Fast food Resturents in India Essay Example for Free

Fast food Resturents in India Essay 1. INTRODUCTION Globally, there is a growing demand for food away from home as a result of higher incomes, changes in consumption patterns, changes in household composition, and the time pressures created by dual-working families. The foodservice industry has become highly competitive as the number of foodservice outlets has increased to meet the demand. In order to succeed in such a competitive industry, restaurant operators need to understand the factors (and their relative importance) that influence restaurant patrons’ decision when selecting a restaurant This research investigates consumer choice using the consumer decision-making process as a framework and identifies the factors that influence the decisions of consumers in the upscale, ethnic segment of the foodservice industry. This chapter reviews the relevant literature about consumers and services, the consumer decision making process model, and previous studies in consumers’ restaurant selection behavior. Furthermore, the interrelationships between customer satisfaction, food quality, service quality and choice intentions are discussed. Lastly, the restaurant choice factors, dining occasion, and demographic characteristics are reviewed. 1.1 FASTFOOD Fast food is the term given to food that can be prepared and served very quickly. While any meal with low preparation time can be considered to be fast food, typically the term refers to food sold in a restaurant or store with preheated or precooked ingredients, and served to the customer in a packaged form for take-out/take-away. 1.2 CUSTOMER CHOICE In microeconomics, the theory of consumer choice relates preferences (for the consumption of both goods and services). Preferences are the desires by each individual for the consumption of goods and services that translate into choices based on income or wealth for purchases of goods and services to be combined with the consumers time to define consumption activities. 1.3 FASTFOOD INDUSTRY The fast food industry is dominated by a handful of powerful corporations who are determined to aggressively drive production costs to the minimum. Low wages are a central part of this program. Because every dollar an employer has to pay in the form of wages is one less dollar in their pocket. The lower the wages, the better the profits. The companies that have applied this formula most successfully are McDonalds, Burger King and Yum (Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC).Together these huge conglomerates dominate the industry, employing 3.7 million people worldwide; operating a combined total of 60,000 stores. 1.4 FASTFOOD RESTORENT IN INDORE Indore is famous city in a fast food industry. So many mnc’s and nation lavel corporation investing in the city. Indorins also like a fast food. That’s why many venture opened in indore like as:- 1.4.1 McDonald’s McDonald’s is the worlds largest chain of hamburger fast food restaurants, serving around 68 million customers daily in 119 countries. Headquartered in the United States, the company began in 1940 as a barbecue restaurant operated by Richard and Maurice McDonald; in 1948 they reorganized their business as a hamburger stand using production line principles. Businessman Ray Kroc joined the company as a franchise agent in 1955. He subsequently purchased the chain from the McDonald brothers and oversaw its worldwide growth. McDonalds primarily sells hamburgers, cheeseburgers, chicken, Frenchfries, breakfast items, softdrinks, milkshakes and desserts. In response to changing consumer tastes, the company has expanded its menu to include salads, fish, wraps, smoothies and fruit. 1.4.2 Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken) is a fast food restaurant chain headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, United States, which specializes in fried chicken. An American icon, it is the worlds second largest restaurant chain overall (as measured by sales) after McDonalds, with over 18,000 outlets in 120 countries and territories as of December 2012. The company is a subsidiary of Yum! Brands, a restaurant company which also owns Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. KFC was founded by Harland Sanders, who began selling fried chicken from his roadside restaurant in Corbin, Kentucky during the Great Depression. Sanders was one of the first people to see the potential of the restaurant franchising concept, with the first Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise opening in Utah in 1952. 1.4.3 Pizza Hut Pizza hut is the largest pizza Restaurant Company in the world. It has 12000 outlets in 90 countries employing more than 3 lakh people. The legacy of pizza hut began in 1958.In India there are not much outlets, out of 1086 countries India is one of them but only in 9 cities pizza hut has its outlets. Pizza Hut has an aggressive expansion plan for India. It intends to have 100 outlets by the end of 2004. Pizza Hut will consolidate its presence in cities where it already exists as an endeavor to create a major share of these profitable markets first before spreading to other markets. Further, all new outlets in India would be franchisee owned resulting from the smooth functioning of the existing stores which are all franchisee owned. Hence, the same arrangement will be followed in the future to ensure growth-oriented results. The data written below represent what Pizza hut is all about and gives a brief profile of the company. 1.4.4 Domino’s Pizza Jubilant Food Works Limited (the Company) is a Jubilant Bhartia Group Company, The Company was incorporated in 1995 and initiated operations in 1996, The Company got listed on the Indian bourses in February 2010, Mr, Shyam S, Bhartia, Mr, Hari S, Bhartia and Jubilant Enpro Private Ltd, are the Promoters of the Company. The Company its subsidiary operates Dominos Pizza brand with the exclusive rights for India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, The Company is Indias largest and fastest growing food service company, with a network of 500+ Dominos Pizza stores Stores (as of 31st March, 2012) The Company is the market leader in the organized pizza market with a 54% market share (Euro monitor Report 2010) and 70% share in the pizza home delivery segment in India, The Company has strengthened its portfolio by entering into an agreement with Dunkin Donuts Franchising LLC, for developing the Dunkin Donuts brand and operating restaurants in India.

