Title of the Report:

BURGER KING FAST FOOD OF INDIA

Course Name: MBA FINANCE

Submitted by: DIVYANK AGGARWAL

Enrolment No.: 23MBA01R1558

Academic Year: 2023-24

 DECLARATION

This is to declare that I, undersigned Mr. DIVYANK AGGARWAL have completed this
activity myself in part fulfilment of the OJT Report Submission Program of Symbiosis
Skills and Professional University, Pune.
The work submitted is original and it has NOT been copied from anywhere else. Further I
also declare that this academic work has not been submitted to any other
University/Institute for an award of any degree / diploma.

Date: Signature:

Place: DELHI Name: DIVYANK AGGRAWAL

 INDEX

S.No Title Page No.

1. Introdution 4-14

2. Literature Review 15-25

3. Research Methology 26-29

4. Data Analysis & Interpretition 30-36

5. Findings and Suggestions 37-39

6. Conclusion 40

7. Biblography 41
 CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTODUCTION

Fast Food Industry in India

Fast food chains in India are growing rapidly, especially in urban cities. Now you have
quick access to food as you don’t have to prepare anything at home. People love going to
these fast food joints eating there and spending some good time with their family. In India,
there are many fast food chains that have opened in recent years.

Various companies including international and domestic players are now making an entry
into quick service restaurants – QSR – space. This has given rise to widening of the market
due to increasing disposable income of the middle class, rapid urbanisation in the country
and influence of western food among the young audience. As per Assocha, QSR sector in
the country has been growing at a CAGR of 25 per cent and might touch a figure of USD
3.7 billion by the year 2020 from the current USD 1.3 billion. Other reasons for expansion
of the QSR space was because of higher growth seen in the nuclear family system, growing
knowledge of international brands by Indian audience, availability of better logistics and
availability of products on the Internet.

It is believed that with rising income, Indians might be looking at spending more and the
competition in the space might get fiercer over a period of time. Foreign chains like
Wendy's, Burger King, Johnny Rockets and Carl's Jr. are making it big in the country. The
QSR industry has been growing rapidly with the focus mainly being at providing
affordable as well as competitive pricing. It is also looking at providing variants to meet
the growing consumer needs and satisfying the craving for international food amongst the
Indian audience.
1.2 Scope of the Study

The study is based on the different factors from which the customers get satisfied with the
products and services offered by Burger King. It also studies various reasons for which the
customer prefers Burger King over any other fast food joint such as regular discount offers,
good quality products or good service.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The primary objective was to know the overall satisfaction of customers from the products
of Burger King.

The secondary objectives of the study were:

 Brand awareness of Burger King in the market.

 Measures taken by Burger King to keep its customers satisfied
 Different factors that a customer looks in the product i.e. taste, price etc.

1.4 COMPANY PROFILE

Burger King

Type : Subsidiary
Industry : Restaurants
Genre : Fast Food Restaurant
Predecessor : Insta-Burger King
Founded : 1953(64 years ago)
Founder : David Edgerton and James McLamore
Headquarters : Miami-Dade County, Florida, United States
Number of Locations : 15000+ (2015)
Products : Hamburgers, French Fries, Chicken, Soft Drinks,
Milkshakes, Salads, Desserts, Breakfast, Hot Dogs
Revenue : US$4.05 billion (2015)
Number of Employees : 34,248
Parent : Restaurant Brands International
Website : www.bk.com

About Burger King

Burger King (BK) is an American global chain of hamburger fast food restaurants.
Headquartered in the unincorporated area of Miami-Dade County, Florida, the company
was founded in 1953 as InstaBurger King, a Jacksonville, Florida-based restaurant chain.
After Insta-Burger King ran into financial difficulties in 1954, its two Miami-based
franchisees David Edgerton and James McLamorepurchased the company and renamed it
"Burger King". Over the next half-century, the company would change hands four times,
with its third set of owners, a partnership of TPG Capital, Bain Capital, and Goldman
Sachs Capital Partners, taking it public in 2002.

Burger King's menu has expanded from a basic offering of burgers, French fries, sodas,
and milkshakes to a larger and more diverse set of products. In 1957, the "Whopper"
became the first major addition to the menu, and it has become Burger King's signature
product since. Conversely, BK has introduced many products, which failed to catch hold in
the marketplace. Some of these failures in the United States have seen success in foreign
markets, where BK has also tailored its menu for regional tastes. From 2002 to 2010,
Burger King aggressively targeted the 18–34 male demographic with larger products that
often carried correspondingly large amounts of unhealthy fats and trans-fats.
As of December 31, 2016, Burger King reported it had 15,738 outlets in 100 countries. Of
these, 47.5% are in the United States and 99.5% are privately owned and operated, with its
new owners moving to an almost entirely franchised model in 2013. BK has historically
used several variations of franchising to expand its operations. The manner in which the
company licenses its franchisees varies depending on the region, with some regional
franchises, known as master franchises, responsible for selling franchise sub-licenses on
the company's behalf.

Structures and Operations

The company operates approximately 40 subsidiaries globally that oversee franchise
operations, acquisitions and financial obligations such as pensions. One example of a
subsidiary is Burger King Brands, Inc. which is responsible for the management of Burger
King's intellectual properties. A wholly owned subsidiary established in 1990, Burger King
Brands owns and manages all trademarks, copyrights and domain names used by the
restaurants in the United States and Canada. It also responsible for providing marketing
and related services to the parent company.

The majority of Burger King restaurants, approximately 90%, are privately held franchises.
In North America, Burger King Corporation is responsible for licensing operators and
administering of stores. Internationally, the company often pairs with other parties to
operate locations or it will outright sell the operational and administrative rights to a
franchisee which is given the designation of master franchise for the territory. The master
franchise will then be expected to sub-license new stores, provide training support, and
ensure operational standards are maintained.

