements in 22 countries, thus,
contributing effectively to economies of the countries. Besides, there is a potential rise in
service prices after the country announced a service tax from 12.36% to 14%. This move
is likely to affect the economic well-being of Zomato. Furthermore, the company is
initiating cashless transaction aimed at creating jobs in different countries. As it stands, the
company has 2319 employees, and it has somehow managed to solve the unemployment
problems in the country. Lastly, the company attracts several investments as well as
funding from the government and foreign investment, all of which are good for the
country's economy.
Socio- Cultural
In the last six years, Zomato has turned out to be the country's favourite online restaurant
discovery tool. However, it has influenced the manner in which individuals select their
preferred restaurants. The changing lifestyle patterns and income levels of the Indian
working population, and this is advantageous to Zomato. This is because many young
people and new age working couples like eat out, with this category attracting about 30%
in 2012. For this reason, user engagement in its website is therefore critical for customer
participation. Finally, customer service Zomato has been amazing and going by the friendly
replies from the customers, the company has managed to maintain customer loyalty. As a
dimension of social engagement with people, Zomato stays ahead over its competitors.
Technological
Zomato has enjoyed a greater advantage by using technology in designing a beautiful user
interface that makes it easier for the users to browse. One advantage that Zomato continues
to enjoy out of this kind of technological innovation is that the service is much faster despite
the fact that the high resolution is needed for the menus. In essence, the technology
encourages online services. For example, incorporating what the restaurant into mobile app
helps the customers to select the restaurant on the go. The restaurant information is
customised in a manner that the customer to obtain the information he or she needs without

necessarily making a hassle. Technology also makes the company have a good business
model that keeps the customers' information. The only thing a customer is required to do
is to log and use the service. This move exposes the company to a competitive environment
with the likes Google. However, since the product is purely made to for Indian restaurants,
it cannot serve the demands of the global market. Therefore, Zomato has used technology
effectively to achieve competitive advantage
Environmental
Achieving business sustainability is dependent on how the company addresses the

ecological requirements and in online food delivery business these days all major players
come up together to work for environmental welfare. Bengaluru-based food ordering and
delivery platform Swiggy has announced the launch of ‘Swiggy Packaging Assist’, a new
initiative that will help restaurant partners access a range of innovative packaging
solutions.. Also, Gurugram-based restaurant search and discovery service Zomato has
expressed its concern over the environmental hazards caused due to plastic packaging. It
has introduced a new feature in their app that enables customers to opt out of cutlery when
they order, thereby reducing the use of plastic.
Legal
The company is required by the Indian law to comply with all regulations that control
technology firms in the country. This ensures that it is used effectively without being
subjected to abuse. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has issued
revised guidelines that directly impact online food and grocery operators such as Grofers
and BigBasket as well as food delivery platforms like Swiggy and Zomato. The national
food regulator said it's stepping up scrutiny of ecommerce food companies because there
can be no compromise on last-mile delivery and safety of food products. Food products
offered for sale are liable to sampling at any point in the supply chain. Companies will also
need to provide an indicative image of the food on their platforms so that consumers can
recognise the product. All mandatory information mentioned in the Food Safety and
Standards (FSS) Act will also have to be provided to consumers before purchase and only
fresh food should be delivered to consumers.
10 | P a g e NRIBM [BATCH 2017-19]

1.8 Porter’s Five Forces Model:
Figure: 1.4
Threat from Substitutes
Zomato is of the strong belief that their focus on restaurant discovery and facilitating a
holistic dining experience gives them an edge over competition. As Deepinder Goyal,
founder, Zomato, says, Zomato is driven to constantly improve our product within the
space with a small margin of error. Zomato realizes that it is a winner-takes-all and is
therefore focused on dominating the competition within its space.
Google Maps - Latest release of Google Maps for desktops includes listings of restaurants
in the neighborhood. It also facilitates restaurant search and provides photos, reviews,
ratings and even the floor the business is located at. Zomato’s advantage over Maps is that
Maps hasn’t started menu listings yet.
Local Competition- FoodPanda and swiggy- FoodPanda gained first mover advantage by
launching the online order facility earlier than Zomato, thus resulting in Zomato losing
relevant market share
JustDial- JustDial offers a wide range of restaurant listings; however, it loses out against
Zomato as it doesn’t have an equivalent collection of reviews, photos and user engagement.

Also, in the minds of consumers, Zomato offers a specialized and differentiated service
thus making it a natural choice.
Global Competition- Yelp-Basic difference between Yelp and Zomato is that while Yelp
publishes crowd-sourced reviews, organizes social events and provides basic data about
businesses, Zomato provides information (photos, menus and geographic coordinates) and
allows users to create their own network of foodies for personalized recommendations. The
flipside for Zomato: Total number of unique monthly visitors to Yelp is a staggering 139
million, amounting to four times Zomato’s existing traffic of 35 million. In terms of
revenue, Zomato earned $6 million in revenue compared to Yelp’s $232 million in 2014.
Timeout- Founded in 1968, it has become a global authority on entertainment and events
all across the world. With a reach to 39 million people, it has a huge market share, however
is more known for providing information on events and happenings than restaurant listings
and reviews Since majority of users check rating and not reviews, it is very important to
maintain fair ratings on the website.
Competitive Rivalry-
Foodpanda– foodpanda who has also acquired TastyKhana and JustEat is a competitor to
Zomato in this marketspace. But, as per one of interviews with Mr. Deepinder Goyal,
Zomato doesn’t consider it as a threat because foodpanda in spite of being present in market
for 3 years has clocked only 10,000 orders a day whereas people visiting Zomato has 1,
00,000 searches a day. Zomato’s large sales team gives an added advantage to Zomato.
Burrp! – Burrp! is a competitor to Zomato. But due to its expansion from restaurant listing
to other divisions such as events and retail outlets, the company’s focus has been distributed
whereas Zomato has stuck to its core functions.
TinyOwl – TinyOwl is an emerging start-up with business model of food ordering through
App on smart phones. It is currently present in Bangalore, Mumbai, Gurgaon, Hyderabad
and Pune.
Swiggy- Swiggy is a food ordering and delivery company based out of Bangalore, India.
Swiggy was inspired by the thought of providing a complete food ordering and delivery

solution from the best neighbourhood restaurants to the urban foodie. A single window for
ordering from a wide range of restaurants, they have our own exclusive fleet of delivery
personnel to pick up orders from restaurants and deliver it to customers. Having their own
fleet gives them the flexibility to offer customers a no minimum order policy on any
restaurant and accept online payments for all partner restaurants that they work with. Our
delivery personnel carry one order at a time which ensures they get reliable and fast
deliveries.
UberEATS- On-demand cab hailing services firm Uber on Tuesday launched a new food
delivery service named UberEATS to rival services offered by Zomato, foodpanda and
Swiggy. Food prices are set by restaurant partners according to their own menu and there’s
a delivery fee of Rs 15, inclusive of taxes. There is no minimum order size.
Barriers to Entry – Barriers to entry are very high as there are already major players
established in market. Zomato is very well established and market leader. There are other
players such as foodpanda, TinyOwl and ubereats, which have already having decent
market share.
Bargaining power of buyers
 Presence of various competitor apps in the market means that it is easy for the
buyers to switch to other apps like food panda, swiggy, ubereats.
 With improving features, and upgrades such as food ordering, people may switch
to other apps offering better features.
 Since it is easy-to-use online platform, constraints related to distribution is
eliminated. This removes a potential factor for bargaining of buyers
Bargaining power of suppliers
 For Zomato the suppliers are the restaurants with which the company makes a
collaboration and deliver the food of that particular restaurant to the end customer.
 As these days there are many online food delivery businesses available in the
market thus, restaurants have the ability to partner with any of the major food

delivery services with fairly low switching cost hence it makes the bargaining
power of supplier strong.
Threat of new entrants
Advanced technologies:
This is another area where Zomato has taken huge strides. As mentioned earlier in the
technological analysis, the app and website are aesthetically beautiful and the whole
experience is enriching! Thus new entrants will have to come up with an overhaul of the
whole strategy as far as application and technological advancements are concerned.
Innovation in technology positively affects Zomato.
Industry affects economies of Scale:
Economies of scale positively affects large producer by lowering the cost of the next unit
of output at lower cost. Thus it is relatively easier and economical for Zomato to expand at
a faster pace. Any new entrant will have to pump in a lot of investment to challenge Zomato
because they will have smaller economies of scale. However, this is one area where if the
new entrant can generate enough capital they can challenge Zomato on the ground level
even though economies of scale are tilted towards Zomato.
Strong Brand Name:
A brand name is a must to survive in the industry. Zomato has been very effective in the
past few years. However, they have been late in entering the ordering segment and Food
Panda has taken effective strides in the same. Any new competitors will need to work
extensively on their brand value in order to effectively compete. Thus this threat is low for
Zomato however they need to constantly innovate in different verticals to ensure that they
build on the advantage that they have created.

Geographical Factors affecting Competition:
Food Panda is present in 200 Indian cities and has made huge strides in the recent past
however it is still considerably lagging Zomato in terms of territory covered as Zomato has
presence not only in huge number of Indian cities but also in different countries and they
are taking strides very fast. Tying up with restaurants and getting the information organized
in the way Zomato has done is a huge challenge for any new entrant. However, seeing the
pace at which Zomato has reached out and expanded it seems possible and thus Zomato
will have to constantly maintain that advantage and keep coming out with new and
innovative models.