Janes Psychological Problems in Charlotte Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpape

Jane's Psychological Problems in Charlotte Gilman’s "The Yellow Wallpaper" In Charlotte Gilman’s short story "The Yellow Wallpaper," Jane, the main character, is a good example of Sigmund Freud’s Studies In Hysteria. Jane suffers from symptoms such as story making and daydreaming. Jane has a nervous weakness throughout the story. Jane is a victim of a nervous disorder of the brain called hysteria. She is aware that she suffers from a series of mental and physical disturbances. She says that she has a " temporary nervous depression: -- a slight hysterical tendency- what is one to do?"(2). According to Freud hysteria is a nervous disorder that causes violent fits of laughter, crying, and imagination. It is a lack of self-control. Jane experiences some of these symptoms. Her imagination takes over her personality a number of times. There are three instances where her creative imagination literally takes over her personality. The first is when she is describing to the reader the so-called nursery. The second instance is her way of talking about "The Yellow Wallpaper." The third is the remarkable ending, where she seems to lose herself in her rebellion against her husband John. Jane’s "nervous weakness" comes over her several times throughout the story, and in the context of Freud’s analysis of hysteria I will distinguish her problems (10). One problem is that Jane describes to the reader the so-called nursery, but she is actually talking about her bedroom with the barred windows. Jane states, "The windows are barred for little children, and there are rings and things in the walls"(4). I think that she imagined that the rings were a game of some sort for the children that would play in the nursery. In reality, the pu... ...kept on creeping just the same, but I looked him over my shoulder"(20). This goes to show that "the woman that creeps" was Jane all along. At the end of the story, she completely releases herself in her rebellion against John. She says, "I’ve got out at last," said I, "in spite of you and Jane. And I’ve pulled off most of the paper, so you can’t put me back"(20). Jane talks in the third person because of the result of her nervous weakness. From her imagination of the so-called nursery, "the woman," the yellow wallpaper and talking in the third person it is clear that she has serious psychological problems. Works Cited Breuer, Joseph and Sigmund Freud. Studies In Hysteria. Boston: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing, 1950. Gilman, Charlotte. "The Yellow Wallpaper" and Selected Stories. "The Yellow Wallpaper." 1892. New York: Doubleday Dell, 1989. 1-20.

