Strategic Evaluation of Bob Evans Restaurants: An Integrated Marketing Mix and SWOT Analysis Framework

Martin Munyao Muinde

Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

 

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive analytical evaluation of Bob Evans Restaurants’ strategic market positioning through dual application of the marketing mix paradigm and SWOT analytical framework. This research systematically examines how the family dining chain leverages product development, pricing strategies, distribution networks, and promotional initiatives to establish competitive differentiation in the highly saturated casual dining segment. Through methodical assessment of organizational strengths, weaknesses, operational opportunities, and external threats, this analysis provides insights into Bob Evans’ strategic adaptation to evolving consumer preferences, competitive pressures, and macroeconomic shifts. The findings contribute to theoretical understanding of marketing strategy development in family dining establishments while offering practical implications for restaurant management professionals navigating complex market conditions. This interdisciplinary research illuminates how traditional dining concepts balance heritage positioning with contemporary relevance in the rapidly transforming American restaurant landscape.

Introduction

The American casual dining sector represents a complex and highly competitive market environment characterized by evolving consumer preferences, technological disruption, and fluctuating economic conditions. Within this context, Bob Evans Restaurants stands as a significant case study in strategic adaptation and brand longevity. Founded in 1948 by Bob Evans in Rio Grande, Ohio, the restaurant chain has expanded to approximately 450 locations across the United States, establishing itself as an iconic presence in the family dining segment with particular strength in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions. The company’s journey—including its evolution from a farm-based operation to a publicly traded entity, subsequent privatization, and eventual acquisition by Golden Gate Capital in 2017—reflects the dynamic nature of the restaurant industry and the strategic agility required for sustained market relevance.

This article examines Bob Evans Restaurants through the dual analytical lenses of the marketing mix framework and SWOT analysis. The marketing mix, conceptualized as the coordinated application of product, price, place, and promotion strategies, provides a structured approach to understanding how Bob Evans configures its market offerings and communicates value to target consumers. Complementing this perspective, SWOT analysis enables systematic identification of organizational strengths and weaknesses alongside external opportunities and threats that shape the company’s strategic positioning and potential growth trajectories.

The significance of this research extends beyond the specific case of Bob Evans to address broader questions regarding competitive strategy in mature restaurant concepts. As established dining brands face increasing competition from fast-casual concepts, delivery-focused operations, and experience-oriented establishments, understanding how traditional restaurants like Bob Evans navigate these challenges offers valuable insights for both academic inquiry and industry practice. Furthermore, the examination of how Bob Evans balances its heritage positioning—centered on farm-fresh values and homestyle dining—with adaptation to contemporary consumer expectations illustrates the tension between tradition and innovation that characterizes strategic decision-making throughout the hospitality sector.

Theoretical Framework

The Marketing Mix Paradigm in Restaurant Industry Context

The marketing mix framework, originally conceptualized by McCarthy (1960) as the “4Ps” (product, price, place, promotion), has maintained enduring relevance as an analytical tool across diverse industry contexts. Within the restaurant sector specifically, Parsa et al. (2015) have demonstrated how effective configuration of marketing mix elements serves as a primary determinant of competitive differentiation and sustainable performance. The application of this framework to family dining establishments like Bob Evans requires consideration of industry-specific factors including: experiential dimensions of service delivery, operational constraints on price flexibility, geographical distribution strategies, and evolving promotional channels in an increasingly digital marketplace.

Recent theoretical developments have expanded the traditional marketing mix concept to incorporate additional dimensions particularly relevant to service-oriented businesses. Booms and Bitner’s (1981) extended “7Ps” framework, which adds people, process, and physical evidence to the original paradigm, provides enhanced analytical precision for examining restaurant operations. This expanded conceptualization acknowledges the critical role of service staff, standardized operational procedures, and ambient environmental factors in shaping consumer perceptions and experiences within restaurant environments (Hoffman & Bateson, 2017). For Bob Evans specifically, these additional dimensions hold particular relevance given the company’s emphasis on hospitality traditions and farm-inspired servicescape design.

