Next Article in Journal
Architectural and Cultural Influences on Thai Tourists’ Revisit Intentions: A Case Study of Koh Perd Fishing Village, Chanthaburi, Thailand
Previous Article in Journal
Building Resilient Destinations: Spatial Mapping and Analysis of Potential Therapeutic Milieus in Hungary
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Tourism and Hospitality
Volume 6
Issue 5
10.3390/tourhosp6050227
tourismhosp-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Experiential Marketing Through Service Quality Antecedents: Customer Experience as a Driver of Satisfaction and Revisit Intentions in South African Restaurants

by
Moses Vuyo Sithole
,
Therese Roux
* and
Miri Retief
Department Marketing, Supply Chain and Sport Management, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria 0183, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6(5), 227; https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6050227
Submission received: 11 September 2025 / Revised: 15 October 2025 / Accepted: 20 October 2025 / Published: 1 November 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

In the highly competitive restaurant industry, prioritising customer satisfaction is crucial for establishments pursuing differentiation and repeat business. Within this context, creating unique and memorable experiences has evolved from a marketing trend into a strategic imperative, compelling restaurants to deliver encounters that transcend mere functional service and quality. However, prior research has primarily examined quality factors and satisfaction in isolation, overlooking the mediating role of experiential realms in this relationship. This study offers a novel contribution by integrating service quality and experiential marketing within a single empirical model, addressing a gap in the hospitality literature. Specifically, few studies have empirically examined how tangible and intangible quality cues translate into the four experiential realms of the Experience Economy—aesthetic, escapist, entertainment, and educational—and how these, in turn, influence satisfaction and revisit intentions. Drawing on the Experience Economy framework, this study develops and tests a conceptual model linking quality antecedents—physical environment, food quality, and customer service—to the four experiential realms (aesthetic, escapist, entertainment, and educational) and subsequent satisfaction and revisit intentions. Using data collected from 312 restaurant customers, the hypotheses were tested through Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). The findings reveal that quality antecedents significantly influence experiential realms, which in turn enhance satisfaction and revisit intentions—offering a more nuanced mechanism than previously theorised. By being among the first to empirically test these relationships in the sit-down restaurant context, this study adds theoretical and practical insight into experience-based brand differentiation. Moreover, it provides actionable insights for restaurant managers seeking to transform quality delivery into memorable, loyalty-building experiences.

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, the hospitality industry has emerged as a pivotal contributor to both global and domestic economic development, establishing itself as an increasingly important area of academic and applied research (Kasongo, 2023; Nguyen-Viet & Nguyen, 2025).
In 2024, the industry’s market value reached $4.9 trillion and is expected to increase at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.8%, outperforming the anticipated global economic growth rate of 2.7% between 2022 and 2032 (Lüthy, 2025). In the same year, approximately 27.4 million new jobs were created. The sector recovered to pre-pandemic peak levels by 2025, accompanied by a steady rise in job creation (EHL Insights, 2025). By 2034, global employment in the industry is expected to reach 449 million, accounting for about 12.2% of the total workforce across key subsectors such as restaurants, hotels, travel, and tourism (EHL Insights, 2025). In developed economies, such as the United States, the industry employs more than 14 million people, contributing nearly $1.37 trillion to its national economy (National Restaurant Association, 2024). Growth trends are equally evident in developing markets. For example, South Africa’s hospitality sector is projected to reach a market size of approximately $1.42 billion in 2025, with an annual growth rate of 4.43% expected to drive the market to $1.76 billion by 2030. Additionally, the industry is anticipated to generate over 800,000 jobs in the next decade (Mordor Intelligence, 2025). These developments underscore the sector’s increasing role as a key enabler of economic growth in both developed and developing regions (Madeira et al., 2020; Tuncer et al., 2021).
Despite the hospitality industry’s continued expansion, the restaurant sector remains one of its most competitive and complex segments for both operators and investors (J. Wu et al., 2024). Rapidly changing customer demands, evolving market trends, and fluctuating economic conditions contribute to a dynamic and often volatile business milieu (Ma et al., 2021).
Inconsistent patterns in customer flow complicate resource planning, often resulting in diminished service quality and elevated labour costs (Hildebrandt & Ulmer, 2022). Additionally, low entry barriers and evolving consumer preferences heighten market rivalry (Slack et al., 2021). One major shift reshaping this competitive landscape is the rapid expansion of food delivery services. The rise of food delivery services offered by various types of restaurants, such as fast-food and casual food establishments, has intensified competition and placed additional pressure on sit-down restaurants (Mordor Intelligence, 2023). While online food delivery contributes to increased revenue and broader reach (Slack et al., 2021), it may also disadvantage the sit-down restaurant, as consumers may choose to enjoy their meal at home rather than dine at the restaurant. Consequently, sit-down restaurants must enhance their in-person dining experience to provide a superior environment that exceeds what consumers can encounter in their own spaces.
Consumers are becoming more discerning and increasingly reluctant to spend on routine or generic services. Consequently, experiential marketing practices that appeal to customers’ tastes and appetites have become essential to attracting and retaining patrons in the foodservice sector (Bonfanti et al., 2025). Restaurants must innovate and differentiate themselves by offering novel and immersive dining experiences that resonate with evolving expectations (Ratasuk & Charoensukmongkol, 2020; Ma et al., 2021). Providing such experiences requires a comprehensive understanding of quality factors that effectively engage customers and leave lasting impressions (Horng & Hsu, 2021). To remain competitive, restaurants must move beyond offering basic nourishment and instead deliver meaningful, memorable experiences that set them apart (Tuncer et al., 2021). Moreover, managers must strategically leverage organisational proficiencies to create sustainable competitive advantages over their rivals (J. Wu et al., 2024).
In response to an increasing marketing force within the restaurant sector, some researchers have examined the influence of quality antecedents on customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions (e.g., El-Said et al., 2021; Jin et al., 2020; Mannan et al., 2019; Petzer & Mackay, 2014; Singh et al., 2021; Tuncer et al., 2021; Uslu, 2020; X. Wu et al., 2021; Zibarzani et al., 2022). However, these studies have largely overlooked the specific role of customer experiences. Much of the existing research focuses on broad satisfaction constructs, without investigating how individual quality dimensions contribute to the establishment of memorable and distinguishable dining experiences. This oversight limits a deeper understanding of the experiential mechanisms through which perceived quality influences satisfaction and loyalty.
Other scholars have integrated experiential and quality-related constructs in various industries, such as the hotel sector (e.g., Wang et al., 2013). Yet, similar multidimensional investigations remain limited within the context of sit-down restaurants. Where customer experiences are examined, they are often approached from a broad or global perspective, lacking context-specific distinction required to understand the unique dynamics of restaurant environments (Fan et al., 2017; Hwang et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2019; Kumar & Hundal, 2019; Lai et al., 2020; Shin & Yu, 2020).
In addition to the Experience Economy framework introduced by Pine and Gilmore (1998), experiential marketing literature (e.g., Schmitt, 1999; Brakus et al., 2009) emphasises that brands can create memorable customer encounters by engaging multiple senses, evoking emotions, and generating meaningful interactions. Within the foodservice industry, these experiential elements are often embedded in sit-down quality dimensions, such as ambience, food presentation, and staff interaction. These aspects are not merely operational functions; they serve as strategic marketing tools. This perspective reinforces the notion that restaurant experiences are not simply service outcomes, but intentionally crafted marketing mechanisms designed to build customer satisfaction and loyalty.
To address existing research gaps, this study investigates how each antecedent of quality—namely, physical environment, food quality, and customer service—corresponds with the four realms of customer experience: (i) aesthetic, where customers explore the beauty of the restaurant’s physical environment, such as architectural design and décor); (ii) escapist, involving active participation in events that help customers break away from daily routines, frustrations, and stress, for example, a restaurant offering themed karaoke shows; (iii) entertainment where dining is combined with a high energetic sensory experience, such as dancers and musicians serving guests in a colourful, immersive setting; and (iv) educational, which allows customers to fulfil a learning desire by acquiring knowledge and skills, for instance, playing a quiz game featuring fascinating facts about dishes, ingredients, or countries of origin. This approach offers a more granular understanding of how specific experiential elements influence customer satisfaction and intention to revisit sit-down restaurants.
Drawing on the Experience Economy framework, the study develops and tests a conceptual model linking these quality antecedents to the four experiential realms and subsequent customer satisfaction and revisit intentions. Using data from 312 restaurant customers, the hypotheses were tested through Structural Equation Modelling (SEM).
The outcome is an integrative framework that illustrates how restaurants can strategically design experiences to enhance customer satisfaction and ensure long-term loyalty. The findings offer valuable insights for both academics and practitioners, supporting hospitality marketing and operational strategies aimed at enriching the customer experience. By positioning these quality antecedents as key experiential marketing tools, this study advances understanding of how immersive, well-crafted experiences contribute to competitive advantage in the restaurant sector.
The remainder of this paper presents the conceptual framework and hypotheses, followed by a detailed literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and implications for both theory and practice.

