Most institutional consumers (IC) surveyed were restaurants, popular restaurants, and canteens, of which the restaurants and popular restaurants are the majority (Table 30). The popular restaurants mostly serve normal daily meals. The canteens are somewhat similar in terms of operation but targeted to specific groups of customers from offices or institutions. The restaurants target higher levels of consumption where people occasionally come for a party or evening out.
TABLE 30
Type of business by region
Types of Business |
Region |
Total |
|||
Northern |
Central |
Southern |
|||
Restaurant |
Count |
21 |
25 |
21 |
67 |
% |
52.5 |
83.3 |
45.7 |
57.8 |
|
Canteen |
Count |
6 |
3 |
4 |
13 |
% |
15.0% |
10.0 |
8.7 |
11.2 |
|
Popular restaurant |
Count |
13 |
2 |
21 |
36 |
% |
32.5 |
6.7 |
45.7 |
31.0 |
|
Total |
Count |
40 |
30 |
46 |
116 |
% |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Similar to the other market operators, institutional consumers can be run at family household or enterprise level. According to the survey, institutional consumers at household level are the majority, accounting for 64 percent, the rest were operating at either enterprise or joint-capital group level (Table 31).
TABLE 31
Type of business patterns of institutional
consumers by region
Organizational patterns |
Region |
Total |
|||
Northern |
Central |
Southern |
|||
Household |
Count |
27 |
17 |
32 |
76 |
% |
67.5 |
56.7 |
66.7 |
64.4 |
|
Private enterprise |
Count |
1 |
7 |
8 |
16 |
% |
2.5 |
23.3 |
16.7 |
13.6 |
|
Joined capital group |
Count |
- |
2 |
4 |
6 |
% |
- |
6.7 |
8.3 |
5.1 |
|
State-owned enterprises |
Count |
7 |
2 |
3 |
12 |
% |
17.5 |
6.7 |
6.3 |
10.2 |
|
Equitized enterprise |
Count |
4 |
1 |
- |
5 |
% |
10.0 |
3.3 |
- |
4.2 |
|
Others |
Count |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
% |
2.5 |
3.3 |
2.1 |
2.5 |
|
Total |
Count |
40 |
30 |
48 |
118 |
% |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Patterns of institutional consumption
Various kinds of meat are consumed in eating institutions, including fishery products, pork, chicken, beef and duck. The survey shows that fishery products are dominant among the meats consumed. In nearly half (46 percent) of the cases, fishery products accounted for more than 50 percent of the total meat consumed. The situation was slightly different among regions of the country where the north tended to consume less fish than the other regions (Table 32).
TABLE 32
Proportions of fish among total meat
consumption of institutional consumers by region
Proportions of fish (%) |
Region |
Total |
|||
Northern |
Central |
Southern |
|||
<25 |
Count |
10 |
1 |
1 |
12 |
% |
25.0 |
3.6 |
2.1 |
10.3 |
|
25-50 |
Count |
20 |
9 |
22 |
51 |
% |
50.0 |
32.1 |
45.8 |
44.0 |
|
50-75 |
Count |
5 |
7 |
20 |
32 |
% |
12.5 |
25.0 |
41.7 |
27.6 |
|
>75 |
Count |
5 |
11 |
5 |
21 |
% |
12.5 |
39.3 |
10.4 |
18.1 |
|
Total |
Count |
40 |
28 |
48 |
116 |
% |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Various kinds of fisheries products are consumed in institutions, among which fish sauce is a product that cannot be ignored by any eating-place. On average 39 litres of fish sauce are consumed per month per institution in addition to various kinds of marine and freshwater products.
Among the 120 institutions surveyed, shrimp, crab, squid, snakehead, shellfish, common carp, major carp, tilapia, scad and grouper are the ten major species purchased (Table 33). However, when ranked by value of the total purchase by species, there was a slight change in the list of the ten major species that were most consumed financially. Species of mackerel, lobster, and snapper entered the list instead of two freshwater species namely common carp, major carps, and scad the marine species. Among the species consumed, purchased shrimp, crab, and lobster were the most valuable ones. Shrimp consumption accounted for only 17 percent of the total quantity consumed by institutions but accounts for 35 percent of value. Other examples are 11 percent by quality and 16 percent by value for crab and 1 percent and 4 percent by value for lobster.