Burger King is headquartered in a nine-story office tower by the Miami International

Airport in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, Florida. Elaine Walker of the Miami
Heraldstated that the headquarters has a "Burger King" sign that drivers on State Road
836 "can't miss". In addition, the chain planned to build a neon sign on the roof to advertise
the brand to passengers landing at the airport. On Monday July 8, 2002, 130 employees
began working at the Burger King headquarters with the remainder moving in phases in
August 2002. Prior to the moving to its current headquarters in 2002, Burger King had
considered moving away from the Miami area; Miami-Dade County politicians and leaders
lobbied against this, and Burger King stayed. In August 2014, the future of the company's
Miami headquarters was again in doubt as reports surfaced Burger King was in talks
with Tim Hortons about buying the Canadian restaurant chain, with a view to relocating its
headquarters to Canada where the corporate tax rate is lower.

The company's previous headquarters were in a southern Dade County campus described
by Walker as "sprawling" and "virtually hidden away". The former headquarters were
located on Old Cutler Boulevard in the Cutler census-designated place.

Franchises
When Burger King Corporation began franchising in 1959, it used a regional model where
franchisees purchased the right to open stores within a geographic
region. These franchise agreements granted BKC very little oversight control of its
franchisees and resulted in issues of product quality control, store image and design, and
operational procedures.

By 2001 and after nearly 18 years of stagnant growth, the state of its franchises was
beginning to affect the value of the company.

As part of 3G's restructuring plan, the company decided to divest itself of its corporate
owned locations by re-franchising them to private owners and become a 100% franchised
operation by the end of 2013. The project, which began in April 2012, saw the company
divest corporate-owned locations in Florida, Canada, Spain, Germany, and other
regions. At the end of its 2013 fiscal year, Burger King is the second largest chain of
hamburger fast food restaurants in terms of global locations, [1]:123 behind industry
bellwether McDonald's (32,400 locations); it is the fourth largest fast food restaurant chain
overall after Yum! Brands (parent of KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut totaling 37,000
locations), McDonald's,and Subway.

International Operations
While BK began its foray into locations outside of the continental United States in 1963
with a store in San Juan, Puerto Rico, it did not have an international presence until several
years later. Shortly after the acquisition of the chain by Pillsbury, it opened its first
Canadian restaurant in Windsor, Ontario in 1969. Other international locations followed
soon after: Oceania in 1971 and Europe in 1975 with a restaurant in Madrid,
Spain. Beginning in 1982, BK and its franchisees began operating stores in several East
Asian countries, including Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea. Due to high
competition, all of the Japanese locations were closed in 2001; however, BK reentered the
Japanese market in June 2007. BK's Central and South American operations began in
Mexico in the late 1970s and by the early 1980s in Caracas, Venezuela, Santiago, Chile,
and Buenos Aires, Argentina. While Burger King lags behind McDonald's in international
locations by over 12,000 stores, as of 2008 it had managed to become the largest chain in
several countries including Mexico and Spain.

The company divides its international operations into three segments; the Middle East,
Europe and Africa division (EMEA), Asia-Pacific (APAC) and Latin America and the
Caribbean (LAC). In each of these regions, Burger King has established several
subsidiaries to develop strategic partnerships and alliances to expand into new territories.
In its EMEA group, Burger King's Switzerland-based subsidiary Burger King Europe
GmbH is responsible for the licensing and development of BK franchises in those
regions. In APAC region, the Singapore-based BK AsiaPac, Pte. Ltd. business unit handles
franchising for East Asia, the Asian subcontinent and all Oceanic territories. The LAC
region includes Mexico, Central and South America and the Caribbean Islands and has no
centralized operations group.

Over a 10-year period starting in 2008, Burger King predicted 80 percent of its market
share would be driven by foreign expansion, particularly in the Asia-Pacific and Indian
subcontinent regional markets. While the TPG-led group continued BK's international
expansion by announcing plans to open new franchise locations in Eastern Europe, Africa
and the Middle East, and Brazil, the company plan is focusing on the three largest markets
– India, China, and Japan The company plans to add over 250 stores in these Asian
territories, as well as other places such as Macau, by the end of 2012.

Controversies and Legal Cases

Burger King has been involved in several legal disputes and cases, as both plaintiff and
defendant, in the years since its founding in 1954. Depending on the ownership and
executive staff at the time of these incidents, the company's responses to these challenges
have ranged from a conciliatory dialog with its critics and litigants, to a more aggressive
opposition with questionable tactics and negative consequences The company's response to
these various issues has drawn prais as well as accusations of political appeasement from
different parties over the years

A trademark dispute involving the owners of the identically named Burger King
in Mattoon, Illinois, led to a federal lawsuit. The case's outcome helped define the scope of
the Lanham act and trademark law in the United States An existing trademark held by a
shop of the same name in South Australia forced the company to change its name in
Australia while another state trademark in Texas forced the company to abandon its
signature product, the Whopper, in several counties around San Antonio. The company
was only able to enter northern Alberta, in Canada, in 1995, after it paid the founders
of another chain named Burger King.

Charitable Contributions and Services

Burger King has two of its own in-house national charitable organizations and programs.
One is the Have It Your Way Foundation, a US-based non-profit corporation with
multiple focuses on hunger alleviation, disease prevention and community education
through scholarship programs at colleges in the US. The other charitable organization is
the McLamore Foundation, also a non-profit, corporation that provides scholarships to
students in the US and its territories.

In various regions across the United States, Burger King and its franchises have aligned
themselves with several charitable organizations that support research and treatment of
juvenile cancer. Each year, these coalitions hold a fund raising drive called "A Chance for

Kids", in which Burger King restaurants sell lottery-style scratch cards for $1. Each card
produces a winning prize that is usually a food or beverage product, but includes (rarer)
items such as shopping sprees or trips. In the Northeast, BK has affiliated itself with
the Major League Baseball team the Boston Red Sox and its charitable foundation,
the Jimmy Fund. The group runs the contest in Boston. In the New York City area, it
operates the contest in association with the Burger King Children's Charities of Metro New
York and the New York Yankees. Funds raised in these areas go to support the Dana-
Farber Cancer Institute, located in Boston. In Nebraska, the company is affiliated with the
Liz's Legacy Cancer Fund "BK Beat Cancer for Kids" program at the UNMC Eppley
Cancer Center at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. In
the Pittsburgh region, it funded the establishment of the Burger King Cancer Caring
Center, a support organization for the families and friends of cancer patients.