2. Literature Review

The conceptual framework and the hypothesised relationships underpinning this study are presented in Figure 1. This framework illustrates how the quality antecedents—physical environment, customer service, and food quality—interact to create a memorable dining experience, influencing customer satisfaction and revisit intentions. These relationships are examined across the four experiential realms: aesthetic, escapist, entertainment, and educational. By integrating service quality dimensions with experiential marketing theory, the framework provides a holistic perspective on how restaurants can strategically manage experience design to enhance customer outcomes.

2.1. Quality Antecedents

Restaurants must carefully identify and prioritise quality antecedents based on their significance in meeting and exceeding customer expectations (Petzer & Mackay, 2014). Advancing this perspective, this study empirically investigates how these antecedents function as strategic differentiators in sit-down restaurants by enhancing customer experiences, supporting competitiveness, and building long-term loyalty. Quality antecedents encompass the effectiveness of products, services, personnel, processes, and the physical environment to fulfil customer expectations (Hidayat et al., 2020). These antecedents play a critical role in creating distinctive customer experiences and influencing perceived quality, though their relative importance may vary by context. For instance, in sit-down restaurants that emphasise in-house dining and appropriate seating arrangements rather than quick service, physical environment, customer service, and food quality play a pivotal role in delivering unique experiences (Rajput & Gahfoor, 2020; Sharma et al., 2020). However, specific quality antecedents remain relevant across various restaurant formats (Steyn & Labadarios, 2011). Even in quick-service or chain restaurants, the physical environment plays an important role, with many providing seating areas where customers can wait comfortably while their meals are being prepared. Such features enhance the overall experience by adding convenience, while contributing to a more pleasant atmosphere, regardless of whether customers choose to dine in or take away (Zhong & Moon, 2020).

2.2. Experiences

Within the highly competitive restaurant industry, offering convenience and quality alone no longer guarantees success. This premise is central to the theoretical framework introduced by Pine and Gilmore (1998), who conceptualised the Experience Economy. The theory outlines a shift from goods and services toward experiences as distinct economic offerings. In this context, an experience is defined as an event or circumstance encountered by an individual that leaves a lasting impression (Guo & Kwon, 2018; Lai et al., 2020; Pine & Gilmore, 1998). Compared to traditional goods and services, the values derived from such an experience are more significant, impactful, and enduring. According to Pine and Gilmore (1998), experiences can be categorised into four distinct realms—aesthetic, escapist, entertainment, and educational—collectively forming the experience economy’s foundation. These realms are mapped along two axes: the level of customer involvement (passive to active) and the nature of customer connection (absorption to immersion) (Ma et al., 2021).
Viewing the restaurant context, an aesthetic experience arises when customers appreciate the venue’s ambience or visual appeal and feel emotionally connected to it (passive immersion), without engaging in direct participation. In contrast, an escapist experience comprises customers actively participating in an engaging environment (active immersion), such as dressing according to a theme or taking part in role-play activities that align with the restaurant’s concept. An entertainment experience occurs when customers passively absorb the restaurant’s setting, such as enjoying live music, watching a performance, or observing the chef preparing their meal at the table (passive absorption). In contrast, during an educational experience (active absorption), customers acquire new knowledge and skills, such as when the chef teaches them how to prepare a dish step-by-step and invites them to participate. These experiential realms not only differentiate restaurants through novelty and co-creation but also play a pivotal role in enhancing customer satisfaction and determining positive revisit intentions.

2.3. Satisfaction

Customer experience and satisfaction are distinct yet closely interrelated concepts (Khan et al., 2015). Customer experience refers to the overall sense of gratification and emotional response derived from engaging in an activity, such as consuming a specific product or service, and reflecting on the outcomes of that engagement (Prayag et al., 2020). In contrast, customer satisfaction is a favourable cognitive judgment created after consumption (Al-Rifat & Tasnim, 2019) and serves as a key determinant of the future of restaurant patronage.

2.4. Behavioural Outcomes

Revisiting intentions serves as a vital basis for predicting customer loyalty, depending on whether a restaurant successfully fulfils or fails customers’ expectations (Jeong & Shin, 2020). In today’s digital era, customer behaviour extends beyond returning to a restaurant. Many customers now choose to share their experiences online, primarily through reviews and social media. These reviews often highlight key elements such as food quality, menu variety, ambience, and service. By doing so, they contribute to electronic word-of-mouth and increase the restaurant’s visibility across digital platforms (Bilgihan et al., 2017).
The following discussion reviews literature that supports the hypotheses regarding specific quality antecedents and customer experiences.

2.4.1. The Influence of the Physical Environment on Experiences

The physical environment can be conceptualised as a deliberately designed space that integrates specific elements to evoke emotional responses from customers (Wibisono & Lukito, 2020). These elements encompass both internal and external features of a restaurant, such as décor, parking facilities, temperature, lighting, furniture, entrance, and overall atmosphere (Zhong & Moon, 2020). Numerous empirical studies have confirmed the impact of the physical environment on customer experiences (Macawalang & Pangemanan, 2019; Ryu et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2017). Customers’ perceptions and interactions with these features directly influence their overall dining experiences (Karagöz et al., 2022). Restaurants with immersive design elements, such as distinctive aesthetics or atmospheric cues, can significantly enhance the aesthetic experience (Cassel et al., 2021; Zhong & Moon, 2020). Furthermore, thematic restaurants that invite guests to dress according to a particular theme provide a sense of escapism, contributing to both entertainment and immersive experiences (Anggraeni et al., 2020).
Sürücü and Bekar (2017) found a positive link between the quality of the physical environment (interior visual appeal, exterior visual appeal, and sensory appeal) and the aesthetic experience. The connection between the physical environment and customer experiences has been substantiated not only in restaurant settings (Chen et al., 2020; Kiviharju, 2022; Zhong & Moon, 2020) but across broader hospitality contexts, including tourism (Prayag et al., 2020) and hotels (Ali et al., 2021). Based on the existing literature, the following is proposed: H1: There is a significant positive relationship between the quality of the physical environment and experience realms (H1.1: aesthetic; H1.2: escapist, H1.3: entertainment, H1.4: educational).