Born in East LA

At the end of Cheech Marin's Born in East L. A. (1987), a pair of undocumented Chinese immigrants who have been trained by Rudy (Marin) in the art of walking, talking, and gesturing like Mexican-Americans successfully act Mexican-American in front of a police officer to convince and assure him that they indeed are â€Å"natives. † Of concern to both Lowe and Oboler is the unequal status of minorities as members of the United States national community and citizenry. Basically, the U. S. citizen has been defined as a white male. This subsequently has meant that especially persons of color have been â€Å"conceived in the popular mind as outside of the ‘boundaries' of the ‘American' community† (Oboler 19). Thus, persons of color are denied â€Å"the extension of full citizenship rights† (Oboler 28); they are denied protection of their â€Å"privileges and. . . local body† (Berlant 113). Fregoso indicates that with Born in East L. A. Cheech Marin parodies the second level of meaning at which â€Å"‘Born in the USA' had been disarticulated from its signifying elements of working-class discourse and rearticulated as an expression of racist and patriotic discourse† (56). Marin basically uses to his advantage the nativist logic which results in â€Å"Born in the USA† being taken to signify â€Å"foreigners (or non-whites) go home† (Fregoso 56). His objective is to intervene into the definition of â€Å"Americans† as whites. Underpinning white nativists' appropriation of â€Å"Born in the USA† is the extremely narrow reasoning that America belongs to whites because whites are born here. Marin intervenes by indicating that Mexican-Americans also are born in the USA. Thus, â€Å"brown people are natives too† (Fregoso 56) . When caught up in an Immigration raid, Rudy declares, â€Å"I was born in East L. A. ,† to the INS officer to announce his right to be in the United States unharassed. Rudy is also implicitly telling the officer that by birthright he (Rudy) is an equal citizen to the officer and entitled to the same freedoms that the officer and any other (white) citizen enjoy. Of course, despite the fact that Rudy declares that he was born in East L. A. , and thus a citizen by his nativeness, he is deported. In fact, when he attempts to align himself with INS officers as their fellow American citizen, Rudy is soundly rejected. To the officer at the toy factory, Rudy is merely another â€Å"bean in a bean bag. † As he is escorted to the INS van, Rudy's appeals to the officers that â€Å"I am an American citizen† are for naught, for he is briskly ushered into the van with the â€Å"rest† of the non-citizen Mexicans. In the INS office in Tijuana, Rudy tells the white officer, â€Å"It's good to talk to a American† but the officer does not accept Rudy as his equal, and ultimately condemns him to â€Å"Mexico– where you belong. Highly symbolic of the repudiation of Mexican-Americans' claims to citizenship equal to that of white Americans is the scene in the INS van when Rudy, banging on the door which separates the deportees from the INS driver, screams, â€Å"I'm an American. I went to Belmont High, you idiot. † Although Rudy is creating quite an up roar, he is not heard by the driver simply because the driver has on a set of headphones. Literally his assertions (shouts) of his membership in the U. S. national community are tuned out. This non-reception of Rudy's shouts reflects the refusal of white America to heed persons' of color justified demands for equal status as citizens. â€Å"Rudy [just] cannot convince U. S. border officials that he is an American and therefore has the right to return to the United States† (Cortes 47); they simply will not hear his claims. All of Rudy's encounters with INS officers thus dramatize the exclusion of persons of color from the national community which Lowe and Oboler discuss. Moreover, the negation of Rudy's citizenship makes visible the contradictions inherent in white-American nativist logic. With his wallet at home, Rudy finds himself without identification. Thus, he is without any documentation which can substantiate his claims to citizenship. Without such documentation, his body is all that can be read by the INS officers, whose job it is to regulate who is inside the nation and who should be kept out. Ultimately, Rudy is deported because he is deemed not-American by virtue of his brown body. His English, Dodgers hat, and knowledge of U. S. popular culture (as demonstrated by his knowledge of Death Valley Days and John Wayne) are completely ignored as signifiers of his Americanness. Instead, his brown body is taken as a more important signifier. Rudy, on the other hand, is literally excluded from the U. S. citizenry because of of his brown body. Once in Mexico Rudy feels himself to be in â€Å"a foreign land. † The foreignness of Mexico and Mexicans to Rudy is played out to represent Rudy's Americanness. For instance, in the INS van headed to Tijuana, Rudy is an outsider amongst the Mexicans. Unable to speak Spanish, he is ultimately called by one of the Mexicans a â€Å"pocho pendejo,† a pejorative reference usually intended to refer to Mexican-Americans who cannot speak Spanish and who, subsequently, are deemed less Mexican. In fact, as he is captured by Border Patrol officers on one of his attempts to cross the border, Rudy proclaims, â€Å"I'm an