Products
When the predecessor of Burger King first opened in Jacksonville in 1953, its menu
consisted predominantly of basic hamburgers, French fries, soft drinks, milkshakes, and
desserts. After being acquired by its Miami, Florida, franchisees and renamed to its current
moniker in 1954, BK began expanding the breadth of its menu by adding the Whopper
sandwich in 1957. This quarter-pound (4 oz (110 g)) hamburger was created by Burger
King's new owners James McLamore and David Edgerton as a way to differentiate BK
from other burger outlets at the time. Since its inception, the Whopper has become
synonymous with Burger King and has become the focus of much of its advertising. The
company even named its new kiosk-style restaurants Whopper Bars.
At the end of 2015, Burger King's parent company, Restaurant Brands International,
announced that none of its subsidiaries would use chicken that had been fed antibiotics that
are "critically important” to human health; that announcement referred only to a small class
of antibiotics for which there is only one drug that kill a kind of bacteria and the
announcement was described as a "small step" by advocates for stopping all antibiotic use
in livestock.

Advertising
Since its foundation in 1954, Burger King has employed varied advertising programs, both
successful and unsuccessful. During the 1970s, output included its "Hold the pickles, hold
the lettuce..." jingle, the inspiration for its current mascot the Burger King, and several well
known and parodied slogans such as "Have it your way" and "It takes two hands to handle
a Whopper". Burger King introduced the first attack ad in the fast food industry with a pre-
teen Sarah Michelle Gellar in 1981. The television spot, which claimed BK burgers were
larger and better tasting than competitor McDonald's, so enraged executives at McDonald's
parent company that they sued all parties involved. Starting in the early 1980s and running
through approximately 2001, BK engaged a series of ad agencies that produced many
unsuccessful slogans and programs, including its biggest advertising flop "Where's Herb?"

Burger King was a pioneer in the advertising practice known as the "product tie-in", with a
successful partnership with George Lucas' Lucasfilm, Ltd., to promote the 1977 film Star
Wars in which BK sold a set of glasses featuring the main characters from the movie. This
promotion was one of the first in the fast food industry and set the pattern that continues to
the present. BK's early success in the field was overshadowed by a 1982 deal between
McDonald's and the Walt Disney Company to promote Disney's animated films beginning
in the mid-1980s and running through the early 1990s. In 1994, Disney switched from
McDonald's to Burger King, signing a 10-movie promotional contract which would
include such top 10 films as Aladdin (1992), Beauty and the Beast (1991), The Lion
King (1994), and Toy Story (1995). A partnership in association with
the Pokémon franchise at the height of its popularity in 1999 was tremendously successful
for the company, with many locations rapidly selling out of the toys and the replacements.

SWOT Analysis of Burger King

Burger King’s ability to keep its position as one of the biggest players in the quick
service/fast food restaurant industry is partly based on the business strategic balance shown
in this SWOT analysis. The SWOT analysis model examines the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats most significant to the firm. As a food service business, Burger
King must use its strengths to compete against giants like McDonald’s. In addition, the
company must consider the threats and risks linked to the global fast food restaurant
market. It is expectable that Burger King will remain one of the major players in this
market.

Burger King’s Strengths

Burger King’s strengths are based on the company’s business capabilities. This part of the
SWOT analysis determines the internal strategic factors that create business capacity for
continued development. Burger King’s main strengths are as follows:
1. Strong brand image
2. High market penetration
3. Moderate differentiation of products

Burger King has one of the strongest brands in the industry. This condition makes it easier
for the company to open new restaurants and introduce new products. Higher market
penetration is a strength based on the large number of Burger King restaurants across the
globe. Also, Burger King’s moderate differentiation (e.g., grilled burgers) is a strength that
allows the company to ensure uniqueness of some of its products. In this part of the SWOT
analysis, Burger King’s strengths are mainly based on branding and market penetration.

Burger King’s Weaknesses

Burger King’s weaknesses are linked to its business model and general strategic
approaches. The internal strategic factors that reduce or limit the firm’s effectiveness are
identified in this part of the SWOT analysis. The following are Burger King’s main
weaknesses:

1. Easily imitable business

2. Limited product mix
3. Low control on franchise model

Even though Burger King has moderate differentiation, one of its weaknesses is that its
business model and products are easily imitated. For example, other firms could offer
similar grilled burgers. Also, Burger King’s limited product mix is a weakness because it
prevents the company from attracting customers looking for more options. In addition,
even though Burger King grew internationally through franchising, the franchising model
is a weakness because it limits corporate control on franchisees’ approaches to
management. In this part of the SWOT analysis, the limited product mix is the weakness
that Burger King can most easily address.

Opportunities for Burger King

The opportunities for Burger King present options for business growth and development.
This part of the SWOT analysis shows the external strategic factors that the firm can use to
improve its performance. Burger King’s opportunities are as follows:

1. Diversification/product mix widening

2. Market development
3. Service quality improvement

Burger King has the opportunity to widen its product mix by adding new product lines to
attract more customers. Also, the company could establish new businesses or subsidiaries
as part of market development to gain more revenues while reducing the effects of market
risks. In addition, Burger King has the opportunity to increase service quality as a way of
differentiating its business from competitors like McDonald’s

Threats facing Burger King

The threats against Burger King emphasize market conditions. The external strategic
factors that limit or reduce business performance are shown in this part of the SWOT
analysis. The following are the main threats against Burger King:

1. Aggressive competition
2. Imitation
3. Healthy lifestyles trend

Burger King faces the threat of aggressive competition, considering other firms like
McDonald’s and Wendy’s. The company’s business model is also imitable, leading to the
threat of imitation by new entrants. In addition, the healthy lifestyles trend is a threat
because Burger King’s products are criticized as unhealthy. In this part of the SWOT
analysis, Burger King can easily address the threats of aggressive competition and the
healthy lifestyles trend.