CHAPTER 2
COMPANY PROFILE

2.1 Introduction of company
Zomato is a restaurant search and discovery app and website, providing in-depth
information about restaurants. Zomato is used by consumers globally to discover, rate and
review restaurants, as well as create their own personal network of foodies for trusted
recommendations. In addition to restaurant search and discovery, it has expanded its
offering to include Online Ordering, Table Reservations, a Whitelabel Platform and a
Point-of-Sale system, creating the technology to connect restaurant businesses and
customers.
2.2 History of Brand Zomato
Zomato, which started as Foodiebay, was established in July 2008 by two IIT Delhi
alumnus, Deepinder Goyal, and Pankaj Chaddah. The idea struck Deepinder when his
colleagues consistently had a demand for paper menu leaflets of different restaurants, to
order food. That's when he thought of converting these restaurant paper menus into a digital
app, which is far more accessible and easier to use. The online food delivery space in India
is dominated by two big players- Zomato and Swiggy. There are other players like
Foodpanda, JustEat, TastyKhana and FoodMingo but the competition for the No 1 position
is majorly confined between Zomato and Swiggy, backed by big global investors and a
large user base.
Zomato started as the website Foodiebay.com, by Deepinder Goyal, a post-graduate from

IIT Delhi. Foodiebay officially started in July 2008 with a list of 1,200 restaurants in the
Delhi NCR region. This database expanded to 2,000 restaurants by end 2008. Expanded its
reach to Kolkata, Mumbai, Bangalore and Pune within the next six months That is when
Info Edge (India), the parent company of the Naukri.com group, invested 4.7 crore (US$1
million) in the business. In November 2010, Foodiebay.com was renamed Zomato.com.
The brand name was changed due to a possible move outside of the food vertical and also
to avoid a possible conflict with eBay, because the earlier brand name Foodiebay contained
‘ebay’ in it.

Funding:
Between 2010 and 2013, Zomato received its biggest funding of approximately USD 16.7
million (INR 167, 000, 00) from “Info Edge India”. This gave them a 57.9% stake in the
company. In the November 2013, another lucky round of funding got a new investor to
pitch in- Sequoia Capital. They with Info Edge took the total sum of that round to USD 37
million.
In a fresh round a year later, Info Edge, Sequoia, and a new investor- Vy Capital raised
USD 60 million for the company. The total funding of Zomato by the beginning of 2015,
was a promising USD 113 million. In 2015, along with the 3 initial investors, Temasek- a
Singapore based investment company, also pitched in, bringing in USD 110 million for
that year.
2016 was a slow year for the company in terms of funding, but 2017 picked the pace up
again with WhatsApp’s Neeraj Arora adding to the list of investors and raising a
conservative USD 20 million. This racked up the total funding of Zomato to USD 223.8
million since its founding in 2008.
With the most recent rounds of funding, things started looking peachy for the company in
March 2018, especially with Alibaba’s Ant Financial coming into the picture with a
whopping USD 150 million.
Acquisitions:
Zomato has acquired 12 startups globally. In July 2014, Zomato made its first acquisition
by buying Menu-mania for an undisclosed sum. The company pursued other acquisitions
such as lunchtime.cz and obedovat.sk for a combined US$3.25 million. In September
2014, Zomato acquired Poland-based restaurant search service Gastronauci for an
undisclosed sum. Three months later, it acquired Italian restaurant search service Cibando.
Zomato acquired Seattle-based food portal Urbanspoon for an estimated $60 million in
2015. Other acquisitions of 2015 include Mekanist in an all-cash deal, the Delhi based
startup MapleGraph that built MaplePOS (renamed as Zomato Base, and NexTable, a US-
based table reservation and restaurant management platform.

In 2016, the company acquired Sparse Labs, a logistics technology startup and the food
delivery startup, Runnr, in 2017.
In September 2018, Zomato acquired Bengaluru-based food e-marketplace TongueStun

Food for about $18 million in a cash and stock deal.
Growth:
As funding started picking up the pace in 2010, Zomato’s presence across India did too.
By 2011 the company after establishing a monopoly in Delhi NCR moved to cities like
Pune, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, and Ahmadabad.
It kept pace with the smartphone boom too, by introducing its mobile app at this point in
time. The company in order to keep up with its hip brand image and humor its audiences
launched a .xxx domain which had pictures strictly dedicated to food porn.
By 2012, overseas operations of Zomato started operating in full gear with the UAE, Sri
Lanka, Qatar, United Kingdom, Philippines, and South Africa becoming a part of its user
base. In 2013, countries like Turkey, Brazil, and New Zealand were also added to the list.
While its expansion was happening in full force, Zomato also started acquiring foreign-
based companies to maximize its business. In 2013 it acquired Portuguese company
Gastronauci and the Italian service Cibando. A big acquisition came in when they got a
hold of the American service called NexTable which catapulted Zomato into the US
market’s competition.
About the Founders:
Zomato was founded by Deepinder Goyal and Pankaj Chaddah, both of whom are from
IIT, Delhi. Deepinder Goyal currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at
Zomato. Prior to launching Zomato, he used to work at Bain & Company as a Senior
Associate Consultant. Pankaj Chaddah is the co-founder and prior to launching Zomato,
he had worked at Bain & Company as a Senior Analyst and Associate Consultant.

2.3 SWOT ANALYSIS
Figure: 2.1
Strength:
First mover advantage – One of the best competitive advantages of Zomato is that it is
the first mover in many of the nations where it is establishing itself. Directories and other
forms of restaurant ratings might exist. But as an app Zomato is excellent and many
countries (like India) have loved the usability of the Zomato app.
Evergreen industry – The restaurant industry is an evergreen industry. Sure, there may be
recessions and other downturns which might affect the industry. But overall, this industry
is going to stick around at all times and is only going to grow with rising disposable income.
Fast Expansion – It is appreciative that Zomato has expanded so fast. It is already in 24

countries and is expanding year on year.
Fantastic design of the app – Zomato has regularly won awards for its app design and for
its user-friendliness. The App design is fantastic and it helps you discover restaurants
nearby as well as in an area you are going to visit.

Number of users – Zomato has a huge number of users using their app. At the same time,
the site also has 90 million visitors a month approximately. With so many users following
the app and site, there are more reviews and hence more chances to find better restaurants.
Focused approach – The brand has a much focused approach and has always tried to bring
the most of out of its unique offering. It is well connected with restaurants and regularly
takes feedback from customers as well as restaurants. This focused approach has also
helped the brand image and reputation of the firm.
Excellent funding available – Zomato has picked multiple rounds of funding over the
years and because it is now so well established in many countries, there is a lot of funding
available for the app.
Multiple acquisitions – Zomato has acquired multiple companies most of which are
software or technology related.
Fantastic marketing – You can find Zomato working for its own marketing offline as well
as online. Its print ads are hilarious and make an immediate connect with the audience. It
is strong on Social media marketing and uses a combination of ATL and BTL strategies to
attract and retain customers.
Weaknesses:
Security issues for the app – A major issue for Zomato in the past has been some security
issues due to which the app was hacked and at least 17 million users’ data was copied. Such
security issues are a nightmare for internet companies.
Still a lot of expansion required – Considering that the app has established in 24
countries, there is good expansion. But at the same time, the app has been started 7 years
back and with the amount of funding available for Zomato, the expansion can be much
faster. It is allowing other services to establish themselves in this niche before it reaches
their country.

Word of mouth and Facebook check-ins – Besides such apps, in many places word of
mouth still trumps apps and at the same time, Facebook check-ins are a strong competitor
wherein people might not need Zomato. Thus, it is an app for early adopters but definitely
not for laggards.
Opportunities:
Further expansion – The number 1 opportunity for Zomato is to expand to more countries
and establish its base faster. Service industry has a major problem that services can be
copied very fast and very easily. As a result, it is critical for Zomato to establish and expand
itself faster.
More acquisitions – There are and were many small players in this space. Zomato can
acquire several of its competitors and at the same time, it has to keep an eye on the tech
industry and acquire any tech innovation it can get its hands on to keep on rising.
Cloud restaurants – Zomato is coming up with the concept of Cloud restaurants wherein
restaurants will not have to get a physical space to actually sell their food products. Instead,
they can sell from Zomato.
Creating a community – Zomato does have a huge following but the users do not interact
with each other. Creating a forum and a community out of the users already following
Zomato can be a huge benefit for the brand.
Adoption of the internet and Smartphones – There is a huge increase in the adoption of
Internet across developing and underdeveloped countries as well. Similarly, adoption of
smartphone has also increased. Thus more and more orders and research about restaurants
can happen online instead of through physical visits.
Threats:
Google’s schema module – One of the major threats Zomato faces right now is the Schema
module of Google wherein google locations itself is getting in restaurant recommendations.
Even google homepage shows the google maps page where you can search for restaurants

within your locality. Google being such a big brand, zomato faces huge competition from
them.
Market followers and challengers – In the service industry, it is very easy to replicate the
success of another service product or offering. Similarly, marketing followers and
challengers can slowly take away the market share of Zomato. Intense competition from
National and international brands - With expansion to various countries, it now has
competitors like Yelp (revenue $377.5 million) which are much older and bigger than
Zomato. On the other hand, we have small players which are slowly covering ground in
domestic area.
2.4 REVENUE MODEL OF ZOMATO

Figure: 2.2
HyperPure
Restaurant
Zomato Base Guide
ZOMATO
BUSINESS
Zomato MODEL Online
Whitelabel Food
Ordering
Zomato Book
Advertising

Advertising
When you open the webpage/app of Zomato & based on your location & time of the day
you are suggested restaurants nearby. These suggestions are advertisement spaces bought
by restaurants, somewhat similar to google ads on the search results that you see.
Figure: 2.3
Consulting services with data:
98% of restaurants fail within the first year and Zomato can help! Zomato sits on a pile of
data and information. They have an in-built analytics platform that run a lot of queries and
get valuable information out. Say if a person wants to open a new restaurant, they can
connect with Zomato and find out the success rate of opening a restaurant in a particular
location. Restaurant owners can also find out what is the most popular type of food in the
area, understand the needs of the users and provide a complimenting service that will help
build their business.
Zomato Events:
Zomato has forayed into the events space by partnering with restaurants and creating
exclusive events. They make a sale through the price of the tickets. A lot of Zomato hosted
new-year parties were held.