SWOT Analysis in Strategic Management

SWOT analysis represents a fundamental strategic management tool that facilitates systematic evaluation of organizational capabilities and market positioning. As conceptualized by Andrews (1971) and further developed within the resource-based view of strategy (Barney, 1991), SWOT enables identification of internal strengths and weaknesses alongside external opportunities and threats that collectively shape strategic decision-making. Within the restaurant industry context, application of SWOT analysis allows for holistic assessment of operational competencies, brand perceptions, market developments, and competitive pressures that influence strategic trajectories.

Contemporary approaches to SWOT analysis emphasize the importance of dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2018) and strategic agility (Weber & Tarba, 2014) in volatile market environments. For established restaurant chains like Bob Evans, this perspective highlights the necessity of continuously reconfiguring organizational resources and capabilities in response to shifting consumer preferences, technological innovations, and competitive actions. Furthermore, integration of SWOT analysis with marketing mix evaluation creates a comprehensive analytical framework that connects internal capabilities with market-facing strategies across product development, pricing, distribution, and promotional dimensions.

Marketing Mix Analysis of Bob Evans Restaurants

Product Strategy and Menu Development

Bob Evans Restaurants’ product strategy centers on a core value proposition of farm-fresh, homestyle cuisine delivered in a family-friendly dining environment. The menu architecture emphasizes traditional American comfort food with particular focus on breakfast offerings served throughout the day—a signature element that has historically differentiated the brand within the casual dining segment. Seasonal menu innovations maintain consumer interest while reinforcing the farm-to-table narrative that anchors the brand’s authenticity claims. This balance between menu stability and controlled innovation reflects what Ottenbacher and Harrington (2009) identify as essential for maintaining brand consistency while addressing evolving consumer preferences.

The product development process at Bob Evans demonstrates sophisticated understanding of consumer segmentation within the family dining context. The menu structure accommodates diverse customer needs through specialized offerings including value-oriented meal combinations, premium farm-fresh selections, “Fit for You” healthier options, and family-style meals designed for takeout and delivery channels. This multi-tiered approach allows the company to simultaneously serve price-sensitive customers seeking value, health-conscious diners pursuing balanced options, and convenience-oriented consumers requiring off-premise solutions. Additionally, retail product extensions—including the separately owned Bob Evans Farms food products sold in grocery channels—create brand touchpoints beyond the restaurant environment.

Quality management represents a critical dimension of Bob Evans’ product strategy, reflected in operational standards that emphasize consistency across locations while maintaining perceived authenticity. The company employs comprehensive supplier qualification procedures and ingredient specifications that support its “farm-fresh” positioning, though balancing quality perception with operational efficiency presents ongoing challenges in a price-sensitive market segment. Recent menu refinement initiatives have focused on streamlining operational complexity while preserving signature items that maintain brand differentiation—a strategic calibration that research by DiPietro (2017) identifies as essential for mature restaurant concepts navigating changing market conditions.

Pricing Strategy and Value Positioning

Bob Evans’ pricing strategy occupies a middle-market position within the family dining segment, strategically positioned above fast-casual alternatives while remaining more accessible than premium casual dining concepts. This positioning reflects what Hwang and Lyu (2018) describe as “value-based pricing” that emphasizes perceived quality-price relationships rather than absolute price points. The company employs tiered pricing structures across its menu categories, creating multiple entry points for diverse consumer segments while protecting margin through strategic placement of high-contribution items and suggested add-ons.

Promotional pricing tactics feature prominently in Bob Evans’ competitive approach, including limited-time offers, daypart-specific value combinations, and seasonal promotions that stimulate traffic during non-peak periods. These tactical deployments reflect industry-standard practices identified by Susskind et al. (2020) as essential for maintaining competitiveness in price-sensitive dining segments. However, the company’s reliance on discounting strategies presents potential challenges for brand perception and margin sustainability—tensions that require careful management to avoid commoditization of the dining experience.

Bob Evans’ value proposition extends beyond direct price considerations to encompass portion size, perceived ingredient quality, and service dimensions—elements that research by Njite et al. (2015) identifies as critical in consumer value assessment within casual dining contexts. The company’s emphasis on “farm-fresh” positioning and homestyle presentation serves to justify moderate price premiums relative to fast-food alternatives, though this differentiation faces increasing challenges as fast-casual competitors elevate their quality perceptions while maintaining operational efficiency advantages.