1.5 Limitations of the Study

The main purpose of this study is get idea about the customer satisfaction towards Burger
King products. But there are certain factors which affects this study they are as follow:
 Since the sampling procedure was judgmental, the sample selected may not be true
representative of the population.

 The project duration is limited to 4 weeks so it limits the area of study.

 CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Burger King Corporation is the second largest fast-food chain in the United States, trailing
only McDonald’s. The company franchises more than 10,400 restaurants and owns about
1,000 for a chainwide total exceeding 11,455, with locations in all 50 states and 56
countries. The company serves 15.7 million customers each day and over 2.4 billion
Burger King hamburgers are sold each year across the globe. In the late 1990s and into the
new millennium, Burger King was plagued by falling sales and deteriorating franchisee
relationships. Burger King’s parent, Diageo plc, sold the company to a group of investors
led by Texas Pacific Group in late 2002.

Rapid Growth under Company Founders: 1954–67

Miami entrepreneurs James McLamore and David Edgerton founded Burger King
Corporation in 1954. Five years later, they were ready to expand their five Florida Burger
Kings into a nationwide chain. By the time they sold their company to Pillsbury in 1967,
Burger King had become the third largest fast-food chain in the country and was on its way
to second place, after industry leader McDonald’s.

The story of Burger King’s growth is the story of how franchising and advertising
developed the fast-food industry. McLamore and Edgerton began in 1954 with a simple
concept: to attract the burgeoning numbers of postwar baby boom families with
reasonably-priced, broiled burgers served quickly. The idea was not unique: drive-ins
offering cheap fast food were springing up all across America in the early 1950s. In fact,
1954 was the same year Ray Kroc made his deal with the McDonald brothers, whose
original southern California drive-in started the McDonald’s empire.

McLamore and Edgerton tried to give their Burger King restaurants a special edge. Burger
King became the first chain to offer dining rooms (albeit uncomfortable plastic ones). In
1957 they expanded their menu with the Whopper, a burger with sauce, cheese, lettuce,
pickles, and tomato, for big appetites. But prices were kept low: a hamburger cost 18 cents
and the Whopper 37 cents. In 1958 they took advantage of an increasingly popular
medium, television: the first Burger King television commercial appeared on Miami’s
VHF station that year.

By 1959 McLamore and Edgerton were ready to expand beyond Florida, and franchising
seemed to be the best way to take their concept to a broader market. Franchising was
booming in the late 1950s because it allowed companies to expand with minimal
investment. Like many other franchisers, McLamore and Edgerton attracted their investors
by selling exclusive rights to large territories throughout the country. The buyers of these
territorial rights, many of them large businesses themselves, could do what they wanted to
in their territory: buy land, build as many stores as they liked, sell part of the territory to
other investors, or diversify. McLamore and Edgerton took their initial payments (which
varied with the territory) and their cut (as little as 1 percent of sales) and left their
franchisees pretty much on their own.

The system worked well, allowing Burger King to expand rapidly. By 1967, when the
partners decided to sell the company they had founded, the chain included 274 stores and
was worth $18 million to its buyer, prepared-foods giant Pillsbury.

Difficulties with Franchisees Under Pillsbury: 1967–77

The Burger King franchising system also worked well for the franchisees. Under the early
Burger King system, some of the company’s large investors expanded at a rate rivaling that
of the parent company. Where this loosely knit franchising system failed, however, was in
providing a consistent company image. Because McLamore and Edgerton didn’t check on
their franchises and used only a small field staff for franchise support, the chain was noted
for inconsistency in both food and service from franchise to franchise, a major flaw in a
chain that aimed to attract customers by assuring them of what to expect in every Burger
King they visited.

It was up to the new owner, Pillsbury, to crack down on franchise owners. But some large
franchisees thought they could run their Burger King outlets better than a packaged-goods
company. Wealthy Louisianans Billy and Jimmy Trotter bought their first Burger King
outlet in 1963. By 1969, they controlled almost two dozen Burger King restaurants and
went public under the name Self Service Restaurants Inc. In 1970, when the franchisees in
control of the lucrative Chicago market decided to sell out, Billy Trotter flew to Chicago in
a snowstorm to buy the territory for $8 million. By the time Pillsbury executives got to
town the next day, they found they had been bested by their own franchisee.

It was up to the new owner, Pillsbury, to crack down on franchise owners. But some large
franchisees thought they could run their Burger King outlets better than a packaged-goods
company. Wealthy Louisianans Billy and Jimmy Trotter bought their first Burger King
outlet in 1963. By 1969, they controlled almost two dozen Burger King restaurants and
went public under the name Self Service Restaurants Inc. In 1970, when the franchisees in
control of the lucrative Chicago market decided to sell out, Billy Trotter flew to Chicago in
a snowstorm to buy the territory for $8 million. By the time Pillsbury executives got to
town the next day, they found they had been bested by their own franchisee.

However, Pillsbury wasn’t about to allow Chart House to gain other valuable territories.
They sued the Boston franchisees who had sold to Chart House, citing Pillsbury’s
contractual right of first refusal to any sale. Eventually Chart House compromised,
agreeing to give up its Boston holdings in exchange for the right to keep its Houston
properties.

New Leadership: 1977–80

Pillsbury’s suit was proof of a new management attitude that involved more central control
over powerful franchisees. However, it wasn’t until Pillsbury brought in a hard-hitting
executive from McDonald’s that Burger King began to exert real control over its
franchisees. Donald Smith was third in line for the top spot at McDonald’s when Pillsbury
lured him away in 1977 with a promise of full autonomy in the top position at Burger
King. Smith used it to “McDonaldize” the company, a process that was especially felt
among the franchise holders.
While Burger King had grown by selling wide territorial rights, McDonald’s had taken a
different approach from the very beginning, leasing stores to franchisees and demanding a
high degree of uniformity in return. When Smith came on board at Burger King in 1977,
the company owned only 34 percent of the land and buildings in which its products were
sold. Land ownership is advantageous because land is an appreciating asset and a source of
tax deductions, but more importantly it gives the parent company a landlord’s power over
recalcitrant franchisees.