Online Food Ordering:
The food delivery product wherein the restaurants pay a nominal fee to enable online
ordering from their Zomato page so users can get a tasty meal delivered at their doorsteps
via Zomato.
Zomato Gold:
Zomato says that Zomato Gold, its loyalty program that gives users discounts when they
visit selected restaurants, now contributes to 12% of its monthly revenue. Given Zomato
Gold was only launched in November last year, its contribution to the company’s overall
FY18 revenues is likely to be lower. But a current 12% monthly revenue contribution
means that going forward, Zomato Gold will likely become a major revenue contributor
for the company. Zomato says that Gold currently has ~160k subscribers, and a 500k long
waiting list.
Zomato Whitelabel:
The Zomato Whitelabel is platform that lets restaurants create their own custom native
apps that are plug and play. This application from the restaurant lets users book a table
through the mobile application. This way the restaurants directly send a notification to the
user. Zomato is looking to expand its power over the restaurants and keep control.
Figure: 2.4

Zomato Book:
Zomato book is the table and reservation management service for restaurants. It makes it
very simple for users to reserve a table after they see it on Zomato. This also helps the
restaurant maintain their reservations and have a structured process.
Figure: 2.5
Zomato Base:
Zomato base is a service for restaurants that help them manage their POS systems. With
an access of over 250,000 listings of restaurants, Zomato knows that controlling the POS
system of restaurants will give them a stronger hold in the restaurant business.
Figure: 2.6

Hyperpure:
HyperPure is Zomato's supplies platform for restaurants. It allows you to purchase:
 The freshest, most high quality ingredients available on the market

 Antibiotic residue-free chicken, which is better for your customers than regular chicken
 Eco-friendly packaging (which is recyclable and doesn't harm the environment) for
deliveries
Every single item sold on HyperPure is based on strict industry guidelines, ensuring that
you get the best products at competitive prices, and that your customers benefit from these,
too.
Figure: 2.7

CHAPTER- 3
LITERATURE REVIEW

(Tran, 14 May 2018): The recent development of the Internet has boosted the extension
of online food services by enabling people to search, compare prices and conveniently
access these services. As of 2016, approximately 95% of the United States population
searched for online food service information at least once, and while in 2015 more than
one-third of Asia-Pacific participants, especially in developing countries, answered that
they looked for and ordered products via the Internet. However, such business raises food
safety and hygiene considerations, particularly in low and middle—income countries
where food systems are heterogeneous and fragmented, with a predominance of small
informal food retailers. Specifically, uncontrolled food processing, packaging and
transferring among small online food retailers can elevate the risk of food contamination
and contribute to food poisoning outbreaks due to the development of several pathogenic
bacteria.
(Nguyen, 2018): The research is based on Consumer Preference and Attitude Regarding
Online and the study emphasized that using the Internet in seeking food service information
was a common practice among people living in Hanoi, Vietnam and online interpersonal
influences took a fundamental part. A high percentage of consumers were unconcerned
about accurate evidence regarding food safety in selecting food products on the Internet.
The conclusion of our findings produces practical pieces of advice to consumers buying
online food, to food retailers selling food over the Internet and to the Government of
Vietnam to implement appropriate legislation regarding online food product information.
(Gupta, November 29, 2018): The online food delivery market is segmented into fixed
online food delivery and movable online food delivery. On the basis of cuisine-wise, the
market is segmented into Indian food, fast food, Italian food, and others. On the basis of
the business model, the market is segmented into logistics focused food delivery system,
order focused food delivery system and full-service food delivery system. Full-service food
service is useful for small-scale & independent restaurants. On the basis of food sources,
the market is segmented into grocery stores, restaurants & food outlets and supermarkets
etc. In addition, on the basis of the platform, the market is segmented into the application
based and platform based. The market for online food delivery is mainly driven by rising
disposable income. Changing demographics, increasing penetration of internet & smart-

phones, favorable lifestyle changes, young population, consumption levels, a greater share
of women in the workforce, aggressive marketing strategies adopted by food startups and
the convenience of ordering is increasing significantly which led to the growth of the
market. Apart from the advantages some of the challenges include unpredictable demand
patterns, inability to influence external circumstances (traffic, weather & changing demand
on a daily basis), high delivery cost, highly concentrated peaks in ordering during meal-
times, limited delivery times and kitchen operations etc.
(Das, 2018): According to this research, Zomato has gained positive opinion of majority
of the consumers in comparison to other service providers. It is mainly because of their
better on time delivery and better discounts. Zomato has been in the first position in online
food delivery service provider and if it includes the minor improvements, it will sustain its
upper hand in forthcoming future.The factors that encourages consumers the most is
Doorstep Delivery followed by Ease & Convenience. Consumers are mostly influenced
when they receive any Rewards & Cashbacks followed by Location. Most preferred online
food delivery service provider is Zomato followed by Swiggy, The factors that prevent
consumers to use the online food delivery services are Bad Past Experience followed by
Influence from friends/family.
(Pathan, December 2017): According to the proposed system is based on user’s need and
is user centered. The system is developed in considering all issues related to all user which
are included in this system. Wide range of people can use this if they know how to operate
android smart phone. Various issues related to Mess/Tiffin Service will be solved by
providing them a fullfledged system. Thus, implementation of Online Food Ordering
system is done to help and solve one of the important problems of people. Based on the
result of this research, it can be concluded: It helps customer in making order easily; it
gives information needed in making order to customer. The Food website application made
for restaurant and mess can help restaurant and mess in receiving orders and modifying its
data and it is also made for admin so that it helps admin in controlling all the Food system.
With online food ordering system, a restaurant and mess menu online can be set up and the
customers can easily place order. Also with a food menu online, tracking the orders is done
easily, it maintain customer’s database and improve the food delivery service. The
restaurants and mess can even customize online restaurant menu and upload images easily.
Having a restaurant menu on internet, potential customers can easily access it and place

order at their convenience. Thus, an automated food ordering system is presented with
features of feedback and wireless communication.
(Mohit kumar, 1 may 2017): Online reviews have an important role in consumer
decisions for purchasing products with one survey reporting that 90 percent of individuals
indicated that positive reviews affected their purchase decisions and 80 percent indicated
that negative reviews affected their purchase decisions (Dimensional Research, 2013).
Restaurant reviews are the most commonly searched topic in online reviews with 67
percent of consumers searching for reviews about restaurants (BrightLocal, 2013) and 15
percent indicating that they use online review Web sites every time to search for restaurant
reviews (Ghiselli and Ma, 2015). Although online restaurant reviews are important to
consumers, there appears to be limited research on the topic of how restaurant reviews
influence consumers to choose to purchase at restaurants. One study of an anonymous
Chinese restaurant review Web site found that positive reviews and greater number of
reviews were associated with increased restaurant sales while negative reviews were
associated with decreased restaurant sales (Lu, et al., 2013).
(Ghadiyali, 2017): With continuous influx of professionals in cities and rapid urbanization
of India the food delivery and restaurant segment is now thriving at a blistering pace. The
present study found a significant relationship between factors considered important while
selecting a food delivery app. And from the analysis it was also found that the facilities
offered play a major role in making a purchase from an app.
(Saini, 2016): This study is based on Customer Perception and Satisfaction on Ordering
Food via Internet, It is found from the study that almost all the respondents have easy access
to the Internet, a major percentage of the respondents buy twice or at least once a week.
Most of the respondents are familiar with ordering food online over 3 years. Overall
satisfaction level on the scale of 5 is 3.69 which mean it is somewhat high on reliability
assurance and responsiveness. The study reveals that penetration of online food ordering
services is high. The student users of these services are well versed with the information
available on these websites and also use help services available online. Raising the service
levels could delight the customer but at the same time create more expectations in the minds
of the consumers. This would require more investment from the company to ensure the
desired service level.

.
(Ismail, December 2015): The research is all about Key Success Factors of Online Food
Ordering Services, In this study, attempt was made to identify the key success factors that
lead to loyalty in an online ordering environment. Results suggest that online food ordering
companies have to emphasise on information quality, website design, security, privacy and
payment system towards their customers in order to increase the level of web trust and
satisfaction. The service providers could also enjoy continuous recurring revenues from
the loyal customers if they provide efficient delivery, reliable customer service and food
quality. The results of the empirical study provide support for the positive relationships
between website quality and web trust, service quality and satisfaction, web trust and
loyalty, and satisfaction and loyalty.
(Ahmed, December 2015): In this study, attempt was made to identify the key success
factors that lead to loyalty in an online ordering environment. Results suggest that online
food ordering companies have to emphasise on information quality, website design, and
security/privacy and payment system towards their customers in order to increase the level
of web trust and satisfaction. The service providers could also enjoy continuous recurring
revenues from the loyal customers if they provide efficient delivery, reliable customer
service and food quality. The results of the empirical study provide support for the positive
relationships between website quality and web trust, service quality and satisfaction, web
trust and loyalty, and satisfaction and loyalty.
(Jenvild, 2014): According to the research Indian consumers are demanding more take-
away and home-delivery services. There is much unpenetrated scope in this market, and
successful operators should apply the new preferences and trends in an innovative manner
when developing their home-delivery services. Indians are extremely active online, and
social media marketing is very effective for this market. Consumers from all social groups
are identifying with each other under the umbrella of nationalism, Operators have a golden
chance to exploit this phenomenon when attempting a strategy to appeal cross-segments.
Indian tastes call for more experimentation. Consumers experience little difference of
outlets, and thus will not develop brand loyalty without more differentiation in the market.
India wants more health and hygiene. Higher education and increased lifestyles diseases
has created awareness of importance of health. The demands and supplies of “healthy”
products will continue to grow at a fast rate.

