Restaurant Daily Deals: Customers' Responses to Social Couponing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey of 931 U.S. consumers finds that those who have purchased daily deals from a casual dining, fast-casual, or quick-service restaurant are not noticeably different in behavior or attitudes from those who have not done so. One difference in attitudes provides insight into those who purchase social coupons: they like to be “market mavens,” who stay on the cusp of market trend and price information. Those who purchased daily deals were significantly more likely to be younger, be married, and have a higher income than non-purchasers. On balance, the study indicated that the benefits of offering a social coupon seem to outweigh the disadvantages. Many of the potential concerns about offering a social coupon, including poor tipping, overwhelming the staff, and customer disloyalty, are not substantiated. There was some evidence of cannibalization, as 44 percent of those using a social coupon reported being frequent customers, but the coupons also brought back infrequent customers and attracted a substantial percentage of new customers. Most critically, many of the new and infrequent customers said they would return to the restaurant and pay regular prices, as well as recommend the restaurant to friends. New customers in particular would not have tried the restaurant without the daily deal offer. All customer groups said they considered the restaurant to be a good value, even without the discount offer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".