Smith began by introducing a more demanding franchise contract. Awarded only to

individuals, not partnerships or companies, it stipulated that franchisees may not own other
restaurants and must live within an hour’s drive of their franchise, effectively stopping
franchisees from getting too big. He also created ten regional offices to manage franchises.

Smith’s new franchise regulations were soon put to the test. Barry W. Florescue, chairman
of Horn & Hardart, the creator of New York City’s famous Automat restaurants, had
recognized that nostalgia alone couldn’t keep the original fast-food outlets alive and had
decided to turn them into Burger Kings. Smith limited Florescue to building four new
stores a year in New York and insisted that he could not expand elsewhere. When
Florescue bought eight units in California anyway, Smith sued successfully. Florescue then
signed with Arby’s, and Smith again effectively asserted Burger King’s control in court,
based on the franchise contract. His strong response to the upstart franchisee kept Horn &
Hardart from becoming too strong a force within Burger King.

Increasing control over franchisees was not the only change Pillsbury instituted at Burger
King during the 1970s. Like many other chains, Burger King began to expand abroad early
in the decade. Fast food and franchising were unfamiliar outside the United States, making
international expansion a challenge. Burger King’s international operations never became
as profitable as anticipated, but within a decade the company was represented in 30 foreign
countries.

At home the company focused on attracting new customers. In 1974 management required
franchisees to use the “hospitality system,” or multiple lines, to speed up service. In 1975
Burger King reintroduced drive-through windows. While original stands had offered this
convenience, it had gradually been eliminated as Burger King restaurants added dining
rooms. Drive-throughs proved to be a profitable element, accounting for 60 percent of fast
food sales throughout the industry by 1987.

Smith also revamped the corporate structure, replacing eight of ten managers with
McDonald’s people. To attack Burger King’s inconsistency problem, Smith mandated a
yearly two-day check of each franchise and frequent unscheduled visits. He also decided
that the company should own its outlets whenever possible, and by 1979 had brought the
company’s share of outlet ownership from 34 percent to 42 percent.

Troubled Times in the 1980s

Smith left Burger King in June 1980 to try to introduce the same kind of fast-food
management techniques at Pizza Hut. (Ironically, when he left Pizza Hut in 1983 he moved
into the chief executive position at the franchisee that had given Burger King so much
trouble, Chart House.) By following in Smith’s general direction, Burger King reached its
number-two position within two years of his departure, but frequent changes at the top for
the next several years meant inconsistent management for the company. Louis P. Neeb
succeeded Smith, to be followed less than two years later by Jerry Ruenheck. Ruenheck
resigned to become a Burger King franchise owner in Florida less than two years after that,
and his successor, Jay Darling, resigned a little over a year later to take on a Burger King
franchise himself. Charles Olcott, a conservative former chief financial officer, took over
in 1987.

Burger King did not stand still under its succession of heads, though. The company
continued to expand abroad, opening a training center in London to serve its European
franchisees and employees in 1985. Besides developing successful breakfast entries,
Burger King added salad bars and a “light” menu to meet the demand for foods with a
healthier, less fatty image. In 1985 the firm began a $100 million program to remodel most
of its restaurants to include more natural materials, such as wood and plants, and less
plastic. Burger King also completely computerized its cooking and cash register operations
so even the least skilled teenager could do the job. Average sales per restaurant reached the
$1 million mark in 1985.

Even some of Burger King’s post-Smith successes caused problems, though. The company
introduced another successful new entree, Chicken Tenders, in 1986, only to find it that it
could not obtain enough chicken to meet demand. Burger King was forced to pull its $30
million introductory ad campaign.

Burger King was still bedeviled by the old complaint that its service and food were
inconsistent. The company played out its identity crisis in public, changing ad styles with
almost the same frequency that it changed managers. After Smith’s departure in 1980,
Burger King’s old “Have it your way” campaign (“Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce.
Special orders don’t upset us.”) was no longer appropriate. That ad campaign emphasized
as a selling point what many saw as a drawback at Burger King: longer waiting times.
However, under Smith’s emphasis on speed and efficiency, special orders did upset store
owners. So the company turned to the harder sell “Aren’t you hungry for Burger King
now?” campaign. The hard sell approach moved the chain into second place, and Burger
King took an even more aggressive advertising line. In 1982 Burger King directly attacked
its competitors, alleging that Burger King’s grilled burgers were better than McDonald’s
and Wendy’s fried burgers. Both competitors sued over the ads, and Wendy’s challenged
Burger King to a taste test (a challenge that was pointedly ignored). In return for dropping
the suits, Burger King agreed to phase out the offending ads gradually, but Burger King
came out the winner in its $25 million “Battle of the Burgers”: the average volume of its
3,500 stores rose from $750,000 to $840,000 in 1982, sales were up 19 percent, and pretax
profits rose 9 percent.

Burger King’s subsequent ad campaigns were not as successful. In 1985 the company
added just over half an ounce of meat to its Whopper, making the 4.2 ounce sandwich
slightly larger than the quarter-pound burgers of its competitors. The meatier Whopper and
the $30 million ad campaign using celebrities to promote it failed to bring in new business.
All three of the major campaigns that followed (“Herb the Nerd,” “This is a Burger King
town,” and “Fast food for fast times”) were costly flops. “We do it like you’d do
it” followed in 1988, with little more success.

In 1988, the company faced another kind of threat. Parent Pillsbury, the target of a hostile
takeover attempt by the British company Grand Metropolitan plc, devised a counterplan
that included spinning off the troubled Burger King chain to shareholders, but at the cost of
new debt that would lower the price of both Pillsbury and the new Burger King shares.
Such a plan would have made it highly unlikely that Burger King could ever have
overcome its ongoing problems of quality and consistent marketing.

Pillsbury’s plan didn’t work, and Grand Met bought Pillsbury in January 1989 for $66 a
share, or approximately $5.7 billion. Pillsbury became part of Grand Met’s worldwide
system of food and retailing businesses with well-known brand names. In Burger King,
Grand Met got a company with some problems but whose 5,500 restaurants in all 50 states
and 30 foreign countries gave it a strong presence.

