“A STUDY ON CUSTOMER PREFERENCE TOWARDS

ONLINE FOOD DELIVERY SERVICES: ZOMATO AND

SWIGGY: WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THRISSUR
DISTRICT”

Project Report submitted to

UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of

BACHELOR OF COMMERCE

Submitted by

KRISHNAPRIYA R MENON
(CCASBCM164)

Under the supervision of

Ms. VIJAYA E S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

CHRIST COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS), IRINJALAKUDA

MARCH 2021
 CHRIST COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS), IRINJALAKUDA

CALICUT UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project report entitled “A STUDY ON CUSTOMER

PREFERENCE TOWARDS ONLINE FOOD DELIVERY SERVICES:
ZOMATO AND SWIGGY: WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
THRISSUR DISTRICT” is a bonafide record of project done by
KRISHNAPRIYA R MENON, Reg. No. CCASBCM164, under my guidance
and supervision in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the
degree of BACHELOR OF COMMERCE and it has not previously formed the
basis for any Degree, Diploma and Associateship or Fellowship.

Prof. K.J.JOSEPH Ms. VIJAYA E S

Co-ordinator Project Guide
 DECLARATION

I, KRISHNAPRIYA R MENON, hereby declare that the project work entitled

“A STUDY ON CUSTOMER PREFERENCE TOWARDS ONLINE
FOOD DELIVERY SERVICES: ZOMATO AND SWIGGY: WITH
SPECIAL REFERNCE TO THRISSUR DISTRICT” is a record of
independent and bonafide project work carried out by me under the supervision
and guidance of Ms. VIJAYA ES, Assistant Professor, Department of
Commerce, Christ College, Irinjalakuda.

The information and data given in the report is authentic to the best of my
knowledge. The report has not been previously submitted for the award of any
Degree, Diploma, Associate ship or other similar title of any other university or
institute.

Place: Irinjalakuda KRISHNAPRIYA R MENON

Date: CCASBCM164
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take the opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to all people
who have helped me with sound advice and able guidance.

Above all, I express my eternal gratitude to the Lord Almighty under whose
divine guidance; I have been able to complete this work successfully.

I would like to express my sincere obligation to Rev. Dr. Jolly Andrews,

Principal-in-charge, Christ College Irinjalakuda for providing various facilities.

I am thankful to Prof. K. J. Joseph, co-ordinator of B. Com (Finance), for

providing proper help and encouragement in the preparation of this report.

I am thankful to Ms. Smitha Antony, class teacher for her cordial support,
valuable information and guidance, which helped me in completing this task
through various stages.

I express my sincere gratitude to Ms. Vijaya E S, Assistant Professor, whose

guidance and support throughout the training period helped me to complete this
work successfully.

I would like to express my gratitude to all the faculties of the Department for
their interest and cooperation in this regard.

I extent my hearty gratitude to the librarian and other library staffs of my college
for their wholehearted cooperation

I express my sincere thanks to my friends and family for their support in

completing this report successfully.
 TABLES OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO:

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1-5

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF 6-9

LITERATURE

CHAPTER 3 INDUSTRY 10-14

AND COMPANY
PROFILE

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND 15-34

INTERPRETATION

CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS, SUGGESTION 35-37

AND CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

NO: NO:

4.1 Gender Classification 16

4.2 Age classification 17

4.3 Preference of respondents to online ordering food 18

than going to restaurants

4.4 Company preference of people to order food 19

4.5 How often people order food online 20

4.6 Typically ordered meal 21

4.7 Approximate money spent on online food delivery 22

4.8 Reasons to prefer online food delivery 23

4.9 Preference of respondents in Company good in 24

wrapping and packing of food.

4.10 Company good in quality of services 25

4.11 Company good in on time delivery 26

4.12 App or website that has easy accessibility to order 27

food

4.13 Rating various aspects of Zomato in its services 28

4.14 Rating various aspects of Swiggy in its services 29

4.15 Company providing more offers and promotions 30

4.16 Company providing good customer services 31

4.17 Company having more tie-ups with most restaurants 32

4.18 The respondents suggest others to opt for online 33

ordering of food

4.19 Company,which is suggested by respondents 34

 LIST OF CHARTS

Chart No: TITLE Page

No:

4.1 Gender Classification 16

4.2 Age classification 17

4.3 Preference of respondents to online ordering food 18

than going to restaurants

4.4 Company preference of people to order food 19

4.5 How often people order food online 20

4.6 Typically ordered meal 21

4.7 Approximate money spent on online food delivery 22

4.8 Reasons to prefer online food delivery 23

4.9 Preference of respondents in Company good in 24

wrapping and packing of food.

4.10 Company good in quality of services 25

4.11 Company good in on time delivery 26

4.12 App or website that has easy accessibility to order 27

food

4.13 Rating various aspects of Zomato in its services 28

4.14 Rating various aspects of Swiggy in its services 29

4.15 Company providing more offers and promotions 30

4.16 Company providing good customer services 31

4.17 Company having more tie-ups with most restaurants 32

4.18 The respondents suggest others to opt for online 33

ordering of food

4.19 Company, which is suggested by respondents 34

 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION

Internet has grown tremendously in both its applications and number of users
due to its unique characteristics of flexibility, interactivity, and personalization.
It has been a very useful tool for communication, entertainment, education, and
e-commerce. The revolutionary change brought by technology has an important
impact on the daily lives.

