When the Owner Changes but the Customer Decides A Case-Cum-Research Study of Ownership Change, Customer Perception, Service Quality and Branch-Level Performance in Indore’s Sweet-Shop Industry

 

When the Owner Changes but the Customer Decides

A Case-Cum-Research Study of Ownership Change, Customer Perception, Service Quality and Branch-Level Performance in Indore’s Sweet-Shop Industry

Abstract

Indore's traditional sweet-shop industry is increasingly moving from family-managed businesses toward multi-outlet chains, organized food manufacturing, professional management and strategic acquisitions. This transition raises an important question: Does a change in ownership necessarily change customer perception?

This case-cum-research study examines this question through the contrasting cases of Apna Sweets and the confirmed acquisition of Madhur Confectioners by Annapurna Swadisht. Publicly available corporate information confirms that Annapurna Swadisht acquired a 74% stake in Madhur Confectioners in November 2024 for approximately ₹149.99 crore, while Apna Sweets remains publicly identified as an active private company with its family-origin brand identity.

The study further analyzes customer perception of Apna Sweets across seven Indore outlets using publicly available Zomato dining and delivery ratings. The mean dining rating was 3.57/5, compared with a mean delivery rating of 4.20/5. A paired-sample t-test produced t = 5.197, df = 6, p = 0.002, indicating a statistically significant difference between dining and delivery perceptions. The evidence suggests that the major customer-perception problem is not necessarily the ownership of the brand but the quality and consistency of the physical service experience at particular outlets.

Keywords: Apna Sweets, Madhur Confectioners, Indore, customer perception, service quality, ownership change, sweets industry, online reviews, restaurant ratings, acquisition.

 

1. Introduction

Traditional Indian sweet shops occupy a distinctive position in the food-retailing sector. Unlike ordinary restaurants, sweet shops depend heavily on trust, taste consistency, freshness, hygiene, staff behaviour and family reputation.

Indore has developed a particularly competitive market containing traditional mithai shops, branded sweet chains, namkeen manufacturers, bakeries and restaurant-cum-sweet-shop formats.

One important development is the increasing professionalisation of regional food businesses. Family-owned companies are becoming acquisition targets because established brands possess:

local customer loyalty;

distribution networks;

established recipes;

manufacturing capacity;

regional brand recognition;

trained employees;

retail outlets; and

cultural familiarity.

The acquisition of Madhur Confectioners provides a clear example. Madhur Confectioners was founded as a family-owned Indore confectionery business in 1996. Annapurna Swadisht acquired 74% of the company in November 2024 for ₹149.99 crore.

At the same time, rumours regarding Apna Sweets have periodically circulated on social media. A June 2026 Indore Reddit discussion specifically asked whether Apna Sweets' ownership had changed, but the discussion did not provide documentary confirmation; another commenter explicitly stated that the owner had not changed.

The distinction between rumour and verified acquisition is therefore central to this research.

 

2. Research Problem

The central research problem is:

Does ownership change explain deterioration or improvement in customer perception, or are differences in customer satisfaction primarily caused by outlet-level service management?

This question becomes particularly important when an established family brand expands into several locations.

Customers may interpret:

slower service,

rude staff,

inconsistent food,

higher prices,

different ambience,

payment problems, or

changed product availability

as evidence of "new management" even when ownership has not changed.

Therefore, ownership and customer experience must be analytically separated.

 

3. Objectives of the Study

The study has the following objectives:

To examine verified ownership/acquisition activity involving Indore-based sweet and confectionery businesses.

To examine the ownership-change rumours surrounding Apna Sweets.

To compare customer perception across Apna Sweets branches.

To examine whether dining and delivery ratings differ significantly.

To identify recurring customer complaints concerning service.

To determine whether branch-level management may be more important than ownership in explaining customer dissatisfaction.

To develop managerial recommendations for traditional sweet-shop chains undergoing professionalisation or expansion.

 

4. Research Questions

RQ1

Has Apna Sweets undergone a verified ownership change?