American citizen. I don't even speak Spanish. Whereas â€Å"the Spanish language is commonly used as an identifier of Hispanics† (Oboler 12), Marin presents a pocho Rudy to make more obvious Rudy's â€Å"American† identity. Basically, to present Mexican-Americans as brown Americans, Born on East L. A. plays on Rudy's/Mexican-Americans' cultural â€Å"distance† from Mexico and Mexicans. Edward Simmen posits that Mexicans-Americans' physical and cultural distance from Mexico accounts for the uniqueness, if not unrelatablity, of Mexican-Americans when compared to Mexicans in Mexico. He states: After all, it is difficult to deny the fact that the contemporary Mexican-American, while he may have firm cultural roots in Mexico, is actually only a distant cousin to the Mexicano living in present-day Mexico– a distance that is rapidly increasing with each new generation, with each new educational opportunity offered to and taken by the Mexican-American, and certainly with each mile the Mexican-American moves north from the border. (17) â€Å"I don't belong here in downtown TJ 'cause I was born in East L. A. † Although of Mexican descent, Rudy is not exactly â€Å"Mexican. Within Mexico and amongst Mexicans, Rudy is an outsider, rendered so by his different socio-cultural experiences and subsequent sense of self. Rudy does not, however, come across as a whited Mexican. When he aligns himself with white Americans, it is as a fellow American citizen, and not as a fellow white. This distinction is crucial for understanding the cultural identity politics of the film. R udy's forced journey to Mexico, however, does not facilitate some personal reconciliation with a lost or repressed dimension to his identity. Instead, he wants to go home, This type of nationalism is effective in its contestation of white-American nativism as well in its depiction of a securely distinct identity. Fregoso says, though, that by the end of the film, when Rudy crosses back with a mass of immigrants, he â€Å"crosses back as a collective subject† instead of as an individual (68). She says: [Rudy's] forced residence in Tijuana effects a transformation in [his] subject position. By living like an immigrant, experiencing the difficulties of trying to make it across, Rudy gains a new awareness. His transformation has a symbolic resonance at the level of political consciousness. 68) Carlos Cortes says that when Rudy and the immigrants rush the border, â€Å"At least for the moment, ‘the people' have caused the border to disappear† (47). One can take Cortes's reading to refer to the dissipation of the borders/differences between Rudy, the Mexican immigrants, the Salvadorena Dolores, the Chinese/In dians, and whatever other groups might be present. Thus, under duress, differences give way (at least for the moment) to group consciousness. But the final sequence of the film turns on the differences between Rudy and the noncitizen others and reinscribes these differences. First of all, in the abovementioned scene in which the undocumented Chinese immigrants â€Å"pass† as native Mexican-Americans, the fact of their non-citizenship contributes to Rudy's perceived citizenship. And, as they are performing for the officer, Rudy is marrying the Salvadorena Dolores so she does not get arrested by the INS officers, who are in hot pursuit of her. These two scenes really sum up the way in which the film asserts Mexican-American citizenship, for Rudy's citizenship consistently emerges in relation to others' noncitizenship. The â€Å"narrative truth† which the spectator is always let in on (Fregoso 60) is that Rudy is an American citizen, albeit one whose privileges are denied, and various others are not. It thus seems that Rudy's American citizenship comes into focus through the same process by which white Americans' Americanness and citizenship become apparent: both depend on others' lack of citizenship. Oboler indicates that â€Å"the nation's [white] identity was forged in the nineteenth century partially through the creation of racialized perceptions that homogenized Latin America's population† (18). Likewise, Rudy's identity as an American citizen is foregrounded in contrast to Mexican, Salvadorena, and Chinese others. Christine List says that â€Å"Chicano features provide a public forum for Chicano cultural expression and articulate issues of Chicano identity on a national and international scale† (13). Born in East L. A. â€Å"sets up as its central conflict Rudy's dilemma of proving his identity† (List 151), specifically as an American citizen. As the film asserts his/Mexican-Americans' American citizenship, it effectively intervenes into the construction of the American citizen as white. However, Mexican-American citizenship is established through others' noncitizenship. Such a method for the recuperation of Mexican-American citizenship is troubling because it still others noncitizens. With regard to definitions of nation, Cortes states, â€Å"As context or character, as goal or protection, borders have served a key role in Hollywood's exploration of the formation and reformation of our nation† (42). Born in East L. A. ‘s reformation of the nation ultimately asserts Mexican-Americans' citizenship by foregrounding others' noncitizenship, which is to say, others' fundamental outsiderness in relation to the U. S. national community.