TABLE 33
Quantity (tonnes) of fish products consumed
monthly by institutional consumers
Fish product |
Mean |
N |
Std. |
Sum |
% of Total Sum |
Dried fish |
2.0 |
1 |
- |
2.00 |
0 |
Dried squid |
3.0 |
1 |
- |
3.00 |
0 |
Shrimp |
121.7 |
75 |
160.58 |
9131.00 |
17.1 |
Squid |
83.9 |
58 |
82.36 |
4865.00 |
9. |
Crab |
114.0 |
51 |
162.28 |
5815.00 |
10.9 |
True mackerel |
64.8 |
12 |
49.08 |
778.00 |
1.5 |
Grouper/sea bass |
97.1 |
16 |
179.03 |
1553.00 |
2.9 |
Cat fish |
53.0 |
5 |
9.74 |
265.00 |
0.5 |
Tuna |
114.3 |
7 |
97.27 |
800.00 |
1.5 |
Common carp |
159.1 |
14 |
232.13 |
2228.00 |
4.2 |
Tilapia |
242.5 |
8 |
219.45 |
1940.00 |
3.6 |
Snakehead |
112.8 |
55 |
146.14 |
6203.00 |
11.6 |
Gouramy |
212.5 |
10 |
207.76 |
2125.00 |
4.0 |
Scad |
90.8 |
18 |
120.07 |
1636.00 |
3.1 |
Jobfish |
50.0 |
1 |
- |
50.00 |
0.1 |
Pomfret |
90.0 |
1 |
- |
90.00 |
0.2 |
Marine fish |
131.7 |
6 |
135.41 |
790.00 |
1.5 |
Fish (general) |
156.4 |
27 |
183.82 |
4222.00 |
7.9 |
FW fish |
106.4 |
7 |
98.77 |
745.00 |
1.4 |
Snapper |
86. |
13 |
108.55 |
1121.00 |
2.1 |
Major carp |
61.5 |
31 |
39.02 |
1908.00 |
3.6 |
FW shrimp |
15.3 |
8 |
14.73 |
122.00 |
0.2 |
Leather jacket |
115.0 |
2 |
120.21 |
230.00 |
.4 |
Clam/snail |
66.5 |
38 |
89.88 |
2527.00 |
4.7 |
keo fish |
100.0 |
1 |
. |
100.00 |
0.2 |
Sheat fish |
135.8 |
6 |
132.83 |
815.00 |
1.5 |
Goby |
60.0 |
3 |
36.06 |
180.00 |
0.3 |
Other mackerel |
89.4 |
8 |
63.3830 |
715.00 |
1.3 |
Anabas |
65.0 |
7 |
44.0643 |
455.00 |
0.9 |
Eel |
63.3 |
12 |
51.8009 |
760.00 |
1.4 |
Other species and products |
53.6 |
13 |
46.1240 |
697.00 |
1.3 |
Lobster |
67.9 |
7 |
103.7568 |
475.00 |
0.9 |
Total |
102.2 |
522 |
135.3981 |
53346.00 |
100.0 |
Purchasing behaviour of institutional consumers
Institutions purchase fish products on a daily basis either at their home-gate or in the market. According to the survey, 45 percent of the institutions had home delivery service for fish products, mostly from wholesalers or retailers. The average monthly purchase of fish products was VND 22.68 million; the figure for restaurants was VND 34.16 million, which was 4 to 5 times higher than that of the canteen and popular restaurant (Table 34).