(Hult K. K., December 2005): The results of this study provide good support for the
relationships between customer perceptions of service/Product quality, Product freshness,
Site easiness, Time saving, and their continued loyalty to both the channel and the
particular brand. The evidence clearly shows a longitudinal relationship between higher
perceptions and increased loyalty. The data provide important insights for researchers and
managers interested in developing and perfecting methods for retaining customers in the
dynamic arena of Internet retailing. The application of behavioural models of this type is
generalizable, given that most Internet retailers have some type of ongoing data-collection
system for surveying customers regarding their satisfaction with various aspects of the
transaction. While the models developed in this article are specific to the two companies
and the online grocery industry, the general approach should generalize fairly easily
because companies generally have substantial investments in information technology of
the type necessary to support such behavioural modeling.

CHAPTER: 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 Objectives of the Study
1. To evaluate performance and acceptability in terms of security, user friendliness,

accuracy and reliability.
2. To understand consumer behaviour and perception towards zomato.
3. To study the consumer decision making variables regarding zomato.
4.2 Research Design:

4.2.1 Descriptive research design:
Descriptive research design is a scientific method which involves observing and
describing the behaviour of a subject without influencing it in any way. The importance
of descriptive research is:
 To describe characteristics of a population or a phenomenon.
 To determine the answers to who, what, when, where and how questions.
 To analyse the segment and target markets.
Table: 4.1
Research Design Descriptive research

Research Instrument Questionnaire
Sample size 150
Sample area Ahmedabad
Sampling method Non Probability/ Convenience Sampling
Statistical package SPSS
4.3 Sampling
4.3.1 Population:
Population is a set of all the units which includes all the elements of the researcher’s interest
here in this study, the population are the users of Zomato in Ahmedabad.
4.3.2 Sample Units:

The primary data is collected from respondents who are users of Zomato.

4.3.3 Sample Size:
The sample size is 150.
4.3.4 Sampling Method:

Sampling method are classified as probability or non-probability in probability sampling
method, each member of the population has a non-zero probability of being selected
probability sampling includes random sampling, systematic sampling and satisfied
sampling. The sampling technique used here is Non Probability/ Convenience Sampling.
4.3.5 Research Instrument:

Research instrument are the measurement tools used to obtain information on the topic of
the research. The research instrument used in this study is Questionnaire.
Questionnaire is a set of questions has been prepared to ask a number of questions and
collect answers from respondents relating to the research topic. Here a structured non –
disguised questionnaire is used as a research instrument for collection of primary data.
These questions would help in carrying out detailed study on the proposed topic. The type
of questions used are close ended. Questions which require scaling are drafted with
appropriate scales in order to make the research more precise. Drafting different types of
questions is advisable as it would make the questionnaire compact as well as open to
suggestions from the respondents.
4.4 Hypothesis
Table: 4.2
Sr.No. Hypothesis
1 H0: There is no significance difference of income with respect to

delivery charges of Zomato.
H1: There is a significance difference of income with respect to

delivery charges of Zomato.
2 H0: µ = 3
H1: µ ≠ 3
3 H0: µ = 3
H1: µ ≠ 3

4 H0: µ = 3
H1: µ ≠ 3
5 H0: µ = 3
H1: µ ≠ 3
6 H0: µ1 = µ2
H1: µ1 ≠ µ2
7 H0: µ1 = µ2
H1: µ1 ≠ µ2
8 H0: There is no Significance difference between occupation and

freshness of food
H1: There is a Significance difference between occupation and

freshness of food
9 H0: There is no Significance difference between payment as a quality

of website/application and occupation
H1: There is a Significance difference between payment as a quality

of website/application and occupation
10 H0: There is no Significance difference between Security and income
H1: There is a Significance difference between Security and income
4.5 Data Collection Sources
A marketing researcher has to make a plan for collecting data which may be primary data,
secondary data or both.

1. Primary data: The primary data was obtained by administering survey method, guided
by questionnaire to the consumers. The following type of questions, were asked in the
questionnaire
 Close ended questions.
 Likert scale questions.
2. Secondary data: The secondary data are collected through various sources like
 Through internet related to company, competitors etc.
 Review of articles being published on the topic in various magazines and
newspapers.
4.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH WORK
1. The research is an academic effort which constraints time, cost and geographical area.
2. The respondents may be biased or influenced by other factors.
3. An interpretation of this study is based on the assumption that the respondents has given
the correct information.
4. The data is collected from 150 respondents.
5. The sample size was limited.
6. Behaviour of many respondents was not co-operative.

CHAPTER: 5
DATA ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION

Table 5.1 Is the food ordered by Zomato found to be hygienic?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Extremely hygienic 41 27.3 27.3 27.3
Somewhat hygienic 98 65.3 65.3 92.7
Not at all hygienic 11 7.3 7.3 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.1 Is the food ordered by Zomato found to be hygienic?
Not at all
hygienic, 7.30% Extremely
hygienic,
27.30%
Somewhat
hygienic,
65.30%
Interpretation:
The analysis of respondents’ profile shows that 66% of them find the food ordered by
Zomato is somewhat hygienic, 27% of them find the food extremely hygienic whereas only
7% find it unhygienic.

Table 5.2 Help services of Zomato

Find it extremely satisfied 64 42.7 42.7 42.7
Somewhat satisfied 81 54.0 54.0 96.7
Not satisfied 5 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.2 Help services of Zomato
42.70%
54%
3.30%
Find it extremely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not satisfied
Interpretation:
From the above chart it is shown that 54% of the respondents find the help service provided
by Zomato is somewhat satisfied, 43% of them said they are extremely satisfied with the
service quality and only 3% of them said that help service is dissatisfied.

Table 5.3 Choice of restaurant
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent
Good choice than others 72 48.0 48.0 48.0
Same as others 70 46.7 46.7 94.7
Bad choice than others 8 5.3 5.3 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.3 Choice of restaurant
Same as others, Bad choice than

46.70% others, 5.30%
Good choice
than others,
48%
Interpretation:
According to the analysis it came to know that 48% of the respondents find that Zomato
offers good choice of restaurants as compare to other online food delivery service
providers, 47% of them find it same as other player provides whereas 5% find Zomato
provides bad choice of restaurant.

Table 5.4 Delivery charge

Low 25 16.7 16.7 16.7
Medium 105 70.0 70.0 86.7
High 20 13.3 13.3 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.4 Delivery charge
Low Medium High
13.30%
70% 16.70%
Interpretation:
According to the above chart it is shown that 70% of the people said that they can afford
ordering from Zomato as the delivery charges are economical, 17% of the people said the
delivery charges charged by Zomato is low whereas only 13% said the delivery charges
are high.

Table 5.5 Is it risky to share credit/debit card details on Zomato?

Agree 50 33.3 33.3 33.3
Disagree 100 66.7 66.7 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.5 Is it risky to share credit/debit card details on Zomato?
33.30%
66.70%
Agree Disagree
Interpretation:
33% of the respondents are agree that it is risky to share credit or debit card details on
Zomato whereas 67% of the respondents disagree with that statement.

Table 5.6 Trustworthiness as a service quality of zomato

Strongly agree 38 25.3 25.3 25.3
Agree 82 54.7 54.7 80.0
Can’t say 23 15.3 15.3 95.3
Strongly disagree 4 2.7 2.7 98.0
Disagree 3 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.6 Trustworthiness as a service quality of zomato
2.70%
2%
15.30%
54.70% 25.30%
Strongly agree Agree Can’t say Strongly disagree Disagree
Interpretation:
With respect to the service quality around 55% of the respondents agree that they trust or
reliable on Zomato, 25% of them said they are highly reliable on the quality of service
provided by Zomato, 15% of the respondents are neutral about the trustworthiness whereas
5% of the respondents do not trust on Zomato.

Table 5.7 Responsiveness as a service quality of zomato

Agree 79 52.7 52.7 79.3
Can’t say 26 17.3 17.3 96.7
Disagree 1 .7 .7 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.7 Responsiveness as a service quality of zomato
2.70%
Strongly agree
17.30%
Agree
0.70%
Can’t say
Strongly disagree
52.70% 26.70% Disagree
Interpretation:
According to the above chart it came to know that 52% of the respondents agree that
Zomato have the quality of being responsive, 27% of the respondents said Zomato is highly
responsive in terms of service quality whereas 15% of them are neutral about
responsiveness and 4% of them feels that Zomato is unresponsiveness in terms of service.

Table 5.8 Politeness as a service quality of zomato

Agree 81 54.0 54.0 77.3
Can’t say 27 18.0 18.0 95.3
Disagree 2 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.8 Politeness as a service quality of zomato
1.30%
3.30% 23.30%
18%
54%
Interpretation:
From the above chart it is shown that 54% of the people agree that Zomato is good in terms
of courtesy and they are satisfied with the attitude and behaviour of them towards the
customers, 24% of the people are highly satisfied with the politeness, 18% of the
respondents are neutral about politeness.

Table 5.9 Communication as a service quality of zomato

Agree 85 56.7 56.7 78.7
Can’t say 26 17.3 17.3 96.0
Disagree 2 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.9 Communication as a service quality of zomato
2.70% 1.30%
22%
17.30%
56.70%
Interpretation:
57% of the respondents are agree that Zomato is good in imparting or exchanging
information with them, 22% of the respondents feels the same and are strongly agree. 17%
of the respondents are neutral about it and 4% of them are dissatisfied with Zomato as far
as communication is concerned.