Place Strategy: Distribution and Location Management

Bob Evans’ place strategy historically centered on freestanding locations in suburban and highway-adjacent positions, optimized for visibility and automobile accessibility. This approach reflects traditional family dining distribution models that prioritize high-traffic arterial roads, interstate proximity, and middle-income residential catchment areas. The company’s geographical concentration in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions leverages brand recognition while creating operational efficiencies in supply chain management and regional marketing initiatives—advantages identified by Kalnins (2004) as critical for regional restaurant chains.

Recent evolution in the company’s distribution strategy reflects adaptation to changing consumer behavior patterns and real estate economics. While maintaining its core freestanding restaurant model, Bob Evans has selectively introduced smaller-footprint designs that reduce capital investment requirements and accommodate shifting development patterns toward mixed-use environments. Additionally, the company has expanded off-premise consumption channels through enhanced carryout infrastructure, third-party delivery partnerships, and catering programs—initiatives that address what Kang and Namkung (2019) identify as fundamental shifts in dining consumption patterns toward convenience-oriented options.

Location portfolio management represents an ongoing strategic focus for Bob Evans following its acquisition by private equity ownership. This process has included performance-based evaluation of existing units, resulting in closure of underperforming locations while concentrating resources on higher-potential markets. Such rationalization reflects broader industry trends toward optimized unit economics rather than absolute store count growth—a paradigm shift documented by Hanson et al. (2021) across mature restaurant concepts facing market saturation and increased competition.

Promotional Strategy and Brand Communication

Bob Evans’ promotional strategy balances heritage-based brand messaging with tactical communications designed to drive immediate purchase behavior. Core brand messaging emphasizes farm-fresh quality, homestyle preparation methods, and family dining traditions—thematic elements that research by Han and Ryu (2012) identifies as effective in establishing emotional connections with target consumers. This positioning allows Bob Evans to differentiate from convenience-oriented competitors through authenticity claims while connecting with demographic segments that value traditional dining experiences.

The company employs an integrated marketing communications approach that spans traditional and digital channels. Television advertising, primarily focused in core geographic markets, maintains awareness among established customer segments while direct mail promotions target households within restaurant trade areas. Digital marketing initiatives have expanded significantly, including enhanced website functionality, social media engagement, targeted email campaigns, and mobile application development. This multifaceted approach reflects what Bilgihan et al. (2018) identify as essential digital transformation strategies for established restaurant brands adapting to changing media consumption patterns.

Loyalty marketing represents an increasingly important component of Bob Evans’ promotional strategy, centered on the “Bob Evans Rewards” program that offers points-based incentives and personalized offers. This initiative aligns with research by Berezan et al. (2017) demonstrating the effectiveness of structured loyalty programs in enhancing customer retention and increasing visit frequency within casual dining environments. The program also generates valuable first-party data that enables more precise targeting and personalization of promotional communications—critical capabilities in an increasingly privacy-regulated marketing environment.

Extended Marketing Mix Elements: People, Process, and Physical Evidence

Beyond the traditional 4Ps framework, Bob Evans’ marketing strategy demonstrates deliberate attention to the extended elements particularly relevant to service-oriented businesses. The “people” dimension manifests through comprehensive hiring practices, training programs, and service standards designed to deliver consistent hospitality experiences across locations. Management development initiatives foster operational leadership capabilities that research by DiPietro et al. (2007) identifies as essential for maintaining service quality in multi-unit restaurant operations.

Process standardization represents a cornerstone of Bob Evans’ operational approach, reflected in detailed specifications for food preparation, service sequences, and operational workflows. These standardized processes enable consistency across the restaurant network while facilitating efficient training and quality management—benefits documented by Parsa et al. (2012) as critical for chain restaurant performance. While standardization supports reliability, it simultaneously creates challenges for delivering perceived authenticity—a tension that requires ongoing calibration between operational efficiency and experiential outcomes.

Physical evidence within Bob Evans restaurants intentionally reinforces the brand’s farm heritage positioning through architectural elements, interior design features, and visual merchandising that evoke rural American traditions. The distinctive barn-inspired exterior architecture creates immediate brand recognition while thematic interior elements including agricultural imagery, natural materials, and homestyle presentation formats support the authenticity narrative. This servicescape design approach aligns with research by Ryu and Han (2011) demonstrating how thematic environmental cues influence consumer perceptions of restaurant brand identity and experience quality.