2.4.2. The Influence of Customer Service on Experiences

Customer service is characterised by the subjective responses that emerge from both direct and indirect interactions between customers and service personnel (Gao et al., 2020). Research conducted across various service industries has consistently reported a strong correlation between customer service and customer experience (Alexander et al., 2022; Dieck & Han, 2022; Gao et al., 2020; Tran et al., 2020). For instance, well-managed customer service has been found to produce distinctive and positive experiential outcomes across a range of industries (Manyanga et al., 2022), highlighting that customer service plays an instrumental role in how customer experiences are created (Fan et al., 2017; Kumar & Hundal, 2019; Shin & Yu, 2020).
In the hospitality industry, the relationship between customer service and experiential outcomes is particularly well-established. Wang et al. (2013) found a strong correlation between customer service and all four experience economy realms—aesthetic, escapist, entertainment, and educational. The ability of service personnel to consistently deliver high-quality customer service—particularly in restaurants—has been strongly associated with the creation of memorable and meaningful experiences (Fan et al., 2017; Shin & Yu, 2020). Based on these earlier studies, the following is posited for this study: H2: There is a significant positive relationship between customer service and experience realms (H2.1: aesthetic; H2.2: escapist, H2.3: entertainment, H2.4: educational).

2.4.3. The Influence of Food Quality on Experiences

Food quality comprises a range of attributes, such as presentation, taste, menu diversity, temperature, healthy options, freshness, and overall variety that collectively create a memorable dining experience (Rajput & Gahfoor, 2020).
Food extends beyond meeting a basic physiological need. It serves as a strong catalyst for interpersonal interaction, emotional satisfaction, and experiential enjoyment, often motivating individuals to dine (Karagöz et al., 2022; Rajput & Gahfoor, 2020), thus enhancing social bonds and hedonic experiences (Chen et al., 2020). In dining environments, the quality and presentation of food can stimulate relaxation, excitement, escapism, and even curiosity or learning (Karagöz et al., 2022).
Earlier studies have associated food quality at festivals with the overall tourist experience (Jung et al., 2015), while contemporary research indicates that local cuisine quality also influences consumer experiences in African markets such as Ghana (Kim et al., 2019). While the visual appeal of food has been shown to enhance aesthetic and escapist experiences (Lai et al., 2020), encountering new and diverse food combinations can also stimulate learning and contribute to escapist experiences (Strong, 2023). The pleasure derived from food can transform the dining experience into a form of entertainment (Majid et al., 2018). Overall, food quality plays a consistent role in creating memorable experiences and is central to cultivating customer satisfaction and emotional engagement (Biswas & Verma, 2022). Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated: H3: There is a significant positive relationship between the quality of food and experience realms (H3.1: aesthetic; H3.2: escapist, H3.3: entertainment, H3.4: educational).

2.4.4. The Influence of Customer Experiences on Customer Satisfaction

Ribeiro and Prayag (2019) emphasise that every service interaction, regardless of its form, inevitably generates an experience. In recent years, customer experience has increasingly attracted scholarly interest in the hospitality industry, particular in the context of hotels (Veloso & Gomez-Suarez, 2023; Xu & Chan, 2010) and restaurants (Horng & Hsu, 2021). Numerous studies consistently highlight a strong correlation between customer experience and customer satisfaction (Alexander et al., 2022; Han & Yoon, 2020; Horng & Hsu, 2021; Kusumawati & Rahayu, 2020). Notably, the empirical findings of Lai et al. (2020) demonstrate a positive relationship between the four realms of experience and customer satisfaction in restaurants. Findings indicate that customer experience plays a pivotal role in driving satisfaction outcomes within hospitality settings. Based on these insights, the following hypothesis is posited: H4: There is a significant positive relationship between experience realms (H4.1: aesthetic; H4.2: escapist, H4.3: entertainment, H4.4: educational) and customer satisfaction.

2.4.5. The Influence of Customer Satisfaction on Revisit Intentions

High levels of customer satisfaction are closely linked to favourable future behaviours such as loyalty, repeat patronage, and word-of-mouth recommendations (Erkmen & Hancer, 2019; Jeong & Shin, 2020; Sashi et al., 2019). Consequently, companies prioritise customer satisfaction not only to address immediate needs but also to support long-term competitiveness and profitability (Türker et al., 2019). Numerous studies across the hospitality service sectors have confirmed the essential role of satisfaction in influencing behavioural intention (Alexander et al., 2022; Suhartanto et al., 2019; Tran et al., 2020), incorporating restaurant-specific research (Kusumawati & Rahayu, 2020; Souki et al., 2020) consistent with the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). Satisfaction with quality antecedents nurtures immersive experiences, thereby enhancing overall customer satisfaction (Erkmen & Hancer, 2019; Singh et al., 2021), while strongly predicting loyalty and long-term positive behaviour (Sashi et al., 2019). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed: H5: There is a significant positive relationship between customer satisfaction and positive behavioural intentions towards restaurants.

3. Methodology

A quantitative research approach was adopted to produce systematic and reliable insights into the influence of quality antecedents on customer experience, satisfaction, and behaviour in the restaurant context. Quantitative research relies on the collection and analysis of numerical data from a sufficiently large sample to describe and interpret specific phenomena, thereby enabling findings to be generalised to a broader context (Taherdoost, 2022). This approach provided a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between quality antecedents, experience, and customer behaviour.

3.1. Population and Sampling

The target population for this study entailed all patrons dining at two purposively selected sit-down restaurants in South Africa. These establishments were selected using a non-probability, judgmental sampling strategy, focusing on venues located in Mbombela, a prominent urban centre and key tourism gateway in northeastern South Africa. The researcher’s discretion guided the selection, informed by the Kruger Lowveld Chamber for Business and Tourism (KLCBT) classification of a sit-down restaurant, considering factors such as seating capacity, menu offerings, and service style. In addition to meeting these criteria, the two restaurants were chosen for their distinct experiential features. Each restaurant contained visible elements conducive to experience creation. One restaurant, named after a tropical Mozambican island, was thematically designed to evoke a sense of escapism. The other showcased an open production station where customers could observe pasta being prepared from scratch, creating an entertainment-based experience. Both restaurants were centrally located in Mbombela, ensuring access to a diverse mix of domestic and international diners, thereby strengthening their suitability for the study.
Given that this descriptive quantitative inquiry aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the phenomena under investigation—serving as a foundation for further research and decision-making, rather than capturing customers’ subjective experiences—a sufficiently large sample was required to ensure conclusive and reliable results (Sharma et al., 2020). While Krejcie and Morgan (1970) recommend a minimum sample size of 384 respondents, more recent methodological guidelines emphasise that sample size requirements depend on factors such as the number of items, model complexity, and type of analysis employed (Hair et al., 2020). Based on these considerations, a professional statistician was consulted, who advised a minimum of 300 respondents for this study. The final realised sample of 312 customers exceeded this threshold and was deemed adequate for structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis. Furthermore, the sample size aligns with similar hospitality and restaurant-focused studies that used SEM (e.g., Erkmen & Hancer, 2019; Shin & Yu, 2020).
The researchers employed a rational yet flexible approach to engaging respondents. Sample selection criteria informed by Erkmen and Hancer (2019) excluded individuals who had never dined at a sit-down restaurant and who were limited by time constraints. To minimize disruption, data was collected toward the end of the dining experience, specifically in the restaurant’s dining area, after the bill had been settled. Only diners who were willing to participate and were in no hurry to leave were approached. This selection procedure aligns with practices adopted in other hospitality studies (e.g., Roux & Maree, 2021). Participation was entirely voluntary, and only eligible customers were included, ensuring that data was collected exclusively from relevant and qualified participants.