Turnaround in the 1990s

Grand Met’s first move was to place Barry Gibbons, a successful manager of pubs and
restaurants in the United Kingdom, into the CEO slot. Soon thereafter, in September 1989,
Grand Met acquired several restaurant properties from United Biscuits (Holdings) plc,
including the Wimpey hamburger chain, which included 381 U.K. outlets and 148 in other
countries. By the summer of 1990,200 Wimpeys had been converted to Burger Kings,
bolstering the company’s foreign operations, a traditional area of weakness. Over the next
several years, Burger King was much more aggressive with its international expansion,
with restaurants opening for the first time in Hungary and Mexico
(1991); Poland (1992); Saudi Arabia (1993); Israel, Oman, the Dominican Republic, El
Salvador, Peru, and New Zealand (1994); and Paraguay (1995). By 1996, Burger King had
outlets in 56 countries, a dramatic increase from the 30 of just seven years earlier.

While Gibbons was successful in accelerating the company’s international growth, overall
his tenure as CEO (which lasted until 1993) brought a mixture of successes and failures. In
the new product area, the hamburger chain hit it big with the 1990 introduction of the BK
Broiler, a broiled chicken sandwich aimed at fast-food eaters seeking a somewhat more
healthful meal; soon after introduction, more than one million were being sold each day.
Also successful were promotions aimed at children. In 1990 the Burger King Kids Club
program was launched nationwide, and more than one million kids signed up in the first
two months. The program continued to grow thereafter; by 1996 membership stood at five
million and the number of Kids Club meals sold each month had increased from 6.1
million in 1990 to nearly 12 million.
Also hugely successful was the long-term deal with Disney for motion plcture tie-ins
signed in 1992. Through 1996 (when Disney broke with Burger King to sign a deal with
arch-rival McDonald’s), the partnership had involved such Disney smashes as Beauty and
the Beast, The Lion King, and Toy Story. In 1996 Burger King signed a
new Hollywood deal with DreamWorks SKG.

Gibbons also worked to improve Burger King’s profitability, under a mandate from Grand
Met. Soon after taking over as CEO, Gibbons cut more than 500 jobs, mainly field staff
positions. He also began to divest company-owned stores in areas where the company did
not have critical mass, particularly west of the Mississippi. Doing so helped increase
profitability, although some observers charged that Gibbons was selling off valuable assets
just to improve the company numbers. In any case, during Gibbons’s last two years as
CEO, profits were about $250 million each year, compared to at most $175 million a year
under Pillsbury.

Where Gibbons certainly failed, however, was in addressing Burger King’s longstanding
problem with image. The advertising program was still in disarray as the firm hired in
1989, D’Arcy Masius Benton & Bowles, created still more short-lived
campaigns: “Sometimes you’ve gotta break the rules” (1989–91), “Your way right
away” (1991), and “BK Tee Vee” (1992–93). Neither franchisees nor customers were
endeared to any of these. In the face of the improving profitability of the corporation, such
marketing blunders led to abysmal chainwide sales increases, such as a 3.6 percent
increase for fiscal years 1991 and 1992 combined.

In mid-1993, James Adamson succeeded Gibbons as CEO, a position for which he had
been groomed since joining Burger King as COO in 1991. Adamson, who actively sought
out the advice of company co-founder James W. McLamore, moved to build on Gibbons’s
successes as well as rectify the failures. Adamson’s most important initiatives addressed
key areas: quality, value, and image. He improved the quality of products, such as in 1994
when the size of the BK Broiler, the BK Big Fish, and the hamburger were increased by
more than 50 percent. He belatedly added a “value menu” after most other fast feeders had
already done so, as well as offering special promotions, such as the 990 Whopper. Related
to both value and image was the long-awaited successful ad campaign, “Get your burger’s
worth,”created by Ammirati Puris Lintas, and emphasizing a back-to-basics approach and
good value. The focus on the basics also led to a simplification of what had become an
unwieldy menu—40 items were eliminated. The new focus was on burgers—with an
emphasis on flame broiling—fries, and drinks. By early 1995, Adamson’s program was
paying off as same-store sales increased 6.6 percent for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1995. Morale among the franchisees had improved dramatically as well.

Adamson resigned suddenly in early 1995 to head Flagstar Cos. of Spartanburg, South
Carolina. In July, Robert C. Lowes, who had been chief officer for Grand Met Foods
Europe, was named CEO. Later that same year he became chairman of Burger King and
gained a position on the Grand Met executive committee, a move that signaled Grand
Met’s commitment to Burger King and the strength of the company’s resurgence. Lowes
soon set some lofty goals for Burger King, including $10 billion in systemwide sales by
1997 (from $8.4 billion in 1995) and 10,000 outlets by the year 2000 (there were 8,455 in
mid-1996). Management changes continued however, and in 1997 Dennis Malamatinas, an
executive from Grand Met’s Asian beverage division, was named CEO. Later that year,
Grand Met merged with Guinness, creating Diageo plc. The new company’s main focus
was on its beverage and spirits business, leaving many analysts speculating that Diageo
would eventually sell or spin off Burger King.

Despite the changes in ownership and management, Burger King remained dedicated to
beating out its main competition, McDonald’s. It introduced the new Big King burger to
compete with McDonald’s Big Mac and also launched a $70 million french fry advertising
campaign that included a free fryday give-away at its restaurants. By 1998 both domestic
and international sales were increasing, along with market share.