E-commerce is the business activity of buying and selling of products, goods or

services with the help of internet and electronic devices. E-commerce in the
current scenario is a rapidly growing business activity where in all the products,
goods and services are made available to you at your fingertips where in with
access to internet and any electronic devices. It has made things easy and
convenient and it saves us a lot of time which therefore has resulted in the
growth of e-commerce worldwide and in India.

Online food delivery system is a part of E-commerce. It is the process of

ordering food through internet. In India online food ordering is growing day by
day. Usually a customer search for a favorite restaurant or type of dish and
choose from the available items. Wide variety of food makes the user to buy
online. Online food ordering system, user can give order at any place and pay
cash on delivery. The system deals with ordering, processing and delivering
food products. It is a simple and convenient way for customer to buy food
online without having to go to any restaurant. It is the internet that connects the
restaurant or the food company and the customer. This system of online food
delivery is safe and it is the most popular method nowadays. This method is
developed to help restaurants to simplify their daily operational and managerial
task as well as improve the dining experience of customers and also helps
restaurants develop a healthy relationship with customer.

The format of home delivery or the takeaways have gained a lot more
customers in locations such as malls, offices and big-party orders for residential
complexes. People missing breakfast on the way to work, order-in. People, who

1
desire a better choice of corporate lunch or party, order in too. Everyone seems
to be in awe of the online food order and delivery option for the convenience
and immediate source of food at home. Besides, the convenience of ordering
groceries from your mobile app or web browser has certainly taken away some
market share from the trusted ‘Kirana’ or the mom-n-pop stores. India is the
6th largest grocery market in the world, but the organized sector as run by some
of the online businesses mentioned above makes up only for 5-8% market share
of the grocery business. The vast majority is still owned by these local markets
and the mom-n-pop stores. This has some obvious impacts on the brick-and-
mortar formats of in-dining restaurants as more people prefer to have
restaurant-style cuisines right in the privacy of their homes or workplaces, but
the impact is not so much as it may appear to be. The fast food business in
India is only about 2 decades old, and remains largely unorganized. Given the
rate at which the organized sector is rapidly growing, it is only a matter of time
and a much larger chunk of global investments before a really big impact is
made on ongoing restaurant businesses that may not have a delivery-focused
format of their own.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Online food delivery services are increasing rapidly in India where there are
many competitors and the best service provider gets a firm hold in the market.
Due to widespread access to internet and e-commerce online food ordering and
delivery services has become popular and has been growing in recent years.
There are many strategies adopted by these service providers to gain a
competitive advantage over the rivals, it may in terms of offers, services,
techniques, methods and innovative ways. The project is about the food
delivery services for which there are many competitors. In this scenario it is
analyzing study on the customer preference towards the online food delivery
system: Zomato and Swiggy in Thrissur.

2
1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Food delivery services have increased in recent years. It is important to know

the consumer behavior towards food delivery services and their needs and
wants. The geographical scope of the study extends to parts of Thrissur district.
The study is limited to analyze the preference of customers towards the online
food delivery mainly between food aggregators Zomato and Swiggy.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The business of online food ordering and delivery services is the new online
platform raised to capture markets and customers across the world. Worldwide
market for food delivery stands at €83 billion that is 1 precentage of the total
food market and 4 percentage of food sold through restaurants and fast food
change. In so many sectors the rise of digital technology is reshaping the
market. Customers shopping through online apps or websites with convenience
and transparency increasingly expect the same in online ordering of food. This
study would help to understand the consumer behavior towards online food
delivery services.

1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 To understand the consumer preference towards online food delivery
services in Thrissur district.
 To analyze the service competitive edge between Zomato and Swiggy.
 To understand the mindset of consumers in ordering food through
online delivery service.
1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN
1.6.1 NATURE OF STUDY
The study is descriptive as well as analytical in nature.

3
1.6.2 NATURE OF DATA

Both primary and secondary data were used for the study.

1.6.3 SOURCE OF DATA

Primary data are those collected for the first time and thus they are original in
character. Primary data was collected through well-structured questionnaire
already taken from people of Thrissur locality.

Secondary data are those which have been collected by some other person for
his purpose and published Secondary data were collected from various websites,
journals, books etc.
1.7 SAMPLE DESIGN

1.7.1 NATURE OF POPULATION

A population is a group of individuals, objects, or items from which sample are

taken for measurement. Nature of population is infinite. Population in this
study includes people from Thrissur locality.
1.7.2 SAMPLE UNIT
Sampling unit refers to the one number of a set of entities being studied.
Selected persons of Thrissur locality is the sampling unit under this study.

1.7.3 METHOD OF SAMPLING

Random sampling was the method of the study.