TABLE 34
Monthly expenses (VND millions) on fishery
products by institutional consumers1
Fish product |
Mean Monthly expenses (VND millions) |
N |
Std. deviation |
Sum |
% of Total Sum |
Dried fish |
120 |
1 |
- |
120 |
0 |
Dried squid |
450.4 |
1 |
- |
450 |
0 |
Shrimp |
11511.1 |
75 |
17407.52 |
863330 |
34 |
Squid |
3144.4 |
58 |
3057.72 |
182377 |
7.3 |
Crab |
7727.5 |
50 |
14448.62 |
386377 |
15 |
True mackerel |
8700.0 |
12 |
15855.66 |
104400 |
4.2 |
Grouper/sea bass |
8343.7 |
16 |
17847.82 |
133500 |
5.4 |
Catfish |
645.0 |
5 |
68.74 |
3225 |
0.1 |
Tuna |
1540.0 |
7 |
1162.24 |
10780 |
0.4 |
Common carp |
3385.2 |
14 |
5135.34 |
47394 |
1.9 |
Tilapia |
6630.6 |
8 |
7834.10 |
53045 |
2.1 |
Snakehead |
2871.6 |
55 |
4291.82 |
157940 |
6.4 |
Gouramy |
5102.0 |
10 |
4177.68 |
51020 |
2.1 |
Scad |
902.7 |
18 |
1064.90 |
16248 |
0.7 |
Pomfret |
2880.0 |
1 |
- |
2880 |
0.1 |
Marine fish |
2613.3 |
6 |
2430.20 |
15680 |
0.6 |
Fish (general) |
3889.4 |
27 |
4620.74 |
105015 |
4.2 |
FW fish |
1881.9 |
7 |
2561.38 |
13173 |
0.5 |
Snapper |
4364.8 |
13 |
5888.65 |
56742 |
2.3 |
Major carp |
662.4 |
31 |
461.39 |
20536 |
0.8 |
FW shrimp |
527.6 |
8 |
704.82 |
4221 |
0.2 |
Leather jacket |
4525.0 |
2 |
4914.39 |
9050 |
0.4 |
Clam/snail |
1525.1 |
38 |
2300.04 |
57952 |
2.3 |
keo fish |
3500.0 |
1 |
. |
3500 |
0.1 |
Sheat fish |
2101.7 |
6 |
2191.00 |
12610 |
0.5 |
Goby |
1916.7 |
3 |
1421.56 |
5750 |
0.2 |
Other mackerel |
870.0 |
8 |
508.22 |
6960 |
0.3 |
Anabas |
2017.9 |
7 |
2295.59 |
14125 |
0.6 |
Eel |
2601.3 |
12 |
2150.06 |
31215 |
1.3 |
Other species and products |
1256.3 |
12 |
902.02 |
15075 |
0.6 |
Lobster |
14035.7 |
7 |
21859.30 |
98250 |
4.0 |
Total |
4784.1 |
519 |
10236.42 |
2482940 |
100.0 |
1 Large organizations and catering users of fish.
The preferences for fish products differ. Various factors affecting the purchasing decision of consumer institutions were identified in the survey. Product price was the major factor for 67 percent of institutions; freshness and quality of the product were also important factors as reported by 44 percent and 42 percent of the institutions, respectively (Table 35). Moreover, 33 percent of the institutions reported that the size of the product had affected their purchase because the size should fit a single meal of a family. Almost all institutions (93 percent) were satisfied with the fish products purchased (Table 36).
TABLE 35
Criteria used by institutional consumers to
select fish products
Criteria |
Restaurant |
Canteen |
Popular restaurant |
Total |
||||
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
|
Size of products |
23 |
34.3 |
2 |
15.4 |
14 |
37.8 |
39 |
33.3 |
Demanded species |
40 |
59.7 |
10 |
76.9 |
22 |
59.5 |
72 |
61.5 |
Price |
41 |
61.2 |
8 |
61.5 |
29 |
78.4 |
78 |
66.7 |
Aware of its source |
6 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2.7 |
7 |
6.0 |
Known products |
6 |
9 |
2 |
15.4 |
13 |
35.1 |
21 |
17.9 |
High quality |
30 |
44.8 |
9 |
69.2 |
10 |
27 |
49 |
41.9 |
Freshwater products |
0 |
0 |
1 |
7.7 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.9 |
Marine products |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1.7 |
Natural products |
1 |
1.5 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2.7 |
2 |
1.7 |
Diseases free |
3 |
4.5 |
2 |
15.4 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
4.3 |
Chemical free |
4 |
6 |
1 |
7.7 |
1 |
2.7 |
6 |
5.1 |
Colour of products |
1 |
1.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.9 |
Freshness |
35 |
52.2 |
3 |
23.1 |
14 |
37.8 |
52 |
44.4 |
Others |
1 |
1.5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.9 |
Total |
67 |
57.3 |
13 |
11.1 |
37 |
31.6 |
117 |
100 |
TABLE 36
Satisfaction with fishery products by types of
institutional consumers
Degree of satisfaction |
Type of institutional consumers |
Total |
|||
Restaurant |
Canteen |
Popular restaurant |
|||
Always |
Count |
38 |
6 |
13 |
57 |
% |
56.7 |
46.2 |
35.1 |
48.7 |
|
Most of the time |
Count |
27 |
5 |
20 |
52 |
% |
40.3 |
38.5 |
54.1 |
44.4 |
|
Sometimes |
Count |
2 |
1 |
4 |
7 |
% |
3.0 |
7.7 |
10.8 |
6.0 |
|
Seldom |
Count |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
% |
- |
7.7 |
- |
0.9 |
|
Total |
Count |
67 |
13 |
37 |
117 |
% |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Customers and services offered
Government employees, workers and ordinary people were the main groups of customers of institutions, especially the popular restaurants. Business people, tourists and foreigners were also important groups of customers for restaurants (Table 37).