RQ2

Have other Indore-based sweet/confectionery businesses experienced confirmed acquisitions?

RQ3

Do customer ratings differ substantially between Apna Sweets outlets?

RQ4

Is the physical dining experience rated significantly differently from delivery performance?

RQ5

What are the dominant customer complaints?

 

5. Hypotheses

H₀₁

There is no significant difference between dining ratings and delivery ratings across Apna Sweets outlets in Indore.

H₁₁

There is a significant difference between dining ratings and delivery ratings across Apna Sweets outlets in Indore.

Because delivery ratings are consistently higher in the observed dataset, the practical interpretation also examines whether the difference favours delivery.

 

6. Research Methodology

6.1 Research Design

The study follows a case-cum-research design combining:

secondary corporate research;

online customer-review analysis;

branch-level rating comparison;

descriptive statistics; and

inferential statistical testing.

6.2 Sources of Data

Data were obtained from:

Apna Sweets' official website;

public corporate/company information;

Annapurna Swadisht disclosures;

public review platforms including Zomato, District and Justdial;

publicly accessible social-media discussions.

Apna Sweets states that its journey began in 1987 as a small sweet shop at Malganj and that it subsequently developed into a chain of sweet shops and restaurants.

The company's publicly available corporate record identifies APNA SWEETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED as an active private company incorporated in 2013.

6.3 Statistical Unit

The primary quantitative unit is the Apna Sweets outlet.

Seven Indore outlets with comparable Zomato dining and delivery ratings were used:

Vijay Nagar

Old Palasia

Sapna Sangeeta

Rau

Annapurna Road

New Palasia

Malharganj

6.4 Limitation

Online ratings are aggregated platform indicators. They should not be interpreted as equivalent to a probability-based customer survey.

Review platforms can also differ in:

rating algorithms;

customer composition;

review volume;

review recency; and

treatment of suspicious reviews.

Consequently, the results indicate online customer-perception patterns, rather than the exact satisfaction level of every Apna Sweets customer.

 

7. Verified Ownership and Acquisition Evidence

Table 1: Selected Ownership/Acquisition Evidence

Business	Location	Ownership/Transaction	Evidence	Research interpretation
Apna Sweets	Indore	No verified acquisition identified	Active private-company record and official family-origin history	Ownership-change rumours remain unverified
Madhur Confectioners	Indore	74% acquired by Annapurna Swadisht	November 2024; ₹149.99 crore	Confirmed acquisition
Madhur Confectioners	Indore	Acquisition described by Annapurna as ₹180 crore investment	FY2024-25 annual report	Indicates broader investment/transaction accounting
Akash Namkeen	Indore	Historical acquisition by Haldiram's	Industry report	Older example of Indore food-brand consolidation

The Madhur Confectioners transaction is particularly significant because the company was a family-owned Indore confectionery business founded in 1996. Annapurna Swadisht's rating-agency information confirms acquisition of 74% in November 2024 for ₹149.99 crore. Annapurna's annual report describes its investment in Madhur Confectioners at ₹180 crore.

A historical industry source also reported Haldiram's acquisition of Akash Namkeen, an Indore-based manufacturer of namkeen and sweets.

Therefore, Indore has experienced genuine consolidation in the broader sweets/namkeen/confectionery industry, even though that does not establish that Apna Sweets has been acquired.

 

8. Apna Sweets: Ownership Versus Rumour

Apna Sweets' official history states that its journey started in 1987 at Malganj, Indore, and that the business subsequently expanded into a chain of sweet shops and restaurants.

A June 2026 social-media discussion again raised the question of whether ownership had changed. The discussion contained conflicting informal comments but no documentary proof of an acquisition.

This leads to an important research distinction:

Customer perception of change ≠ proof of ownership change.

A business can change considerably through:

professional managers;

centralized production;

new POS/payment systems;

staff turnover;

outlet expansion;

menu diversification;

franchise or managed-outlet arrangements;

new restaurant formats.

None of these automatically means the underlying ownership has changed.

 

9. Branch-Level Customer Perception

Table 2: Apna Sweets — Zomato Dining and Delivery Ratings

Branch	Dining Rating /5	Delivery Rating /5	Difference
Vijay Nagar	3.4	4.2	+0.8
Old Palasia	3.9	4.2	+0.3
Sapna Sangeeta	3.9	4.1	+0.2
Rau	3.1	4.1	+1.0
Annapurna Road	3.7	4.3	+0.6
New Palasia	3.2	4.2	+1.0
Malharganj	3.8	4.3	+0.5
Mean	3.57	4.20	+0.63

The underlying public ratings are reported by Zomato for the respective outlets.

Interpretation

The branch-level data show considerable variation in dining perception.

The lowest observed dining rating is:

Rau = 3.1/5

followed by:

New Palasia = 3.2/5

and:

Vijay Nagar = 3.4/5.

In contrast, Old Palasia and Sapna Sangeeta record approximately 3.9/5.

This is important because it demonstrates that the Apna Sweets brand cannot be treated as a single uniform customer experience.

 

10. Statistical Analysis

10.1 Descriptive Statistics

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics

Statistic	Dining	Delivery
Number of branches	7	7
Mean	3.571	4.200
Difference in means		0.629
Standard deviation of paired differences	0.320
Minimum	3.1	4.1
Maximum	3.9	4.3

The average delivery rating is approximately 0.63 points higher than the average dining rating.

This is a relatively large gap on a five-point scale.

 

11. Paired-Sample t-Test

Because the same seven branches provide both dining and delivery ratings, a paired-sample t-test is appropriate.

Formula

t=DˉSD/nt=\frac{\bar{D}}{S_D/\sqrt{n}}

Where:

Dˉ\bar{D} = mean difference;

SDS_D = standard deviation of differences;

nn = number of paired observations.

Table 4: Paired t-Test Results

Measure	Result
Mean dining rating	3.571
Mean delivery rating	4.200
Mean difference	0.629
SD of differences	0.320
t-value	5.197
Degrees of freedom	6
p-value	0.0020
Significance level	0.05
Decision	Reject H₀

Statistical Decision

Since:

p=0.0020<0.05p=0.0020 < 0.05

the null hypothesis is rejected.

Result

There is a statistically significant difference between dining and delivery ratings across the seven observed Apna Sweets outlets.

The difference is strongly in favour of delivery ratings.

 

12. Interpretation of the Hypothesis

H₀₁:

There is no significant difference between dining and delivery ratings.

H₁₁:

There is a significant difference between dining and delivery ratings.

Decision: H₀₁ is rejected.

The statistical evidence indicates that the customer experience associated with physical dining/service operations is weaker than the overall delivery perception.

This does not prove that delivery food is objectively better.

Rather, it suggests that the physical restaurant experience may introduce additional dissatisfaction through:

waiting;

staff interaction;

seating;

payment systems;

order coordination;

complaint handling;

table service; and

branch-specific management.

 

13. Customer Complaint Analysis

Public reviews provide qualitative evidence supporting the quantitative finding.

Table 5: Major Service Problems Identified from Public Reviews

Complaint category	Evidence observed	Possible managerial cause
Slow service	Customers report waiting 30 minutes or more	Staffing/scheduling
Rude or uncooperative staff	Repeated complaints at some branches	Training and supervision
Payment/coupon problems	Customers report difficulty with platform payments	POS/payment coordination
Order discrepancies	Missing/short-delivered items reported	Dispatch controls
Food-quality inconsistency	Some complaints about individual dishes	Kitchen standardization
Poor complaint handling	Complaints about managers/staff response	Service recovery weakness
Price-value concerns	Some customers perceive prices as high relative to quality	Value proposition
Hygiene concerns	Individual serious allegations in reviews	Need for stronger visible hygiene controls

For example, the Vijay Nagar listing contains recent complaints about rude staff, waiting time and service quality.

Sapna Sangeeta has a comparatively better overall dining rating of around 3.9, but its District listing gives service only 3.7/5 and includes a recent complaint concerning staff knowledge of payment procedures.

Rau is particularly interesting: its dining rating is only 3.1, and a recent review describes the ordering/card system as inconvenient and gives service around 2.5/5.

Old Palasia has a stronger overall rating, but public reviews still include complaints concerning food quality, delivery problems and service.

 

14. Branch Differences

Table 6: Branch Performance Classification

Category	Branches	Interpretation
Relatively stronger dining perception	Old Palasia, Sapna Sangeeta	More favourable customer experience
Middle range	Malharganj, Annapurna Road	Generally acceptable but not uniform
Lower range	Vijay Nagar, New Palasia	Greater customer dissatisfaction
Lowest	Rau	Highest apparent service-perception risk

This branch variation is one of the most important findings of the study.

If ownership were the sole explanation for customer dissatisfaction, substantially similar ratings might be expected across the chain.

Instead, the data show meaningful outlet-level variation.

 

15. Case Analysis: Madhur Confectioners

Madhur Confectioners represents a different ownership story.

The company was established as a family-owned Indore confectionery business in 1996. Annapurna Swadisht acquired a 74% stake in November 2024 for ₹149.99 crore.

Annapurna's annual report describes the acquisition as an investment of ₹180 crore and emphasizes the strategic value of Madhur's manufacturing capacity, product portfolio and distribution potential.

The acquisition provided Annapurna access to a manufacturing facility with reported capacity of approximately 90 tonnes per day, along with additional confectionery SKUs.

This is fundamentally different from a rumoured retail ownership change.

It represents:

Family business → Strategic acquisition → Corporate integration → Manufacturing scale → Expanded product portfolio

The Madhur case therefore demonstrates how regional food brands can become acquisition targets because of their production assets and market position, not merely because of their retail shops.

 

16. Conceptual Framework

The study proposes the following framework:

Ownership Structure

↓

Management System

↓

Staff Training + Standardization + Procurement + Technology

↓

Outlet-Level Execution

↓

Food Quality + Service Quality + Waiting Time + Complaint Handling

↓

Customer Perception

↓

Customer Satisfaction

↓

Repeat Purchase + Word of Mouth + Brand Loyalty

This framework explains why an ownership change is only one possible cause of changes in customer experience.

 

17. Key Findings

Finding 1: Apna Sweets acquisition is not verified

Available public evidence does not establish a formal sale or acquisition of Apna Sweets.

Finding 2: Indore's confectionery sector has experienced genuine consolidation

Madhur Confectioners is a confirmed example of an Indore-based family confectionery business becoming majority-owned by Annapurna Swadisht.

Finding 3: Customer perception varies by branch

The seven observed Apna Sweets outlets show dining ratings ranging from 3.1 to 3.9.

Finding 4: Delivery perception is significantly stronger

Mean delivery rating:

4.20/5

Mean dining rating:

3.57/5

Finding 5: The difference is statistically significant

The paired t-test produced:

t = 5.197, p = 0.002

Therefore, the difference cannot reasonably be attributed to random variation within this small paired dataset.

Finding 6: Service is a major source of dissatisfaction

Public reviews repeatedly mention:

rude behaviour;

slow service;

payment problems;

unresponsive employees;

poor complaint resolution; and

inconsistent branch-level execution.

Finding 7: Ownership and management should not be confused

The evidence suggests that professionalisation, expansion and outlet-level management may explain customer experience differences without requiring a change in ownership.

 

18. Managerial Implications

18.1 Standardize Service

Apna Sweets should establish a common service protocol covering:

greeting customers;

order confirmation;

waiting-time communication;

complaint handling;

payment procedures;

packaging;

refunds and replacements.

18.2 Branch-Level Performance Dashboard

Management should monitor each outlet monthly using:

KPI	Suggested target
Customer rating	≥4.2
Complaint resolution	<24 hours
Average waiting time	<15 minutes
Order accuracy	>98%
Payment success rate	>99%
Repeat-customer ratio	Increasing
Hygiene audit score	>95%

18.3 Employee Training

The repeated complaints about staff behaviour suggest that technical food training alone is insufficient.

Employees should receive training in:

customer communication;

conflict management;

digital payments;

complaint handling;

food presentation;

service recovery.

18.4 Protect the Family-Brand Advantage

Traditional sweet brands possess an important intangible asset:

trust accumulated over decades.

Professionalisation should therefore improve systems without destroying:

traditional recipes;

local identity;

personal service;

freshness;

perceived authenticity.

 

19. Strategic Recommendations

Recommendation 1

Do not interpret every decline in customer satisfaction as evidence of ownership change.

Recommendation 2

Introduce branch-specific customer-experience audits.

Recommendation 3

Separate kitchen-quality indicators from front-end service indicators.

Recommendation 4

Monitor online reviews using monthly sentiment analysis.

Recommendation 5

Identify the bottom 20% of outlets by service rating and conduct corrective audits.

Recommendation 6

Create a centralized complaint-resolution mechanism.

Recommendation 7

Maintain recipe and quality-control standards across all outlets.

Recommendation 8

Where acquisitions occur, communicate clearly with customers about continuity of recipes, quality and brand identity.

 

20. Conclusion

The Indore sweet-shop market provides a useful laboratory for studying the relationship between ownership, professionalisation and customer perception.

The evidence does not substantiate the claim that Apna Sweets has been sold. The company continues to be publicly identified as an active private company, while its own corporate history presents the business as a family-origin enterprise that expanded into a chain of sweet shops and restaurants.

At the same time, the confirmed acquisition of Madhur Confectioners demonstrates that ownership consolidation is genuinely occurring within Indore's broader confectionery sector.

The Apna Sweets customer-perception analysis produces an even more important result. Dining ratings average only 3.57/5, whereas delivery ratings average 4.20/5. The paired t-test indicates that this difference is statistically significant at the 5% level.

Therefore, the central conclusion is:

The evidence points more strongly toward an outlet-level service and management problem than toward a proven change in ownership.

For a regional food brand, the customer does not see the corporate structure first. The customer sees the counter employee, the waiting time, the food, the bill, the cleanliness and the response to a complaint.

Thus, the real competitive question is not simply:

"Who owns the sweet shop?"

It is:

"Who is managing the customer experience at each outlet—and how consistently?"

 

21. Research Limitations

The study uses publicly available online ratings rather than a probability-based survey.

Rating platforms use different algorithms and customer populations.

Online reviewers may not represent all customers.

The paired t-test uses only seven branch-level observations.

The analysis cannot establish causality between ownership and customer satisfaction.

Individual online allegations should not be treated as independently verified facts.

The study does not have access to Apna Sweets' confidential ownership agreements, shareholder agreements or internal management records.

22. Scope for Future Research

The present study is based primarily on publicly available customer ratings and reviews from selected Apna Sweets outlets. These secondary data provide useful evidence of differences in customer perception across branches, but they do not provide individual-level information about the demographic characteristics, expectations, satisfaction levels or repurchase intentions of customers.

Therefore, future research should extend the present study through a structured primary customer survey covering approximately 300 customers across seven Apna Sweets branches.

The proposed survey should measure the following dimensions:

Taste satisfaction

Freshness of sweets and food

Perceived hygiene

Price-value perception

Staff behaviour

Waiting time

Ambience

Payment convenience

Complaint-resolution effectiveness

Perceived ownership/management change

Trust in the Apna Sweets brand

Overall customer satisfaction

Repurchase intention

Each variable can be measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from:

1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree

Proposed Statistical Framework

Once the 300 valid customer responses are collected, the following statistical procedures can be applied:

Research purpose	Proposed statistical technique
Reliability of questionnaire	Cronbach's Alpha
Customer characteristics and perception	Descriptive statistics
Association between categorical variables	Chi-square test
Comparison among seven branches	One-way ANOVA
Relationship between service variables	Pearson correlation
Prediction of customer satisfaction	Multiple regression
Identification of service-quality dimensions	Exploratory Factor Analysis
Service expectation-performance gap	SERVQUAL analysis
Satisfaction → repurchase intention	Regression/SEM
Effect of perceived ownership change	Moderation analysis
Overall causal model	Structural Equation Modelling

Proposed Research Model

The future study can empirically test the following relationship:

Service Quality → Customer Satisfaction → Repurchase Intention

In addition, Perceived Ownership/Management Change can be examined as a moderating variable.

The conceptual model can therefore be represented as:

Service Quality
↓
Customer Satisfaction
↓
Repurchase Intention

with:

Perceived Ownership/Management Change → Moderating Effect

The objective would be to determine whether customers who perceive a change in ownership or management respond differently to service quality than customers who do not perceive such a change.

 

22.1 Proposed Hypotheses for Future Primary Research

H₂₀

There is no significant relationship between perceived service quality and customer satisfaction.

H₂₁

There is a significant positive relationship between perceived service quality and customer satisfaction.

H₃₀

Customer satisfaction has no significant effect on repurchase intention.

H₃₁

Customer satisfaction has a significant positive effect on repurchase intention.

H₄₀

Perceived ownership/management change does not significantly moderate the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction.

H₄₁

Perceived ownership/management change significantly moderates the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction.

H₅₀

There is no significant difference in customer satisfaction among different Apna Sweets branches.

H₅₁

There is a significant difference in customer satisfaction among different Apna Sweets branches.

 

 

23. Selected References

Apna Sweets. Official company history and business information.

APNA SWEETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED. Public corporate information and company status.

Annapurna Swadisht Limited. Annual Report 2024–25. Acquisition of Madhur Confectioners.

Acuite Ratings & Research. Corporate information concerning Annapurna Swadisht and Madhur Confectioners.

Zomato. Public outlet ratings and reviews for Apna Sweets, Indore.

District. Public customer ratings and service reviews for Apna Sweets outlets.

Justdial. Public customer reviews of Apna Sweets outlets.

India Retailing. Historical report concerning Haldiram's acquisition of Akash Namkeen, Indore.

Reddit r/Indore. Public discussion concerning rumours about Apna Sweets ownership.

 

Appendix A: Statistical Dataset Used

Outlet	Dining	Delivery	Difference
Vijay Nagar	3.4	4.2	0.8
Old Palasia	3.9	4.2	0.3
Sapna Sangeeta	3.9	4.1	0.2
Rau	3.1	4.1	1.0
Annapurna Road	3.7	4.3	0.6
New Palasia	3.2	4.2	1.0
Malharganj	3.8	4.3	0.5
Average	3.57	4.20	0.63

Final Statistical Result

t(6)=5.197,p=0.002t(6)=5.197,\quad p=0.002

H₀ rejected at 5% significance level.

Research conclusion: Customer perception of the physical dining/service experience is significantly weaker than delivery perception in the observed seven-outlet dataset.

 

Appendix B

Actual Publicly Available Branch-Level Customer-Perception Data Used in the Present Study

The following dataset represents actual publicly reported outlet-level ratings used for the present analysis, rather than an artificially generated 300-customer survey.

S. No.	Apna Sweets Branch	Dining Rating	Delivery Rating	Difference
1	Vijay Nagar	3.4	4.2	0.8
2	Old Palasia	3.9	4.2	0.3
3	Sapna Sangeeta	3.9	4.1	0.2
4	Rau	3.1	4.1	1.0
5	Annapurna Road	3.7	4.3	0.6
6	New Palasia	3.2	4.2	1.0
7	Malharganj	3.8	4.3	0.5
Total/Mean		3.57	4.20	0.63

Source and Data Status

The ratings are derived from publicly accessible online outlet listings and reviews. They should be treated as secondary customer-perception indicators, not as responses from a controlled customer survey.

 

Appendix B.1 Descriptive Statistical Analysis

Statistical measure	Dining Rating	Delivery Rating
N	7	7
Mean	3.571	4.200
Median	3.7	4.2
Minimum	3.1	4.1
Maximum	3.9	4.3
Range	0.8	0.2

The results indicate that delivery ratings are consistently higher and substantially less dispersed than dining ratings.

The mean difference is:

4.20−3.57=0.634.20-3.57=0.63

Thus, the observed delivery perception is approximately 0.63 rating points higher than the dining perception.

 

Appendix B.2 Paired-Sample t-Test

Because dining and delivery ratings are available for the same seven branches, a paired-sample t-test was applied.

Table B.2: Hypothesis Testing

Parameter	Value
Number of paired branches	7
Mean difference	0.629
Standard deviation of differences	0.320
t-statistic	5.197
df	6
p-value	0.002
Significance level	0.05
Decision	Reject H₀

Interpretation

Since:

p=0.002<0.05p=0.002<0.05

the null hypothesis is rejected.

There is therefore a statistically significant difference between dining and delivery ratings in the seven-branch dataset.

The result provides evidence that the physical outlet experience is perceived less favourably than delivery across the observed branches.

 

Appendix B.3 Branch-Level Gap Analysis

The branch-level difference provides another useful indicator.

Branch	Dining	Delivery	Gap	Interpretation
Vijay Nagar	3.4	4.2	0.8	High service-experience gap
Old Palasia	3.9	4.2	0.3	Low gap
Sapna Sangeeta	3.9	4.1	0.2	Lowest gap
Rau	3.1	4.1	1.0	Highest gap
Annapurna Road	3.7	4.3	0.6	Moderate gap
New Palasia	3.2	4.2	1.0	Highest gap
Malharganj	3.8	4.3	0.5	Moderate gap

The largest gaps occur at Rau and New Palasia, where the difference between dining and delivery ratings is approximately 1.0 point.

The smallest difference occurs at Sapna Sangeeta, where the gap is only 0.2 point.

This supports the proposition that customer experience is not uniform across branches.

 

Appendix B.4 What the Present Data Can and Cannot Establish

The present data can establish:

differences between branch-level ratings;

the average dining rating;

the average delivery rating;

the size of the dining-delivery gap;

statistical significance of the paired difference;

evidence of branch-level variation.

The present data cannot establish:

the percentage of customers dissatisfied with service;

whether 300 customers are dissatisfied;

whether ownership actually changed;

whether perceived ownership change causes dissatisfaction;

whether service quality causes repurchase intention;

demographic differences among customers;

causal relationships between variables.

These questions require primary customer-level data.

 

Appendix B.5 Proposed 300-Customer Primary Dataset

For the next phase of research, a target sample of 300 customers can be distributed approximately as follows:

Branch	Proposed Respondents
Vijay Nagar	45
Old Palasia	45
Sapna Sangeeta	40
Rau	40
Annapurna Road	45
New Palasia	40
Malharganj	45
Total	300

This table represents a proposed sampling plan, not completed survey responses.

After data collection, the researcher can replace the proposed sample plan with actual respondent counts and construct a customer-level Appendix B containing variables such as:

Respondent	Branch	Taste	Freshness	Hygiene	Price	Staff	Waiting	Ambience	Trust	Satisfaction	Repurchase
1	Vijay Nagar	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
2	Vijay Nagar	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
3	Old Palasia	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
300	Malharganj	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

The dashes must be replaced by actual questionnaire responses after fieldwork.

 

Final Research Position

The revised study should therefore make a clear methodological distinction:

Appendix B contains actual publicly available branch-level customer-rating data, while the proposed 300-customer survey represents future primary research and should not be presented as completed empirical data until the survey is actually conducted.

This distinction substantially improves the academic credibility, research ethics and publishability of the case-cum-research paper.