1.7.4 SIZE OF SAMPLES

The size of sample used for collecting the data is 50 consumers in Thrissur
District.
1.8 TOOLS FOR ANALYSIS
 Simple percentage analysis
 Tables, charts and diagrams

4
1.9 LIMITATIONS

 The present study is conducted among 60 respondents so the findings

cannot be treated as representative of the entire district.

 Time is another major constraint in collecting data for the study.

 The respondents may give biased data.

1.10 CHAPTERIZATION

The project is organized into chapters namely introduction, Review of literature,

industry profile and company profile, Data analysis and interpretation, findings,
suggestions, suggestions and conclusion.

Chapter 1: Introduction: This chapter mentions introduction, statement of the

problem, objectives of the study, significance of the study, research design,
sample design and limitations.

Chapter 2: Review of Literature: This chapter mentions Conceptual literature

and Empirical literature.

Chapter 3 Industry profile and Company profile: This chapter mentions

Industry profile and company profile.

Chapter 4 Data analysis and interpretation: This chapter includes data

analysis and interpretation.

Chapter 5 Findings, suggestions and conclusion: This chapter deals with the
findings from the data analyzed, the conclusion derived from it and the
suggestions.

5
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Conceptual Review

Meaning

The underlying foundation of demand, therefore, is a model of how consumers

behave. The individual consumer has a set of preferences and values whose
determination is outside the realm of economics. They are no doubt dependent
on culture, education, and individual tastes, among a plethora of other factors.
The measure of these values in this model for a particular good is in terms of the
real opportunity cost to the consumer who purchases and consumes the good. If
an individual purchases a particular good, then the opportunity cost of that
purchase is the forgone goods the consumer could have bought instead.

Definition

Consumer preferences are defined as the subjective tastes, as measured by utility,

of various bundles of goods. They permit the consumer to rank these bundles of
goods according to the levels of utility they give the consumer. Ability to
purchase goods does not determine consumers likes or dislikes.

Factors

Consumer preference is also influenced by such social factors as reference

groups, family and social roles and status. Personal factors such as buyer’s
decisions are also influenced by personal characteristics, the buyer’s age, life
cycle stages, occupation, economic circumstances, lifestyle and personality and
self-concept.

Advantages

 Helps in formulating right marketing strategy.

 Helps in the segmentation of market.
 Helps in the development of new products.
 Helps in product orientation
 Help consumers to study their behavior.

6
2.2 EMPIRICAL LITERATURE

Ajas Ahmad Bhat (2019): Research was conducted to examine the “Satisfaction
of consumers by using online food services”. It deals with consumer behavior
and helps to analyze their perception and will also help us to understand
consumer equilibrium. Sixty respondents are considered to know their behavior
and satisfaction level by using online food service app.

Suryadev Singh Rathore, mahik Chaudhary (2018): The study found out that the
internet has augmented the ecommerce industries in a country like India.
Ecommerce development has made online food ordering services seamless for
people who want to get food delivered at their doorsteps. Although consumers
continue to go out for meals, consumers feel very convenient to order food online
since it frees the customer from personally visiting the restaurants. In this study,
the focus was to analyze the perception of consumer towards online food
ordering services. To understand what factors have played a dominant role to
attract consumer towards them, a study on consumer perception is conducted.
For these two objectives were set. The first one is to identify the factors which
influence the consumer to order food online and the other to know consumer
preference on online food ordering service provider. To achieve this objective
survey was conducted. It helped to understand the behavior and perception of
people for online food ordering.

Dang and Tran (2018): He said the internet has played a major role in increasing
the awareness of the online food delivery apps. Through internet people can
search about foods and restaurants, compare their prices and their services and
have easy access to them. Internet has made all these things convenient for the
customers.

JDas (2018): He has studied, analyzed and compared the top four food delivery
apps providing better discounts and better choice of restaurants. Zomato is
positioned at top by the customers. Zomato is positioned at top while considering
delivery on time and good customer services.

7
Rathore (2018): He states that 50.8% of people order food delivery service since
they don’t like to cook, as it enables clients to have food delivered directly to
their home or office in less than 60 minutes.

Dr. Neha Parashar & Ms. Sakina Ghadiyali (2017): The study found that
services are intangible, and they cannot be sold but comes into existence at the
time they are consumed or bought. In this the major focus will be the various
apps that are available for delivery purpose or by restaurants for various
purposes. Consumer behavior is the study of how individual customer, groups or
organization select, buy, use, and dispose idea, goods, and services to satisfy
their needs and wants. From this research paper we would understand the shift
of consumer’s behavior’s with the introduction of technology and what are the
different kinds of application that consumers are satisfied with and what makes
them happy and satisfied about the service. The main objective of the paper is to
understand the relation between facilities and the purchase behavior. Secondly
to find the most popular app in the food delivery industry and understand how
have technology played an important role in the restaurant industry.

Pathan (2017): He states that with online food ordering system and mess menu
online can be set up and the customers can easily place order. Also, with a food
menu online, orders can be easily tracked, it upholds customers’ data base and
develop the food delivery service. The restaurants and mess can even modify
online restaurant 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.