Table 5.10 Competency as a service quality of zomato

Agree 82 54.7 54.7 68.0
Can’t say 43 28.7 28.7 96.7
Disagree 3 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.10 Competency as a service quality of Zomato
1.30%
2%
28.70%
13.30%
54.70%
Interpretation:
With respect to the service quality around 55% of the respondents are agree that Zomato
has the calibre and is good in terms of competency, 29% of the respondents are neutral
about competency whereas 3% of the respondents feels Zomato is Incompetent.

Table 5.11 Delivery as a service quality of Zomato

Agree 76 50.7 50.7 87.3
Can’t say 12 8.0 8.0 95.3
Disagree 2 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.11 Delivery as a service quality of zomato
Can’t say, 8%
Strongly
disagree, 3.30%
Disagree, 1.30%
Agree, 50.70%
Strongly agree,
36.70%
Interpretation:
From the above chart it is shown that 51% of the respondents are agree that Zomato is good
in terms of delivery and they are satisfied with Zomato, 37 % of the respondents are highly
satisfied with the delivery services of Zomato whereas 4% of them said they are not happy
with the quality of delivery services provided by Zomato.

Table 5.12 Freshness of food ordered through Zomato

Agree 74 49.3 49.3 78.7
Can’t say 27 18.0 18.0 96.7
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.12 Freshness of food ordered through Zomato
Strongly
Can’t say disagree
18% 3.30% Strongly agree
29%
Agree
50%
Interpretation:
As per the above chart it is found that 49 percent of the respondents are agree that the food
they get by Zomato is good in terms of freshness. 29 percent of the respondents are highly
satisfied with the freshness of food delivered through Zomato. Whereas only 3 percent of
the respondents said they are highly dissatisfied with the freshness of food delivered by
Zomato.

Table 5.13 Quality of food delivered through Zomato

Agree 75 50.0 50.0 78.0
Can’t say 26 17.3 17.3 95.3
Disagree 1 .7 .7 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.13 Quality of food delivered through Zomato
Disagree, 0.70% Strongly agree,

28%
Strongly
disagree, 4%
Can’t say,
17.30%
Agree, 50%
Interpretation:
From the above chart it is found that 50 percent of the respondents are agree that the quality
of food ordered by Zomato is satisfactory. 28 percent of them said they are highly satisfied
with the quality of food they get through zomato.17 percent of the respondent said they are
neutral as far as the quality of food is concerned whereas 4 percent of the respondents are
highly dissatisfied with the quality fo food delivered by Zomato.

Table 5.14 Website /application easiness of Zomato
Responses Percent of Cases

N Percent
Speed of loading 35 22.7% 50.7%
Ease of navigation 37 24.0% 53.6%
Ease of search 48 31.2% 69.6%
Logical sequence of order 34 22.1% 49.3%
Total 154 100.0% 223.2%
Chart 5.14 Website /application easiness of Zomato
60
50
40
Disagree
30
Strongly Disagree
20 Can't Say
10 Agree
Strongly Agree
0
Speed of Ease of Ease of Logical
loading navigation search sequence
of order
Strongly Agree Agree Can't Say Strongly Disagree Disagree
Interpretation:
This chart shows that majority of the respondents are agree that the speed of processing
and loading time in the website and application is high. People are also satisfied with the
easiness of navigation within the website and app. Respondents also feel that it is easy to
search and browse and the content in the website or app is in logical sequence.

Table 5.15 Website/application quality of Zomato
Responses Percent of Cases

N Percent
security 74 23.6% 58.7%
payment 79 25.2% 62.7%
design 82 26.2% 65.1%
information 78 24.9% 61.9%
Total 313 100.0% 248.4%
Chart 5.15 Website/application quality of Zomato
60
50
40
Disagree
30 Strongly Disagree
20 Can't Say
10 Agree
Strongly Agree
0
Interpretation:
With respect to the quality of website and application majority of the respondents said they
are satisfied with the website quality, security, method of payment, design of the website
and application as well as with the information and content are the factors with which the
consumers are satisfied and these factors induce them to order from Zomato.

Table 5.16 Gender

Male 80 53.3 53.3 53.3
Female 70 46.7 46.7 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.16 Gender
Female, 46.70%
Male, 53.30%
Interpretation:
This chart describes about Gender, Out of the 150 respondents, 53.30% are Males and
46.70% are Females.

Table 5.17 Gender with respect to hygiene level of food ordered through Zomato
Gender Total
Male Female
Count 24 17 41
Extremely hygienic
% within Gender 30.0% 24.3% 27.3%
Count 53 45 98
Hygienic Somewhat hygienic
% within Gender 66.2% 64.3% 65.3%
Count 3 8 11
Not at all hygienic
% within Gender 3.8% 11.4% 7.3%
Count 80 70 150
Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chart 5.17 Gender with respect to hygiene level of food ordered through Zomato
66.20% 64.30%
30%
24.30%
11.40%
3.80%
Extremely hygienic Somewhat hygienic Not at all hygienic
Male Female
Interpretation:
According to the above chart it came to known that 30% of the males and 24.30% of the
females found the food ordered by Zomato is extremely hygienic. 66.20% of the males and
64.30% of the females found somewhat hygienic. Only 3.80% of the males and 11.40% of
the females found the food ordered by Zomato is not at all hygienic.

Table 5.18 Gender with respect to trustworthiness as a service quality of Zomato
Gender Total
Male Female
Count 22 16 38
Strongly agree
% within Gender 27.5% 22.9% 25.3%
Count 36 46 82
Agree
% within Gender 45.0% 65.7% 54.7%
Count 15 8 23
SQ_Trustworthiness Can’t say
% within Gender 18.8% 11.4% 15.3%
Count 4 0 4
Strongly disagree
% within Gender 5.0% 0.0% 2.7%
Count 3 0 3
Disagree
Count 80 70 150
Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chart 5.18 Gender with respect to trustworthiness as a service quality of Zomato

70.00% 65.70%
60.00%
50.00%
45%
40.00%
Male
30.00% 27.50%
Female
22.90%
18.80%
20.00%
11.40%
10.00%
5% 3.80%
0.00%
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE CAN'T SAY STRONGLY DISAGREE
DISAGREE
Interpretation:
According to the above chart it came to know that 27.50% of male are strongly agree that
they trust or reliable the service quality of Zomato on the other hand 22.90% of female
users are strongly agree. 45% of male and 65.70% of female are agree whereas only 5% of
male said they are strongly disagree with the service quality of Zomato.

Table 5.19 Gender with respect to ease of search in website/application of Zomato
Gender Total
Male Female
Count 30 18 48
Strongly agree
% within Gender 37.5% 25.7% 32.0%
Count 31 41 72
Agree
% within Gender 38.8% 58.6% 48.0%
Count 14 6 20
App_Easiness_search Can’t say
% within Gender 17.5% 8.6% 13.3%
Count 3 2 5
Strongly disagree
Count 2 3 5
Disagree
Count 80 70 150
Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chart 5.19 Gender with respect to ease of search in website/application of Zomato
70.00%
58.60%
60.00%
50.00%
38.80%
40.00% 35.50%
30.00% 25.70%
20.00% 17.50%
8.60%
10.00%
3.80%2.90% 2.50%4.30%
0.00%
Male Female
Interpretation:
As per the above chart it is shown that 35.50% of males and 25.70% of females are strongly
agree that it is easy to search in website or application of Zomato. 38.80% of males and
58.0% of females are agree whereas 3.80% of males and 8.60% of females are strongly
disagree with the statement.

Table 5.20 Gender with respect to logical sequence of order in website/application of
Zomato
Gender Total
Male Female
Count 20 14 34
Strongly agree
% within Gender 25.0% 20.0% 22.7%
Count 35 39 74
Agree
% within Gender 43.8% 55.7% 49.3%
Count 13 14 27
App_Easiness_sequence Can’t say
% within Gender 16.2% 20.0% 18.0%
Count 7 1 8
Strongly disagree
Count 5 2 7
Disagree
Count 80 70 150
Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chart 5.20 Gender with respect to logical sequence of order in website/application

of Zomato
Male Female
55.70%
43.80%
25%
16.20%
20%
20%
8.80%
6.20%
2.90%
1.40%
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE CAN'T SAY STRONGLY DISAGREE

DISAGREE
Interpretation:
As per the above chart it is shown that 25% of males and 20% of females are strongly agree
that Zomato has logical sequence of order in its website or application. 43.80% of males
and 55.70% of females are agree whereas 8.80% of males and 1.40% of females are
strongly disagree with the statement.

Table 5.21 Gender with respect to security in website/application of Zomato
Gender Total
Male Female
Count 35 12 47
Strongly agree
% within Gender 43.8% 17.1% 31.3%
Count 27 47 74
Agree
% within Gender 33.8% 67.1% 49.3%
Count 15 11 26
App_Quality_security Can’t say
% within Gender 18.8% 15.7% 17.3%
Count 1 0 1
Strongly disagree
Count 2 0 2
Disagree
Count 80 70 150
Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chart 5.21 Gender with respect to security in website/application of Zomato
80.00%
70.00% 67.10%
60.00%
50.00% 43.80%
40.00% 33.80%
30.00%
17.10% 18.80%
20.00% 15.70%
10.00%
1.20% 2.50%
0.00%
Male Female
Interpretation:
agree that Zomato is good as far as security in its website or application is concerned.
33.80% of males and 67.10% of females are agree whereas 18.80% of males and 15.70%
of females are strongly disagree with the statement.

Table 5.22 Gender with respect to design of website/application of Zomato
Gender Total
Male Female
Count 31 13 44
Strongly agree
% within Gender 38.8% 18.6% 29.3%
Count 35 47 82
Agree
% within Gender 43.8% 67.1% 54.7%
Count 11 10 21
App_Quality_design Can’t say
% within Gender 13.8% 14.3% 14.0%
Count 2 0 2
Strongly disagree
Count 1 0 1
Disagree
Count 80 70 150
Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chart 5.22 Gender with respect to design of website/application of Zomato
67.10%
43.80%
38.80%
18.60%
13.80%
14.30%
2.50% 1.20%
Male Female
Interpretation:
agree that Zomato is good in terms of design of its website or application. 43.80% of males
and 67.10% of females are agree whereas only 2.50% of males are strongly disagree with
the statement.

