Evaluation results, based on 3 telephone calls
in each of the restaurants:
| Rank/Restaurant | Altogether | In Latvian | In Russian | In English |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Bibliotēka №1 | 90.48% | 92.86% | 78.57% | 100.00% |
| 2. Le Dome | 85.71% | 78.57% | 85.71% | 92.86% |
| 3. Easy Wine | 78.57% | 92.86% | 85.71% | 57.14% |
| 4. Pētergailis | 73.17% | 92.86% | 78.57% | 46.15% |
| 5. Domini Canes | 71.79% | 84.62% | 76.92% | 53.85% |
| 6. Vincents | 71.43% | 71.43% | 78.57% | 64.29% |
| 7. Melnā Bite | 70.73% | 78.57% | 78.57% | 53.85% |
| 8. Folkklubs Ala Pagrabs | 59.52% | 73.33% | 50.00% | 53.85% |
| 9. International SV | 59.52% | 71.43% | 64.29% | 42.86% |
| 10. Milda | 56.10% | 38.46% | 64.29% | 64.29% |
| 11. Piejūra | 52.50% | 61.54% | 50.00% | 46.15% |
| 12. Čemodāns | 52.50% | 46.15% | 57.14% | 53.85% |
| 13. Lido | 47.50% | 30.77% | 50.00% | 61.54% |
| 14. 3 pavāru restorāns | 47.50% | 46.15% | 50.00% | 46.15% |
| 15. 1221 | 45.00% | 46.15% | 57.14% | 30.77% |
| 16. Neiburgs | 45.00% | 46.15% | 50.00% | 38.46% |
| 17. Rozengrāls | 35.90% | 46.15% | 23.08% | 38.46% |
| 18. Black Magic | 34.15% | 28.57% | 50.00% | 23.08% |
| Fat Pumpkin* | – | – | – | – |
| Province** | – | – | – | – |
| Average | Average | Average | Average | |
| All restaurants | 60.08% | 63.11% | 62.80% | 54.17% |
*due to a change of location, the restaurant was closed and could not be assessed.
**due to limited seating capacity, the restaurant does not accept reservations.
Service quality criteria, according to which the evaluation was made:
– 1 –
Did the employee answer the telephone within a maximum of 3 rings or 10 seconds?
– 2 –
Did the employee greet the guest warmly and sincerely, according to the time of day and speak in a clear and calm manner?
– 3 –
Did the employee mention the name of the restaurant and provide his/her name when greeting the guest?
– 4 –
Did the employee obtain the number of people, the dining time and find out whether the guest had any preferences/indications?
– 5 –
If the guest had mentioned any preferences/indications, did the employee inform the guest of their fulfilment?
– 6 –
If it was not possible to make a reservation at the restaurant at the requested time, did the employee find out and/or offer a time as close as possible to the desired one?
– 7 –
Did the employee obtain the guest’s telephone number, name and/or surname and clarify the information provided, if necessary?
– 8 –
Did the employee verify and reconfirm the details discussed during the reservation at the end of the conversation?
– 9 –
Did the employee thank the guest for making a reservation and offer a kind and sincere farewell at the end of the conversation?
– 10 –
When the conversation was finished did the employee wait until the guest had hung up?
– 11 –
Was the background free of noise that disturbed the conversation?
– 12 –
Did the employee speak in a clear and calm manner in Latvian, English or Russian (in accordance with the language chosen by the guest)?
– 13 –
Did the employee address the guest using the guest’s name or surname at least once during the conversation?
– 14 –
Did the employee comply with standards of propriety, show kindness and interest in serving the guest?
– 15 –
Did the employee ensure professional customer service by hearing out the guest and applying other service skills?
METHOD OF EVALUATION
By altogether making 54 telephone calls, Riga’s 20 best restaurants, according to “TripAdvisor”, were evaluated on how they take table reservations over the telephone, and a top ranking was made according to their results. By using a Mystery Guest approach, Centurion Hospitality completed 3 telephone reservations (in Latvian, Russian and English) in each of the restaurants and evaluated each one according to 15 service quality criteria.
By summing up the results of all 3 telephone reservations, a total score was calculated for each of the restaurants and they were ranked from 1 to 20. Each of the telephone calls were recorded and, together with a detailed overview, upon request, they were made available to the official representatives of the respective restaurant.
For the restaurants achieving an equal total score, the precise place in the ranking was determined based on the best score in any of the 3 reservations; if equal according to this criterion as well, the precise place was determined based on the highest score in the last reservation.
Evaluation of the restaurants was carried out from 23 March until 10 April 2016. Selection of the restaurants for the evaluation was based on the “TripAdvisor” top 20 ranking on 23 March 2016.