Ansar Z. & Jain S. (2016) specified the growth in the ecommerce industry
as prime factor for the success of online food ordering and delivery services.
Research has mentioned that more than 400 food delivery apps are nurturing in
India with a funding of about $120 million from venture capital firms and other
such investors. Because a minimum 3 meals are consumed by each individual in
a day the food industry is called as a repetitive business industry which attracts

8
the interest of investors and entrepreneurs towards this growing business
segment.

H.S. Sethu & Bhavya Saini (2016) have wonderfully investigated the
perception, behavior and satisfaction of students towards online food ordering
and delivery services. The study emphasized the online food ordering and
delivery services helping students in time management and having their favorite
food at any time of the day. Researchers have also revealed that easy access to
internet as one of the supporting factor to the use of such services by the students.

Leong Wai Hong (2016) in his studies has published the online food ordering
and delivery services as an efficient system to improve productivity and
profitability of restaurants through online marketing and business strategies.

9
 CHAPTER 3
INDUSTRY AND COMPANY
PROFILE
INDUSTRY AND COMPANY PROFILE

3.1.1 ONLINE FOOD DELIVERY INDUSTRY

Online food delivery industry is a rapidly growing industry and in long run, the
future of online good delivery services seams bright in India. The online food
delivery service sector which has had its foothold in the recent years is rising out
to be the most growing and popular markets all over the globe and in recent times
the demand for this industry has taken a huge increase in the market. We can
witness a lot of new food delivery startups and many restaurants which are keen
about getting into this market where in there are able to a huge growth compared
to other markets.

3.1.2 ZOMATO

Founded in 2008, Zomato is an Indian aggregator and food delivery start up. It
operates in 24 countries including India, Australia, and United states. Zomato
provides information, menus and user reviews of restaurants and also reviews
and ratings. The company also provides variety of services like online ordering,
table reservation; etc. Zomato collects all required information from every
restaurant and ensures their data is fresh. They have a vast number of food lovers
and bloggers who share their own reviews and photos so the customers have all
they need to make their preferred choice. The main aim is to maximize the
business by targeting the hungry customers, for this they provide user friendly
app base to make it easy to place an order. They provide lot of offers to attract
the customers. Zomato has a huge customer base which is an added advantage.
Zomato is a leading platform for restaurant search &amp, discovery, online food
ordering, and restaurant table reservations. The company was founded by
Deepinder Goyal and Pankaj Chaddah and is headquartered in Gurgaon
(officially Gurugram). Zomato has been a pioneer in food ordering and restaurant
discovery in India, which has benefitted both restaurants and customers.
Featuring a robust review system, Zomato allows foodies to find the best meals

10
and restaurants in their neighborhood. A notable aspect about Zomato is that it
is among

the few companies that have gone global after starting operations in India.
Zomato currently features more than 1 million restaurants globally on its
platform. Recently, Zomato has bought the other food dealer Uber eats. It also
has many investors and large funding.

3.1.3 History

The story of Zomato started when the founders noticed that people did not even
knew the restaurants that were functional in their neighborhood. The founders
thought that it would be a great idea to list all the restaurants on the web and
provide their menus as well. This idea eventually led to the launch of Foodie Bay
in 2008. The start-up initially catered to the Delhi-NCR region and after the
service gained popularity, the founders decided to implement the idea across the
country. The founders decided to go for a rebranding exercise, which led to the
transformation of Foodie Bay into Zomato in 2010. Since then, Zomato has
expanded operations to several new locations in the country. It has also launched
international operations and now covers more than 10,000 locations across 24
countries globally. Millions of people across the globe use Zomato every day to
find the best places to dine in their neighborhood

3.1.4 Funding

Zomato has received investments worth $443.8 million through 10 rounds of

funding. Top investors include Ant Financial, Sequoia Capital, Temasek
Holdings, Info Edge, and Vy Capital.

3.1.5 Acquisitions

Zomato has acquired several companies over the years; with the most notable
beingthe acquisition of US based urban spoon in 2015. Other acquisitions made
by Zomato include Obedovat, Menu Mania, Lunchtime, Maple Graph, Sparse
Labs, Gastronauci, NexTable, Cibando, Mekanist, and Runnr.

11
3.1.6 Competition

Zomato competes with other restaurant discovery and food delivery platforms
such as Swiggy, Dineout, Grubhub, Yelp, DoorDash, JustDial, etc.

3.1.7 About the Founders

Zomato was founded by Deepinder Goyal and Pankaj Chaddah, both of whom
arefrom 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 asa Senior Associate Consultant. Pankaj Chaddah is the co-
founder and prior to launching Zomato, he had worked at Bain & Company
as a Senior Analyst andAssociate Consultant.