Table 5.23 Gender with respect to information in website/application of Zomato
Gender Total
Male Female
Count 29 13 42
Strongly agree
% within Gender 36.2% 18.6% 28.0%
Count 33 45 78
Agree
% within Gender 41.2% 64.3% 52.0%
Count 12 9 21
App_Quality_information Can’t say
% within Gender 15.0% 12.9% 14.0%
Count 4 3 7
Strongly disagree
Count 2 0 2
Disagree
Count 80 70 150
Total
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chart 5.23 Gender with respect to information in website/application of Zomato

64.30%
Male Female
41.20%
36.20%
18.60%
12.90%
15%
4.30%
2.50%
5%
Interpretation:
agree that information provided by Zomato in its website or application is satisfactory.
41.20% of males and 64.30% of females are agree whereas 5% of males and 4.30% of
females are strongly disagree with the statement.

Table 5.24 Occupation

Student 96 64.0 64.0 64.0
Service/job 46 30.7 30.7 94.7
Housewife 3 2.0 2.0 96.7
Business 4 2.7 2.7 99.3
Other 1 .7 .7 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.24 Occupation
Service/job,
Housewife, 2%
30.70%
Business, 2.70%
Other, 0.70%
Student, 64%
Interpretation:
Above chart shows occupation of the respondents, out of 150 respondents 64 percent are
students, around 30 percent are doing any service or job, 2.7 percent of them are housewife
and 2 percent are businessperson.

Table 5.25 Occupation with respect to delivery charges of Zomato
Occupation Total
Student Service/job Housewife Business Other
Count 16 8 1 0 0 25
Low % within
16.7% 17.4% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7%
Occupation
Count 67 32 1 4 1 105
Delivery_chagre Medium % within
69.8% 69.6% 33.3% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0%
Occupation
Count 13 6 1 0 0 20
High % within
13.5% 13.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3%
Occupation
Count 96 46 3 4 1 150
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Occupation
Chart 5.25 Occupation with respect to delivery charges of Zomato
100% 100%
69.80% 69.60%
33.30%
33.30% 33.30%
16.70% 13.50% 17.40%

13%
Student Service/Job Housewife Business Other
Low Medium High
Interpretation:
According to the above chart it came to know that 16.70% of the students said that the
delivery charges of Zomato are low, 69.80% said its medium whereas only 13.5% said it’s
high. 17.40% of the people who are doing service or any job feels that the delivery charges
of Zomato are low whereas 69.60 said its medium and only 13% said it’s high.

Table 5.26 Your monthly Income

Up to 14999 88 58.7 58.7 58.7
15,000-29,999 32 21.3 21.3 80.0
30,000-44,999 18 12.0 12.0 92.0
45000 and above 12 8.0 8.0 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.26 Your monthly Income
8%
12%
21.30% 58.70%
Up to 14999 15,000-29,999 30,000-44,999 45000 and above
Interpretation:
This chart shows the monthly income, out of 150 respondents 58.70% people are having
Salary less than 15000, 21.30% are laying between 15,000- 29,999, 12% are having in
between 30,000-44,999, and only 8% of them are having salary above 45,000.

Table 5.27 Income with respect to delivery charges of Zomato
Income Total
Up to 15,000- 30,000- 45000 and
14999 29,999 44,999 above
Count 13 4 2 6 25
Low % within
14.8% 12.5% 11.1% 50.0% 16.7%
Income
Count 62 22 15 6 105
Delivery_chagre Medium % within
70.5% 68.8% 83.3% 50.0% 70.0%
Income
Count 13 6 1 0 20
High % within
14.8% 18.8% 5.6% 0.0% 13.3%
Income
Count 88 32 18 12 150
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Income
Chart 5.27 Income with respect to delivery charges of Zomato
100.00%
83.30%
80.00% 70.50% 68.80%
60.00% 50% 50%
40.00%
14.80% 14.80% 18.80%
20.00% 12.50% 11.10%
5.60%
0.00%
Up to 14999 15,000-29,999 30,000-44,999 45000 and above
Low Medium High
Interpretation:
As per the above chart 14.80% of the people who have income up to 15000 said the delivery
charges of Zomato are low, 70.50% said its medium on the other hand only 14.80% of
them said it’s high. 12.50% of the people who have income from 15000 to 29,999 said the
delivery charges of Zomato are low, 68.80% said its medium whereas 18.80 said it’s high.
83.30% of the people form the income slab of 30000 to 45000 said delivery charges are
medium and 50% of the people who have income above 45000 said delivery charges high
and 50% said its medium either.

Table 5.28 Marital status

Married 24 16.0 16.0 16.0
Unmarried 126 84.0 84.0 100.0
Total 150 100.0 100.0
Chart 5.28 Marital status
16%
Married
Unmarried
84%
Interpretation:
This chart shows marital status, Out of 150 respondents 84% are unmarried and 16% are
married.

Table 5.29 Marital status with respect to help services of Zomato
Marital_status Total
Married Unmarried
Count 12 52 64
Find it extremely satisfied
% within Marital_status 50.0% 41.3% 42.7%
Count 12 69 81
Help_service Somewhat satisfied
Count 0 5 5
Not satisfied
Count 24 126 150
Total
Chart 5.29 Marital status with respect to help services of Zomato
4%
Not satisfied
54.80%
Somewhat satisfied
50%
41.30%
Find it extremely satisfied
50%
Unmarried Married
Interpretation:
As per the above chart it came to know that 50% of the married people found extremely
satisfied with help services of Zomato whereas 41.30% of the unmarried people found the
help services of Zomato is somewhat satisfied. On the other hand only 5% of unmarried
people are not satisfied with the help services of Zomato.

Table 5.30 Marital status with respect to risk in sharing debit/credit card details
with Zomato
Marital_status Total
Married Unmarried
Count 7 43 50
Agree
Credit_debit_card
Count 17 83 100
Disagree
Count 24 126 150
Total
Chart 5.30 Marital status with respect to risk in sharing debit/credit card details
with Zomato
70.80%
65.90%
34.10%
29.20%
Agree Disagree
Married Unmarried
Interpretation:
29.20% of the married people and 34.10% of unmarried people are agree that they feel
there is a risk in sharing debit/Credit card details with Zomato. On the other hand 70.80%
of the married people and 65.90% of unmarried people said there is no risk in sharing
debit/credit card details with Zomato.

5.2 Hypothesis
Test- 1 Chi-Square test
H0: There is no significance difference of income with respect to delivery charges of Zomato
H1: There is a significance difference of income with respect to delivery charges of Zomato
Table 5.31
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 13.266a 6 .039
Likelihood Ratio 12.332 6 .055
Linear-by-Linear Association 5.018 1 .025
N of Valid Cases 150
a. 5 cells (41.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.60.
Interpretation:
From the above analysis we came to know that the significance value is 0.03 which is less
than P value which is 0.05 thus we can say that null hypothesis is rejected and alternative
hypothesis is accepted and there is a relationship between delivery charges of Zomato and
the income of the people.
Test- 2 One-Sample Test
H0: µ = 3
H1: µ ≠ 3
Table 5.32
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Trustworthiness 150 2.01 .835 .068

Table 5.33
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df Sig. (2- Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the
tailed) Difference Difference
Lower Upper
- 149 .000 -.987 -1.12 -.85
Trustworthiness 14.466
Interpretation:
(1-Strongly agree) (2- Agree) (3- Can’t say) (4- Strongly Disagree) (5- Disagree)
As from test statistics it is known that the p value is 0.00 which is less than the significance
value 0.05 thus we can say that null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is
accepted whereas µ is not equal to 3 it is below 3 (according to the descriptive of sample)
which indicates that the trustworthiness of customers towards Zomato’s service quality is
satisfactory.
H0: µ = 3
H1: µ ≠ 3
Table 5.34
Delivery 150 1.82 .820 .067
Table 5.35
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df Sig. (2- Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Delivery - 149 .000 -1.180 -1.31 -1.05
17.629

Interpretation:
value thus we can say that null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted
whereas µ is not equal to 3 it is below 3 (according to the descriptive of sample) through
which we can conclude that people are satisfied with the quality of delivery services
provided by Zomato.
H0: µ = 3
H1: µ ≠ 3
Table 5.36
design 150 1.89 .734 .060
Table 5.37
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
Lower Upper
design - 149 .000 -1.107 -1.23 -.99
18.464
Interpretation:
through which we can say that people are satisfied with the quality of design of website
and application of Zomato.

H0: µ = 3
H1: µ ≠ 3
Table 5.38
information 150 1.99 .855 .070
Table 5.39
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
Lower Upper
information - 149 .000 -1.007 -1.14 -.87
14.415
Interpretation:
through which we can say that people are satisfied with the quality of information and
content provided in the website and application of Zomato.
Test- 6 Factor analysis
Table 5.40 KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .772
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 789.301
Df 120
Sig. .000

Interpretation:
According to the KMO test analysis we came to know that the KMO test value is 0.772
which is above 0.05 and the Bartlett’s test value is 0.00 so we can carry forward the factor
analysis.
Table 5.41 Communalities

Initial Extraction
Trustworthiness 1.000 .659
Responsiveness 1.000 .697
Politeness 1.000 .620
Communication 1.000 .554
Competency 1.000 .624
Delivery 1.000 .629
Freshness of food 1.000 .765
Quality of food 1.000 .673
Speed of loading 1.000 .729
Ease of navigation 1.000 .779
Ease of search 1.000 .788
Logical sequence of order 1.000 .683
Website/app security 1.000 .712
Website/app payment 1.000 .797
Website/app design 1.000 .721
Website/app information 1.000 .825
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Interpretation:
As from the above table of communities we came to know that the extraction of all the
variables is above 0.05 which is must require for proceeding factor analysis.