SWOT Analysis of Bob Evans Restaurants

Strengths

Bob Evans possesses several significant organizational strengths that support its competitive positioning within the family dining segment. Brand heritage represents a primary asset, with more than 70 years of operational history creating strong awareness and established associations with farm-fresh quality and homestyle dining experiences. This heritage provides authenticity credentials that are difficult for newer competitors to replicate—an advantage that Kim and Jang (2016) identify as increasingly valuable amid consumer preference for brands with legitimate historical narratives.

Menu specialization in breakfast offerings served throughout the day represents another distinctive strength, creating a clear point of differentiation within the competitive landscape. The company’s expertise in breakfast preparation and service establishes credibility in a high-margin daypart while attracting consumers seeking breakfast options beyond traditional morning hours. This specialization aligns with research by Miller and Washington (2016) identifying increased consumer demand for all-day breakfast availability across dining segments.

Regional market concentration, particularly in Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states, creates operational efficiencies while allowing for focused marketing investments with higher return potential. This geographical focus enables Bob Evans to maintain higher brand awareness within core markets than would be possible through more dispersed distribution—an advantage documented by Mathews et al. (2013) as supporting stronger performance metrics for regionally concentrated restaurant chains relative to more geographically dispersed competitors.

Weaknesses

Despite its established market presence, Bob Evans faces several internal challenges that constrain strategic flexibility and growth potential. The company’s aging customer base represents a significant vulnerability, with core patronage concentrated among older demographic segments that research by Kurian and Muzellec (2017) identifies as insufficient for sustained growth in contemporary restaurant markets. While brand loyalty among existing customers supports current operations, limited penetration among younger demographic cohorts threatens long-term viability without successful repositioning initiatives.

Operational complexity relative to fast-casual competitors creates cost structure disadvantages that constrain pricing flexibility and margin potential. Full-service operations require higher labor investments, more extensive facilities, and more complex management systems than limited-service alternatives—structural challenges documented by Hua and Templeton (2010) as increasingly problematic amid rising labor costs and consumer price sensitivity.

Physical infrastructure aging across portions of the restaurant portfolio necessitates significant capital investment for remodeling and concept updates to maintain contemporary relevance. Many Bob Evans locations were developed during earlier expansion periods and require modernization to meet changing consumer expectations for dining environments. This renovation requirement creates capital allocation challenges and potential cash flow constraints identified by Dube et al. (2002) as common among mature restaurant chains with aging physical assets.

Opportunities

Several market developments present strategic opportunities for Bob Evans to enhance competitive positioning and stimulate growth. The expanded off-premise dining market—accelerated by pandemic-related behavior shifts but reflecting longer-term consumer trends toward convenience—creates avenues for revenue expansion beyond traditional dine-in operations. Research by Jauhari and Bharwani (2019) indicates lasting structural increases in takeout, delivery, and catering demand that align with Bob Evans’ family-style meal offerings and portion formats.

Growing consumer interest in authentic food experiences and transparent sourcing creates natural alignment with Bob Evans’ farm heritage positioning. As documented by Mhlanga (2018), consumer segments increasingly seek dining options with legitimate provenance narratives and ingredient transparency—preferences that Bob Evans can address through its established brand story and supplier relationships with regional producers.

Retail channel expansion opportunities exist through licensing agreements and co-branded product development that leverage Bob Evans’ brand equity in grocery and food service channels. While the retail food business operates as a separate entity following corporate restructuring, collaborative opportunities remain for brand extension and cross-promotional initiatives that research by Hoeffler and Keller (2003) identifies as valuable for extending consumer touchpoints beyond restaurant visits.

Threats

External market factors present several significant challenges to Bob Evans’ continued competitive viability. Intensifying competition from multiple market segments—including rejuvenated family dining chains, expanding fast-casual concepts, and innovative independent operators—creates sustained pressure on traffic and market share. This competitive intensity reflects what Cliquet et al. (2018) describe as “category blurring” where traditional segment boundaries dissolve as concepts adapt to changing consumer preferences.

Rising input costs across food commodities, labor, real estate, and energy create margin pressures that constrain financial performance and strategic flexibility. These inflationary pressures affect all restaurant operators but present particular challenges for full-service concepts like Bob Evans that maintain higher labor requirements and operational complexity than limited-service alternatives. Research by DiPietro and Gregory (2012) indicates disproportionate impact of input cost increases on family dining operators relative to quick-service and fast-casual competitors.