3.2. Data Collection

Primary data were collected from 312 customers using interviewer-administered surveys. This method was selected as it allows researchers to gather rich, detailed data directly from participants, gain insights into both past and future behaviours, seek clarification through follow-up questions, and adapt the process where necessary.
Data collection commenced only after the respective restaurants had granted formal approval. Before participating, respondents provided informed consent, confirming their willingness to take part in the study and understanding the study’s objectives and procedures. The data was collected during different operating hours (daytime and evening) and on various days of the week (weekdays and weekends) to ensure a more representative sample of restaurant diners.

3.3. Measuring Instrument

The structured questionnaire, adapted from existing instruments (e.g., Lai et al., 2020; Oyewole, 1999; Saneva & Chortoseva, 2018), was organised into two sections. In Section A, respondents provided demographic information and answered questions about their purchasing habits. Section B measured the constructs of interest—quality antecedents contributing to experience realms, customer satisfaction, and revisit intentions—using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Cronbach’s alpha assured accepted internal consistency and reliability, as all nine constructs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.7 (see Table 1).

3.4. Data Analysis

A pre-test was conducted before the primary data collection process to identify and rectify potential issues that could compromise data quality. Paper-based questionnaires were used instead of electronic surveys. This approach minimised the risk of data loss and inaccurate response capture associated with unreliable internet connectivity due to load shedding and related disruptions.
Following the data collection, an initial analysis was conducted to examine potential response and non-response biases. Each survey was meticulously reviewed, and no missing values were identified that could be attributed to non-response, investigator error, or mechanical failure. Therefore, the standard procedure for data deletion or exclusion, as recommended by Jackson et al. (2009), was not applied. The dataset was analysed using Stata (version 17.0). Internal reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, with all nine constructs yielding strong values between 0.84 and 0.97, confirming good to excellent internal consistency.
Univariate analysis was conducted to generate descriptive statistics for the observed variables and to examine the frequency distribution of demographic variables. Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to evaluate the measurement model, assessing the validity and reliability of the constructs. Following this step, structural equation modelling (SEM) was employed to test the hypothesised relationships. Given that the study utilised previously validated scales and the constructs were derived from a priori of established literature, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was deemed unnecessary, as the reliability and construct validity of the measures had already been confirmed (Pandita et al., 2021).

4. Results

4.1. Sample Profile

From the 312 respondents, males (n = 157; 50.3%) and females (n = 153; 49.0%) were almost equally represented. Other genders comprised less than 1% (n = 2; 0.7%). Half were aged 20–39 years (n = 156; 50.0%), followed by 18–19 years (n = 19; 6.1%), and 60+ years (n = 25; 8.0%). Most worked full-time (n = 117; 37.5%), were self-employed (n = 68; 21.8%), or worked part-time (n = 45; 14.4%). Smaller groups represented students (n = 36; 11.5%), unemployed (n = 32; 10.1%), and retired (n = 14; 4.5%). Most visited restaurants one to three times a month (n = 156; 50.0%), once or twice per week (n = 77; 24.7%), or three to four times per week (n = 34; 10.9%). Few dined out less than once a month (n = 25; 8.0%) or more than five times a week (n = 20; 6.4%).

4.2. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics. The quality antecedents of the restaurant were rated highly. All mean scores exceeded 5, and the standard deviations were relatively small (0.07 to 0.10), indicating strong agreement regarding the aspects of service quality (Fitts, 2022; Martinez & Bartholomew, 2017). On average, customers reported high levels of satisfaction with the physical environment (M = 5.29; SD = 0.08), customer service (M = 5.24; SD = 0.09), and the quality of food (M = 5.48; SD = 0.08). These findings suggest that the restaurants had effectively designed engaging physical settings that create memorable experiences. The staff appeared to understand their service roles, demonstrating courteous behaviour—such as greeting, smiling, and showing a willingness to serve—while chefs prepared meals that met customer expectations.
Descriptive statistics for the experience dimension also reflected favourable ratings (4.28 to 5.33). The aesthetic experience was rated highest (M = 5.33; SD = 0.07), followed by the escapist (M = 4.86; SD = 0.10), entertainment (M = 4.53; SD = 0.08) and educational (M = 4.28; SD = 0.11) experiences. Although most customers appreciated the escapist, entertainment, and educational offerings, these dimensions were not effectively executed. The restaurants should therefore focus on creating an environment that promotes customer engagement and co-creation of experiences. These features could include adopting contemporary entertainment strategies and hosting events that allow guests to satisfy their learning interests by gaining knowledge and skills within the restaurant setting.
Customer satisfaction was rated positively (M = 5.31; SD = 0.08), indicating that customers generally agreed that the restaurants met or exceeded their expectations. Similarly, the mean scores for behavioural intention were notably high (M = 5.55; SD = 0.08), suggesting strong intentions to revisit the restaurants. In general, when customers are satisfied with a restaurant’s service, they are more likely to exhibit positive revisit and recommendation behaviour.

4.3. Inferential Statistics

Table 2 presents the results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessing the measurement model of quality antecedents. All factor loadings were statistically significant at p < 0.01 and exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), indicating acceptable indicator reliability. Composite reliability values ranged from 0.83 to 0.96, providing evidence of strong internal consistency across constructs. Convergent validity was confirmed, as the average variance extracted (AVE) values for each construct exceeded the 0.50 threshold.
Convergent validity was confirmed as all AVE values exceeded 0.50. The measurement model demonstrated an acceptable overall fit to the data (χ2/df = 2.71, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.07).

4.4. Reporting Results of Hypothesis Testing

SEM was used to test the relationships between quality antecedents and experiences, between experiences and customer satisfaction, and between customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions in sit-down restaurants. The standardised factor loadings (β) and significance levels (p) for the structural model test are summarised in Table 3. Relationships were considered statistically significant at the 5% level (p ≤ 0.05) (Andrade, 2019). The relationships are also graphically indicated in Figure 2.
H1.1, which proposed a significant positive relationship between the quality of the physical environment and customers’ aesthetic experience, was supported (β = 0.197; p < 0.001). However, H1.2, H1.3, and H1.4 were not supported, as the relationships between the physical environment and escapist (β = 0.072; p = 0.156), entertainment (β = 0.084; p = 0.102), and educational experiences (β = 0.049; p = 0.377) were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that while the physical attributes of the restaurant—such as décor, ambience, and overall appearance—enhanced the aesthetic appeal, they were insufficient to create immersive, engaging, or educational experiences. In other words, the physical environment did not enable customers to mentally disengage from routine, feel entertained, or acquire new knowledge, which may require more dynamic or interactive elements beyond visual ambience.
Hypothesis H2, which posited a significant positive relationship between customer service and experiences, was fully supported. All four sub-path were statistically significant: aesthetic experience (H2.1 β = 0.227; p = 0.000), escapist experience (H2.2 β = 0.286; p = 0.000), entertainment experience (H2.3 β = 0.380; p = 0.000), and educational experience (H2.4 β = 0.369; p = 0.000).
These findings suggest that high-quality customer service exerts a strong and consistent influence across all experiential realms, underscoring its critical role in creating interactions that are not only functional but also aesthetically appealing, immersive, entertaining, and intellectually stimulating.
Similarly, H3 was fully supported, indicating a significant positive relationship between food quality and each of the customer experience dimensions: aesthetic (β = 0.614; p = 0.000), escapist (β = 0.490; p = 0.000), entertainment (β = 0.363; p = 0.000), and educational (β = 0.314; p = 0.000) experiences. Among all antecedents, food quality exerted the strongest influence on aesthetic experience, underscoring the importance of both taste and visual presentation in influencing customer perceptions.
These findings confirm that food quality is not merely a functional necessity but a vital experiential driver that enhances sensory appeal, deepens immersion, and stimulates learning opportunities within dining contexts.
Hypothesis 4 was partially supported. Aesthetic experience (β = 0.653; p = 0.000) and entertainment experience (β = 0.137; p = 0.015) showed significant positive effects on customer satisfaction, supporting H4.1 and H4.3. In contrast, escapist experience (β = 0.107, p = 0.062) and educational experience (β = 0.070, p = 0.165) were not found to be significant predictors of satisfaction; thus, H4.2 and H4.4 were not supported. These findings suggest that customers derive satisfaction primarily from visually pleasing and enjoyable experiences, highlighting the stronger role of aesthetic and entertainment dimensions in shaping satisfaction outcomes.
Finally, H5 was supported, indicating a strong positive relationship between customer satisfaction and revisit intentions (β = 0.914; p = 0.000). The path from satisfaction to revisit intentions was both substantial and statistically significant. This finding underscores the pivotal role of satisfaction in driving future customer behaviour, including repeat patronage, recommendations, and positive online word-of-mouth.

