Table of Contents
Executive Summary
-
- The issues
- Third-party restaurant delivery usage is not common
-
- Figure 1: Restaurant delivery usage in the past three months, June 2016
- Doubt over third-party restaurant delivery exists
-
- Figure 2: Reasons for not using a third-party delivery service in the past three months, June 2016
- Half of consumers 55 and over simply aren’t interested in restaurant delivery
-
- Figure 3: Third-party restaurant delivery motivators among non-users, by age, June 2016
- Consumers enjoy the entire restaurant experience
-
- Figure 4: Statement agreement, any agree, “It’s more fun going to a restaurant than ordering in”, by HH income, June 2016
- The opportunities
- Chain restaurants can capitalize on delivery
-
- Figure 5: Delivery statement agreement, “any agree,” by third-party delivery users, June 2016
- Younger consumers order delivery for a variety of reasons
-
- Figure 6: Reasons for having restaurant food delivered, by age, June 2016
- Capturing the mobile/online delivery users will grow the third-party delivery market
-
- Figure 7: Third-party restaurant delivery motivators among non-users, by those who ordered delivery via mobile app or website in the past three months, June 2016
- What it means
The Market – What You Need to Know
-
- The younger generation is driving interest in delivery
- Consumers are cautiously optimistic about the economy
- Smartphone ownership is nearly ubiquitous
Market Factors
-
- iGen and Millennials are key consumers
-
- Figure 8: Population by generation, 2011-21
- Consumer confidence is in flux
-
- Figure 9: Unemployment and underemployment, January 2007-June 2016
- Figure 10: Consumer Confidence Index, January 2007-June 2016
- Smartphone ownership has almost peaked
-
- Figure 11: Smartphone ownership over time, 2013-16
-
- Figure 12: Smartphone ownership by age, winter 2016
Key Players – What You Need to Know
-
- The restaurant delivery market is growing
- Winners and losers will soon emerge
- Delivery companies are carving out their niche
- Delivery companies are active on social media and utilizing email marketing
What’s Working?
-
- Chain restaurants see opportunity with delivery
- Nonrestaurant companies branch into food delivery
- Third-party restaurant delivery companies stay competitive
- Taking cues from pizza delivery technology
What’s Struggling?
-
- Are we in a delivery bubble?
What’s Next?
-
- Rise of the chef-specific restaurant delivery service
- Innovative pricing strategies ease consumer concerns
-
- Figure 13: Munchery email, “Membership Announcement”
- Figure 14: Postmates email, “Unlimited Free Delivery”
Restaurant Delivery Competitive Landscape
-
- Rise of the virtual restaurant
- Corporate catering companies
- Direct from the chef
ePerformance
-
- Overview and methodology
- GrubHub sends more than five times as many emails than its competitors
-
- Figure 15: Projected volume of marketing emails delivered, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
- Figure 16: Average email read rate by select companies, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
- Consumers are most likely to read promotional/deal emails
-
- Figure 17: Top five emails with the highest read rate, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
-
- Figure 18: DoorDash email, “What happened to us?”
- Happy holidays
-
- Figure 19: GrubHub Pi Day email, “Today only – order with Purpose for Pi Day!”
-
- Figure 20: Email examples sent for Valentine’s Day
- Figure 21: Email examples sent for Cinco de Mayo
- Cross-promotion opportunities
-
- Figure 22: GrubHub email “Enjoy HBO NOW with a feast tonight”
- Inbox overlap
-
- Figure 23: GrubHub email “Apple Pay your way to a year of free food!”
- Figure 24: Overlap analysis for GrubHub email recipients, Top 10 overlap rate, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
-
- Figure 25: Overlap analysis for DoorDash email recipients, Top 10 overlap rate, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
- Figure 26: Overlap analysis for Delivery.com email recipients, Top 10 overlap rate, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
-
- Figure 27: Overlap analysis for Seamless email recipients, Top 10 overlap rate, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
- Figure 28: Overlap analysis for Postmates email recipients, Top 10 overlap rate, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
- Figure 29: Overlap analysis for Munchery email recipients, Top 10 overlap rate, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
- Inbox overlap among delivery service competitors
-
- Figure 30: Overlap analysis among restaurant delivery email recipients, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
Social Media
-
- Methodology
- Social media presence by delivery companies
-
- Figure 31: Social media platforms used by third-party restaurant delivery companies, July 20, 2016
- The number of GrubHub followers dwarfs competitors
-
- Figure 32: Total audience on social media by platform, July 20, 2016
- Munchery is the most active restaurant delivery brand on social media
-
- Figure 33: Total number of posts made by companies in the past 90 days across social media platforms, July 20, 2016
- Figure 34: Number of posts made per day by companies in the past 90 days across all social media platforms, July 20, 2016
- Social media engagement metrics
-
- Figure 35: Total social engagement across all social media platforms in the past 90 days, July 20, 2016
- Figure 36: Average engagement per post across all social media platforms in the past 90 days, July 20, 2016
- What it means
The Consumer – What You Need to Know
-
- Third-party restaurant delivery users are a specific type of consumer
- Convenience and relaxation drive the delivery occasion
- Price prohibits consumers from using delivery
- Older consumers show little interest in third-party delivery services
- Mobile/online orders are an important consumer group
- Consumers value delivery, but also enjoy the restaurant experience
Restaurant Delivery Usage