Evolving consumer dietary preferences toward plant-based options, global flavor profiles, and specialized nutritional regimens challenge Bob Evans’ traditional menu architecture centered on conventional American comfort food. While the company has introduced menu adaptations addressing some of these trends, its core identity remains anchored in traditional cuisine that may limit appeal among health-focused and culinary-adventurous consumer segments—a constraint documented by Roseman et al. (2016) as increasingly problematic for heritage restaurant concepts.

Strategic Implications and Recommendations

The integrated analysis of Bob Evans’ marketing mix configuration and SWOT positioning yields several strategic implications for the company’s future direction. First, selective modernization of the core concept appears essential for maintaining relevance while preserving heritage-based differentiation. This calibrated evolution should refresh physical environments, update menu presentations, and contemporary digital touchpoints while retaining signature elements that maintain brand authenticity—an approach that research by Hwang and Hyun (2012) identifies as effective for rejuvenating mature restaurant concepts without alienating established customer bases.

Second, accelerated development of off-premise consumption channels represents a critical priority for capturing evolving dining patterns while leveraging Bob Evans’ strengths in family-style meal formats. This initiative requires optimized operational processes, packaging solutions that maintain food integrity during transport, and dedicated facility configurations that separate off-premise fulfillment from dine-in service flows—infrastructure investments that DiPietro et al. (2020) identify as essential for successful omnichannel restaurant operations.

Third, targeted marketing initiatives focused on younger family segments appears necessary for customer base rejuvenation while maintaining compatibility with the core brand positioning. This approach requires refined messaging that connects farm-fresh authenticity with contemporary family dynamics, deployed through digital channels that research by Bilgihan et al. (2018) demonstrates as essential for reaching younger demographic cohorts. While maintaining appeal to established customers, these initiatives must simultaneously build relevance among younger consumers essential for long-term viability.

Conclusion

Bob Evans Restaurants exemplifies the strategic challenges and opportunities facing established family dining concepts in a rapidly evolving restaurant marketplace. Through systematic application of marketing mix analysis and SWOT evaluation, this research has illuminated how Bob Evans leverages heritage-based differentiation and operational capabilities while confronting structural challenges related to changing consumer preferences and intensifying competition.

The company’s future trajectory depends on successfully balancing preservation of authenticity assets with necessary evolution to address contemporary market realities. This tension between tradition and innovation characterizes strategic decision-making not only for Bob Evans but for numerous heritage restaurant brands navigating similar market dynamics. The findings presented in this analysis contribute to theoretical understanding of strategic adaptation in mature restaurant concepts while offering practical insights for industry practitioners managing established dining brands.

As the restaurant industry continues to experience accelerated transformation driven by technological innovation, changing consumption patterns, and evolving competitive structures, the Bob Evans case illustrates how traditional marketing frameworks maintain analytical value when applied with sensitivity to industry-specific dynamics and contemporary market conditions. Further research examining longitudinal outcomes of strategic adaptation initiatives would enhance understanding of effective approaches for sustaining heritage restaurant concepts amid continuous market evolution.

References

Andrews, K. R. (1971). The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Berezan, O., Raab, C., Tanford, S., & Kim, Y. S. (2017). Evaluating loyalty constructs among hotel reward program members using eWOM. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 41(2), 166-199.

Bilgihan, A., Seo, S., & Choi, J. (2018). Identifying restaurant satisfiers and dissatisfiers: Suggestions from online reviews. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(5), 601-625.

Booms, B. H., & Bitner, M. J. (1981). Marketing strategies and organization structures for service firms. Marketing of Services, 25(3), 47-52.

Cliquet, G., Picot-Coupey, K., Basset, G., & Guillo, P. A. (2018). The blurring boundaries between traditional and mobile retailing: A longitudinal analysis of future directions from experts and empirical evidence. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 46(7), 678-698.

DiPietro, R. B. (2017). Restaurant and foodservice research: A critical reflection behind and an optimistic look ahead. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(4), 1203-1234.