3.1.8 SWIGGY

The idea for Swiggy came in 2014, when the founders realized that there was a
huge gap in the food ordering and delivery. Swiggy is a leading food ordering
and delivery starting up in India. The company started operations in 2014 and is
headquartered in Bengaluru. Swiggy works by acting as a bridge between
customers and restaurants. It utilizes an innovative technology platform that
allows customers to order food from nearby restaurants and get it delivered at
their doorstep. With Swiggy, customers do not have to keep the contact numbers
of various restaurants and eateries in their locality. Swiggy works as a single
point of contact for ordering food from all restaurants that may be there at a
particular location. Swiggy has its own team of delivery professionals who
pickup orders from restaurants and deliver it at the customer’s doorstep. This has
made the task of ordering food a lot easier for customers. Restaurants also gain
by getting more orders and avoiding costs and efforts associated with
maintaining their own delivery personnel. Swiggy is India’s largest and most
valuable online food ordering and delivery platform. Swiggy offers a complete
food ordering and delivery services online through their apps and web from
neighboring restaurants to urban foodies. In 2013, two founders, Sriharsha
Majety and Nandan Reddy, came up with the idea and decided they wanted to

12
change things and make life easier by changing the way Indian eats by making
it available all at the fingertips of the customer. They along with Rahul Jaimini
launched “Swiggy” an online food ordering and delivery platform, which has
now enlarged and become one of the top food delivery aggregators. Swiggy is
always known for its speedy delivery.

3.1.9 History

Restaurants often faced manpower problems and their delivery personnel were
also not trained to deliver food in time. Swiggy started as a small setup in August
2014, with a team of six delivery personnel and covering 25 restaurants.
However, the idea soon became a huge hit among customers and restaurants
alike. Swiggy now has operations in 8 cities and more than 10,000 restaurants
on its platform.

3.1.10 Funding

Swiggy has received investments worth USD 155.5 million via six rounds of
funding. Investors include SAIF Partners, Harmony Partners, Naspers, Norwest
Venture Partners, Bessemer Venture Partners, and Accel Partners.

3.1.11 Acquisitions

Swiggy had acquired gourmet food start up ‘48East’ in December 2017. The
acquisition of 48East has helped Swiggy to strengthen its service offerings and
add additional capabilities as well. The deal was done for an undisclosed amount.

3.1.12 Competition

Swiggy competes with other players in the food ordering and delivery space such
asZomato, Box8, Holachef, Dineout, etc.

3.1.13 About the Founders

Swiggy was founded by Sriharsha Majety, Nandan Reddy, and Rahul Jaimini.
Sriharsha Majety is an alumnus of Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta and
he currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at Swiggy. Co-founder

13
Nandan Reddy is an alumnus of Birla Institute of Technology and Science and
he heads operations at Swiggy. He had earlier worked at Galla, Zurna, ID insight,
and In tellecap. Co-founder Rahul Jaimini is an alumnus of Indian Institute of
Technology, Kharagpur and he is the Chief Technical Officer at Swiggy. Prior
to Swiggy, he had worked at Myntra and NetApp.

14
 CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION
DATA ANALYSIS

Data analysis is the process of inspecting, cleansing, transforming and modeling

data with the goal of discovering useful information, informing, conclusion and
supporting decision-making. Data analysis has multiple approaches,
encompassing diverse techniques under a variety of names, while being used in
different business, science and social science domains. In today’s business, data
analysis is playing a role in making decisions more scientific and helping the
business make effective operations. Here percentage analysis is used for
analyzing the collected data. It is used for better understanding of collected data.
It is the method to represent raw streams of data as a percentage for better
understanding of collected data. Percentage analysis is applied for better
understanding. Technique of judgment and convenience sampling has been
employed to determine sample collected from 50 respondents.

15
 Table 4.1

Table showing Gender-wise classification

Gender Number of Percentage of respondents

respondents
Male 30 60
Female 20 40
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.1

Chart showing Gender-wise classification

70

60

50

40

Percentage of Respondents
30

20

10

0
Male Female

Interpretation:

Data has been collected from 50 respondents, of which 60 percentage are

male respondents and 40 percentage are female respondents.

16
 Table 4.2

Table showing Age-wise classification

Age Number of respondents Percentage of

Respondents
15-30 30 60
30-40 15 30
40 & above 5 10
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.2

Chart showing Age-wise classification

70

60

50

40

Percentage of respondents
30

20

10

0
15-30 30-40 40 & above

Interpretation:

Data has been collected from various age groups starting from 15 years. Majority
of the respondents belong to 15-30 age groups, about 60 percentage of the total
respondents, 30- 40 age group comprises 30 percentage and 40 & above
comprises about 10 percentage.

17
 Table 4.3

Table showing Preference of respondents to online ordering food than

going torestaurants

Preference Number of respondents Percentage

Yes 40 80
No 5 10
Maybe 5 10
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.3
Chart showing Preference of respondents to online ordering food than
going torestaurants

90

80

70

60

50

40 Percentage of respondents

30

20

10

0
Yes No Maybe

Interpretation:

From the above table shows that 80 percentage of people prefer to order food
than going to restaurants, while 10 percentage don’t prefer to order food
online and 10 percentage prefer to order food sometime.

18
 Table 4.4

Table showing Company preference of people to order food

Company Number of respondents Percentage

Zomato 30 60
Swiggy 15 30
Others 5 10
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.4
Chart showing Company preference of people to order food

70
60
60

50

40
30
30

20
10
10

0
Zomato Swiggy Others
Percentage of respondents

Interpretation:

The above table shows that 60 percentage of people prefer to order food from
Zomato, 30 percentage people prefer Swiggy and 10 percentage of people prefer
other company to order food.