Bolstered by its recent success, Burger King launched an aggressive restructuring

campaign that included adopting a new logo; store remodeling with cobalt blue, red, and
yellow décor; new packaging; drive-thru lane upgrades; and a new cooking system. The
firm also began to turnaround its European operations, exiting the highly competitive
French region and focusing on growth in the UK, Germany, and Spain. The
company’s Latin America, Mexico, and Caribbean operations also experienced modest
growth.
Problems Lead to a Sale: 1999 and Beyond

Burger King’s success however, proved to be short-lived. In 1999, the company was forced
to recall a promotional toy, the Pokémon ball, after it was discovered to be potentially
dangerous for children. A class-action suit followed, claiming the company acted in a
negligent fashion when it distributed the toy in its kids’ meals. The firm’s relationship with
its franchisees was also deteriorating, marked by a highly publicized lawsuit with
franchisee La Van Hawkins. The Detroit-based entrepreneur claimed Burger King failed to
help him develop and purchase restaurants as promised. The firm counter-sued claiming
that Hawkins owed the company $16 million. Civil rights activist Al Sharpton threatened
to boycott Burger King as a result. To top it off, sales were falling, and the company
experienced yet another change in management. Malamatinas left the firm in 2000, and
Colin Storm was named interim CEO.

By this time, Burger King’s parent company had announced plans to exit the fast food
industry. Many franchisees were experiencing financial difficulties—including bankruptcy
—and had long since complained that Diageo had neglected Burger King in favor of its
premium liquor business. These franchisees adopted an internal program entitled “Project
Champion” aimed at forcing a sale of Burger King. They approached J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co. to orchestrate the deal, and, eventually, Diageo agreed to sell Burger King. Texas
Pacific Group along with Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners purchased the
fast food chain for $1.5 billion in late 2002.

According to a 2003 Feedstuff’s article, Burger King’s franchisee association claimed that
the new ownership marked “the first day of a new era” for Burger King. CEO John
Dasburg—elected in 2001—also felt the acquisition had significant benefits. In the
aforementioned article Dasburg remarked that it would “better position Burger King as a
healthy, independent company for the first time in more than 30 years.”

While company management appeared optimistic about its future, Burger King remained
embroiled in intense competition. The firm continued to launch new advertising campaigns
and in 2002 introduced the BK Veggie, the first fast food veggie burger to be offered in the
United States. Also in 2002, Burger King revamped the BK Broiler, making a new product
they called the Chicken Whopper. The firm also moved into its new world headquarters in
Miami, dedicating the building to founders Edgerton and McLamore. Management focused
on capturing a larger portion of the fast food market. However, only time would tell if
Burger King’s new independence would help realize its goals.
 CHAPTER-3
RESEARCH METHOLOGY

A research design is the specification of methods and procedures for acquiring the needed
information. It is overall operational pattern or framework of the project that stipulates
what information is to be collected from which source by what procedure.
There are three types of objectives in a marketing research project:-

 Exploratory Research.
 Descriptive Research.
 Casual Research.

1. Exploratory Research:-

The objective of exploratory research is to gather preliminary information that will help
define problems and suggest hypothesis.

2. Descriptive Research:-

The objective of descriptive research is to describe things, such as the market potential
for a product or the demographics and attitudes of consumers who buy the product.

3. Casual Research:-

The objective of casual research is to test hypothesis about casual and effect
relationships.

Based on the above definitions it can be established that this study is a Descriptive
Research as the attitudes of the customers who buy the products and the satisfaction they
obtain from Burger King have been stated. Through this study we are trying to analyze the
various factors that may be responsible for the preference of Burger King products.
Sources of Data
The data has been collected from both primary as well as secondary sources.

Secondary Data
It is defined as the data collected earlier for a purpose other than one currently being
pursued.
As a researcher I have scanned lot of sources to get an access to secondary data which have
formed a reference base to compare the research findings. Secondary data in this study has
provided an insight and forms an outline for the core objectives established.
The various sources of secondary data used for this study are:-
 News papers.
 Magazines.
 Internet.

Primary Data
The primary data has been collected simultaneously along with secondary data for meeting
the established objectives to provide the solution for the problem identified in this study.
The method that have been used to collect the primary data is Questionnaire.

Research Measuring Tools & Techniques

The primary tool for the data collection used in this study is the respondent’s response to
the questionnaire given to them. The various research measuring tools used are:-
 Questionnaire.
 Tables.
 Percentages.
 Pie-charts.
 Bar-charts.
 Column charts.

Sampling Design
An integral component of a research design is the sampling plan. Especially it addresses
three questions: Whom to survey (sample Unit), how many to survey (Sample Size) and
how to select them (sampling Procedure). Making the census study of the entire universe
will be impossible on the account of limitations of time and money. Hence sampling
becomes inevitable. A sample is only his portion of population. Properly done, sampling
produces representative data of the entire population.

Sampling Tool & Sample Size

Questionnaire was used as a main tool for the collection of data, mainly because it gives
the chance for timely feedback from respondents. Moreover respondents feel free to
disclose all necessary detail while filling up a questionnaire. Respondents seeking any
clarification can easily be sorted out through tool.

Sampling Tools Respondents Number

Questionnaire Customers 100
Total 100

Field Work
The study was conducted in New Delhi.
 The questionnaires were given to the respondents to fill in order to get their
feedback.
 CHAPTER-4
DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETITION

Data analysis and interpretation is the process of assigning meaning to the collected
information and determining the conclusions, significance, and implications of the
findings. The steps involved in data analysis are a function of the type of information
collected, however, returning to the purpose of the assessment and the assessment
questions will provide a structure for the organization of the data and a focus for the
analysis.

There are differences between qualitative data analysis and quantitative data analysis. In
qualitative researches using interviews, focus groups, experiments etc. data analysis is
going to involve identifying common patterns within the responses and critically analyzing
them in order to achieve research aims and objectives. Data analysis for quantitative
studies, on the other hand, involves critical analysis and interpretation of figures and
numbers, and attempts to find rationale behind the emergence of main findings.
Comparisons of primary research findings to the findings of the literature review are
critically important for both types of studies – qualitative and quantitative.

The analysis of the data via statistical measures and/or narrative themes should provide
answers to your assessment questions. Interpreting the analyzed data from the
appropriate perspective allows for determination of the significance and implications of
the assessment.Analysis of data is a process of inspecting, cleaning, transforming, and
modeling data with the goal of discovering useful information, suggesting conclusions,
and supporting decision making.
 Graphical Representation of Data

1. Percentage of people who have visited Burger King.

The above chart show the percentage of people who have been to the fast food
joint Burger King. It can be seen that 94% of people have visited Burger King
while the remaining 6% have not visited even once.
2. Number of visits in a Month.