TABLE 37
Major groups of customers to institutional
consumers
Groups of customers |
Restaurants |
Canteen |
Popular restaurant |
Total |
||||
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
|
Workers |
21 |
32.3 |
3 |
23.1 |
27 |
73.0 |
51 |
44.3 |
Government employees |
47 |
72.3 |
9 |
69.2 |
23 |
62.2 |
79 |
68.7 |
Pupils, students |
7 |
10.8 |
6 |
46.2 |
22 |
59.5 |
35 |
30.4 |
Army, police persons |
2 |
3.1 |
3 |
23.1 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
4.3 |
Ordinary people |
36 |
55.4 |
1 |
7.7 |
25 |
67.6 |
62 |
53.9 |
Business people |
25 |
38.5 |
1 |
7.7 |
1 |
2.7 |
27 |
23.5 |
Domestic tourists |
26 |
40 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2.7 |
27 |
23.5 |
Foreign visitors |
18 |
27.7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
15.7 |
Others |
2 |
3.1 |
1 |
7.7 |
4 |
10.8 |
7 |
6.1 |
Total |
65 |
56.5 |
13 |
11.3 |
37 |
32.2 |
115 |
100 |
Typically, customers prefer fresh, high quality and cheap fishery products (Table 38). In addition, food safety issue were raised by 26 percent of the customers. It was reported by 23 percent of customers that they preferred ready-made food and 22 percent said that they paid much attention in choosing marine products.
TABLE 38
Criteria used by different customers to select
fish products
Selection criteria |
Workers |
Government employees |
Pupils, students |
Army, police persons |
Ordinary people |
Business people |
Domestic tourists |
Foreign visitors |
Others |
Total |
Ready made |
21 |
12 |
12 |
2 |
15 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
73 |
% |
40.4 |
15.4 |
34.3 |
40.0 |
23.4 |
10.7 |
15.4 |
16.7 |
14.3 |
23.3 |
Fresh |
30 |
55 |
12 |
3 |
38 |
18 |
16 |
11 |
3 |
186 |
% |
57.7 |
70.5 |
34.3 |
60 |
59.4 |
64.3 |
61.5 |
61.1 |
42.9 |
59.4 |
Dried |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
% |
1.9 |
1.3 |
0 |
0 |
4.7 |
3.6 |
3.8 |
0 |
0 |
2.2 |
Frozen |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
% |
0 |
2.6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3.8 |
0 |
0 |
1.0 |
Canned |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
% |
3.8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.6 |
High quality |
2 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
19 |
11 |
5 |
1 |
57 |
% |
3.8 |
19.2 |
0 |
0 |
6.3 |
67.9 |
42.3 |
27.8 |
14.3 |
18.2 |
Cheap |
27 |
16 |
26 |
1 |
32 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
106 |
% |
51.9 |
20.5 |
74.3 |
20.0 |
50.0 |
3.6 |
3.8 |
0 |
28.6 |
33.9 |
Freshwater |
2 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
22 |
% |
3.8 |
10.3 |
5.7 |
0 |
7.8 |
0 |
3.8 |
16.7 |
14.3 |
7.0 |
Marine |
7 |
18 |
1 |
1 |
11 |
12 |
8 |
7 |
3 |
68 |
% |
13.5 |
23.1 |
2.9 |
20.0 |
17.2 |
42.9 |
30.8 |
38.9 |
42.9 |
21.7 |
Aquaculture |
2 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
25 |
% |
3.8 |
10.3 |
0 |
0 |
9.4 |
3.6 |
3.8 |
22.2 |
42.9 |
8.0 |
Natural |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
18 |
% |
3.8 |
3.8 |
0 |
0 |
7.8 |
10.7 |
7.7 |
16.7 |
0 |
5.8 |
Safety |
18 |
26 |
3 |
0 |
17 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
82 |
% |
34.6 |
33.3 |
8.6 |
0 |
26.6 |
25.0 |
19.2 |
27.8 |
14.3 |
26.2 |
Diversified |
8 |
11 |
4 |
0 |
12 |
7 |
7 |
0 |
1 |
50 |
% |
15.4 |
14.1 |
11.4 |
0 |
18.8 |
25.0 |
26.9 |
0 |
14.3 |
16.0 |
Brand named |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11.1 |
0 |
0.6 |
Total |
52 |
78 |
35 |
5 |
64 |
28 |
26 |
18 |
7 |
313 |
% |
16.6 |
24.9 |
11.2 |
1.6 |
20.4 |
8.9 |
8.3 |
5.8 |
2.2 |
100 |
Table 39 shows that almost all of the institutions served lunch and dinner for customers, only a few cases offered breakfast. On average, the number of daily customers ranged from 100 to 200 people. Canteens had the highest number of daily customers (median of 200 persons); restaurants and popular restaurants served fewer customers per day (means of 155 and 133 persons, respectively). It was also reported that the number of customers going to canteens was rather stable over time compared with other restaurants (Table 40).