Table 5.42 Total Variance Explained
Compon Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
ent Loadings Loadings
Tot % of Cumulativ Tot % of Cumulativ Tot % of Cumulativ
al Varia e% al Varia e% al Varia e%
nce nce nce
1 5.0 31.29 31.295 5.0 31.29 31.295 2.1 13.59 13.598
07 5 07 5 76 8
2 1.5 9.707 41.001 1.5 9.707 41.001 2.0 12.76 26.365
53 53 43 7
3 1.3 8.376 49.378 1.3 8.376 49.378 1.8 11.34 37.710
40 40 15 5
4 1.2 7.874 57.252 1.2 7.874 57.252 1.7 11.22 48.938
60 60 96 8
5 1.0 6.613 63.864 1.0 6.613 63.864 1.7 11.09 60.032
58 58 75 4
6 1.0 6.471 70.335 1.0 6.471 70.335 1.6 10.30 70.335
35 35 49 4
7 .80 5.055 75.390
9
8 .62 3.926 79.316
8
9 .61 3.823 83.138
2
10 .59 3.698 86.836
2
11 .53 3.312 90.148
0
12 .39 2.489 92.637
8
13 .37 2.319 94.956
1
14 .29 1.814 96.769
0
15 .28 1.756 98.526
1
16 .23 1.474 100.000
6

Interpretation:
We got six groups from factor analysis and it must be covering at least 50 percent of the
data, here the analysis covers 70 percent of the data thus we can carry forward the analysis
to rotated component matrix.
Table 5.43 Rotated Component Matrix

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
Trustworthiness .597
Responsiveness .521 .556
Politeness .718
Communication .694
Competency .699
Delivery .728
Freshness of food .845
Quality of food .776
Speed of loading .661
Ease of navigation .838
Ease of search .830
Logical sequence of order
Website/app security .709
Website/app payment .708
Website/app design .752
Website/app information .879
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 19 iterations.
Interpretation:
As according to the rotated component matrix table we came to know that we got six
homogeneous groups which are shown in table 5.44.

Table 5.44 Homogeneous Groups
Groups 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6
Service Product Website/A Delivery Website/A Website/A

Quality Freshness pp Efficiency pp pp
Designing Browsing- Security &
Processing
Responsiven Responsiven Quality Ease of Speed of
ess ess of Trustworthin navigatio loading
website/ ess n
app
design
Politeness Freshness of Quality of Ease of Security
food website/ Delivery search
app
informatio
n
Communicati Quality of Payment
on food
Competency
Test- 7 Independent sample T Test
H0: µ1 = µ2
H1: µ1 ≠ µ2
Table 5.44 Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
App_Easiness_navigation Male 80 2.03 .886 .099
Female 70 2.16 .810 .097

Table 5.45 Independent Samples Test
Levene t-test for Equality of Means
's Test
for
Equalit
y of
Varian
ces
F Si t df Si Mean Std. 95%
Confidenc
g. g. Diffe Error
e Interval
(2- rence Diffe of the
tail rence Difference

Lo Up
ed)
we pe
r r
App_Easiness Equa .0 .9 -. 148 .34 -.132 .139 -.4 .1

07 43
_navigation l 0 8 94 4
varia 1 0 9
nces
assu
med
Equa -. 147 .34 -.132 .138 -.4 .1
06 42
l 95 .69 2
varia 4 7
nces
not
assu
med
Interpretation:
As from the above analysis it came to know that the P value is 0.98 which is greater than
the significance value 0.05 hence, we can that null hypothesis is accepted and there is no
significance difference between ease of navigation in the website/application of Zomato

and gender of the respondents. From the descriptive statistics it came to know that the mean
value of both male and female is around 2 which shows that there is no significance
difference between ease of navigation and male female.
Test- 8 Independent sample T Test
H0: µ1 = µ2
H1: µ1 ≠ µ2
Table 5.46 Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
App_Easiness_search Male 80 1.95 .967 .108
Female 70 2.01 .925 .111
Table 5.47 Independent Samples Test

Levene' t-test for Equality of Means
s Test
for
Equalit
y of
Varianc
es
F Si t df Si Mean Std. 95%
g. g. Diffe Error Confiden
(2- rence Diffe ce
tail rence Interval
ed) of the
Differenc
e
Lo Up
we per
r

App_Easine Equa 2. .1 -. 148 .67 -.064 .155 -.3 .24
ss_search l 33 2 41 9 71 2
varia 1 9 5
nces
assu
med
Equa -. 146 .67 -.064 .155 -.3 .24
l 41 .80 8 70 1
varia 6 6
nces
not
assu
med
Interpretation:
As from the above analysis it came to know that the P value is 0.129 which is greater than
the significance value 0.05 hence, we can that null hypothesis is accepted and there is no
significance difference between ease of search in the website/application of Zomato and
gender of the respondents. From the descriptive statistics it came to know that the mean
value of both male and female is around 2 which shows that there is no significance
difference between ease of navigation and male female.
Test- 9 One Way Anova
H0: There is no Significance difference between occupation and freshness of food

H1: There is no Significance difference between occupation and freshness of food

Table 5.48 Descriptives
PF_Freshness_food
N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error Interval for Mean
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Student 96 1.95 .745 .076 1.80 2.10 1 4
Service/job 46 2.04 .868 .128 1.79 2.30 1 4
Housewife 3 1.67 .577 .333 .23 3.10 1 2
Business 4 1.25 .500 .250 .45 2.05 1 2
Other 1 2.00 . . . . 2 2
Total 150 1.95 .780 .064 1.83 2.08 1 4
Table 5.49 ANOVA

PF_Freshness_food
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 2.604 4 .651 1.072 .373
Within Groups 88.069 145 .607
Total 90.673 149
Interpretation:
Form the above table of one way anova test statistical it is known that the P value is 0.37
which is greater than the significance value 0.05 thus, we can say that null hypothesis is
accepted and there is no significance difference in freshness of food and occupation of the
respondents. From the descriptive statistics also it came to know that the mean value of
students, Service/jobs, housewife and business persons is around 2 and from that we can
say that they is no significance difference in freshness of food and occupation.
H0: There is no Significance difference between payment as a quality of

website/application and occupation
H1: There is no Significance difference between payment as a quality of
website/application and occupation

App_Quality_payment
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Student 96 1.84 .812 .083 1.68 2.01 1 5
Service/job 46 1.70 .662 .098 1.50 1.89 1 4
Housewife 3 1.67 .577 .333 .23 3.10 1 2
Business 4 1.25 .500 .250 .45 2.05 1 2
Other 1 2.00 . . . . 2 2
Total 150 1.78 .759 .062 1.66 1.90 1 5
Table 5.51 ANOVA

App_Quality_payment
Between Groups 1.928 4 .482 .834 .506
Total 85.740 149
Interpretation:
Form the above table of one way anova test statistics it is known that the P value is 0.50
which is greater than the significance value 0.05 thus, we can say that null hypothesis is
accepted and there is no significance difference in payment as a quality of
website/application and occupation of the respondents. From the descriptive statistics also
it came to know that the mean value of students, Service/jobs, housewife and business
persons is around 2 and from that we can say that they is no significance difference in
freshness of food and occupation.
H0: There is no Significance difference between Security and income

H1: There is a Significance difference between Security and income

App_Quality_security
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Up to 14999 88 1.92 .761 .081 1.76 2.08 1 5
15,000-29,999 32 1.91 .777 .137 1.63 2.19 1 4
30,000-44,999 18 1.94 .725 .171 1.58 2.31 1 3
45000 and 12 1.83 1.193 .345 1.08 2.59 1 5
above
Total 150 1.91 .794 .065 1.79 2.04 1 5
Table 5.53 ANOVA

App_Quality_security
Between Groups .100 3 .033 .052 .984
Total 93.873 149
Interpretation:
As per the above analysis it is known that the P value is 0.98 which is greater than the
significance value 0.05 thus, we can say that null hypothesis is accepted and there is no
significance difference in security as a quality of website/application and income of the
respondents. From the descriptive statistics also it came to know that the mean value of
population having income up to 14999, 15,000-29,999, 30,000-44,999, 45000 and above
is around 2 and from that we can say that they is no significance difference in security and
income of population.

5.16 Showing results of Hypothesis
Sr.No Hypothesis (H0) P- Accepted/not

value accepted
1 There is no significance of income on delivery 0.039 Not accepted
charges of Zomato
2 H0: µ = 3 0.00 Not accepted
6 H0: µ1 = µ2 0.98 Accepted
7 H0: µ1 = µ2 0.12 Accepted
8 There is no Significance difference between 0.37 Accepted

occupation and freshness of food

payment as a quality of website/application and
occupation

security as a quality of website/application and
income

CHAPTER: 6
FINDINGS

Findings
 It is found that 53.3% males and 46.7% females uses Zomato’s website or
application to order food online.
 64% students, 30.7% of people are in any job or services, 2% housewife and 2.7%
businessperson are ordering food online using Zomato’s website or application.
 Majority of the people who are using Zomato’s services are having monthly income
up to 15000.
 84% of the people who uses Zomato are unmarried whereas only 16% of them are
married.
 As per the research it is found that 92.6% of the people found the food ordered by
Zomato hygienic.
 After the research it is found that 42.7% of the people who uses Zomato to order
food online are satisfied with the help services of Zomato.
 From the research it came to know that 48% of the people feels that Zomato has
good choice of restaurant as compare to other players in the industry, 46.7% of the
people said that Zomato has same choices as others whereas only 5% of the people
said Zomato has bad choice or restaurant.
 70% of the people said they can afford ordering food as the delivery charges of
Zomato are medium.