19
 Table 4.5
Table showing Frequency of online ordering of food

How often Number of respondents Percentage

Daily 10 20
Weekly 15 30
Monthly 10 20
Occasionally 15 30
Total 50 100
Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.5
Chart showing Frequency of online ordering of food

Percentage
35

30

25

20

Percentage of respondents
15

10

0
Daily Weekly Monthly Occasionally

Interpretation:

The above table shows that 20 percentage of the people order food daily,
while 30 percentage order weekly, 20 percentage order food monthly and 30
percentage of people order food occasionally.

20
 Table 4.6

Table showing typically ordered meal

Meal Number of Percentage
respondents
Breakfast 5 10
Lunch 10 20
Snacks 15 30
Dinner 20 40
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.6

Chart showing typically ordered meal

45

40

35

30

25

20 Percentage of respondents

15

10

0
Breakfast Lunch Snack Dinner

Interpretation:

The above table shows that 10 percentage of people order breakfast, 20

percentage of people order lunch, 30 percentage of people order snacks, and 40
percentage of people order dinner.

21
 Table 4.7
Table showing Average spending on online food ordering per time

Money Number of respondents Percentage

<150 5 10
<250 25 50
<500 15 30
Above 500 5 10
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.7
Chart showing Average spending on online food ordering per time

60

50

40

30
Percentage of respondents

20

10

0
<150 <250 <500 Above 500

Interpretation:

The above table shows that, 10 percentage of people spent less than 150
rupees on online food ordering per time, 50 percentage of people spent less
than 250 rupees, 30 percentage of people spend less than 500 rupees and 10
percentage of people spend more than 500 rupees on online food ordering
per time.

22
 Table 4.8

Table showing Reasons to prefer online food delivery

Reasons Number of respondents Percentage

Fast delivery 6 12
Convenient 4 8
Time saving 10 20
Money saving 5 10
All of the above 25 50
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.8
Chart showing Reasons to prefer online food delivery

60

50

40

30
Percentage of respondents
20

10

0
Fast Convenient Time Money All of the
Delivery saving saving above

Interpretation:

The above table shows that, 12 percentage of people order food online because
of fast delivery of food, 8 percentage look forward the convenience of online
food delivery, 20 percentage order food online to save time, 10 percentage of
people see the money saving attribute while 50 percentage finds all as the reason
for ordering food online.

23
 Table 4.9

Table showing Preference of respondents in company good in wrapping

and packing of food

Company Number of respondents Percentage

Zomato 30 60
Swiggy 15 30
Others 5 10
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.9
Chart showing Preference of respondents in company good in wrapping
and packing of food

70

60

50

40

Percentage of respondents
30

20

10

0
Zomato Swiggy other

Interpretation:

The above table shows that, 60 percentage of people state Zomato is good in
wrapping and packing of food, while 30 percentage of people say Swiggy is
good in wrapping and packing of food and 10 percentage of people state other
company is good at wrapping and packing of food.

24
 Table 4.10
Table showing Company good in quality of services

Company Number of respondents Percentage

Zomato 30 60
Swiggy 15 30
Others 5 10
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.10
Chart showing Company good in quality of services

70

60

50

40

Percentage of respondents
30

20

10

0
Zomato Swiggy Others

Interpretation:

The above table shows that, 60 percentage of people state Zomato is good in
quality of services, while 30 percentage of people say Swiggy is good in quality
of services and 10 percentage of people state other company is good in quality
of services.

25
 Table 4.11
Table showing Company good in on time delivery

Company Number of respondents Percentage

Zomato 35 70
Swiggy 10 20
Others 5 10
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.11
Chart showing Company good in on time delivery

80

70

60

50

40
Percentage of respondents
30

20

10

0
Zomato Swiggy Others

Interpretation:

The above table shows that, 70 percentage of people state Zomato is good in
on time delivery, while 20 percentage of people say Swiggy is good in on
time delivery and 10 percentage of people state other company is good in on
time delivery.

26
 Table 4.12

Table showing App or website that has easy accessibility to order food

Company Number of respondents Percentage

Zomato 35 70
Swiggy 14 28
Others 1 2
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.12
Chart showing App or website that has easy accessibility to order food

Percentage
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Zomato Swiggy Others

Interpretation:

The above table shows that, 70 percentage of people state Zomato app is easily
accessible to order food, while 28 percentage of people say Swiggy app is easily
accessible and 2 percentage of people state other company apps are easily
accessible to order food.

27
 Table 4.13

Table showing rating various aspects of Zomato in its services

Rating Ordering Menu Delivery Grievance

process selection services redressal
Excellent 26 24 28 25
Good 20 15 15 15
Neutral 4 11 6 8
Bad 0 0 1 2
Poor 0 0 0 0
Total 50 50 50 50
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.13
Chart showing rating various aspects of Zomato in its services

30

25

20
Oreder processing

15 Menu selection
Delivery services
Grievance Redressal
10

0
Excellent Good neutral Bad

Interpretation:

From the above table, it is clear that about 26 respondent rate ordering process
of Zomato to be excellent, 24 respondents rate menu selection to be excellent,
28 respondents rate delivery services to be excellent and 25 of respondents rate
excellency in grievance redressal.