TABLE 39
Types of meals offered by institutional
consumers
Types of meals |
Type of business |
Total |
|||
Restaurant |
Canteen |
Popular restaurant |
|||
Lunch |
Count |
3 |
2 |
4 |
9 |
% |
4.5 |
15.4 |
10.8 |
7.7 |
|
Dinner |
Count |
8 |
- |
1 |
9 |
% |
11.9 |
- |
2.7 |
7.7 |
|
Breakfast and lunch |
Count |
- |
- |
1 |
1 |
% |
- |
- |
2.7 |
0.9 |
|
Breakfast and dinner |
Count |
2 |
- |
- |
2 |
% |
3.0 |
- |
- |
1.7 |
|
Lunch and dinner |
Count |
28 |
5 |
28 |
61 |
% |
41.8 |
38.5 |
75.7 |
52.1 |
|
All three meals |
Count |
26 |
6 |
3 |
35 |
% |
38.8 |
46.2 |
8.1 |
29.9 |
|
Total |
Count |
67 |
13 |
37 |
117 |
% |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
TABLE 40
Percentage of customers eating fish by types of
institutional consumers
Range (%) |
Types of institutional consumers |
Total |
|||
Restaurant |
Canteen |
Popular restaurant |
|||
<25 |
Count |
3 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
% |
4.5 |
8.3 |
5.4 |
5.2 |
|
25-50 |
Count |
16 |
5 |
19 |
40 |
% |
23.9 |
41.7 |
51.4 |
34.5 |
|
50-75 |
Count |
21 |
4 |
8 |
33 |
% |
31.3 |
33.3 |
21.6 |
28.4 |
|
>75 |
Count |
27 |
2 |
8 |
37 |
% |
40.3 |
16.7 |
21.6 |
31.9 |
|
Total |
Count |
67 |
12 |
37 |
116 |
% |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
The average price paid by a customer for a fishmeal was VND 32 000. There was a great difference in price for a fish meal paid by customers in different types of institutions. The average price for a fish meal in canteens and popular restaurants was VND 5 000, which was quite affordable by various ordinary customers. In contrast, the average cost of a fish meal at restaurant was much higher at VND 48 000, which was much higher than that at the other types of eating places (Table 41). It was perceived by 82 percent of customers at restaurants that fish meal are more expensive than non-fish meals. While the majority of customers at canteens and popular restaurant saw the fish meals were either cheaper than or as cheap as non-fish meals (Table 42).
TABLE 41
Price (VND x 1 000) of a fish meal charged by
types of institutional consumers
Types of institutional consumers |
Mean |
N |
Std. deviation |
Restaurant |
48 |
67 |
64.3 |
Canteen (median) |
5 |
13 |
40.2 |
Popular restaurant (median) |
5 |
37 |
11.1 |
Total |
- |
117 |
- |
TABLE 42
Customer perception of the prices of a fish
meal to a nonfish meal
Customer perception |
Types of institutional consumers |
Total |
|||
Restaurant |
Canteen |
Popular restaurant |
|||
More expensive |
Count |
50 |
3 |
4 |
57 |
% |
82.0 |
33.3 |
13.8 |
57.6 |
|
Cheaper |
Count |
5 |
5 |
7 |
17 |
% |
8.2 |
55.6 |
24.1 |
17.2 |
|
No difference |
Count |
6 |
1 |
18 |
25 |
% |
9.8 |
11.1 |
62.1 |
25.3 |
|
Total |
Count |
61 |
9 |
29 |
99 |
% |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
The difference in customers expense on fish consumption was explained by the difference in major groups of customers at each type of business and the fish species ordered. In restaurants, most of the customers had higher purchasing power, while ordinary people or workers could afford only cheaper fish products. There was a higher demand for high quality fish products in restaurants, while in canteens and popular restaurants cheaper fish products are the most preferred products by customers; hence price and quality differ in importance according to the group of customers.