What Is the GOP Establishment

What does the term the establishment mean? It likely made its first appearance in print in  1958, in  the  British magazine New Statesman, in reference to the ruling classes that dominated social, religious, and political life in  Great Britain. To young Americans in the 1960s, it meant the entrenched powers in Washington, D.C., which were mostly made up of older conservative white men. In other words, the Republican Party. Ultimately, the counterculture did little to whittle away at the status quo  or the political power it wielded. While the term the establishment remains derisive, what has changed is the number of people who are now part of it. Today, just about everyone who holds political office is considered part of the establishment.  Still,  there have been a few outliers in recent years. The GOP Establishment Although many Democrats can certainly be included in the establishment, and there are a few so-called radical Republicans  who balk at  the political orthodoxy,  the term traditionally refers to the permanent political class and structure that makes up the  GOP.  The establishment within the Republican party tends to control the rules of the party system, party elections, and funding disbursements. The establishment is typically viewed as more elitist, politically moderate, and out of touch with true conservative voters. The People Push Back A series of loosely organized Tax Day protests in the early 1990s eventually gave rise to one of the most widespread revolts against the establishment in decades. Although made up primarily of conservatives, the modern-day Tea Party was organized in part  to hold the GOP  establishment accountable for betraying certain key conservative principles. As the Tea Partiers saw it, the GOP establishments refusal to reduce the size of government and balance the budget was a direct hit to middle-class pocketbooks. Tea Party supporters gather for a rally against the Iran nuclear deal in Washington, D.C. September 9, 2015. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images The GOPs strategy of winning at any costs also drew Tea Party ire. Such an establishment position led to Republican support of politicians such as Arlen Specter, who left the party to join the Democrats and cast the deciding vote for Obamacare, and Charlie Crist, a former popular Florida Republican who bailed the party because he was certain to lose the GOP nomination for Senate in 2010. The Rise of Sarah Palin   Although herself a Republican and the vice president of choice for GOP establishmentarian John McCain, former Alaska Governor  Sarah Palin was considered a hero among the Tea Partiers for calling out Washingtons good old boy system.   Sarah Palin speaks at a Tea Party rally on July 14, 2012 in Belleville, Michigan. Bill Pugliano/Getty Images This good old boy system keeps the establishment in power with the application of its  next-in-line strategy come election time. Those who have been around Washington the longest and built up a network of fellow establishment insiders are the ones who most deserve GOP support. This has led to unimpressive presidential candidates like George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain, and is likely a top reason for Barack Obamas win in 2008. The establishment also props up candidates in the senate, congressional, and gubernatorial elections and regularly had their way until the post-George W. Bush Tea Party revolution, as columnist  Michelle Malkin  regularly pointed out on her website. In a Facebook post from 2012, Palin wrote this searing indictment of the Republican election process: The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent. In spite of the medias ongoing derision of both her personality and her politics, Sarah Palin has been one of the most effective anti-establishment activists and has turned multiple primary elections upside down. In both 2010 and 2012, her endorsements helped catapult a number of candidates into wins against the presumptive nominees.   Other GOP Rebels In addition to Palin, chief antagonists of the Republican establishment including Speaker of the House  Paul Ryan, and Senators Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, and  Ted Cruz.  Also, a number of organizations have been created to oppose  establishment candidates and support conservative and Tea Party  alternatives. Those organizations include Freedom Works, the Club for Growth, the Tea Party Express, and hundreds of local grassroots organizations that have sprouted up since 2009. Draining the Swamp? Many political pundits consider the presidency of Donald Trump an act of rebellion against the establishment. Detractors believe that his reign  will likely result in nothing short of the destruction of the Republican Party itself. Now considered primarily a  radical populist, Trump spoke many times during his campaign about the importance of draining the swamp of its long-entrenched establishment. But one year into his presidency it was apparent that it was business as usual in Washington. Not only did Trump hire family members to key positions, former longtime lobbyists also received juicy posts. Spending within the first year was at an all-time high, with no talk of balancing the budget and decreasing the deficit, which is projected to tip the $1 trillion dollar point again in 2019, according to an economic think tank. As Tony Lee, writing for Breitbart News, points out, it may no longer be fair to define the establishment as solely GOP but rather, Those who want to preserve the status quo because they directly benefit from it and dont challenge the political-media industrial complex.