5. Discussion

Findings are discussed with reference to existing literature. Hypothesis 1 was only partially supported. The physical environment in restaurants was positively related to the aesthetic experience, consistent with prior international studies (Ali et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2020; Kiviharju, 2022; Prayag et al., 2020; Zhong & Moon, 2020). However, no significant relationship was found for escapist (H1.2), entertainment (H1.3), and educational (H1.4) experiences. These results differ from earlier findings by Chen et al. (2020) and Zhong and Moon (2020), where significant relationships were reported. Such inconsistencies may stem from cultural and contextual differences. It is well documented that consumers from different cultural groups and countries vary in how they perceive and prioritise elements of the restaurant environment (e.g., Kim et al., 2019, 2022; Liao et al., 2024). Some may value food quality over physical surroundings, while others place greater emphasis on experiential dimensions and culinary perceptions. In developing countries like South Africa, customers may focus more on aesthetic experiences than on other experiential dimensions. Another explanation is that the physical environment of the sampled restaurants may not have been designed to create fully immersive experiences, suggesting a need for redesign to encompass all the realms of experience.
Hypothesis 2 was fully supported, as significant positive relationships were found between customer service and all experience realms. The finding aligns with international research across various service industries (Alexander et al., 2022; Dieck & Han, 2022; Gao et al., 2020; Tran et al., 2020). Good service thus acts as an experience in itself, enhancing immersion and memorability. In South Africa, where hospitality is culturally underlined, service quality may carry weight in shaping positive dining experiences.
Hypothesis 3 was also supported, with food quality showing significant positive relationships with all four experience dimensions. This result is consistent with prior studies linking food quality to customer experiences (Jung et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2019; Lai et al., 2020; Majid et al., 2018; Strong, 2023). Food quality extends beyond satisfaction to influence aesthetics, entertainment, and learning, and in South Africa, it may be imperative given the cultural and symbolic role of dining out.
Hypothesis 4 was only partially supported. Customer satisfaction was positively related to the aesthetic and entertainment experience realms, thereby confirming past studies in various hospitality contexts (Alexander et al., 2022; Han & Yoon, 2020; Horng & Hsu, 2021; Kusumawati & Rahayu, 2020). However, no significant relationship was found between customer satisfaction and the escapist and educational experience dimensions, suggesting that customers may value ambience and enjoyment of the services offered more than learning, or deep immersion during a meal, or that restaurants are not delivering these dimensions effectively.
The significant positive relationship between customer satisfaction and revisit intention supports Hypothesis 5, as expected. This finding is consistent with past empirical evidence across various hospitality service sectors (Alexander et al., 2022; Suhartanto et al., 2019; Tran et al., 2020), including specific research (Kusumawati & Rahayu, 2020; Souki et al., 2020), and aligns with the TPB (Ajzen, 1991). It also aligns with the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), which emphasises the role of attitudes and satisfaction in shaping revisit intentions. Thus, satisfied customers are more likely to return, emphasising satisfaction as a key driver of loyalty.

Managerial Implications

This study presents an innovative framework by aligning the four realms of experience (aesthetic, escapist, entertainment, and educational) with core quality antecedents. While aesthetic and entertainment dimensions are established predictors of customer satisfaction and revisit intentions, the findings reveal that quality antecedents also operate as strategic instruments for managers to create immersive and differentiated customer experiences.
It has become a strategic imperative for restaurants to survive in a saturated and rapidly evolving market. These experiential elements can be amplified through marketing initiatives such as social media storytelling, themed in-store promotions, and influencer collaborations to reach broader audiences. Managers could, for example, use themed décor or rotate cultural events to create novelty, while maintaining consistent brand identity. Simple improvements such as ambient lighting, table spacing, and background music can also strengthen the sensory experience and overall comfort.
Managers must therefore act decisively to understand the diverse roles of each quality antecedent in shaping immersive experiences. First, they should prioritise enhancing the physical environment by embedding creativity and aesthetic appeal into the design. This is the first sensory and emotional cue customers encounter, shaping perceptions before they even evaluate product attributes such as taste or aroma. Managers could consider low-cost, high-impact upgrades—such as staff uniforms that match the restaurant’s theme or well-presented menu designs—to reinforce aesthetic appeal and brand consistency. Since customers increasingly seek unique and memorable experiences when dining, a sit-down restaurant must commit to creating immersive environments that meet expectations and maintain long-term loyalty.
In addition to aesthetics considerations, restaurateurs must proactively anticipate and address broader customer expectations. Customer service must be measured and managed as a core experiential driver that directly impacts satisfaction and intention to return. Service personnel are not merely operational assets—they are key experiential agents. Attributes such as friendliness, attentiveness, and approachability directly influence how service is perceived. In sit-down restaurants, customer–employee interactions are central to delivering lasting experiences.
Employees must be equipped to fulfil these roles. By being reliable, approachable, and treating customers as valued partners, they help co-create exceptional dining moments, guiding customers, resolving issues, and enhancing overall enjoyment. In support, managers must ensure that all staff are well-informed about menu items, including ingredients and preparation methods. Regular briefings before service and on-the-job role-playing exercises can help staff anticipate customer needs and build confidence in handling different situations.

6. Limitations and Future Research

Notwithstanding the study’s contributions to the discourse on experiential differentiation in the restaurant sector, several limitations must be acknowledged. These limitations highlight opportunities for further research.
First, the study’s geographic scope was restricted to a single metropolitan area within South Africa. As such, the findings should be interpreted with caution when generalising beyond the local context. To strengthen external validity, future studies should be conducted across multiple geographic regions within and beyond South Africa, offering broader and more transferable insights.
Secondly, the study focused exclusively on sit-down restaurants, thereby excluding other formats such as fast-food, fine dining, buffet, family-style, and café restaurants. This narrow focus limits the applicability of the results to the broader restaurant industry. Future research should investigate diverse restaurant formats to provide a more representative and comprehensive understanding of the sector.
Lastly, the present study examined participants’ experiences within the physical restaurant space only. Future research could therefore explore how experiential marketing initiatives—such as themed events, storytelling, or influencer engagement—extend experiential realms beyond the physical environment, thereby offering a richer perspective on the role of marketing in shaping customer experiences.