 As per the research it is found that 66.7% of the people thinks that there is no risk
in sharing debit or credit card details in Zomato’s website or application.
 With respect to the service quality majority of the people are satisfied with the
Trustworthiness, Responsiveness and politeness of Zomato.
 As per the research it is found that most of the people feels Zomato is good in
imparting or exchanging information with them.
 According to the research majority of the people are agree that Zomato has the
calibre and is good in terms of competency.
 As per the research it came to know that most of the people are agree that Zomato
is good in terms of delivery and around 87.4% are satisfied with Zomato’s delivery
services.
 From the research it came to know that around 78% of the people are satisfied with
the freshness and quality of food they get through Zomato.
 As per the research it is fount that majority of the respondents are agree that the
speed of processing and loading time in the website and application is high. People
are also satisfied with the easiness of navigation within the website and app.
Respondents also feel that it is easy to search and browse and the content in the
website or app is in logical sequence.
 With respect to the quality of website and application majority of the respondents
said they are satisfied with the website quality, security, method of payment, design
of the website and application as well as with the information and content are the
factors with which the consumers are satisfied and these factors induce them to
order from Zomato.

CONCLUSION

Conclusion
With the advent of e-commerce boom in India, the Indian consumers are to be seen their
life being touched by e-commerce in almost every vertical from online shopping to ticket
bookings, healthcare, etc. One of such verticals is e-food industry, which has very
efficiently utilized the e-commerce platform in the online food review and food ordering
business. This is a vertical, which has brought almost every restaurant in India under a
single roof in the hands of the consumer.
As per the study the consumer’s perception and decision making variables regarding
ordering food from Zomato varies from individual to individual and the perception is
limited to a certain extent with the quality of services, choices of restaurant, quality of food
delivered, help services, quality and easiness of website and application.
The results of this study provide good support for the relationships between consumer
perceptions of service, Product quality, product freshness, easiness of site and their
continued loyalty for the brand Zomato.
Further conclusion drawn from the study are as follows:-
 Trustworthiness, responsiveness, politeness, communication, competency, delivery

are the factors which influence the consumers to order online from Zomato and
majority or the people are satisfied with these factors.
 Efficiency, security and processing of website and application are the factors with
which the consumers are satisfied and these factors makes a positive impact on
consumer decision making while purchasing food online via Zomato.
 The study reveals that mostly the youngsters who are students are attached to the
online food ordering through Zomato and majority of them found the delivery
charges medium.
 As hypothesised, trustworthiness, delivery, design of website and application,

quality of information provided in the website and application is found to exert a
significant positive influence on service quality of Zomato.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliography
Ahmed, Z. K. (December 2015). Key Success Factors of Online Food Ordering Services:An Empirical
Study. School of Management Asia e University, 1-19.
Das, J. (2018). CONSUMER PERCEPTION TOWARDS ‘ONLINE FOOD ORDERING AND DELIVERY
SERVICES’:AN EMPIRICAL STUDY. Journal of Management (JOM).
Ghadiyali, D. N. (2017). A STUDY ON CUSTOMER’S ATTITUDE AND PERCEPTION TOWARDS DIGITAL

FOOD APP SERVICES.
Gupta, A. (November 29, 2018). Rise in Income and Internet Facilities to Drive Online Food
Delivery Market in India. KenResearch.
Hult, K. K. (2005). Customer Behavior in an Online Ordering Application: A Decision Scoring Model.
Decision Sciences, 569-598.
Hult, K. K. (December 2005). Customer Behavior in an Online Ordering Application: A Decision

Scoring Model. Decision Sciences Volume 36 Number 4, 1-30.
Ismail, Z. K. (December 2015). Key Success Factors of Online Food Ordering Services: An Empirical
Study. 20-36.
Jenvild, K. V. (2014). THE NEW INDIAN CONSUMER: FOOD SERVICES TRENDS. International Journal
of Management and Commerce Innovations, 255-267.
Mohit kumar, J. f. (1 may 2017). Intentions to use an online resturent review website and purchase
behaviour after reading reviews.
Nguyen, A. K. (2018). Consumer Preference and Attitude Regarding Online. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2-12.
Pathan, A. R. (December 2017). Online Food Ordering System. International Journal of Computer
Applications, 20-25.
Saini, H. S. (2016). Customer Perception and Satisfaction on Ordering Food via Internet, a Case on
Foodzoned.Com, in Manipal. Proceedings of the Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on
Global Business, Economics, 2-13.

Tran, A. K. (14 May 2018). Consumer Preference and Attitude Regarding Online. International
journal of environmental research and public health.
Websites
www.Zomato.com
www.marketing91.com
www.researchgate.net
www.statista.com

ANNEXURES

The research is been conducted by the student of PGDM at N.R INSTITUTE OF
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT to analyse the “CONSUMER DECISION MAKING
VARIABLES ON ZOMATO”.
It should take no longer than 10 minutes of your time and information provided by
you will be strictly utilized for academic purpose, it does not have any commercial
usage.
1- Is the food ordered by Zomato found to be hygienic?
 Extremely hygienic
 Somewhat hygienic
 Not at all hygienic
2- Are the help services of Zomato user friendly?
 Find it extremely satisfied

 Somewhat satisfied
 Not satisfied
3- As compare to other food delivery apps, is Zomato having good choice of

restaurants?
 Good choice than others
 Same as others
 Bad choice than others
4- How is the delivery charge of Zomato?
 Low
 Medium
 High
5- Is it risky to share credit/debit card details on Zomato?
 Agree
 Disagree

6- Rate the service quality of Zomato on the basis of following components:-
Trustworthiness
Responsiveness
Politeness
Communication
Competency
Delivery
7- Rate the product freshness delivered through Zomato :-
Freshness of food
Quality of food
8- How would you rate the website /app easiness of Zomato on the basis of following
factor:-
Strongly Agree Can’t Strongly Disagree

agree say disagree
Speed of loading
Ease of navigation
Ease of search
Logical sequence of
order

9- How would you rate the website/app quality of Zomato on the basis following
factors:-
Strongly agree Agree Can’t say Strongly disagree disagree
Security
Payment
Design
Information
10- Name________________________
11- Mobile No.:____________________
12- Your Gender:

 Male
 Female
13- Your Occupation:

 Student
 Service/job
 Housewife
 Business
Other____________
14- Your monthly Income :-

 Up to 14999
 15,000-29,999
 30,000-44,999
 45000 and above

15- Your Marital status:-
 Married
 Unmarried

A Project Report On Zomato

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Project Report On Zomato

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Project Report On Zomato

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertation

“A Study on Consumer Decision Making

N. R. Institute of Business Management (NRIBM-PGDM)

Under the guidance of

Prof. Jaineel Shah

_________________ Prof. Jaineel Shah

I am obliged to represent my dissertation report on “Consumer decision making variables

Keywords: Online food industry, Service quality, website/application quality and

CHAPTER CONTENT PAGE

 Introduction of online food delivery

NRIBM [BATCH 2017-19]

 Objectives of the study

5 DATA ANALYSIS AND 38

 Charts & Tables

NRIBM [BATCH 2017-19]

SR.NO. TABLE PARTICULAR PAGE

2 5.2 Help services of Zomato 40

3 5.3 Choice of restaurant 41

4 5.4 Delivery charge 42

5 5.5 Is it risky to share credit/debit card details 43

6 5.6 Trustworthiness as a service quality of 44

7 5.7 Responsiveness as a service quality of 45

8 5.8 Politeness as a service quality of Zomato 46

9 5.9 Communication as a service quality of 47

10 5.10 Competency as a service quality of Zomato 48

11 5.11 Delivery as a service quality of Zomato 49

12 5.12 Freshness of food ordered through Zomato 50

13 5.13 Quality of food delivered through Zomato 51

14 5.14 Website /application easiness of Zomato 52

15 5.15 Website/application quality of Zomato 53

17 5.17 Gender with respect to hygiene level of food 55

18 5.18 Gender with respect to trustworthiness as a 56

NRIBM [BATCH 2017-19]

21 5.21 Gender with respect to security in 59

22 5.22 Gender with respect to design of 60

25 5.25 Occupation with respect to delivery charges 63

27 5.27 Income with respect to delivery charges of 65

28 5.28 Marital status 66

29 5.29 Marital status with respect to help services 67

31 5.31 Hypothesis – 1 (Chi square test) 69

32 5.33 Hypothesis – 2 ( One sample T test) 70

33 5.35 Hypothesis – 3 ( One sample T test) 71

34 5.37 Hypothesis – 4 ( One sample T test) 72

35 5.39 Hypothesis – 5 ( One sample T test) 73

36 5.43 Hypothesis – 6 (Factor Analysis) 73

37 5.45 Hypothesis – 7 (Independent sample T Test) 77

38 5.47 Hypothesis – 8 (Independent sample T Test) 78

39 5.49 Hypothesis – 9 (One Way Anova) 79

40 5.51 Hypothesis – 10 (One Way Anova) 80

41 5.53 Hypothesis – 11 (One Way Anova) 81

NRIBM [BATCH 2017-19]

1|Page NRIBM [BATCH 2017-19]

2|Page NRIBM [BATCH 2017-19]

The Platform-to-Consumer Delivery market segment focuses on online delivery services

1.2 Introduction of the Industry

1.2.1 History of Online Food Delivery Industry

1.2.2 Online Food Service in India

3|Page NRIBM [BATCH 2017-19]

1.3 Major Players of Online Food Delivery Marketplace

4|Page NRIBM [BATCH 2017-19]