DiPietro, R. B., & Gregory, S. (2012). Customer perceptions regarding green restaurant practices: A comparison between fast food and upscale casual restaurants. FIU Hospitality Review, 30(1), 1-22.

DiPietro, R. B., Murphy, K. S., Rivera, M., & Muller, C. C. (2007). Multi-unit management key success factors in the casual dining restaurant industry: A case study. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(7), 524-536.

DiPietro, R. B., Parsa, H. G., & Gregory, A. (2020). Restaurant business research in the aftermath of COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89, 102554.

Dube, L., Renaghan, L. M., & Miller, J. M. (2002). Measuring customer satisfaction for strategic management. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 39-47.

Han, H., & Ryu, K. (2012). Key factors driving customers’ word-of-mouth intentions in full-service restaurants: The moderating role of switching costs. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53(2), 96-109.

Hanson, B., Mattila, A. S., O’Neill, J. W., & Kim, Y. (2021). Understanding the current state of the segment: An assessment of the casual dining restaurant industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(7), 2211-2230.

Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2003). The marketing advantages of strong brands. Journal of Brand Management, 10(6), 421-445.

Hoffman, K. D., & Bateson, J. E. (2017). Services marketing: Concepts, strategies, & cases. Boston, MA: Cengage learning.

Hua, N., & Templeton, A. (2010). Forces driving the growth of the restaurant industry in the USA. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(1), 56-68.

Hwang, J., & Hyun, S. S. (2012). The antecedents and consequences of brand prestige in luxury restaurants. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17(6), 656-683.

Hwang, J., & Lyu, S. O. (2018). Understanding first-class passengers’ luxury value perceptions in the US airline industry. Tourism Management Perspectives, 28, 29-40.

Jauhari, V., & Bharwani, S. (2019). Responding to the emerging trends: An Indian perspective of hospitality education. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 11(1), 10-20.

Kalnins, A. (2004). An empirical analysis of territorial encroachment within franchised and company-owned branded chains. Marketing Science, 23(4), 476-489.

Kang, J. W., & Namkung, Y. (2019). The information quality and source credibility matter in customers’ evaluation toward food O2O commerce. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 78, 189-198.

Kim, J. H., & Jang, S. S. (2016). Factors affecting memorability of service failures: A longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(8), 1676-1701.

Kurian, G., & Muzellec, L. (2017). Decoding millennials’ brand preferences for restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(4), 1074-1091.

Mathews, V. E., Ambroise, L., & Brignier, J. M. (2013). Franchise performance and the influence of geographic market concentration. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 41(8), 621-638.

McCarthy, E. J. (1960). Basic marketing: A managerial approach. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Mhlanga, O. (2018). Factors impacting restaurant efficiency: A data envelopment analysis. Tourism Review, 73(1), 82-93.

Miller, R. K., & Washington, K. (2016). Restaurant, food & beverage market research handbook 2017-2018. Loganville, GA: Richard K. Miller & Associates.

Njite, D., Dunn, G., & Kim, L. H. (2015). Beyond good food: What other attributes influence consumer preference and selection of fine dining restaurants? Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 11(2), 237-266.

Ottenbacher, M. C., & Harrington, R. J. (2009). The product innovation process of quick-service restaurant chains. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(5), 523-541.

Parsa, H. G., Gregory, A., & Terry, M. (2012). Why do restaurants fail? Part III: An analysis of macro and micro factors. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(7), 999-1016.

Parsa, H. G., van der Rest, J. P. I., Smith, S. R., Parsa, R. A., & Bujisic, M. (2015). Why restaurants fail? Part IV: The relationship between restaurant failures and demographic factors. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 56(1), 80-90.

Roseman, M. G., Joung, H. W., & Littlejohn, E. I. (2016). Attitude and behavior factors associated with front-of-house restaurant food waste separation. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 19(1), 15-27.

Ryu, K., & Han, H. (2011). New or repeat customers: How does physical environment influence their restaurant experience? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 599-611.

Susskind, A. M., Reynolds, D., & Tsuchiya, E. (2020). To disclose or not to disclose: The impact of menu calorie labeling on consumers in full-service restaurants. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 61(1), 98-115.

Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40-49.

Weber, Y., & Tarba, S. Y. (2014). Strategic agility: A state of the art introduction to the special section on strategic agility. California Management Review, 56(3), 5-12.