7. Conclusions

This study addresses a critical gap in hospitality research by developing and validating a theoretical model for experiential marketing and service quality, grounded in Pine and Gilmore’s Experience Economy framework, specifically in the context of sit-down restaurants. It examines how three core quality dimensions—physical environment, customer service, and food quality—contribute to the four experiential dimensions: aesthetic, escapist, entertainment, and educational. This integration represents a novel empirical approach that advances understanding of how service quality translates into experiential value. The resulting integrated framework highlights how sit-down restaurants can create unique, memorable experiences through targeted service and environmental strategies, offering both theoretical insight and practical value.
The findings supplement existing theoretical models in hospitality and service marketing by deepening understanding of how quality antecedents influence emotionally resonant dining experiences that drive customer satisfaction and encourage positive revisit intentions. By being among the first to test these relationships within a unified experiential model, the study extends existing literature and provides new conceptual clarity. It also offers practical guidance for restaurant managers seeking experience-based differentiation.
As consumers’ expectations evolve and spending becomes increasingly selective, this study addresses the need for experience-focused strategies. While earlier research has linked service quality to customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions, few studies have explicitly examined the role of experience itself. This research fills that void by empirically demonstrating how quality dimensions interact with experiential realms to create competitive advantage in the sit-down dining sector.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.V.S., T.R. and M.R.; methodology, M.V.S., T.R. and M.R.; software, M.V.S., T.R. and M.R.; validation, M.V.S., T.R. and M.R.; formal analysis, M.V.S., T.R. and M.R.; investigation, M.V.S., T.R. and M.R.; resources, M.V.S., T.R. and M.R.; data curation, M.V.S., T.R. and M.R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.V.S., T.R. and M.R.; writing—review and editing, M.V.S., T.R. and M.R.; visualization, M.V.S., T.R. and M.R.; supervision, T.R. and M.R.; project administration, M.V.S., T.R. and M.R.; funding acquisition, M.V.S., T.R. and M.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines for non-interventional research, ensuring that participants were fully informed about anonymity, purpose, data use, and potential risks, and approved by the Faculty of Management Sciences Research Ethics Committee [FCRE-ECO] of Tshwane University of Technology (FCRE2021/FR/12/007-MS, 13 September 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander, C. M., Rao, M. S., & Swarnalatha, J. (2022). Relationship between service interaction, customer experience quality, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty: Serial mediation approach. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(8), 1940–1950. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ali, B. J., Gardi, B., Othman, B. J., Ahmed, S. A., Ismael, N. B., Hamza, P. A., Aziz, H. M., Sabir, B. Y., Sorguli, S., & Anwar, G. (2021). Hotel service quality: The impact of service quality on customer satisfaction in hospitality. International Journal of Engineering, Business and Management, 5(3), 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Al-Rifat, A., & Tasnim, R. (2019). Factors influencing customers’ selection of restaurants in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The Business & Management Review, 10(5), 186–198. [Google Scholar]
  5. Andrade, C. (2019). The p value and statistical significance: Misunderstandings, explanations, challenges, and alternatives. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 41(3), 210–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Anggraeni, R., Hendrawan, D., & Huang, Y. W. (2020). The impact of theme restaurant servicescape on consumers’ value and purchase intention. In Asian forum of business education (pp. 226–232). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bilgihan, A., Seo, S., & Choi, J. (2017). Identifying restaurant satisfiers and dissatisfiers: Suggestions from online reviews. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(5), 601–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Biswas, A., & Verma, R. K. (2022). Augmenting service quality dimensions: Mediation of image in the Indian restaurant industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 26(3), 496–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bonfanti, A., Bagnato, G., & Vigolo, V. (2025). The contribution of sustainable practices to the creation of memorable customer experience: Empirical evidence from Michelin Green Star restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 126, 104110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cassel, E., Jacobs, B., & Graham, M. (2021). Effects of the four realms of experience and pleasurable experiences on consumer intention to patronise pop-up stores. Journal of Consumer Sciences, 49, 78–93. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen, Y. C., Tsui, P. L., Chen, H. I., Tseng, H. L., & Lee, C. S. (2020). A dining table without food: The floral experience at ethnic fine dining restaurants. British Food Journal, 122(6), 1819–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dieck, M. C., & Han, D. I. D. (2022). The role of immersive technology in customer experience management. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 30(1), 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. EHL Insights. (2025). Key hospitality data & industry statistics to watch for 2025. Available online: https://hospitalityinsights.ehl.edu/hospitality-industry-statistics (accessed on 18 June 2025).
  15. El-Said, O. A., Smith, M., & Al Ghafri, W. (2021). Antecedents and outcomes of dining experience satisfaction in ethnic restaurants: The moderating role of food neophobia. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 30(7), 799–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Erkmen, E., & Hancer, M. (2019). Building brand relationship for restaurants: An examination of other customers, brand image, trust, and restaurant attributes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(3), 1469–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fan, L. H., Gao, L., Liu, X., Zhao, S. H., Mu, H. T., Li, Z., Shi, L., Wang, L. L., Jia, X. L., Ha, M., & Lou, F. G. (2017). Patients’ perceptions of service quality in China: An investigation using the SERVQUAL model. PLoS ONE, 12(12), e0190123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fitts, D. A. (2022). Point and interval estimates for a standardized mean difference in paired sample designs using a pooled standard deviation. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 18(3), 276–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gao, L., Melero-Polo, I., & Sese, F. J. (2020). Customer equity drivers, customer experience quality, and customer profitability in banking services: The moderating role of social influence. Journal of Service Research, 23(2), 174–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Guo, J. J., & Kwon, K. J. (2018). The remodeling of brand image of the time-honored restaurant brand of Wuhan based on emotional design in the age of experience economy. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 180, 233–236. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hair, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Han, S., & Yoon, J. (2020). Cultural intelligence on perceived value and satisfaction of ethnic minority groups’ restaurant experiences in Korea. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 18(3), 310–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hidayat, D., Bismo, A., & Basri, A. R. (2020). The effect of food quality and service quality towards customer satisfaction and repurchase intention (case study of hot plate restaurants). Journal of Management Business, 10(01), 01–09. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hildebrandt, F. D., & Ulmer, M. W. (2022). Supervised learning for arrival time estimations in restaurant meal delivery. Transportation Science, 56(4), 1058–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Horng, J. S., & Hsu, H. (2021). Esthetic dining experience: The relations among aesthetic stimulation, pleasantness, memorable experience, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 30(4), 419–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hwang, J., Abbas, J., Joo, K., Choo, S. W., & Hyun, S. S. (2022). The effects of different types of service providers on the experience economy, brand attitude, and brand loyalty in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., Jr., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Jeong, M., & Shin, H. H. (2020). Tourists’ experiences with smart tourism technology at smart destinations and their behavior intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 59(8), 1464–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jin, D., DiPietro, R. B., & Fan, A. (2020). The impact of customer controllability and service recovery type on customer satisfaction and consequent behavior intentions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(1), 65–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jung, T., Ineson, E. M., Kim, M., & Yap, M. H. (2015). Influence of festival attribute qualities on Slow Food tourists’ experience, satisfaction level, and revisit intention: The case of the Mold Food and Drink Festival. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 21(3), 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Karagöz, H. A., Demirciftci, T., & Erkmen, E. (2022). Local restaurants’ effect on tourist experience: A case from Istanbul. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 65, 313–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kasongo, L. (2023). Impact of the hospitality and tourism industry on social economic development in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). International Journal of Modern Hospitality and Tourism, 3(1), 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Khan, I., Garg, R. J., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Customer service experience in hotel operations: An empirical analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189, 266–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kim, S., Choe, J. Y., King, B., Oh, M., & Otoo, F. E. (2022). Tourist perceptions of local food: A mapping of cultural values. International Journal of Tourism Research, 24(1), 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, S., Ham, S., Moon, H., Chua, B. L., & Han, H. (2019). Experience, brand prestige, perceived value (functional, hedonic, social, and financial), and loyalty among grocerant customers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kiviharju, A. (2022). Meaningful experiences in South Korean theme cafés [Bachelor’s thesis, University of Applied Sciences]. [Google Scholar]