28
 Table 4.14
Table showing rating various aspects of Swiggy in its services

Rating Ordering Menu Delivery Grievance

process selection services redressal
Excellent 22 16 24 20
Good 25 14 20 22
Neutral 3 20 5 7
Bad 0 0 1 1
Poor 0 0 0 0
Total 50 50 50 50
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.14
Chart showing rating various aspects of Swiggy in its services

30

25

20

15

10

0
Excellent Good Neutral Bad

ordering process Menu selection Delivery service grievance redressal

Interpretation:

From the above it is clear that 22 respondents rated ordering process of Swiggy
to be excellent, 16 says menu selection to be excellent, 24 says delivery services
are excellent and 20 respondents says grievance redressal is also excellent.

29
 Table 4.15
Table showing Company providing more offers and promotions

Company Number of respondents Percentage

Zomato 32 64
Swiggy 16 32
Others 2 4
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.15
Chart showing Company providing more offers and promotions

70

60

50

40

Percentage of respondents
30

20

10

0
Zomato Swiggy Other

Interpretation:

From the above table it states that Zomato provides more offers and
promotion than Swiggy and any other company. 64 percentage of
respondent’s state Zomato provides more offers and promotions, 32
percentage states Swiggy provides more offers and promotions and 4
percentage states other companies provides more offers and promotions.

30
 Table 4.16

Table showing Company providing good customer services

Company Number of respondents Percentage

Zomato 30 60
Swiggy 17 34
Others 3 6
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.16
Chart showing Company providing good customer services

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Zomato Swiggy Other

Percentage of respondents

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that 60 percentage of the respondent’s state
Zomato provides good customer services to their best. 34 percentage of
respondent state swiggy is good at their customer services and 6 percentage
states other companies are good at their customer services.

31
 Table 4.17
Table showing Company having more tie-ups with most restaurants

Company Number of respondents Percentage

Zomato 22 44
Swiggy 26 52
Others 2 4
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.17
Chart showing Company having more tie-ups with most restaurants

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Zomato Swiggy Other
Percentage of respondents

Interpretation:

From the above table it is clear that 44 percentage of the total respondents states
Zomato has more tie ups with most restaurants, 52 percentage of respondents
says Swiggy has more tie-ups with most restaurants and only 4 percentage says
other companies have more tie ups with most restaurants.

32
 Table 4.18
Table showing the respondents suggest others to opt for online ordering
of food

Choices Number of respondents Percentage

Suggest 40 80
Neutral 10 20
Don’t suggest 0 0
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.18
Chart showing the respondents suggest others to opt for online ordering of
food

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Suggest Neutral
Percentage of respondents

Interpretation:

As per the preference of people opting for online ordering of food is increasing,
they would suggest others to opt for this service and almost 80 percentage
of the respondents chose to suggest others and 20 percentage of respondents
were not sure if they would suggest or not.

33
 Table 4.19

Table showing Company, which is suggested by customers

Company Number of respondents Percentage

Zomato 28 56
Swiggy 20 40
Others 2 4
Total 50 100
(Source: Primary Data)

Chart 4.19
Chart showing Company, which is suggested by customers

60

50

40

30
Percentage of respondents

20

10

0
Zomato Swiggy other

Interpretation:

As per the table, 56 percentage of respondents suggest Zomato to others while

40 percentage suggest Swiggy to others and 4 percentage suggest other
companies.

34
 CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS
AND CONCLUSION
Findings, Suggestions, Conclusion
Findings

From the above it is clear that,

 Customer prefers to order food online because of its best services.

 Zomato is more competitive than Swiggy as most of the customers prefer

Zomato.

 Customer looks forward for the best service provider when they order food.

Other findings:

 In this study above 50 percentage of respondents are male.

 Majority of respondents are youngsters.

 More than the half of the respondents prefers online food ordering than going
to restaurants.

 60 percentage of the respondents prefer Zomato than Swiggy, while a small

number of customers prefer other companies.

 People order food daily, weekly, monthly, and occasionally. In this study it
is proved that more people prefer to order food occasionally.

 Snacks are the preferred meal to be ordered online.

 The limit of money spent on online ordering of food is less than 250 rupees
and a very few spent above 500.

 Fast delivery, convenience, time, and money saving are the reasons why
people prefer online ordering of food.

 Many of the respondent’s states Zomato is good in packing, quality of

services, on time delivery. Swiggy is also next to Zomato.

 70 percentage of them states Zomato app and website is more accessible to

order food.

 Zomato is rated high in its services including order processing, menu

selection, delivery services and grievance redressal. Swiggy is also rated next
to Zomato.

35
 Zomato provides more offers and promotion compared to Swiggy and other
companies as per the response of the people.

 According to customer, Zomato provides good customer services than

Swiggy.

 According to the people’s response Zomato has more tie ups with most
restaurants.

 Online ordering of food is strongly suggested by the customers to others.

 Zomato is the first to be suggested as more than half of the respondents

prefer to suggest Zomato to swiggy.

 Many of the respondents use Zomato as their preferred mode to order food
online.

Suggestions

These food aggregator services are only popular in few cities, they need to
expand into other markets and explore the unexplored cities

 Understand the needs and wants of customers.

 Understand the choice, taste, and preference of customers.

 Provide proper quality and efficient training to staff.

 Takeover or acquire other food delivery aggregators who are not doing well
in the market.

 Attract customers by providing new offers, promotions and schemes.

 Conduct research and development on regular basis to see which yields

benefits.

 Be aware of the competitors

 Come up with ways to retain the existing customers.

Conclusion

The objective of the study was to determine the consumer preference towards
online food delivery services in Thrissur district. The change in the standard of
living of the people, increasing disposable income of people and the busy
schedule has changed the life of people and their eating habits, where in people

36
used to prefer cooking than going to restaurants or ordering food but things
have changed where in most of the people have got addicted to online ordering
of food and preferred to order food instead of cooking mostly the young crowd,
working professionals and people who don’t like to cook or don’t know to
cook have started taking the almost use of these apps. Online food delivery
services have made the life of individuals much easier and convenient wherein
they can save a lot of time and energy. With the rise of these services there is
no need to call the restaurant for placing orders, there is no need to wait for a
long time, through this you can order your choice of food from your choice of
restaurant anytime, anyplace and from anywhere.

37
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ajas Ahmad Bhat and Ayush Beliya, “Satisfaction of consumers by using

online food services” (2019).
Suryadev Singh Rathore, Mahik Chaudhary “Consumer’s perception on online
food ordering” (2018) ijmbs volume 8, issue 4.
Dang A.K.Tran B.X.,( 2018), “Consumer preference and attitude regarding
online food products in Hanoi, Vietnam, International journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 981, volume no:15 page no 5-9.
Das J.,(2018),Consumer Perception Towards Online Food Ordering and
Delivery Services, an empirical study, journal of management, 5,vol.5, page
no. 158-162.
Rathore, S.S., & Chaudhary, M. (2018). Consumer’s Perception on Online
Food Ordering. International Journal of Management & Business Studies, 8(4)
Dr. Neha Parashar & Ms. Sakina Ghadiyali “A Study on Customer’s attitude
and perception towards digital food app services”, (2017).
R., A., Singh, A., Pathan, S., & Kanade, V. (*2017). Online Food Ordering
System. International Journal of Computer Applications, 180(6), 22-24.
Ansar Z., & Jain .S. (2016), Food Services – The Growth Engine “Do you have
an appetite”. International Journal of Management and Social research Review,
1(3), 185.
H.S., Sethu & Bhavya Saini (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, Finance and Social Sciences.
Leong Wai Hong, (2016) “Food Ordering System Using Mobile Phone”, a
report submitted to BIS (Hons) Information System Engineering. Faculty of
Information and communication Technology.
WEBSITES:
www.scribd.com
www.scholar.google.co.in
www.referenceforbusiness.com
www.wikkipedia.com
APPENDIX
A study on customer preferernce towards online food delivery services:
Zomato and Swiggy: with special reference to Thrissur district.

Questionnaire

1. Name
2. Gender
a) Male
b) Female
3. Age
a) 15-30
b) 30-40
c) 40 and Above
4. Do you prefer online ordering of food than going to restaurant?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Maybe
5. From which company do you prefer to order food?
a) Zomato
b) Swiggy
c) Others
6. How often do you prefer to order food?
a) Daily
b) Weekly
c) Monthly
d) Occasionally
7. Which meal you typically order online?
a) Breakfast
b) Lunch
c) Snacks
d) Dinner
8. What is the approximate money you spend on oredering food per time?
a) <150
b) <250
c) <500
d) Above 500
9. Why do you prefer online food delivery?
a) Fast delivery
b) Convenient
c) Time saving
d) Money saving
e) All of the above
10. Which company services are good in packing?
a) Zomato
b) Swiggy
c) Others
11. Which company services are good in quality of services?
a) Zomato
b) Swiggy
c) Others
12. Which company services are good in on time delivery?
a) Zomato
b) Swiggy
c) Others
13. Which website or app do you prefer to order food?
a) Zomato
b) Swiggy
c) Others
14. Please rate various aspects of Zomato in its services

Excellent Good Neutral Bad Poor

Ordering Process

Menu selection

Delivery services

Grievance redressal

15. Please rate various aspects of Swiggy in its services

Excellent Good Neutral Bad Poor

Ordering Process

Menu selection

Delivery services

Grievance redressal

16. According to you which company provides more offers and promotions?
a) Zomato
b) Swiggy
c) Others
17. Which company’s customer service is good?
a) Zomato
b) Swiggy
c) Others
18. According to you which company has more tie-ups with more
restaurents?
a) Zomato
b) Swiggy
c) Others
19. Would you suggest others to opt for ordering food online?
a) Suggest
b) Not suggest
20. Which company would you suggest?
a) Zomato
b) Swiggy
c) Others