Project 06 · Academic · MKT 422 Marketing Research

A research plan for an underperforming coffee store

KLEYA's Greensboro location wasn't working. Before recommending fixes, the right move was to design the research that would actually explain why, with targets you could measure against.

The problem

KLEYA Coffee had a successful Raleigh playbook and tried to run it again in Greensboro, where the store underperformed. The working hypothesis was that the brand had copied its Raleigh strategy into a different market without enough local adaptation. Rather than assume that was the answer, I framed the project as designing the research that could confirm or rule it out.

How I approached it

I defined the business problem as insufficient local adaptation, then translated it into five research objectives (awareness, customer preferences, competition, trial, and repeat purchase), each with a measurable target so “did it work” had a concrete answer:

• At least 30% awareness in the local trade area.
• At least 20% trial among aware consumers.
• At least 30% repeat purchase within 30 days.

The design was mixed-method and sequenced deliberately: exploratory interviews and focus groups to surface the right questions, descriptive research to size the patterns, and a causal layer to test what actually drives trial and return visits. Secondary research came first so primary data collection would be aimed, not exploratory.

The evidence base

I grounded the plan in Mintel's foodservice coffee and tea research and a competitor analysis against the Greensboro field (Tate Street Coffee, Borough, Common Grounds, Clutch, Elm St., and Starbucks), evaluating each on convenience, local identity, study space, pricing, mobile ordering, and community connection. A few signals shaped the questions worth asking:

• 86% of consumers buy coffee or tea away from home, and 43% rotate across two to three locations, so loyalty is contested, not given.
• 44% of orders happen in the morning, pointing to a clear daypart to win.
• 65% cited saving money as a reason to cut back, flagging price sensitivity to design around.

The outcome

The deliverable was a research plan that connected every objective to a data source, a method, and a decision it would inform: awareness drivers, trial tactics, daypart strategy, loyalty mechanics, and local positioning. It turned a vague “the store is struggling” into a testable set of questions with thresholds for what good looks like.

What I took away

Good research starts by making the question measurable. Setting awareness, trial, and repeat-purchase targets up front meant the eventual findings couldn't be hand-waved. They'd either clear the bar or they wouldn't, and either way the business would know what to do next.

Deliverables

• Defined business problem and five measurable research objectives
• Mixed-method design: exploratory, descriptive, and causal
• Secondary-research synthesis (Mintel) and competitor analysis
• Customer survey framework covering awareness, preference, trial, and repeat purchase
• Objective-to-decision mapping for awareness, trial, daypart, and loyalty

Tools

• Mintel, competitor analysis, Google Reviews
• Planned: IBISWorld, Census/BLS, SimplyAnalytics