  38. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kumar, V., & Hundal, B. S. (2019). Evaluating the service quality of solar product companies using SERVQUAL model. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 13(3), 670–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kusumawati, A., & Rahayu, K. S. (2020). The effect of experience quality on customer perceived value and customer satisfaction, and its impact on customer loyalty. The TQM Journal, 32(6), 1525–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lai, I. K., Lu, D., & Liu, Y. (2020). Experience economy in ethnic cuisine: A case of Chengdu cuisine. British Food Journal, 122(6), 1801–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Liao, Y., Soltani, E., Li, F., & Ting, C. W. (2024). A cultural theory perspective to service expectations in restaurants and food services. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 16(2), 167–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lüthy, B. (2025). Hospitality industry trends for 2025. Available online: https://hospitalityinsights.ehl.edu/hospitality-industry-trends (accessed on 5 May 2025).
  44. Ma, E., Bao, Y., Huang, L., Wang, D., & Kim, M. (2021). When a robot makes your dinner: A comparative analysis of product level and customer experience between the US and Chinese robotic restaurants. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 64, 184–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Macawalang, A. H., & Pangemanan, S. S. (2019). Analytical hierarchy process approach on consumer purchase decision in choosing Chinese restaurant in Manado. Journal EMBA: Journal Riset Ekonomi, Management, Bisnis dan Akuntansi, 7(3), 2890–2899. [Google Scholar]
  46. Madeira, A., Palrão, T., & Mendes, A. S. (2020). The impact of pandemic crisis on the restaurant business. Sustainability, 13(1), 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Majid, M. A. A., Samsudin, A., Noorkhizan, M. H. I., Zaki, M. I. M., & Bakar, A. M. F. A. (2018). Service quality, food quality, image, and customer loyalty: An empirical study at a hotel restaurant. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(10), 1432–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mannan, M., Chowdhury, N., Sarker, P., & Amir, R. (2019). Modeling customer satisfaction and revisit intention in Bangladeshi dining restaurants. Journal of Modelling in Management, 14(4), 922–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Manyanga, W., Makanyeza, C., & Muranda, Z. (2022). The effect of customer experience, customer satisfaction and word of mouth intention on customer loyalty: The moderating role of consumer demographics. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 2082015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Martinez, M. N., & Bartholomew, M. J. (2017). What does it “mean”? A review of interpreting and calculating different types of means and standard deviations. Pharmaceutics, 9(2), 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Mordor Intelligence. (2023). South Africa foodservice market size & share analysis—Growth trends & forecasts up to 2029. Available online: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/africa-foodservice-market (accessed on 14 May 2025).
  52. Mordor Intelligence. (2025). Hospitality industry in South Africa size & share analysis—Growth trends & forecasts (2025–2030). Available online: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/hospitality-industry-in-south-africa (accessed on 21 July 2025).
  53. National Restaurant Association. (2024). Economic contributions of the restaurant & foodservice industry. Available online: https://restaurant.org/getmedia/206bb262-fc48-4f00-b91b-3402ea6d97f1/usa_econ_impact_study_fs-3.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2025).
  54. Nguyen-Viet, B., & Nguyen, M. P. (2025). Customer incivility’s antecedents and outcomes: A case study of Vietnamese restaurants and hotels. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 8(1), 223–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Oyewole, P. (1999). Multi-attribute dimensions of service quality in the fast-food restaurant industry. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, 3(3–4), 65–91. [Google Scholar]
  56. Pandita, S., Koul, S., & Mishra, H. G. (2021). Acceptance of ride-sharing in India: Empirical evidence from the UTAUT Model. International Journal of Business & Economics, 20(2), 93–117. [Google Scholar]
  57. Petzer, D., & Mackay, N. (2014). Dining atmospherics and food and service quality as predictors of customer satisfaction at sit-down restaurants. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 3(2), 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  58. Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review Press, 76(4), 97–105. Available online: https://shorturl.bz/qQG (accessed on 28 June 2025).
  59. Prayag, G., Gannon, M. J., Muskat, B., & Taheri, B. (2020). A serious leisure perspective of culinary tourism co-creation: The influence of prior knowledge, physical environment and service quality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(7), 2453–2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rajput, A., & Gahfoor, R. Z. (2020). Satisfaction and revisit intentions at fast food restaurants. Future Business Journal, 6, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ratasuk, A., & Charoensukmongkol, P. (2020). Does cultural intelligence promote cross-cultural teams’ knowledge sharing and innovation in the restaurant business? Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 12(2), 183–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ribeiro, M. A., & Prayag, G. (2019). Perceived quality and service experience: Mediating effects of positive and negative emotions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 28(3), 285–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Roux, T., & Maree, T. (2021). Joy to the (Shopper) World: An S-O-R view of digital place-based media in upmarket shopping malls. Journal of Promotion Management, 27(7), 1031–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ryu, K., Kim, H. J., Lee, H., & Kwon, B. (2021). Relative effects of physical environment and employee performance on customers’ emotions, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in upscale restaurants. Sustainability, 13(17), 9549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Saneva, D., & Chortoseva, S. (2018). Service quality in restaurants: Customers’ expectation and customers’ perception. Science and Research Journal, 1(2), 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sashi, C. M., Brynildsen, G., & Bilgihan, A. (2019). Social media, customer engagement and advocacy: An empirical investigation using Twitter data for quick service restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(3), 1247–1272. [Google Scholar]
  67. Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sharma, S. K., Mudgal, S. K., Thakur, K., & Gaur, R. (2020). How to calculate sample size for observational and experimental nursing research studies. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 10(1), 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shin, Y. H., & Yu, L. (2020). The influence of quality of physical environment, food and service on customer trust, customer satisfaction, and loyalty and moderating effect of gender: An empirical study on foreigners in South Korean Restaurant. International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology, 8(3), 172–185. [Google Scholar]
  70. Singh, G., Slack, N., Sharma, S., Mudaliar, K., Narayan, S., Kaur, R., & Sharma, K. U. (2021). Antecedents involved in developing fast-food restaurant customer loyalty. The TQM Journal, 33(8), 1753–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Slack, N. J., Singh, G., Ali, J., Lata, R., Mudaliar, K., & Swamy, Y. (2021). Influence of fast-food restaurant service quality and its dimensions on customer perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. British Food Journal, 123(4), 1324–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Souki, G. Q., Antonialli, L. M., Barbosa, A. A. D. S., & Oliveira, A. S. (2020). Impacts of the perceived quality by consumers of à la carte restaurants on their attitudes and behavioural intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 32(2), 301–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Steyn, N. P., & Labadarios, D. (2011). Street foods and fast foods: How much do South Africans of different ethnic groups consume? Ethnicity and Disease, 21(4), 462–466. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  74. Strong, S. (2023). Taking back taste in food bank Britain: On privilege, failure and (un) learning with auto-corporeal methods. Cultural Geographies, 30(3), 453–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Suhartanto, D., Helmi Ali, M., Tan, K. H., Sjahroeddin, F., & Kusdibyo, L. (2019). Loyalty toward online food delivery service: The role of e-service quality and food quality. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 22(1), 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sürücü, Ç., & Bekar, A. (2017). The effects of aesthetic value in food and beverage businesses on the aesthetic experiences and revisit intentions of customers. International Journal of Social Science, 1, 373–388. [Google Scholar]