The information gathered from the above chart is described below:

 36% of the people go to Burger King less than 2 times in a month.
 24% people visits Burger King about 2-3 times in a month.
 22% of the people visits about 3-5 times in a month.
 Remaining 18% of the people visits more than 5 times a month.
 3. Service at Burger King

The above chart shows that around 70% of the people are satisfied with the
service of Burger King (Good+Brilliant). While from the remaining 30% of the
people, 22% treats the service of Burger King as Average and 8%
4. Product Prices

Only 22% of the people finds the product prices of Burger King expensive. On the other
hand, 40% finds it as consumer friendly and 38% as average.

5. Satisfaction with product line

It can be noticed that 60% of the people are satisfied with the current product line or
menu of Burger King, while 40% people want some more additions.

6. The below presented pie chart shows other fast food joints which people visit
frequently.

7. The aspect of Burger King which sets it apart from other Fast Food joints.
 The information analyzed from the above chart is described below:
 34% of people thinks that Burger King has a variety of food options.
 16% people thinks that the atmosphere in Burger King is best.
 24% people thinks that Burger King’s preparation time is short.
 Exciting deals offered by Burger King attracts 26% people.

8. Recommendation by Customers
 Burger King is highly recommended by 38% people
 42% people remained neutral.
 20% people does not recommend Burger King to others.

9. Would you eat at Burger King more often if a store is opened near your
residence.

10. Overall Customer Satisfaction(5 being the best)

 CHAPTER-5
FINDINGS AND SUGGESTION
5.1 FINDINGS

The main and basic objective of the research was to find out the overall customer
satisfaction from Burger King. According to the data of the questionnaire, the following
information gathered shows that 70% of people are satisfied with the service of Burger
King and marked the service as good or brilliant. The reason for dissatisfaction of the
remaining people is the product line of Burger King. Around 40% people think that their
must be some additions in the menu of Burger King. It is clear that 60% people are
satisfied with the current product line or menu. Another reason for dissatisfaction can be
price as well. Around 22% of people find the products as expensive, while the remaining
considers the price as average or consumer friendly. Burger King can also increase its sales
if more stores are opened near the residential areas. 42% people will tend to visit more in
Burger King if they have the store near the residence. It can be found out that overall
customers are satisfied with the Burger King as only 22% of people rated the level of
satisfaction either 2 or below 2. Remaining people gave more than 3 out of 5 in the overall
satisfaction level. So, Burger King can increase the customer satisfaction either by adding
new products in its product line or by reducing the prices or both.

5.2 Suggestions
According to the research, the customers that are dissatisfied with Burger King are low in
number. However, the reason for dissatisfaction can be the prices or the product line. So,
the following ways are suggested to increase the customer satisfaction:

 Burger King should concentrate on the food options and should provide its
customers with new product line. The changes in the menu may be implemented for
a short period and it may be checked whether the customers are satisfied or not. If
satisfied, Burger King should continue the product, else the product may be
discontinued.

 Burger King already provides its customers with various exciting deals and offers.
It should constantly come up with the new offers so that more and more people are
 attracted towards Burge King. Some people think that the prices of the products are
high. This problem can also be removed with the help of exciting deals.

 Shorter time for food delivery, fast order taking, good taste of food served, and
good dining ambience are some points suggested by the respondents of the
questionnaire to increase the satisfaction. Due consideration should be given to
these points.

5.3 Recommendations

Customer satisfaction is the measurement of how happy the customers are. Improving
customer satisfaction will help an organization to increase revenue, boost customer
lifespan and create more advocates. Based on the customer’s recommendations or views,
the study recommends the following:

 Fast food operators should provide amenities such as parking areas and attractive
building exteriors in order to enhance their customers’ satisfaction towards services
rendered. Also, management should ensure that their employees are well dressed
and presentable.

 Service provider of fast food restaurants should endeavour to improve on their

empathy by providing more of caring and personalized service to customers. This is
of great importance to those organizations/chains that are already in business and
those aspiring to venture into fast food industry.

 Responsiveness of employees can be increased through increased employee

motivations, improved selling skills, positive training attitude, clearer role
perceptions, high service knowledge and high awareness of organizational policies.
Thus, service quality and organizational effectiveness can be improved
simultaneously which will further lead to increased level of customer satisfaction.
CHAPTER-6
CONCLUSION
6.1 Conclusion

According to the data collected through the questionnaire, mostly the respondents belong
to the age group of 18-24 years. There are different factors that each customer considers to
measure the overall satisfaction. Accordingly, 34% of people finds that Burger king has
good food options, 26% finds that Burger king provides great and amazing deals to the
customers, 24% of the respondents think that Burger King has a short preparation time and
the remaining people think that Burger King has a nice atmosphere. All these factors are
responsible for increasing the overall level of satisfaction. So, Burger King should focus on
all these aspects for attracting large number of customers and increase their satisfaction.
The information collected from the research shows that around 78% of the people are
satisfied with Burger King and marked the ratings more than 3 out of 5. Other 22% people
are dissatisfied or not fully satisfied because of the product line or the price. Some people
(around 20%) find the products of Burger King expensive and 40% of the respondents
think that there must be an addition in the product line and the menu should be upgraded.
Research also shows that after Mcdonald’s have been shut down, the major competitors of
Burger King in the fast food industry are Domino’s and Pizza Hut.
In the present day market, customer satisfaction is the core or fundamental objective of
every organization. So, Burger King can also increase the level of satisfaction by adding
more products and upgrading its menu.

Bibliography
 Gale, Thomas (2004). "History of Burger King Corporation". Encyclopedia.com.
International Directory of Company Histories. Retrieved October 8, 2014
 "Tim Hortons, Burger King agree to merger deal". CBC News. August 26, 2014.
 "Burger King arrives in India, all set to open first store in Delhi". Hindustan Times.
Reuters. November 8, 2014.
 www.bk.com/en/us/index.html
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King
 www.burgerkingindia.in
 www.scribd.com