-
- Third-party restaurant delivery usage is low
-
- Figure 37: Restaurant delivery usage in the past three months, June 2016
- Delivery usage is concentrated among young consumers
-
- Figure 38: Restaurant delivery usage in the past three months, by generation, June 2016
-
- Figure 39: Restaurant delivery usage in the past three months, by age and income, June 2016
- Third-party delivery users are young, affluent, urban, and male
-
- Figure 40: Any third-party delivery users indexed against all respondents, June 2016
- Hispanics are frequent delivery users
-
- Figure 41: Restaurant delivery usage in the past three months, by age and income, June 2016
Reasons for Using Delivery
-
- At-home comforts and convenience drive the delivery occasion
-
- Figure 42: Reasons for having restaurant food delivered, June 2016
- Third-party restaurant delivery users order delivery for a variety of reasons
-
- Figure 43: Reasons for having restaurant food delivered, by third-party delivery users, June 2016
- Men and women use for very different reasons
-
- Figure 44: Reasons for having restaurant food delivered, by gender, June 2016
- Young people are the target market for entertainment cross-promotions
-
- Figure 45: Reasons for having restaurant food delivered, by age, June 2016
- Parents value the convenience of delivery
-
- Figure 46: Reasons for having restaurant food delivered, by parents and age, June 2016
Third-Party Usage Frequency
-
- Third-party delivery users order delivery frequently
-
- Figure 47: Third-party delivery usage frequency, June 2016
Third-Party Delivery Services: Important Factors
-
- Speed, selection, and service are key factors for third-party users
-
- Figure 48: Important factors when choosing a third-party delivery service, June 2016
Non-Third-Party Delivery Users
-
- Price and the restaurant experience deter restaurant delivery
-
- Figure 49: Reasons for not using a third-party delivery service in the past three months, June 2016
- Figure 50: Reasons for not using a third-party delivery service in the past three months, “these companies do not operate where I live,” by area, June 2016
- Price is a barrier among delivery users
-
- Figure 51: Reasons for not using a third-party delivery service in the past three months, by delivery users, June 2016
- Boomers value the restaurant experience
-
- Figure 52: Reasons for not using a third-party delivery service in the past three months, “I prefer to eat at a restaurant,” by generation, June 2016
Third-Party Delivery Services – Trial Motivators
-
- One third of consumers say nothing would motive them to try restaurant delivery
-
- Figure 53: Third-party restaurant delivery motivators among non-users, June 2016
-
- Figure 54: Third-party restaurant delivery motivators among non-users, “If they delivered to where I live,” by those who say third-party restaurant delivery companies do not operate where I live, June 2016
- Mobile/online users are interested in third-party delivery, but want deals and a smooth experience
-
- Figure 55: Third-party restaurant delivery motivators among non-users, by those who ordered delivery via mobile app or website in the past three months, June 2016
- Deals motivate women to try delivery
-
- Figure 56: Third-party restaurant delivery motivators among non-users, by age, June 2016
- Young consumers are open to trying delivery
-
- Figure 57: Third-party restaurant delivery motivators among non-users, by age, June 2016
- Sell parents on the simplicity of delivery
-
- Figure 58: Third-party restaurant delivery motivators among non-users, by parents of child(ren) under 18, June 2016
- Qualitative analysis: Delivery motivators
Restaurant Delivery Attitudes
-
- Opportunity for chains in food delivery
-
- Figure 59: Delivery statement agreement, “any agree,” June 2016
-
- Figure 60: Delivery statement agreement, “any agree,” by third-party delivery users, June 2016
- Those in the Northeast are most interested in chain restaurant delivery
-
- Figure 61: Delivery statement agreement, “any agree,” by region, June 2016
- High earners value delivery services
-
- Figure 62: Delivery statement agreement, “any agree,” by income, June 2016
Interest in Virtual Restaurants
-
- Methodology
- Young, affluent parents are target consumers for virtual restaurants
-
- Figure 63: Interest in delivery-only restaurants – CHAID – Tree output, June 2016
- Qualitative analysis: Virtual restaurant interest
Appendix – Data Sources and Abbreviations
-
- Data sources
- Consumer survey data
- Consumer qualitative research
- Abbreviations and terms
- Abbreviations
- Terms
Appendix – Consumer
-
-
- Figure 64: Interest in delivery-only restaurants – CHAID – Tree output, June 2016
-
- Figure 65: Smartphone ownership over time, 2013-16
-
- Figure 66: Smartphone ownership by age, winter 2016
-
Appendix – ePerformance
-
-
- Figure 67: Overlap analysis for DoorDash email recipients, competitive set overlap rate, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
- Figure 68: Overlap analysis for GrubHub email recipients, competitive set overlap rate, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
-
- Figure 69: Overlap analysis for Delivery.com email recipients, competitive set overlap rate, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
- Figure 70: Overlap analysis for Seamless email recipients, competitive set overlap rate, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
- Figure 71: Overlap analysis for Postmates email recipients, competitive set overlap rate, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
- Figure 72: Overlap analysis for Munchery email recipients, competitive set overlap rate, Feb. 2-June 26, 2016
-
Appendix – Social Media
-
-
- Figure 73: Total audience on social media by platform, July 20, 2016
- Figure 74: Total number of posts made by companies in the past 90 days across social media platforms, July 20, 2016
- Figure 75: Total social engagement across all social media platforms in the past 90 days, July 20, 2016
-
Back to top