  77. Taherdoost, H. (2022). What are the different research approaches? Comprehensive review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research, their applications, types, and limitations. Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research, 5(1), 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tran, Q. X., Dang, M. V., & Tournois, N. (2020). The role of servicescape and social interaction toward customer service experience in coffee stores. The case of Vietnam. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 14(4), 619–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tuncer, I., Unusan, C., & Cobanoglu, C. (2021). Service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on behavioral intention in restaurants: An integrated structural model. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 22(4), 447–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Türker, N., Gökkaya, S., & Acar, A. (2019). Measuring the effect of restaurant servicescapes on customer loyalty. Turizm Akademik Dergisi, 6(2), 255–270. [Google Scholar]
  81. Uslu, A. (2020). The relationship of service quality dimensions of restaurant enterprises with satisfaction, behavioral intention, eWOM, and the moderator effect of atmosphere. Tourism and Management Studies, 16(3), 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Veloso, M., & Gomez-Suarez, M. (2023). Customer experience in the hotel industry: A systematic literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(8), 3006–3028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wang, Y., Feng, Y., & Feng, B. (2013, June 23–24). The study on the significance of the difference between demographics and tourist experiences in Macau Casino hotels [Conference session]. International Marketing Science and Information Technology (pp. 198–211), Nanjing, China. [Google Scholar]
  84. Wibisono, T. D., & Lukito, N. (2020). Factors that influence word-of-mouth behavior in fast food restaurants. In Proceedings of the international conference on management, accounting, and economy (Vol. 151, pp. 197–201). Atlantis Press SARL. Available online: https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/mhehd-22/125975791 (accessed on 17 July 2025).
  85. Wu, J., Chen, J., Yang, T., & Zhao, N. (2024). How to stay competitive: An innovative concept to assess the business competitiveness using online restaurant reviews. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 122, 103836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wu, X., Gursoy, D., & Zhang, M. (2021). Effects of social interaction flow on experiential quality, service quality and satisfaction: Moderating effects of self-service technologies to reduce employee interruptions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 30(5), 571–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Xu, B., & Chan, Y. (2010). A conceptual framework of hotel experience and customer-based brand equity: Some research questions and implications. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(2), 174–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yang, S. B., Hlee, S., Lee, J., & Koo, C. (2017). An empirical examination of online restaurant reviews on Yelp.com: A dual coding theory perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(2), 817–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zhong, Y., & Moon, H. C. (2020). What drives customer satisfaction, loyalty, and happiness in fast-food restaurants in China? Perceived price, service quality, food quality, physical environment quality, and the moderating role of gender. Foods, 9(4), 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zibarzani, M., Abumalloh, R. A., Nilashi, M., Samad, S., Alghamdi, O. A., Nayer, F. K., Ismail, M. Y., Mohd, S., & Akib, N. A. M. (2022). Customer satisfaction with restaurant service quality during the COVID-19 outbreak: A two-stage methodology. Technology in Society, 70, 101977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tourismhosp 06 00227 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Tourismhosp 06 00227 g001
Tourismhosp 06 00227 g002
Figure 2. Summary of the structural model.
Figure 2. Summary of the structural model.
Tourismhosp 06 00227 g002
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
ConstructsNumber of ItemsCronbach’s Alpha ValueX = Meanσ = Standard
Deviation
Quality Antecedents
a. Physical environment40.845.290.08
b. Customer service40.855.240.09
c. Quality of food50.865.480.08
Experience dimensions
d. Aesthetic experience30.845.330.07
e. Escapist experience30.944.860.10
f. Entertainment experience30.944.530.08
g. Educational experience30.974.280.11
Customer satisfaction30.955.310.08
Revisit intentions30.965.550.08
Table 2. CFA—measurement model of quality antecedents.
Table 2. CFA—measurement model of quality antecedents.
ConstructsFactor LoadingsCRAVE
Physical environment 0.8730.699
The restaurant’s overall appearance is appealing.0.88
This restaurant is beautifully decorated.0.91
The restaurant has a pleasant atmosphere.0.71
Employees are neatly dressed.0.54
Customer service 0.8500.596
The restaurant serves food exactly as ordered.0.66
The restaurant provides quick service.0.73
The restaurant staff provides information when needed.0.78
The restaurant seems to have the customer’s best interests at heart.0.88
Quality of food 0.8570.516
The meal tasted pleasant.0.77
The meal was freshly served.0.70
The meal presentation was visually attractive.0.70
The meal was served at the right temperature.0.67
The menu offers a variety of interesting meals.0.72
The restaurant serves healthy meal choices.0.69
Aesthetic experience 0.8320.647
Overall, the visual experience at the restaurant was attractive.0.71
Overall, the tasting experience at the restaurant was good.0.86
Overall, the experience of the meal presentations was attractive.0.79
Escapist experience 0.9440.850
The experience at the restaurant allowed me to forget my daily routine.0.91
The experience at the restaurant allowed me to relax by getting away from some stress.0.96
The experience at the restaurant allowed me to have a break from my routine.0.90
Entertainment experience 0.9440.854
The experience at the restaurant was fun.0.94
The experience at the restaurant was enjoyable.0.96
The experience at the restaurant was entertaining.0.87
Educational experience 0.9660.896
I learned a lot from my experience at the restaurant.0.95
The experience at the restaurant stimulated my curiosity to learn new things.0.95
The experience at the restaurant was a real learning experience.0.96
Customer satisfaction 0.9440.852
This restaurant exceeded my expectations.0.91
I am pleased with my visit to this restaurant.0.93
Overall, I am satisfied with my experience at this restaurant.0.92
Revisit intentions 0.9540.876
I would visit this restaurant again in the near future.0.93
I would recommend this restaurant to my friends/relatives.0.96
This is the kind of restaurant I’d praise online.0.91
Goodness of fit statistics: X2/df = 2.71; RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.91; SRMR = 0.07.
Table 3. Results of path analysis.
Table 3. Results of path analysis.
HypothesesStandardised Betap-ValueOutcome
H1: There is a significant positive relationship between the quality of the physical environment andPartially supported
H1.1: aesthetic experience 0.1970.000Supported
H1.2: escapist experience 0.0720.156Not supported
H1.3: entertainment experience 0.0850.102Not supported
H1.4: educational experience0.0470.377Not supported
H2: There is a significant positive relationship between customer service andSupported
H2.1: aesthetic experience0.2270.000Supported
H2.2: escapist experience0.2860.000Supported
H2.3: entertainment experience0.3800.000Supported
H2.4: educational experience0.3690.000Supported
H3: There is a significant positive relationship between the quality of food andSupported
H3.1: aesthetic experience 0.6140.000Supported
H3.2: escapist experience 0.4900.000Supported
H3.3: entertainment 0.3630.000Supported
H3.4: educational experience 0.3140.000Supported
H4: There is a significant positive relationship between Partially supported
H4.1: aesthetic experience and customer satisfaction0.6530.000Supported
H4.2: escapist experience and customer satisfaction0.1060.062Not supported
H4.3: entertainment experience and customer satisfaction0.1370.015Supported
H4.4: educational experience and customer satisfaction0.0700.165Not supported
H5: There is a significant positive relationship between customer satisfaction and positive revisit intention.0.9140.000Supported
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sithole, M.V.; Roux, T.; Retief, M. Experiential Marketing Through Service Quality Antecedents: Customer Experience as a Driver of Satisfaction and Revisit Intentions in South African Restaurants. Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6, 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6050227

AMA Style

Sithole MV, Roux T, Retief M. Experiential Marketing Through Service Quality Antecedents: Customer Experience as a Driver of Satisfaction and Revisit Intentions in South African Restaurants. Tourism and Hospitality. 2025; 6(5):227. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6050227

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sithole, Moses Vuyo, Therese Roux, and Miri Retief. 2025. "Experiential Marketing Through Service Quality Antecedents: Customer Experience as a Driver of Satisfaction and Revisit Intentions in South African Restaurants" Tourism and Hospitality 6, no. 5: 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6050227

APA Style

Sithole, M. V., Roux, T., & Retief, M. (2025). Experiential Marketing Through Service Quality Antecedents: Customer Experience as a Driver of Satisfaction and Revisit Intentions in South African Restaurants. Tourism and Hospitality, 6(5), 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6050227

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop