See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/373515653

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Cloud Kitchen Models | BA Thesis

Thesis · August 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14576.64003

CITATIONS READS

0 2,086

1 author:

Asilbek Kandakharov
University of Lodz
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Asilbek Kandakharov on 30 August 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 UNIVERSITY OF LODZ
FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT
FIELD OF STUDY
MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE

Asilbek Kandakharov
397604

BACHELOR THESIS

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Cloud Kitchen Models

Analiza Kosztów i Korzyści dla Modeli Kuchni w Chmurze

Thesis is written under the supervision of:

Dr hab. Justyna Dobroszek, prof. UŁ

ŁÓDŹ 2023

1
 Table of contents

Introduction .................................................................................... 3
1. The concept of food delivery service ........................................... 4
1.1. Development of food delivery service ......................................................... 4
1.2. Food delivery service models - their advantages and disadvantages ........... 7
1.3. The customers and their expectations......................................................... 15
2. The Cloud Kitchen and its models .............................................. 20
2.1. Cloud Kitchen - background and future ..................................................... 20
2.2. Cloud Kitchen benefits and costs- the owner's perspective ...................... 24
2.3. Cloud Kitchen pros and cons - the customer perspective........................... 29
3. Evaluation of Cloud Kitchen business models ............................ 32
3.1. Research methodology and sample ............................................................ 32
3.2. Cloud Kitchen in the eyes of the owner ..................................................... 37
3.3. Cloud Kitchen – through the prism of the customer .................................. 42
Summary ...................................................................................... 53
Summary in Polish ........................................................................ 56
Literature ...................................................................................... 59
List of Tables ................................................................................. 64
List of Figures ................................................................................ 65
List of Charts ................................................................................. 66
Attachment 1: Customer survey on Cloud Kitchen ........................ 67

2
Introduction
The food sector constantly evolves due to changing consumer habits, technological
advancements, and the desire for convenience. The advent of food delivery services has
transformed the way people dine by delivering meals straight to their doors, providing
a simple and effective way to satisfy their culinary needs. This thesis investigates and
critiques the concept of food delivery services, specifically focusing on Cloud Kitchen
(CK). Cloud Kitchens, or ghost kitchens or virtual kitchens are a novel business model in
the meal delivery industry that uses technology and data-driven insights to enhance op-
erations, increase productivity, and meet changing consumer demands.
The study aims to evaluate the benefits and costs of Cloud Kitchen from the per-
spective of both the owner and the consumer.
Three research questions were formulated:
RQ1. From the owner's perspective, what are the pros and cons of the Cloud
Kitchen?
RQ2. How do customers perceive Cloud Kitchens' convenience, quality, and variety of
food?
RQ3. Regarding operations, cost management, and customer satisfaction, what do
Cloud Kitchen owners face as the primary issues?
A questionnaire survey and a desk study were used to answer the research ques-
tions and fulfil the study's aims.
The paper consists of three chapters, including two theoretical and one empirical.
The first chapter describes the concepts of food delivery service. It presents the
evolution of this service, models, and customer expectations.
The second chapter of the paper presents the topic of Cloud Kitchen, including the
development history, benefits, and costs from the perspective of the customer and
owner.
The third chapter presents the results of my empirical research and secondary re-
sults on the CK business model from the perspective of the customer and owner.

3
1. The concept of food delivery service

1.1. Development of food delivery service

Food delivery is a courier service in which stores, restaurants, or third-party applica-

tions (apps) deliver food to customers on demand1. A popular way to place an order is
through a meal delivery service, a restaurant's or grocery store's website, or delivery
apps like "Uber Eats" or "Glovo". The delivered items can include entrees, sides, drinks,
desserts, or grocery items and are typically provided in boxes or bags2.
The first food delivery occurred in Korea in 1768, referring to cold noodles called
Naengmyeon, a high-end dish popular among the aristocratic class3.
On July 14, 1906, the first delivery food advertisement appeared in the daily news
magazine "Mansebo." The ad's slogan was, "If you ask for the amount you need for group
dinners, city or outside tours, 60th birthday parties, coffins, or weddings, we will serve
you at a special low price, regardless of whether you are near or far." The advertiser was
Myongwolgwan, the first Korean food restaurant. Myeongwolgwan served food in indi-
vidual bowls and even prepared and delivered gyoza tables. It was a limited-time busi-
ness trip buffet4.
Toward the close of the nineteenth century, while still under British rule, India expe-
rienced an increase in the workforce in crowded metropolitan centres, paving the way
for establishing a food delivery system to address the needs of these busy employees.
"Dabbawalas" (meaning "one who carries a box") would deliver hot meals from homes
and restaurants to the offices of individuals who required their services. "Dabbawalas"
would frequently utilise bicycles and, on occasion, railway trains. These meals would
arrive in their containers, and the "Dabbawalas" would have to return in the afternoon
to collect the empty plates. "Dabbawalas" has distributed lunchboxes across Mumbai,
the world's fourth-most populated city, since 1890. Although they did not use software
or cell phones to run the operation, their distribution approach was incredibly efficient

1
V. Hendelmann, The food delivery business model a complete guide, www.productmint. com (access:
15.11.2022).
2
Food delivery, www.wikipedia.org (access: 25.11.2022).
3
K. Jung-yup, eng. Naengmyeon, delivery food, www.seouland. com (access: 15.11.2022).
4
K. Jung-yup, op. cit. (access: 15.11.2022).

4
and environmentally sustainable, with nearly no errors. They quickly became a symbol
of gritty resilience5.
The popularity of restaurants and takeaways has increased over the year. However,
not everyone in Europe found the delivered food to be tasty. The first recorded food
delivery in Europe occurred in Naples (Italy) in 18896. King Umberto I and Queen Mar-
gherita of Savoy wanted to eat local food. They insisted, however, on ordering delivery
pizza from famous pizza maker Faraele Esposito. The order was delivered. The queen
gave a raving review of the pizza. Then the restaurant chef named mozzarella and basil
pizza after the queen's name, and Margherita pizza was born7.
More cases of this type of business model opened in the following years. For exam-
ple, a businessman in Bombay also opened a lunch delivery service. He offered the blue-
collar workers lunch each day around the city. Then, in 1922, the Kin-Chu restaurant was
opened in Los Angeles8. Kin-Chu Café's ad stated it was the "only place on the West
Coast making and delivering real Chinese"9.
However, there were also difficult times for the food delivery services. The stock
market fell in 1929, and the Great Depression began in 1930. At that time, no one
wanted to order takeout or get delivery because they could not afford it. In the 1940s
world war, and in that time, people were also preoccupied with the conflict and their
survival to order food deliveries. When the war ended in 1945, American soldiers re-
turned home. For millions of Americans, a new, more pleasant way of life begins. They
relocate to the suburbs from the city and spend as much time as they can watching TV
on the couch. Many people concluded that dining in front of the television is preferable
to going to restaurants. Because of the public's attitude, restaurants faced numerous
financial difficulties. It has caused them to look for solutions in this area and introduce
takeout and delivery services. As a novelty, this restaurant activity is slowly becoming a
standard business model in the United States. Officially in the United States, the first

5
S. Thomke (2012), "Mumbai's Models of Service Excellence," Journal of Harvard Business Review, Vol.
90, No. 11, pp.121–126.
6
History of Food Delivery, www.blog.grubtech. com (access: 15.11.2022).
7
E. Laborde (2020), "Italy Taking the Ride ", New Orleans Magazine, Vol. 54, Issue 8, pp.64-64.
8
C. Hitt, The Tasty History of Takeout and Delivery, www.thrillist. com (access: 15.11.2022).
9
The history of food delivery, www.historyguild.org (access: 15.11.2022).

5
food delivery service began in 1995 and was offered by Worldwide Waiter. It still oper-
ates today within - the website: waiter.com until now10.
Before internet food ordering, restaurants processed orders via phone lines or fax
machines. Both were inconvenient. As a rule, customers could order food mainly by tel-
ephone contact. This form of contact involved having a flyer of the restaurant or a busi-
ness card where there was a phone number. At the same time, telephone contact often
involved waiting for a restaurant employee to pick up. It was particularly true during the
evening hours of the week and on weekends. It is worth adding that ordering food based
on restaurant flyers can also be inefficient. Restaurants change their food offerings from
time to time. If the ordering party still needs an up-to-date food offer flyer, then order-
ing by phone also gets longer. The restaurant employee must present the new types of
food to the customer, and the customer must choose new orders in real-time. All these
challenges of the food ordering process have changed with the invention of computers
and the Internet. Technology has played a significant role in revolutionising the food
delivery service from phone-based to online ordering to satisfying consumers' ever-
changing demands, making its way to the top11. Online food orders became the most
common form of food delivery worldwide as the internet expanded12. It was considera-
bly more accessible for consumers and restaurants to connect online than to utilise ob-
solete equipment such as fax machines or phone calls. Convenience is the most signifi-
cant appeal to consumers as the steps required to make an order is as simple as a few
clicks on mobile devices like smartphones, tablets, or laptops13. As a result, food order-
ing has become a common practice in everyday life.
Over time, online food delivery has evolved from speedy takeout to freshly prepared
meals. Today, numerous popular applications provide a more comprehensive range of
selections and allow ordering newly designed meals and ready-to-eat foods without
leaving the house. Online meal delivery has grown in popularity over the last few dec-
ades, with these services now available almost everywhere. However, it is worth noting

10
S. Durairaj, G. Gopinath (2019), "Analytical Survey on Online Food Delivery Applications of Android Plat-
form from a Service Perspective", International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 7, Issue
5, pp. 1021-1025.
11
G. See-Kwong (2017), "Outsourcing to online food delivery services: the perspective of F&B business
owners", Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 2-3
12
The history and evaluation of food delivery, www.ordermeal.co.nz (access: 15.11.2022).
13
G. See-Kwong, op. cit. (access: 15.11.2022).

6
that the demand for this type of restaurant business model resulted from new customer
expectations. The convenience this shopping method offers to consumers has led to its
popularity. Systems that save time and energy appeal to people since they lead busy
lives and work more hours at the office. With the advent of mobile technology, online
food ordering has become even more convenient. Several companies have created mo-
bile-friendly websites and applications that can be downloaded directly to smartphones.
They enable customers to place orders for meals from any location.
It can be concluded that everyone benefits from this type of business: restaurants-
because they have an additional source of income and customers - spend much time at
work and do not have time to go to restaurants and wait for a long time when calling
from their phones. People demand convenience, and that also means that time equals
money. More and more people are working and have additional responsibilities and ac-
tivities, so it is challenging to find time to prepare a meal and sit down and enjoy a freshly
prepared dish with friends or family. Changing attitudes toward society's lives and glob-
alisation have made online meal ordering services popular among customers and com-
panies in recent years. In addition, this development is fostered by technology, i.e.,
online food-demanding applications.

1.2. Food delivery service models - their advantages and disadvantages

The on-demand food industry has disrupted traditional markets by adopting a full-
cycle approach to the three essential components of a meal experience at a restaurant:
(1) Ordering, (2) Cooking, and (3) Delivering14.
Ordering means that consumer orders when they want food prepared and deliv-
ered. All meal delivery services take orders over the phone, online, or through delivery
apps like, for example, "Uber Eats" or "Glovo". The charges may be for only one restau-
rant or another food supplier that restaurant owners have partnered with simultane-
ously because restaurants can partner and set their menus together on one platform.
Based on cooking, the food delivery platform estimates the cooking time for meals that
may be pre-prepared or cooked after receiving an order. Delivering is the foundation of

14
T. Singh, Food on Demand: Business Models of Meal Delivery Startups, www.jungleworks. com (access:
17.11.2022).

7
any on-demand business, and transportation is critical. Companies may use various food
delivery strategies depending on many factors, for example, shipping distance, delivery
time, tax, and duties. There are three types of food delivery models in the market: "The
Order Only Model", "The Order and Delivery Model", and "The Fully Integrated
Model"15.
As a starting point, "The Order Only Model" (see Figure 1) is an excellent food deliv-
ery business model for the first generation of on-demand food delivery services. It could
also be named the "Platform-to-consumer model". It enables an online platform to
serve as a conduit between customers and neighbourhood restaurants. "Grubhub" or
"JustEat" and other food delivery services use this business plan. The approach makes it
simple for local restaurants and consumers to place and deliver orders effectively. The
restaurant owner or a third-party courier service provider is responsible for providing
the meal to the customers. The food delivery platform is solely responsible for taking
orders from clients and distributing the orders to the restaurants. The restaurants
should then deliver the ordered meals to customers using their delivery service or a
third-party courier service with which they have partnered. The number of users in the
restaurant-to-consumer delivery segment is expected to amount to 1,583.7 million us-
ers by 202716. Owners of the delivery platform can expect 20% to 30% of the order value
as profit17. They can use a commission-based model as a starting point and may decide
how much to charge restaurant owners for each order placed through their application
platforms. The other choice is to use a feature-listing strategy, in which restaurants pay
a charge to have their establishments featured in the top-feature list. Examples include
"Foodpanda", "Grubhub", and" Seamless".

15
M. Panchal, Food Delivery Business Model-Types, Advantage and Challenges, www.excellentwebworld.
com (access: 17.11.2022).
16
Restaurant Delivery-Worlwide, www.statista. com (access: 18.11.2022).
17
T. Bhatt, The food Delivery Business Model-A complete Guide for Funders, www.inteivita. com (access:
18.11.2022).

8
 Figure 1. "The Order Only Model"
Source: M. Panchal, Food Delivery Business Model-Types, Advantage and Challenges, www.excel-
lentwebworld. com (access: 17.11.2022).

"The Order Only Model" consists of order allocation and delivery. The companies
often employ the technologies within the order allocation to receive and transmit the
order to the restaurant18. The first phase includes the following activities: the consumer
orders on the website, and the restaurant gets the information about food orders. In
addition, the restaurant informs the consumers that an order has been received. There
are several methods for carrying out this activity, such as logging in to the website, call-
ing an automated telephone system, or responding to a call from an automated tele-
phone system. Companies will also sometimes integrate into the restaurant's Point of
Sale (POS) system and print the order directly into the kitchen. The second phase is de-
livery. The delivery has two different possible scenarios, i.e., (1) the order can be deliv-
ered to the customer by a delivery driver employed by the restaurant or (2) a driver
employed by a restaurant delivery service company (e.g.,"Straight 2") delivers the order
to the customer's door19.
This model has some advantages and disadvantages (see Table 1).

18
T. Singh, Food on Demand: Business Models of Meal Delivery Startups, www.jungleworks. com (access:
18.11.2022).
19
T. Singh, op. cit. (access: 18.11.2022).

9
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of "The Order Only Model"
Pros
This business model for a food delivery ser-
vice is simple to launch and requires little
funding.
There are no difficulties with preparing or
delivering the meals to the customer for
platform owners because restaurants or
third-party companies provide the order.
Growing and scaling is simple since all Plat-
form owners need to add new restaurants.
Any issues related to food delivery are the
responsibility of restaurants or third-party
companies.
Such a mechanism for a mobile app offers a
faster e-solution for small restaurants and
takeout kitchens, making them more scala-
ble20.
Source: own collaboration.
Cons
In this model, the selection of meals is con-
strained. For example, only foods that res-
taurants can cook may be included.
Platform owners cannot set their pricing
higher than what restaurants charge.
The food's quality and packaging are primar-
ily out of the platform owner's control.
Owners of restaurants need help to improve
delivery speed and quality.
There needs to be control of the courier
standards or food quality at restaurants for
delivery service companies.
Consumer dissatisfaction with the food's
quality might hurt the restaurant's reputa-
tion.

Delivery is not an issue for the restaurants in the " Order and Delivery Model" model
(see Figure 2). The third-party courier service or delivery logistics organisation handles
the delivery entirely. The most well-known meal delivery services using this concept in-
clude, for example, "Uber Eats", "DoorDash" and "Zomato". The delivery service pro-
vider cooperates with partners with food delivery platforms to provide consumers with
faster food delivery services. The courier service provider determines order delivery
fees. With this arrangement, restaurants are relieved of the responsibility of fleet
maintenance. It is worth underscoring that the owners of the apps for food delivery may
profit from their vast consumer base. Firstly, app owners can use this on-demand distri-
bution model to charge clients who wish to download their software a registration fee.
As an alternative, they may provide complimentary delivery. Secondly, they may bill
them for delivery fees, especially for not premium users. The third choice is a subscrip-
tion-based business model, which offers members free delivery and exclusive discounts.

20
T. Bhatt, op. cit. (access: 18.11.2022).

10
As an incentive for restaurants, they may offer discounts on feature lists. Examples in-
clude "UberEats" or "Swiggy"21.

Figure 2. "The Order and Delivery Model"

Source: T. Bhatt, The food Delivery Business Model-A complete Guide for Funders, www.inteivita. com
(access: 18.11.2022).

Different forms of delivery can be used in this model. They can be: point-to-point
delivery or milk runs are both options available simultaneously. The first option means
the driver delivers the order to one customer from one place to another. In the second
option, the driver collects several orders from one place and distributes them to many
customers. In the case of regular deliveries, the supplier is specified. To deliver on sched-
ule, each supplier must stick to a predetermined route22. This model also has some ad-
vantages and disadvantages (see Table 2).

21
T. Bhatt, op. cit. (access: 18.11.2022).
22
D.A. Moura, R.C. Botter, (2016), "Delivery and pick-up problem transportation-milk run or conventional
systems," Independent journal od management & production, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.747-770.

11
Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of "The Order and Delivery Model"
Pros Cons
There is no need to invest in a delivery fleet Delivering the order on time is the most sig-
for restaurants. nificant logistical problem for delivery ser-
vice companies in this meal delivery pro-
cess.
Delivery platform owners can charge the res- Delivering service owners must hire extra
taurants a fixed commission on every order. personnel to cover a more considerable dis-
tance with faster deliveries during peak
lunch hours.
Platform owners choose delivery pricing Customers must pay a flat delivery rate.
without worrying about the price of the res-
taurants.
Delivery service owners can attract new res- There are about 1,956 businesses in the US
taurants by assuring them of logistics. alone23, indicating that the competition is
severe and intense.
Source: own collaboration.

Fully integrated platforms in "The Fully Integrated Model" (see Figure 3) manage the
entire food cycle. They source ingredients, prepare meals, and deliver them. These plat-
forms can cater to individual customers or corporate clients24.

23
United States Food Delivery Companies, www.crunchbase. com (access: 19.11.2022).
24
P. Daryna, V. Vlad, 3 popular Food Delivery Models and Real Challenges to be aware of, www.rubygar-
age.org (access: 28.11.2022).

12
 Figure 3. "The Fully Integrated Model"
Source: P. Daryna, V. Vlad, three popular Food Delivery Models and Real Challenges to be aware of,
www.rubygarage.org (access: 28.11.2022).

The integrated model entails a single company handling everything from food prep-
aration to delivery25. Business owners often have "ghost" or "cloud" kitchens cooking
the meals. The primary aim of these facilities is to prepare meals for delivery and not
facilitate dine-in. Creating meals at lower-cost locations is possible while merely paying
for the kitchen in these "Cloud Kitchens"26. People who want to use this model should
have a restaurant or virtual kitchen. However, they will need to invest more since this
model requires additional expenses like salaries for staff and equipment purchases27.
Domino's Pizza is a pizzeria chain with a fully integrated business model28. As a
result, it has a different menu every day. Currently, hubs are serviced in two ways: (1)
scheduled delivery and (2) instant delivery.

25
A. Inani, Food Delivery Business Model & Platforms to Leverage, www.webwriterspotlight. com (access:
28.11.2022).
26
T. Bhatt, op. cit. (access: 28.11.2022).
27
S. Lypchenko, How to Make A Food Delivery Website in 2022, www.gowombat. com (access:
28.11.2022).
28
S. Lypchenko, op. cit. (access: 28.11.2022).

13
 The first option means that the kitchen opens to receive orders for a particular du-
ration, primarily for delivery later in the day. Customers can start ordering after they get
a message that the kitchen is open29. On this concept, "Swiggy" also loads meals straight
onto delivery trucks, transporting them to consumers from its kitchen. However, it must
carefully prepare for demand to prevent waste when a meal is on a delivery truck. Still,
there isn't enough demand or more demand arrives than what a delivery vehicle serving
a given region has available. Therefore, it can precisely forecast the market, manage
supply in accordance, improve delivery schedules, and cut waste by enabling consumers
to place advance orders. Customers even provide a supper order-on-the-go option30.
For instant delivery, the kitchen opens to take orders after preparing meals. Deliver-
ies for ready meals can be made practically immediately within a given time frame once
requests are received. For example, "SpoonRocket" uses this model. Packet meals are
maintained in warmers transported in "SpoonRocket" - owned trucks, ensuring they are
delivered hot and quickly to individuals who buy them. Packed meals are provided
within 15 minutes. The decision to allocate a particular order to a driver can happen in
two ways31. The first way is that, automatically, with no intervention from the admin,
drivers always have all meals available; the closest driver is immediately assigned the
order; the driver whose zone the customer is in receives the order automatically. The
second way is manual. It involves some administrative work, i.e., the executive assistant
routes the order to the driver who is nearest to the customer; the administrator routes
the order to the driver, who will carry the full meal requested by the customer - this
occurs if a driver declines a request because there are no meals available. In this model,
the company's drivers deliver the orders. Order requests are automatically or manually
forwarded to each driver by the admin, and each driver is allocated a certain quantity of
packed meals. A driver chooses where to deliver first by considering the following fac-
tors: Initial Arrival, First Served (Customers who placed their orders first will receive pref-
erence), and Location-Based (Customers nearest to the driver will be serviced first)32.
Table 3 presents advantages and disadvantages of this model.

29
T. Singh, Food On Demand: Business Models of Meal Delivery Startups, www.jungleworks. com (access:
28.11.2022).
30
T. Singh, op. cit. (access: 28.11.2022).
31
T. Singh, op. cit. (access: 28.11.2022).
32
T. Singh, op. cit. (access: 28.11.2022).

14
Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of the "Fully Integrated Model"
Pros
The most significant benefit is that the
owners are not dependent on a third party
for the user experience. Instead, every-
thing is run by their business, just like com-
panies offering food delivery services.
With no dine-in, the cost of establishing a
restaurant is significantly reduced34.
Complete control over the entire supply
chain of the orders35.
Source: own collaboration.
Cons
High operating costs are a significant disad-
vantage of this model. Many prepared
meal services have failed due to high oper-
ating costs, particularly those that at-
tempted to prepare food and deliver
meals. These companies must have refrig-
erated trucks, coolers, ice packs, heaters,
and other costly investments33.
The difficulty of managing the entire net-
work of operations.
It isn't easy to attract clients for a restau-
rant without a well-known brand.

1.3. The customers and their expectations

Customer expectations are a collection of behaviours that customers anticipate from
businesses during each interaction36. These expectations are based on the customer's
previous experiences and will vary depending on the industry and company. Meeting
client expectations is one of a company's most crucial actions. Businesses must take
measures to guarantee consumer pleasure to avoid financial loss and problems with
their brand image. Meeting and exceeding consumer expectations might be challenging,
but trying in this area can eventually provide better outcomes. Customer expectations
are difficult to understand in service delivery, and incorrect actions and failures could
result in customer loss, waste of money and time, and, eventually, lost business. During
the transaction, the customer expects some level of service quality from the service pro-
vider; therefore, the customer's opinion about the quality standards and what kind of
standard the customer expects are critical to know37.
The retail sector of e-commerce has come a long way in terms of advancements,
with customers' delivery expectations playing a significant role in shaping the industry.

33
Three popular Food Delivery Models and Real Challenges to be aware of, www.rubygarage.org (access:
28.11.2022).
34
Food delivery business model, www.spdload. com (access: 29.11.2022).
35
Food delivery business model op. cit. (access: 29.11.2022).
36
V. Mladenov. Top 5 types of Customer Expectations. www.zonkafeedback. com (access: 07.01.2023).
37
V. A. Zeithaml, M.J. Bitner, D. Gremler (2018), Services Marketing - Integrating Customers Focus
across the Firm, Seventh Edition, Boston: McGraw-Hill, pp 50-52.

15
A few years ago, customers were prepared to wait up to 10 days for their orders, but as
standard delivery times have reduced to 2-day or next-day shipping, their expectations
have risen. Today's internet buyers are seeking quick and low-cost or free shipping op-
tions, which has increased competitiveness in the e-commerce sector. However, cus-
tomer expectations are not solely dependent on shipping; they are affected by several
factors, including product or service quality, brand reputation, and price. Product or ser-
vice quality is determined by the level of performance that clients expect based on their
past interactions with the brand. If consumers have a negative experience with a brand,
they are likely to have low expectations for future purchases. Brand reputation is an-
other factor that affects customer expectations. It is based on prior experiences with the
brand or others' opinions. The cost of products or services is also a determining factor.
The higher the price, the higher the expectations of consumers are. In the case of online
food delivery services, consumers' perceptions are based not only on sensory character-
istics but also on other factors such as previous information, experience, and attitudes
and beliefs38.
The value of consumer perception is crucial in businesses, especially for marketing.
It is not only critical for the business's survival and growth, but it is also an important
tool for competitive advantage39. Consumer perception is also affected by food safety-
related risks, which in turn affect the purchasing behaviour of consumers. By adopting
the measurement of perceived risk, a framework can be developed by linking food safety
and risk perception40. In addition, factors like customer quality, perceived security, and
customer loyalty are important for the success of an e-commerce website. The customer
interface and perceived quality affected customer satisfaction and switching costs, in-
creasing customer loyalty41.

38
E. Costell, A. Tárrega, S. Bayarri (2010), "Food acceptance: The role of consumer perception and atti-
tudes", Chemosensory Perception, Vol. 3, No.1, pp. 43-50.
39
R. Sanchez-Fernández, M. A. Iniesta-Bonillo (2006), "Consumer perception of value: Literature
review and a new conceptual framework", Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, Vol.19, pp. 40-58.
40
R.M. Yeung, J. Morris (2001), "Food safety risk: Consumer perception and purchase behaviour", British
Food Journal, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp 170–187.
41
H.H. Chang, S.W. Chen (2009), "Consumer perception of interface quality, security, and loyalty in elec-
tronic commerce", Information & Management, Vol. 46, No. 7, pp 411–417.

16
 Analysing customer expectations in the context of food delivery services is im-
portant. For example, look back to 1999, when customers decided what to eat for sup-
per in their suburban kitchens. Nothing in the fridge appeals to their taste buds or im-
agination, and they don't feel like leaving the house. The traditional customer experi-
ence of food delivery has significantly changed in recent years. The conventional process
of sifting through cluttered drawers filled with outdated menus and expired a more
streamlined and convenient experience has replaced coupons through delivery apps.
Customers can now quickly locate nearby restaurants, browse high-resolution menus,
and place a customised order directly from their phone, receiving real-time updates on
the delivery progress of their order.
This progress has been accelerated by people's increasing dependence on digital so-
lutions, their desire for instant satisfaction, and the Covid-19 pandemic42. Generally, the
pandemic has brought the industry unprecedented developments, and advantages are
often concluded43. The recent "Food Navigator" article titled "Online Food Delivery One
of the Only Winners in Coronavirus Outbreak" perfectly describes the situation44. De-
spite some reservations, consumers increasingly choose food deliveries as they limit
their social relationships. Simultaneously, restaurants that previously did not offer de-
livery services do so. Between March and May 2020, when lockdowns in Europe and the
United States were the most severe, the food-delivery market spiked. Significantly, it
has maintained that trajectory, continuing to grow throughout 2020 and 202145.
Life is starting to return to "normal" as the virus's most severe impacts fade in China
and some sense of what that new average looks like is becoming apparent. The govern-
ment lockdown during the crisis significantly impacted customer behaviour, with more
people purchasing online out of necessity46. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the im-
plementation of unprecedented "social distancing" strategies crucial to limiting the

42
J. Palaniappan, How technology and food delivery apps will restore the food industry, www.newfood-
magazine. com (access: 25.02.2023).
43
R. Lin (2021), "The effects of Covid-19 on the Online Food Delivery Industry", Advances in Economics,
Business and Management Research, Vol. 203, pp. 203-207.
44
F. Southey, Online food delivery one of the only winners in coronavirus outbreak, www.foodnavigator.
com (access: 25.02.2023).
45
K. Ahuja, V. Chandra, V. Lord, C. Peens (2021), "Ordering in: The rapid evolution of food delivery",
McKinsey & Company Article, pp. 1-13.
46
Will COVID-19 Lead to Accelerating Trends?, www.icg.citi. com (access: 25.02.2023).

17
spread of the virus. Older adults were more susceptible to loneliness and social isolation
due to their operational reliance on family, friends, and community service assistance.
Additionally, the social isolation (i.e., social distancing) caused by the COVID-19 pan-
demic has impacted individuals' daily lives and consumption behaviours47. Individuals
who are confined or socially isolated tend to emphasise their daily consumption and
should exercise extra caution regarding food intake. As a result, social isolation or dis-
tancing can result in the usage of online meal delivery platforms, as they allow for social
bonding even when physically isolated48. Before the pandemic, food delivery was most
frequently used by the 18-34 age group, as they were the most comfortable using mobile
apps and had lifestyles aligned with speed and convenience49. During the epidemic,
things changed due to need and, in some cases, safety. Generally, everyone of all ages
began to accept ordering meals via delivery. Since delivery has become a continuous
component of the restaurant industry and has become commonplace for everyone, de-
livery alternatives must appeal to a much wider audience. Consumers are becoming
more used to ongoing restrictions and are willing to dine out.
Today's online buyers seek alternatives for quick, inexpensive or free shipping. A sur-
vey showed that 61.8% of buyers considered shipping costs the most important factor
when purchasing, with 73% of customers reporting they had yet to buy due to high de-
livery costs. It highlights the importance of food delivery companies offering fast and
affordable services to ensure customer satisfaction and loyalty50. Most people, particu-
larly students and workers, place an online food order every other day. It demonstrated
that online meal delivery services are incredibly dependable and effective since it has
become standard for consumers to buy food online. And this was the primary reason for
consumers to purchase food online. It also showed that customers continually test out
several businesses' offerings to determine which offers the most outstanding service.
In the modern business world, customer experience management is essential. To
ensure customer satisfaction, meeting and exceeding numerous client expectations is

47
T. Hwang, K. Rabheru, C. Peisah, W. Reichman, M. Ikeda (2020), "Loneliness and social isolation during
the COVID-19 pandemic", Int. Psychogeriatr., Vol. 32, No. 10, pp.1217–1220.
48
Barry, B. (1998), Social Exclusion, Social Isolation, and the Distribution of Income; London School of
Economics: London, UK, pp 1-24.
49
A. Canter, what consumers really want food delivery, www.nrn. com (access: 06.01.2023).
50
Consumer Delivery Expectations in 2022: What you need to know, www.easyship. com (access:
29.11.2022).

18
necessary. Consumers increasingly believe that when evaluating a product they con-
sume shows, high quality can exceed their initial expectations51. When consumers are
satisfied with the product or service, then it raises loyalty from consumers52. With con-
sumers' increasing commitment to products or services, convincing them to repurchase
future transactions on the same product or service is especially important if they find it
satisfying that it provides unique benefits that consumers value.

51
J. Singh, D. Sirdashmukh (2000), "Agency and Trust Mechanisms in Consumer Satisfaction and Loyalty
Judgements", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, pp. 150-167.
52
E. W. Anderson, C. Fornell, D. R. Lehman (1994), "Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability:
Finding from Sweden", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 53-65.

19
2. The Cloud Kitchen and its models
2.1. Cloud Kitchen - background and future
Cloud Kitchens – also known as dark kitchens, virtual kitchens, ghost kitchens, and
delivery-only restaurants, have proved to be a significant disruptor in the restaurant in-
dustry53. The Cloud Kitchen is the newest invention in the food delivery business. A
Cloud Kitchen is a restaurant that focuses exclusively on takeaways. These restaurants
do not offer dine-in facilities54. All that happens in these places is food production. Only
online orders are accepted, and the food is delivered to the consumer as a takeaway.
The Cloud Kitchen is sometimes called "ghost outlets," "virtual cafés," and "dark or in-
visible kitchens". Cloud Kitchens are the newest trend in the culinary world, and their
confines are relatively modest. Still, enhancing the Cloud Kitchen branch by helping
them scale up rapidly, giving development capital, and a focal, emotionally supportive
network that will empower speedy development and advance overhead expensesis pos-
sible.
Cloud Kitchens must be in a prime location as they can provide good quality food
and fast delivery at an affordable price. Even if the restaurants are occupied with provid-
ing meals for dine-in customers, they must focus on delivering food at peak mealtimes,
such as lunch and dinner. However, adding a variety of food items to their menu should
be the main priority for Cloud Kitchens, and they should also have a defined marketing
strategy. Cloud Kitchen also tend to have a limited menu instead of offering verities.
Cloud Kitchen-based restaurants must develop their applications and websites to pro-
mote themselves to track the number of virtual visits, sessions, and conversion rates.
Furthermore, a major focus of these Cloud Kitchens is finding restaurant partners so that
they may provide a unique menu with a variety of alternatives in food dishes and pack-
ages to satisfy the needs of their customers55.
Cloud Kitchens are a concept that has been introduced previously. For example,
pizza delivery restaurants have been around for decades; specifically, pizza prepared for

53
T. Beniwal, Dr. V. K. Mathur (2021), "Multi-Brand Cloud Kitchens: The Efficient Route", International
Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 8, No. 8, pp. 551-560.
54
N. Choudhary, (2019), Strategic analysis of Cloud Kitchen- A case study. An international
journal of management studies, Vol. 9, pp. 184-190
55
H.M. Moyeenudin, R. Anandan,. P. ShaikJaveed, G. Bindu, op cit.

20
takeout came to be in the 1950s. The current concept of the Cloud Kitchen initially
emerged in India56. Faasos, a company that sells kebabs, was launched by Rebel Foods
in 2003 with funding from Sequoia57. Rebel Foods has over nine brands, recently raised
$125 million, and is valued at $525 million58.
The concept of a Cloud Kitchen has been widely and aggressively growing in the cur-
rent market59. Additionally, Cloud Kitchen's organizational effectiveness will improve in
the next years.
The on-demand economy has also disrupted the conventional food industry, as it
has been in other business sectors. Restaurants have struggled to keep up as customers
demand food delivered quickly and easily. Some have embraced technology, others
have opted for delivery services, and others have created creative menu options. But
one solution has gained popularity recently, especially in urban areas: the Cloud Kitchen,
a restaurant that only offers delivery and has no dine-in option. Thanks to the Covid
pandemic, the food and beverage industry has re-evaluated how it does business. And
one of the most popular emerging trends has been the Cloud Kitchen60.
The ability to handle multiple brands under one roof, minimal investment require-
ments, ease of setup and operation, and reduced space requirements are reasons Cloud
Kitchens are growing in popularity in the food industry. Statistics show that the global
Cloud Kitchen market, valued at USD 51.96 billion in 2020, is predicted to grow by 12.4%
CAGR from 2021 to 202861and can generate a $1 trillion market potential by 203062.

56
N. Sharda, Serving food from the cloud, www.toptal. com (access: 05.04.2023).
57
G. V. Ravishankar, How Faasos disrupted its business model to create India's largest Cloud Kitchen,
www.sequoiacap. com (access: 05.04.2023).
58
C. Loizos, The world's largest internet restaurant company' quietly raised $125 million this month,
www.techcrunch. com (access: 05.04.2023).
59
N. Upadhye, S. Sathe, (2020), Cloud Kitchen - Case Study Of Swiggy Cloud Kitchen In Pune, UGC Care
Journal, Vo.l 06, No. 04. pp 107-114.
60
A. Panda, Cloud Kitchen business model how do Cloud Kitchens make money?, www.feedough. com
(access: 27.03.2023).
61
Cloud Kitchen Market Share Analysis Report 2021-2028, www. grandviewresearch. com (access:
05.04.2023).
62
E. L. Beckett, Ghost kitchens could be a $1T global market by 2030 says Euromonitor, www.
restaurantdive. com (access: 05.04.2023)

21
 The demand for Cloud Kitchens is increasing with these food delivery applications
like Uber Eats, Swiggy, and Zomanto, and some restaurant chains are only focused on
Cloud Kitchens to eliminate expenses on providing a bigger space for dine-in facilities63.

Figure 4. "An integrated POS solution model "

Source: The Ultimate Guide to a Cloud Kitchen Business, www.posist. com (access: 28.03.2023).

An integrated POS solution (see Figure 4) allows Cloud Kitchen owners to view the
orders coming in from different sources for each brand on a single dashboard. They can
accept the orders with a single click and send them to the kitchen display system 64.
There are different types of Cloud Kitchen models. Here are the most common: Sin-
gle-brand kitchen, A multi-brand Cloud Kitchen, A commissary kitchen, Outsourced
Cloud Kitchen, The hybrid Cloud Kitchen.
Single-brand kitchens work with just one brand, such as a particular chain of restau-
rants. It is the most basic yet vanilla Cloud Kitchen model65, with a small menu of limited
food items and an area of around 300 sq. ft66. They do not have a physical outlet or dine-
in facility, and all orders are received online. The passage suggests that this is a basic yet

63
V. AlakshmiKanteti (2018), Innovative strategies of startup firms in India -A study on online food delivery
companies in India, International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology, Vol. 9, No. 3,
pp. 17 – 23.
64
The Ultimate Guide to a Cloud Kitchen Business, www. posist. com (access: 28.03.2023).
65
M. S. Anand, Confused about Cloud Kitchen Business Models? Which one suits your business?,
www.linkidin. com (access: 6.04.2023).
66
Build a Better Restaurant Business, www.posease. com (access: 6.04.2023).

22
common model for Cloud Kitchens, with many operators using this approach to experi-
ment with different brands and optimize their unit economics.
A multi-brand Cloud Kitchen model owns several brands under one parent company.
All the brands share large kitchen space under one roof67. Each brand has a unique cui-
sine and is positioned to meet various client needs. This Cloud Kitchen model aims to
meet the demand for popular cuisine in a particular neighbourhood. As all the brands
share a common kitchen, the operation cost remains significantly low in such Cloud
Kitchens68. Delivery-only restaurants first emerged through the single-brand Cloud
Kitchen model before the rise of multi-brand Cloud Kitchens. With minimum entry bar-
riers and low capital costs, multi-brand Cloud Kitchens are more profitable to set up than
traditional restaurants and even standalone Cloud Kitchens69. Multi-brand Cloud Kitch-
ens serve a wider audience and can leverage growth rates from a single cooking unit.
A commissary kitchen is a shared kitchen where space can be rented permanently
by the hour or more for food storage, preparation, and cooking70. A shared-use commis-
sary kitchen is a commercially licensed space for chefs, bakers, caterers, food trucks, and
other culinary professionals71. Many commissary kitchens provide food trucks and mo-
bile vendors with overnight parking and equipment storage. While rentable commercial
kitchens often provide additional services for food trucks, they are also used by various
off-premises dining operations72. Owners of food businesses can take advantage of a
collaborative environment at commissaries in various ways, including access to shared
equipment, scale economies, and cost-sharing. Commissary kitchens are frequently lo-
cated outside cities' major business areas since they are not required to serve the public
directly. In most cases, this lowers the cost of renting them and facilitates supplier de-
livery.
Outsourced Cloud Kitchen: An outsourced Cloud Kitchen is a Cloud Kitchen where
cooking and delivery is completely outsourced73. The chef provides the final touch

67
How Multi-Brand Cloud Kitchens Are Revolutionizing The F&B Space, www.posist. com (access:
06.04.2023).
68
Cloud Kitchen Business Model and How it Works?, www.kitchencentre. com (access: 06.04.2023).
69
Choosing The Best Restaurant Format: Cloud Kitchen vs Dine-In Restaurant, www.posist. com (access:
06.04.2023).
70
What You Need to Know About Using Commissary Kitchens, www.xtrachef. com (access: 06.04.2023).
71
What is a shared-use kitchen ?, www.thekitchendoor. com (access: 06.04.2023).
72
What Is a Commissary Kitchen?, www.webstaurantstore. com (access: 06.04.2023).
73
N. Sharda, Serving food from the cloud, www.toptal. com (access: 07.04.2023).

23
before the food goes out for delivery. The rest of all the operations, from food prepara-
tion to customer-facing operations, are outsourced74. The Cloud Kitchen buys and stores
the raw materials and then prepares the food in a centralized location. When an order
is received, the food is sent to the kitchen for final touches. In an outsourced Cloud
Kitchen, orders are received from multiple sources75.
The hybrid Cloud Kitchen allows a single kitchen, brand, and multiple outlets with a
storefront in this model. This process is a mix of a dining room and a Cloud Kitchen76.
This choice works best for restaurants offering dine-in options while reaching a wider
audience. The physical storefront is a hub for both dine-in customers and food delivery,
allowing the restaurant to reach a wider audience while providing a physical location for
customers77. Customers can see their meals being prepared within the storefront, which
is one of its appealing features. This plan blends the operational efficiency of Cloud
Kitchen's commercial strategy and includes a "real" consumer window. In this model,
the food delivery process can be done independently or by an aggregator food delivery
app like Zomato or Swiggy78.

2.2. Cloud Kitchen benefits and costs- the owner's perspective

This sub-chapter thoroughly examines the advantages and disadvantages of owning
a Cloud Kitchen from the owner's point of view. Owners of Cloud Kitchens may learn a
great deal about the chances and difficulties they could face by looking at the benefits
and drawbacks of this business model. The goal of the analysis is to thoroughly compre-
hend both the advantages and disadvantages of Cloud Kitchens and how they affect the
business operations, financial performance, and overall success of the owner. Table 4
presents the benefits and costs of Cloud Kitchen from the owner's perspective compared
to a traditional restaurant.

74
Cloud Kitchen Concept, www.uengage.in (access: 07.04.2023).
75
A. Oberoi, Understanding the Cloud Kitchen Model , www.insights.daffodilsw. com (access: 07.04.2023).
76
M. A. Isha. Cloud Kitchen Business Model: Everything you need to know , www. bdtask. com (access:
07.04.2023).
77
T. Demetriou, Cloud Kitchen business model: understanding and implementing the concept, www.epos-
now. com (access: 07.04.2023).
78
A. Panda, op. cit.

24
Table 4. Pros and Cons of Cloud Kitchen from owner's perspective
Pros of Cloud Kitchens Cons of Cloud Kitchens
Cost of Entry Dependence on Technology
No Overhead Costs Limited customer interaction
Flexibility and Scalability Late Delivery
Streamlined Operations Reliance on Third-Party Platforms
Modern customer expectations Hygiene
Access to User Data The Threat of New Players
Opportunities for Cooperation and Establish-
ment of Networks
Quality of Food
Reduced Food Wastage
Source: own collaboration.

Pros of Cloud Kitchens from owner's perspective are as follows:

• Cost of Entry: One major obstacle for entrepreneurs to set foot in the restaurant
business is the cost to set it up. With Cloud Kitchens, it is far lower, as they elim-
inate the need for high rents for prime locations, any front-house operations
(such as valets, servers, front desk employees, etc.), or any space for seating79.
• No Overhead Costs: Unlike a traditional restaurant, there are no overhead ex-
penses to consider, such as hiring staff to serve customers or acquiring additional
parking space. Restaurants have greater operational costs because they must
ensure that their service personnel are better and that their décor is better to
draw clients. In contrast, a Cloud Kitchen does not have to worry about any of
these things because its main priority is the quality of the cuisine.
• Flexibility and Scalability: Operating a Cloud Kitchen, the owner can be flexible
and quickly adapt to a change in the taste of consumers and therefore change
the menu, but with traditional restaurants, it is not an easy job to adapt to every
trend in taste80. Because Cloud Kitchens is not linked to a specific physical loca-
tion, it can adapt its menu and even its hours of operation to meet the company's

79
T. Beniwal, Dr. Vidhu K. Mathur (2021), Cloud Kitchen: A Profitable Venture, International Advanced
Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology. Vol. 8, No. 10, pp. 50-54.
80
T. Beniwal, op. cit.

25
 requirements with less of an adverse effect on the degree to which customers
are satisfied.
• Streamlined Operations: Cloud Kitchens can streamline their operations, increas-
ing productivity and velocity due to their exclusive focus on delivery or takeout.
The owners can streamline their workflows and processes by eliminating the re-
quirement for a dining area and front-of-house staff. This results in the orders
being fulfilled more quickly, improving the customers' happiness. Cloud Kitchens
can further streamline operations by leveraging technology and digital platforms
for streamlined order administration, inventory control, and data analytics.
• They meet modern customer expectations: customers want to pick up and have
items delivered. And studies show that this behaviour will continue even after
the stay-at-home orders are lifted. According to a recent survey by Raydiant,
"28% of surveyed restaurants expect to close their dine-in spaces to become ex-
clusively delivery and pick-up locations81."
• Access to User Data: As Cloud Kitchens and technology go hand in hand, the user
data is easily accessible to them, and with that, they can easily optimise their
processes, schedule of staff, user interface, and even margins based on con-
sumer behaviour82. Cloud Kitchen owners can improve both their company's
competitiveness and their customers' satisfaction by making better use of the
data at their disposal.
• Opportunities for Cooperation and Establishment of Networks: Cloud Kitchens
are frequently designed as collaborative venues where several food companies
or concepts work together. Because of this, proprietors can engage in cross-pro-
motion and pool resources, which could result in possible financial savings and
enhanced visibility. Collaboration with other firms using the same cooking area
can promote information sharing, the networking of industry professionals, and
the formation of new partnerships, creating an environment that supports
growth and success.

81
The Reopening of Restaurants 2020: Insights From 100+ Operators & Managers Research, www.
raydiant. com (access: 08.04.2023).
82
T. Beniwal, op. cit.

26
 • Quality of Food: In the traditional restaurant business, there are a lot of over-
head expenses, so they have very little left to spend on the quality of food items
in their dishes. On the other hand, Cloud Kitchens don't have high overhead
costs, which helps them focus on the quality of their ingredients and the final
product83.
• Reduced Food Wastage: Compared with traditional dining establishments, the
owners of Cloud Kitchens can save money on wasted food by running their busi-
nesses more efficiently. They can better manage inventories and control food
production with a more accurate estimate of future demand and streamlined
processes. It will result in a reduction in the amount of food that is wasted. It
helps lower expenses and adds to attempts to become more sustainable and re-
sponsible toward the environment.
Cons of Cloud Kitchens from owner's side are:
• Dependence on Technology: Ghost kitchens rely heavily on technology for online
orders, delivery management, and kitchen operations. Any technical glitches or
downtime could disrupt their operations and affect customer satisfaction84.
Technical issues with online ordering platforms, POS systems, or connections can
cause operations to be disrupted and have an impact on consumer satisfaction.
Owners must invest in solid and dependable IT infrastructure while having con-
tingency plans to address any technical issues as soon as possible.
• Limited customer interaction: Cloud Kitchens don't have a place where custom-
ers can eat, so they don't have much customer contact. There are more than one
hundred thousand ghost kitchens on various digital platforms, not to mention all
the physical restaurants competing for clients' attention85. Even if one has a fan-
tastic idea for a ghost kitchen, it might not get off the ground if it doesn't have
some way to differentiate itself from the competition.

83
T. Beniwal, op. cit.
84
E. Shelby, The Ghost Kitchen Business Model Explained, www.startupmindset. com (access:
20.05.2023).
85
J. Guszkowski, Just how many virtual brands are there, www.restaurantbussinessonline. com (access:
20.05.2023).

27
 • Late Delivery: The staff cannot meet on-time delivery expectations during busy
or peak seasons86. It frequently leads to late food delivery, resulting in unpredict-
able repercussions.
• Reliance on Third-Party Platforms: Owners of Cloud Kitchens have difficulty being
dependent on external internet meal delivery services companies such as Grub-
Hub, Uber Eats, and DoorDash. These applications are the ghost kitchen's main
source of revenue. If the ghost kitchen does not have a solid relationship with
them, the orders may stop coming in. These platforms offer access to a large
consumer base. Still, they demand high commission costs for every purchase,
lowering Cloud Kitchens' profit margins. Owners also lack direct client interaction
and depend on the platform's algorithms and regulations.
• Hygiene: Companies often build their kitchens in unhygienic conditions to reduce
operational costs as much as possible87. Customers don't want to be served from
the best spot. But any kitchen that is picked needs to be clean so that the food
can be eaten.
• The threat of New Players: Since it is easy for new entrepreneurs to set up Cloud
Kitchens, new businesses and brands are constantly on the scene, making it
tough for the existing players in the market88. To bring in new customers and
keep the ones they already have, business owners must build their distinctive
value proposition, develop engaging marketing techniques, and continually pro-
vide outstanding food and service.
By understanding the benefits and drawbacks, business owners can make in-
formed decisions and develop strategies that align with their business's objectives and
target market.

86
N. Choudhary (2019), "Management Today", An international journal of management studies, Vol. 9,
No. 3, pp. 184-190.
87
N. Choudhary, op. cit.
88
T. Beniwal, op. cit.

28
 2.3. Cloud Kitchen pros and cons - the customer perspective

Customers' tastes, levels of happiness, and overall experience may be better under-
stood by looking at the pros and cons they encounter while purchasing meals from Cloud
Kitchens. Owners of Cloud Kitchens would do well to consider these characteristics to
target their products and services better. Table 5 presents the benefits and costs of
Cloud Kitchen from the customer's perspective as compared to a traditional restaurant.

Table 5. Pros and Cons of Cloud Kitchens from the customer's perspective
Pros of Cloud Kitchens from the
Customer's Perspective
Convenience and Accessibility
Rich menu
Special Offers and Customer Loyalty Pro-
grams
Customer Reviews and Ratings
Source: own collaboration.
Cons of Cloud Kitchens from the
Customer's Perspective
Limited Control over Food Quality and Prep-
aration
The absence of a traditional dining experi-
ence
Delayed or Incorrect Orders

Pros of Cloud Kitchens from the customer's perspective are as fallow:

• Convenience and Accessibility: Cloud Kitchens provide consumers convenience
and accessibility, which is one of their primary benefits. Customers can order food
online or via mobile applications, enabling them to experience a variety of cuisines
and dishes without leaving the convenience of their homes or offices. The simplic-
ity of ordering enhances the comfort of Cloud Kitchens, the versatility of delivery
options, and the extended hours of operation.
• Rich menu: The first preference of Cloud Kitchens is the speed of food cooking and
handling89. Customers can order meals online or through mobile applications, al-
lowing them to experience a diverse selection of cuisines and dishes without leav-
ing the convenience of their homes or places of employment. Cloud Kitchens are
a useful alternative for busy people or those looking for a quick and hassle-free
eating experience due to the convenience with which orders can be placed, the
versatility of the delivery choices, and the longer hours of operation.

89
Pros & Cons and the tech stack of Cloud Kitchens, www.smarther. com, (access: 21.05.2023).

29
 • Special Offers and Customer Loyalty Programs: To incentivise and cultivate client
loyalty, Cloud Kitchens frequently implement promotional offers, discounts, and
loyalty programs. Customers can take advantage of special discounts, rewards,
and incentives for repeat orders, enhancing their overall experience and encour-
aging continued patronage. These promotional strategies attract new customers
and attract new customers and aid in customer retention and Cloud Kitchens' long-
term profitability.
• Customer Reviews and Ratings: Several Cloud Kitchen platforms offer review and
rating systems for clients. These systems enable customers to share their experi-
ences and comment on the cuisine and service quality. Customers can depend on
these reviews to make educated judgments when selecting a Cloud Kitchen, which
promotes openness and accountability. In addition, favourable reviews and high
rating act as social proof, which can sway the purchasing decisions of other con-
sumers and cultivate confidence in the company.
Cons of Cloud Kitchens from the customer's perspective are:
• Limited Control over Food Quality and Preparation: As maintaining a food's quality
is critical to repeat orders, delivery-only brands run some threats out of the kitch-
en's control90. These examples might include things like heavy traffic and inclem-
ent weather. It is also possible that the food's temperature can be maintained
largely due to the packaging; thus, it is necessary to experiment with various types
of containers to keep the food's quality at the level largely due to the packaging;
thus, it is necessary to experiment with various types of containers to keep the
food quality at the level intended for the consumers.
• The absence of a traditional dining experience: The lack of the conventional eating
experience that brick-and-mortar establishments often provide is one of the most
significant downsides associated with Cloud Kitchens. Customers could be disap-
pointed in the absence of the ambience, social contact, and immersive setting of-
ten associated with dining out. Customers who place a high value on the sensory

90
T. Joycelyn, The Pros and Cons of a Cloud Kitchen and the kinds of M'sian F&Bs who can benefit from it,
wwww.vulcanpost. com (access: 21.05.2023).

30
 experiences of eating at a restaurant may find that the absence of physical dining
reduces the overall quality of the experience.
• Delayed or Incorrect Orders: While Cloud Kitchens endeavour for efficient order
processing and delivery, orders can be delayed or delivered incorrectly, particu-
larly during prime hours or periods of high demand. Order discrepancies or delays
may be caused by elements such as traffic obstruction, the availability of delivery
drivers, or miscommunication. These situations can result in consumer dissatisfac-
tion and annoyance.
Customers are attracted to Cloud Kitchens for convenience, accessibility, selection,
culinary quality, quicker delivery, and transparency. To ensure optimal customer fulfil-
ment, however, challenges relating to the absence of a physical dining experience, de-
layed orders, limited customization options, reliance on technology, and delivery-re-
lated issues must be addressed. By comprehending these factors, Cloud Kitchen opera-
tors can implement customer-centric strategies and improve the overall customer expe-
rience.

31
3. Evaluation of Cloud Kitchen business models

3.1. Research methodology and sample

The study aims to evaluate the benefits and costs of Cloud Kitchen from the perspec-
tive of both the owner and the consumer.
Cloud Kitchens have arisen as a disruptive innovation in the food delivery services
business, altering how food is prepared and delivered to customers. Nonetheless, de-
spite their rising popularity, there is a need for a more comprehensive understanding of
the benefits, issues, and potential areas for development in the context of Cloud Kitch-
ens.
Cloud Kitchens have become a competitive force in food delivery services, changing
how food is cooked, moved, and eaten. Even though Cloud Kitchens are growing quickly
and becoming more popular, there isn't a lot of study that looks at the business plan
from both the owner's and the customer's point of view. The Cloud Kitchen business is
dynamic and complicated, making it full of challenges and possibilities that need to be
investigated in depth. Unlike most brick-and-mortar restaurants, Cloud Kitchen owners
and managers must deal with practical, financial, and organizational problems. To make
good plans and business models for the Cloud Kitchen market, we need to understand
these problems.
Customers' tastes and standards have also changed since Cloud Kitchens and on-
demand meal delivery services came along. It is important to find out how customers
feel about the convenience, quality, and range of meals Cloud Kitchens offers and how
happy they are generally. With this information, Cloud Kitchen owners can change their
services to meet better customer needs and preferences, which can increase customer
trust and help the business grow.
Cloud Kitchens affect the food delivery services business. Traditional restaurant
models have been "shaken" by the rise of Cloud Kitchens, which has tested established
standards and added new dynamics to the ecology of food delivery. But not many in-
depth studies look at how this change might affect things like job patterns, the compet-
itive landscape, and the general health of the meal delivery business.
By looking into these research problems, this study should fill in the knowledge gaps
and help us better understand the Cloud Kitchen. The results of this study will give

32
business owners, politicians, investors, and experts useful information that will help
them make smart choices and come up with plans to help Cloud Kitchens grow and be
successful. In addition, understanding the problems and benefits of the Cloud Kitchen
business model can also help policy conversations and regulatory frameworks about
food safety, jobs, and urban planning. By shedding light on what Cloud Kitchens are and
what they need, the government can support innovation and entrepreneurship in the
food delivery services business while keeping customer safety and public health in mind.
The study reveals the benefits of the Cloud Kitchen business model from the owner's
perspective. Cloud Kitchens offer several benefits, including lower overhead costs,
greater flexibility, and the ability to serve more consumers without a physical store. By
examining these benefits, we can see how Cloud Kitchens have transformed the old res-
taurant sector and provided new perspectives for entrepreneurs and food entrepre-
neurs. Furthermore, the study attempts to uncover the challenges and drawbacks that
Cloud Kitchen owner's encounter. The administration of a Cloud Kitchen poses its own
set of operational, financial, and logistical challenges. Managing efficient operations, en-
suring quality control, simplifying delivery logistics, and maintaining customer satisfac-
tion can be daunting problems for Cloud Kitchen owners.
The study also presents how customers feel about the convenience, quality, and va-
riety of meals Cloud Kitchens provides. As a result of the growth of on-demand food
delivery services, customers have come to expect efficient ordering methods, timely de-
liveries, and high-quality meals.
Furthermore, the research examines the impact of Cloud Kitchens on the food deliv-
ery services business. We can comprehensively view Cloud Kitchens' development po-
tential, market trends, and future possibilities by examining industry papers, case stud-
ies, and financial data. This research can assist regulators, investors, and industry stake-
holders in making informed decisions and developing strategies to aid in the growth and
integration of Cloud Kitchens into the food delivery ecosystem.
The following research questions were developed to guide the research and give the
framework for data gathering and analysis:
RQ1. From the owner's perspective, what are the pros and cons of the Cloud
Kitchen?

33
 The RQ1 examines the advantages and disadvantages of running a Cloud Kitchen
business. As Cloud Kitchens eliminate the need for a physical dining area and can oper-
ate from smaller, more cost-effective locations, they may have lower overhead expenses
than traditional restaurants. Cloud Kitchens also provide additional flexibility, enabling
proprietors to quickly adjust to shifting customer demands and experiment with new
culinary concepts. However, there may be downsides, such as difficulty maintaining
many brands or menus within a single kitchen and relying on third-party delivery ser-
vices to reach customers.
RQ2. How do customers perceive Cloud Kitchens' convenience, quality, and variety of
food?
This RQ comprehends the customer viewpoint on Cloud Kitchen services. Customers'
convenience, quality, and variety perceptions are key in their decision-making process.
Convenience aspects may include the simplicity of ordering, the swiftness of delivery,
and the availability of a diverse selection of cuisines and menu items. Taste, freshness,
and food safety fall under the quality category, whereas variety refers to the diversity of
products and the ability to accommodate various dietary preferences. This study can
provide insights into how Cloud Kitchens can adjust their solutions to fulfil consumer
expectations and increase customer happiness by examining user views.
RQ3. Regarding operations, cost management, and customer satisfaction, what do
Cloud Kitchen owners face as the primary issues?
The third study question is to identify and comprehend the most significant chal-
lenges Cloud Kitchen owners experience. Operations in a Cloud Kitchen environment
may provide unique issues, such as guaranteeing timely preparation and delivery and
maintaining quality consistency across numerous orders and brands. Cloud Kitchens
must also carefully balance costs associated with food, labour, equipment, and technol-
ogy infrastructure, making cost management critical. In addition, customer satisfaction
is essential to any food service business's success. Cloud Kitchen owners must navigate
challenges associated with maintaining high levels of customer satisfaction, responding
to customer feedback, and building brand loyalty in a digital and delivery-focused envi-
ronment.
A questionnaire survey and a desk study were used as research methods.

34
 The research approach adopted in this study consists of two surveys: one built for
users of Cloud Kitchens and the other modified from the survey for Cloud Kitchen own-
ers on GoodFirms, an internationally famous research, ratings, and reviews platform.
The purpose of these surveys is to collect information from customers and owners to
have a full picture of Cloud Kitchen.
A 20-question online questionnaire was constructed for the customer survey to
investigate the elements influencing consumers' decisions to order from Cloud Kitchens,
their ordering patterns, delivery platform preferences, concerns, and overall satisfac-
tion. The survey was administered online to clients from varied demographic and geo-
graphic backgrounds. Participants were given clear directions on completing the survey
and a deadline for submitting their results.
The customer survey begins with questions designed to collect demographic data,
such as age, gender, and geography. These details will aid in the analysis of replies from
various client categories. Various primary questions influence customers' decisions to
order from a Cloud Kitchen. These criteria include ordering ease, menu diversity and
alternatives, meal quality, price, and affordability. Participants are asked to score these
qualities on a Likert scale or select their preferences from a list of choices. In addition,
the customer survey investigates the frequency with which food is ordered from Cloud
Kitchens, preferred delivery platforms, factors considered when assessing value for
money, the importance of menu options, satisfaction with delivery speed, concerns re-
garding ordering from Cloud Kitchens, the likelihood of recommending Cloud Kitchens
to others, and the means of discovering new Cloud Kitchens. In addition, the survey ad-
dresses preferred payment methods, clear communication during the ordering process,
the likelihood of providing feedback or leaving reviews, the perception of food quality
compared to traditional restaurants, the significance of sustainable packaging, and
more.
The evaluation of Could Kitchen from the owner's perspective was based on the
results of a survey conducted by other authors under the project The Good Firms and
shown in the form of a report. The study was given to a stratified sample of Cloud
Kitchen owners, selected based on area, operation size, and company style. Owners
were encouraged to join through multiple means, including email advertising, social me-
dia advertisements, and industry forums.

35
 The GoodFirms survey for Cloud Kitchen proprietors explores cuisines served,
kitchen infrastructure, recruiting and training methods, marketing tactics, obstacles en-
countered, use of technology for order administration and customer involvement, and
expansion plans. In addition, the influence of customer reviews, pricing tactics, revenue
models, and profitability in the Cloud Kitchen industry are investigated.
Then, both sets of survey data were evaluated using statistical methods. The re-
plies to each question were summarized using descriptive statistics, which provided in-
sight into client preferences, habits, and satisfaction levels. The Cloud Kitchen owners'
survey data analysis focuses on understanding their operating methods, obstacles, and
development potential.
The findings will be presented in the next sub-chapters. The customer survey re-
port will exhaustively study client preferences, ordering behaviors, preferred delivery
platforms, and satisfaction levels. This information will aid Cloud Kitchen owners and
industry experts gain a greater knowledge of client demands and expectations, enabling
them to customize their offers and services accordingly.
The GoodFirms survey report will provide useful insights into the viewpoints and
experiences of Cloud Kitchen proprietors. It will illuminate operating procedures, obsta-
cles, marketing strategies, technology integration, and expansion potential. This paper
will provide existing and prospective Cloud Kitchen owners, researchers, and stakehold-
ers with relevant industry standards and best practices.
By integrating the customer survey and the GoodFirms survey report, this study
provides a thorough insight into the Cloud Kitchen business from both the consumer's
and the owner's viewpoints.
In summary, integrating consumer and owner surveys in this research methodol-
ogy enables a comprehensive and well-rounded examination of the Cloud Kitchen sec-
tor. This research intends to give practical insights into the sector by analyzing the ele-
ments that influence customer preferences and behaviors and the operational practices
and obstacles experienced by Cloud Kitchen operators. The full investigation of cus-
tomer and owner viewpoints will add to the current body of information, assisting Cloud
Kitchen owners, customers, researchers, and industry experts.

36
 3.2. Cloud Kitchen in the eyes of the owner
This sub-chapter used a report from the online survey named "Cloud Kitchen: Busi-
ness Opportunities and Future Scope" by Mark Raymond to determine what Cloud
Kitchen owners, managers, and industry experts thought. The survey report on the
GoodFirms website presents the current benefits, opportunities, trends, and problems
that organizations face when moving old systems to cloud infrastructure. The survey was
conducted online between October 15 and October 21, 2022, and received 285 re-
sponses from enterprises around the globe. Participants from different sectors dis-
cussed Cloud Kitchen's growth initiatives, strategies, obstacles, and expenditures. It is
important to note that Mark Raymond's survey report, published on the GoodFirms
website, is freely accessible to the public, and no special permissions were required to
use the data for research purposes. The survey's answers will be evaluated and under-
stood with other relevant books and research to provide a full review of the Cloud
Kitchen. All survey data has been anonymized and will only be used for research pur-
poses in this thesis. Mark Raymond is acknowledged for conducting the original survey
and making it publicly accessible for academic research.
The GoodFirms survey found that 48.5% of respondents from 285 get most of their
orders through their mobile apps and 31.3% through their websites. Other important
ways to get orders are through the phone (15%) and takeaways (5.3%) (See Chart be-
low).

Chart 1. "Maximum orders that respondents receive"

Source: M. Raymond, Cloud Kitchen- Business opportunities and future scope, www. Goodfirms. com.

37
 Based on the Chart below, it can be said that most of the respondents (65.4% of
them) agree that the best benefit of Cloud Kitchen is lower initial investment and cost-
effectiveness. In contrast, Menu flexibility (57.4%) and High Profitability (47.4%) are the
next top benefits of Cloud Kitchen (see Chart below).

Chart 2. "Benefits that respondents see with their Cloud Kitchen business"

Source: M. Raymond, Cloud Kitchen- Business opportunities and future scope, www. Goodfirms. com.

Respondents reported that the biggest problems Cloud Kitchen providers face are
delays in the delivery process, high costs for technology, and poor financial management
(see Chart below).

38
 Chart 3. "Top 3 challenges faced by Cloud Kitchen providers"

Source: M. Raymond, Cloud Kitchen- Business opportunities and future scope, www. Goodfirms. com.

80.2% of the people who took the GoodFirms survey think Cloud Kitchen has a bright
future. The reasons why a Cloud Kitchen has a bright future are the fallowings:
• Low-Risk Factor: Opening a typical restaurant takes a lot of time and money, and
there is a high-risk factor. But because Cloud Kitchens don't have a real location,
they don't have to pay as much for extra costs that aren't needed. It helps them
make more money.
• Lower Operation and Overhead Costs: Since Cloud Kitchens only work online,
they have low maintenance and operation costs. Physical restaurants must

39
 spend more on controlling their staff, atmosphere, and furniture. The restaurant
owners don't have to worry about hiring people to serve customers, which cuts
labour costs because they don't have to set up a place for people to eat.
The surveyed operators represent 28.2% of the catering industry, 20% of the restau-
rant industry, and 17.2% of the meal service industry. Others include enterprises that
sell packaged foods, food trucks, and others. 55.3% of Cloud Kitchen companies sur-
veyed said they offer their services via mobile applications, while only 25.2% do so via
their websites. 12,6% of respondents also offer their services via telephone (see Chart
below).

Chart 4. "Business category of respondents"

Source: M. Raymond, Cloud Kitchen- Business opportunities and future scope, www. Goodfirms. com.

40
 The highest percentage, 44.6 % of respondents, said they receive 1501-2000 or-
ders monthly. In contrast, The lowest percentage, with 2.5% of respondents, reported
receiving less than 500 orders in a moth.
Even though it's hard to give exact costs because they can change a lot depending
on location, size, and business needs, I can estimate what it usually costs to start a Cloud
Kitchen in Europe (see Table 6).

Table 6. The minimum and maximum cost of starting Cloud Kitchen in Europe
Costs Minimum Maximum
Facility Costs € 12,000 € 10,000
Equipment and Technology € 10,000 € 100,000
Licensing and Permits € 1,000 € 5,000
Staffing and Training € 1,000 € 5,000
Marketing and Branding € 1,000 € 5,000
Supply Chain and Inventory € 500 € 2,000
Insurance and Legal Price € 1,000 € 5,000
Miscellaneous Expenses € 200 € 500
Total € 15,700 € 127,500
Source: Based on interviews with Cloud Kitchen owners and findings from open sources on internet.

• Facility Costs: Depending on the size and location of the room, rent or lease costs
can run from €1,000 to €10,000 per month. But there is a way to minimize the
cost of place by opening Cloud Kitchen from your home. Equipment and technol-
ogy: The cost of commercial-grade cooking equipment can run from €10,000 to
€100,000 or more, based on the size of the business and how complicated the
menu is. It includes appliances, desks, storage units, food-making tools, technol-
ogy like point-of-sale (POS) systems and software for managing deliveries.
• Licensing and Permits: The costs of licenses, permits, and certifications can
change from country to country and from city to city, depending on the rules.
Depending on the needs, this can cost between €1,000 to €5,000 or more.
• Staffing and Training: Chefs, cooks, and support staff can make a wide range of
salaries, depending on their experience and where they work. It is worth adding
that to get and keep skilled workers, and it's important to plan for competitive

41
 pay in the budget. How much it costs to train staff will depend on how compli-
cated the menu is and how much training they need.
• Marketing and Branding: Marketing costs can change based on the tactics used,
but a general estimate could be between €1,000 and €5,000 or more per month.
It includes making websites, online marketing efforts, materials for branding, and
ads.
• Supply Chain and Inventory: The cost of products, food supplies, and packing ma-
terials will depend on the offering and how many sales are expected. Getting to
know providers and arranging good price terms is very important.
• Insurance and Legal Prices: Insurance prices can range from €1,000 to €5,000 per
year, depending on how much coverage we need. The cost of legal help will rely
on how complicated the business is and whether we need help with permits,
contracts, or lease agreements.
• Miscellaneous Expenses: Other costs to think about are utilities (electricity, wa-
ter, gas), trash management services, maintenance and repairs, accounting and
banking services, and emergency funds.
These are only rough figures that can change a lot depending on where the location
is, how the market is, how big the business is, and what we need. So, it can vary in dif-
ferent cases. It can be a much lower price than mentioned.

3.3. Cloud Kitchen – through the prism of the customer

The subchapter presents the results of Cloud Kitchens' customer survey carried out
by the author of the thesis between April-May 2023.
In the survey, 104 respondents participated, most (58.7%) male and 40.4% female.
Most of the respondents' ages (55.8%) are between 20 and 30. In contrast, 26%, 10.6%,
and 7.7% are under 20, above 40, and 30–40, respectively.
Based on the Chart below, it can be said that most of the respondents (57.7%)
agree that the convenience and ease of ordering offered by dark kitchens are the best
reason to order. In comparison, 35.6% of the respondents think that Menu variety and
options are the second-best reason to order, 41.3% think that price range is the third-
best reason to order, and 40.4% choose food quality (see Chart below).

42
 Chart 5. "Factors that influence respondents' decision to order from Cloud
Kitchen"

Source: Own collaboration.

In the frequency of ordering via Cloud Kitchen, it is inferred that a significant propor-
tion of the participants, approximately 34.6%, reported ordering food once a week. In
contrast, a smaller proportion of respondents, approximately 26.9%, indicated that they
order food a few times per month. In comparison, 24% of the participants reported or-
dering food multiple times per week, and 14.4 % reported ordering food from Cloud
Kitchen rarely or never.
The Chart below shows that most respondents (58.7%) ordered food through Uber
Eats, while 46.2% ordered food through Bolt. And 43.3 % of respondents choose Glovo
to order food from Cloud Kitchens. 10.6% of respondents prefer other platforms (see
Chart below).

43
 Chart 6. "Delivery platforms that respondents prefer to order"

Source: Own collaboration.

Based on the data in the Chart below, 26.9% of respondents consider food quality
when assessing the value for money a Cloud Kitchen offers. In contrast, a smaller pro-
portion of respondents, approximately 17.3%, choose Pricing compared to competitors.
In comparison, 18.3% of the participants reported portion size is a valuable factor, and
it can be inferred that a significant proportion of the participants, approximately 37.5%,
found all the above options for this question (see Chart below).

Chart 7. "Factors that respondents consider when assessing the value for
money offered by a Cloud Kitchen"

Source: Own collaboration.

44
 According to the Chart below, 41.3% of respondents reported that having a wide
range of menu options when ordering from a Cloud Kitchen is somewhat important for
them, while only 3.9% were against it and it is not important. 36.5% of respondents, on
the other hand, wanted to have a wide range of menus as extremely important. And
18.3% said it is not very important (see Chart below).

Chart 8. "Importance of wide range of menu options"

Source: Own collaboration.

Regarding speed of delivery and timelessness of Cloud Kitchen orders, 19.2% of

respondents were very satisfied, while only 4.8% were dissatisfied. 45.2% of respond-
ents, on the other hand, were somewhat satisfied.
Based on the data presented in the Chart below, 43.1% of respondents are con-
cerned about delivery accuracy and reliability when ordering from a Cloud Kitchen. In
contrast, a smaller proportion of respondents, approximately 13.7%, chose Limited cus-
tomization options, while 28.4% of the participants reported food quality and freshness
were concern respondents. 14.7% of respondents have no concerns (see Chart below).

45
 Chart 9. "Respondents' concerns "

Source: Own collaboration.

According to the Chart below, 25% of respondents were willing to recommend the
idea of a dark kitchen very likely, while only 1% were against it. 31.7% of respondents,
on the other hand, wanted to stay neutral about whether they should recommend a
dark kitchen (see Chart below).

Chart 10. "Recommendation of a Cloud Kitchen to friends or family"

Source: Own collaboration.

From the below Chart, we can see that the least of the respondents (17.3%) prefer
to order from a specific Cloud Kitchen because of menu updates and new offerings. Pos-
itive customer reviews, promotions and discount factors make 26.9% of respondents

46
more likely to order from a specific Cloud Kitchen. And 28.8% of respondents choose all
the above factors that make the order (see Chart below).

Chart 11. "Factors make respondents more likely to order from a specific Cloud
Kitchen"

Source: Own collaboration.

Based on the survey results, 38.5% of respondents found new Cloud Kitchens to
order on social media platforms. In contrast, a smaller proportion of respondents, ap-
proximately 15.4%, discovered new Cloud Kitchens from online search engines. In com-
parison, make28.8% reported recommendations from friends or family made them or-
der from new Cloud Kitchens. Online food delivery platforms' recommendations are the
way to find new Cloud Kitchens for 17.3% of respondents.
According to the Chart below, 45.2% of people answered prioritized credit and
debit cards for payment. 33.7% of the people who answered the survey preferred Digital
wallets (e.g., Apple Pay, Google Pay) for payment. 16.3% of respondents found Cash on
delivery the best payment, and 4.8% chose other payment methods (see Chart below).

47
 Chart 12. "Preferred payment method by respondents"

Source: Own collaboration.

Regarding the importance of communication with Cloud Kitchen during the order
process, 10.6% of respondents were willing to communicate clearly and transparently
with Cloud Kitchen extremely unimportant. In contrast, 16.3% of respondents found
communicating extremely important. However, most respondents, 30.8%, wanted to
stay neutral about communicating during the order process.
Based on the survey results, 11.5% of respondents are likely to provide feedback
or leave a review for Cloud Kitchen, while 4.8% are unlikely. Most respondents (32.7%)
wanted to stay neutral about providing feedback or review for a Cloud Kitchen.
From the below Chart, we can see that most of the respondents (38.5%) perceive
the overall quality of food in Cloud Kitchen as similar to traditional restaurants. In con-
trast, 17.3% found it inferior to traditional restaurants. And 36.5% of respondents think
the overall quality of food in Cloud Kitchen is better than traditional restaurants, and
7.7% of respondents are not sure about it (see Chart below).

48
 Chart 13. "Perception of the overall quality of food from Cloud Kitchens com-
pared to traditional restaurants"

Source: Own collaboration.

In the case of eco-friendly packaging, 12.5 % of respondents reported that sustain-

able and eco-friendly packaging plays an extremely unimportant role in their decision to
order from a Cloud Kitchen. In comparison, for 9.6% of them, it is extremely important.
Most respondents (30.8%) wanted to stay neutral about it.
According to the Chart below, 45.2% of respondents thought there was a price
difference between Cloud Kitchen and restaurant kitchens and thought Cloud Kitchens
are more affordable than traditional ones. In comparison, 12.5% disagreed and thought
Cloud Kitchen menu items were more expensive. 37.5% of respondents think the price
is the same between Cloud Kitchen and traditional restaurants. 4.8% of respondents
didn't have an opinion on the price difference (see Chart below).

49
 Chart 14. "Feeling about Cloud Kitchen menu items pricing compared to similar
offerings from traditional restaurants"

Source: Own collaboration.

According to the Chart below, 25.5% of the people answered the prioritized speed
of delivery. 24.5% of the people who answered the survey preferred Food presentation
and aesthetics and health and dietary preferences (e.g., vegetarian, gluten-free), and
25.5% chose all the above answers (see Chart below).

Chart 15. "Importance of attributes when ordering from Cloud Kitchen"

Source: Own collaboration.

50
 In the case of the importance of the option of tracking Cloud Kitchen order in real
time, 7.7% of respondents thought the option of tracking Cloud Kitchen order in real
time is extremely unimportant. In comparison, 15.4% of the respondents disagreed, and
they thought it was extremely important. However, most respondents (31.7%) wanted
to stay neutral about real-time tracking orders.
According to the below Chart, the majority of the respondents, i.e., 45.2%, were
somewhat likely to try new or experimental menu items, whereas 6.7% of the respond-
ents found it unlikely, and 27.9% found it neutral (see Chart below).

Chart 16. "Likelihood of new or experimental Cloud Kitchens menu items."

Source: Own collaboration.

According to the Chart below, 28.8% of respondents are somewhat satisfied over-
all with the ordering experience from Cloud Kitchen, while 1.9% are dissatisfied. 48.1%
of respondents are somewhat satisfied with ordering from Cloud Kitchens, and 21.2%
are neutral (see Chart below).

51
 Chart 17. "Overall satisfaction with ordering from Cloud Kitchen"

Source: Own collaboration.

The survey's final question was open-ended, asking respondents their thoughts or
any recommendations they might have on the Cloud Kitchen and if they were willing to
provide such feedback. Most of the people who responded to this question gave moti-
vation that this is a good idea and that this business idea can be successful in the food
industry. These suggestions and opinions show that the survey had a positive response
from the Cloud Kitchen business respondents.

52
Summary
The thesis examines the evolution of food delivery services and the impact of Cloud
Kitchens on the food service industry. The study examines the evolution of traditional
takeout, home delivery, digital platforms, and mobile apps. It explores various food de-
livery services, such as aggregator sites and direct-to-consumer delivery, and their pros
and cons for business owners and customers.
The food industry undergoes continuous evolution due to shifting consumer be-
haviours, technological progress, and the pursuit of convenience. The emergence of
food delivery services has revolutionized the dining experience by offering a convenient
and efficient means of meeting individuals' gastronomic requirements by directly deliv-
ering meals to their residences. This progress has been accelerated by people's increas-
ing dependence on digital solutions, their desire for instant satisfaction, and the COVID-
19 pandemic. In general, the pandemic has caused business changes that have never
happened before, and these changes are often seen as positive. Most people switched
to online food service because they didn't go to restaurants. The online food delivery
companies had to keep track of online food orders while the lockdowns were going on.
Cloud Kitchens got a huge boost, and customers and stakeholders started to choose
them over other options.
The author has done qualitative and quantitative studies to learn more about
Cloud Kitchen's market potential, how customers behave, and what they expect. The
author used a survey of Cloud Kitchen owners as secondary data on GoodFirms, a well-
known platform for research, ratings, and reviews. Surveys of Cloud Kitchen owners
show that Cloud Kitchen has a lot of benefits. The author also analyzed the costs of Cloud
Kitchens in Europe and performed an online survey among customers to understand the
market situation better.
Cloud Kitchen also has some challenges in the market. But these aren't big prob-
lems for a Cloud Kitchen because they can be turned into strengths and opportunities
by paying attention to how customers act, what they want, and how they think about
food. The company won't have customer feedback until they've been in business for a
while and learned what works and what doesn't. The online customer survey showed
that convenience and ease of ordering were the most important factors influencing re-
spondents' decisions to order from Cloud Kitchen. Thus, survey results indicate e

53
respondents' food culture and expectations of online Cloud Kitchen services. However,
most respondents still perceive the overall food quality in Cloud Kitchen as similar to
that in traditional restaurants. But nearly half of the respondents think Cloud Kitchen
menu items are more affordable than similar offerings from traditional restaurants. The
survey results also showed that more than 48% of the respondents were satisfied with
their overall experience ordering from Cloud Kitchen.
After doing all analyses, the author has gained a lot of knowledge and understands
the market situation of Cloud Kitchen, so he has some suggestions for the business. First,
to minimize the costs of the facility, it is better to start a Cloud Kitchen from a home-
based or truck-based location. The Cloud Kitchen should work with third-party supply
services to cut down on marketing costs. Most people today use apps like Uber, Swiggy,
and Glovo to place orders. By being on these sites, Cloud Kitchen will get more orders
for home delivery, and because they have their delivery systems, Cloud Kitchen won't
have to pay for the delivery. Besides that, being on these platforms will make the com-
pany discoverable to potential customers. The second recommendation is to form part-
nerships with complementary restaurants that are not direct rivals.
There exist certain limitations of research. The survey about Cloud Kitchen's own-
ers warrants particular attention for potential enhancements. The temporal scope of the
investigation may pose a constraint, particularly if it solely encompasses a particular
phase in the evolution of the Cloud Kitchen sector. The dynamic nature of Cloud Kitchens
and their ability to adapt to market changes may render the study's results inconclusive
in terms of reflecting the challenges and opportunities that owners may encounter in
the present or future. Furthermore, the study does not encompass all contextual varia-
bles that impact the viewpoints of Cloud Kitchen proprietors. Owners of Cloud Kitchens
may experience difficulties, use different strategies, and achieve different results de-
pending on various variables, such as their location, cultural differences, or specific mar-
ket conditions. Neglecting these contextual factors could constrain the study's findings
regarding their applicability and generalizability.
The author of the thesis believes that there are several potential future research
directions for the Cloud Kitchen industry. For instance, future research could optimise
Cloud Kitchens' operations to boost efficiency and productivity. It may involve investi-
gating sophisticated technologies like robotics and automation to expedite processes,

54
reduce costs, and enhance overall performance. In addition, investigating menu optimi-
zation and personalization techniques within Cloud Kitchens could be a valuable area of
study. It could involve utilizing data analytics and machine learning algorithms to analyze
consumer preferences and design menu items that appeal to individual preferences and
dietary restrictions.
In conclusion, this thesis provides an in-depth analysis of food delivery services
and their evolution, focusing on the rise of Cloud Kitchens. By understanding these con-
cepts, individuals in the food industry can make informed decisions to manage the evolv-
ing market and capitalize on its vast potential. The findings are valuable resources for
academics, industry professionals, and business owners interested in the future of food
delivery services and Cloud Kitchens.

55
Summary in Polish
Praca prezentuje ewolucję usług dostarczania żywności i wpływ Kuchni w Chmurze
na branżę gastronomiczną. Badanie analizuje ewolucję tradycyjnych dostaw na wynos,
dostaw do domu, platform cyfrowych i aplikacji mobilnych. Prezentuje ono różne usługi
dostawy żywności, takie jak witryny agregujące i dostawy bezpośrednio do konsumenta,
oraz ich zalety i wady dla właścicieli firm i klientów.
Branża gastronmiczna podlega ciągłej ewolucji ze względu na zmieniające się
zachowania konsumentów, postęp technologiczny i dążenie do wygody. Pojawienie się
usług dostawy żywności zrewolucjonizowało doznania kulinarne, oferując wygodny i
skuteczny sposób zaspokajania wymagań gastronomicznych osób fizycznych poprzez
bezpośrednie dostarczanie posiłków do ich domów. Postęp ten został przyspieszony
przez rosnącą zależność ludzi od rozwiązań cyfrowych, ich pragnienie natychmiastowej
satysfakcji oraz pandemię COVID-19. Ogólnie rzecz biorąc, pandemia spowodowała
zmiany biznesowe, które nigdy wcześniej nie miały miejsca, a zmiany te są często
postrzegane jako pozytywne. Większość ludzi przeszła na usługi gastronomiczne online,
ponieważ nie chodzili do restauracji. Firmy dostarczające jedzenie online musiały śledzić
zamówienia online, gdy trwały blokady. Kuchnia w Chmurze uzyskała ogromny impuls, a
klienci i interesariusze zaczęli wybierać ją zamiast innych opcji.
Autor przeprowadził badania jakościowe i ilościowe, aby dowiedzieć się więcej o
potencjale rynkowym Kuchni w Chmurze, zachowaniu klientów i ich oczekiwaniach.
Autor wykorzystał ankietę przeprowadzoną wśród właścicieli Kuchni w Chmurze jako
dane wtórne na GoodFirms, znanej platformie do badań, ocen i recenzji. Ankiety
przeprowadzone wśród właścicieli Kuchni w Chmurze pokazują, że kuchnia w chmurze
ma wiele zalet. Autor przeanalizował także koszty początkowe Kuchni w Chmurze w
Europie i przeprowadził ankietę online wśród klientów, aby lepiej zrozumieć sytuację
rynkową.
Kuchnia w Chmurze ma również pewne wyzwania na rynku. Nie są to jednak duże
problemy dla Kuchni w Chmurze, ponieważ można je przekształcić w mocne strony i
możliwości, zwracając uwagę na to, jak zachowują się klienci, czego chcą i jak myślą o
jedzeniu. Firma nie będzie miała informacji zwrotnych od klientów, dopóki nie będzie
działać przez jakiś czas i nie dowie się, co działa, a co nie. Internetowa ankieta wśród
klientów wykazała, że wygoda i łatwość zamawiania były najważniejszymi czynnikami

56
wpływającymi na decyzje respondentów o zamówieniu w Kuchni w Chmurze. Wyniki
ankiety wskazują zatem na kulturę jedzenia i oczekiwania respondentów wobec usług
Kuchni w Chmurze online. Jednak większość respondentów nadal postrzega ogólną
jakość żywności w Kuchni w Chmurze jako podobną do tej w tradycyjnych restauracjach.
Jednak prawie połowa respondentów uważa, że pozycje menu Kuchni w Chmurze są
bardziej przystępne cenowo niż podobne oferty tradycyjnych restauracji. Wyniki ankiety
wykazały również, że ponad 48% respondentów było zadowolonych z ogólnych
doświadczeń związanych z zamawianiem w Kuchni w Chmurze.
Po przeprowadzeniu wszystkich analiz autor zdobył dużą wiedzę i rozumie sytuację
rynkową Kuchni w Chmurze, więc ma kilka sugestii dla biznesu. Po pierwsze, aby
zminimalizować koszty obiektu, lepiej jest uruchomić Kuchnię w Chmurze w domu lub w
ciężarówce. Kuchnia w Chmurze powinna współpracować z zewnętrznymi dostawcami,
aby obniżyć koszty marketingowe. Większość ludzi korzysta dziś z aplikacji takich, jak
Uber, Swiggy i Glovo do składania zamówień. Będąc na tych stronach, Kuchnia w
Chmurze otrzyma więcej zamówień z dostawą do domu, a ponieważ mają one swoje
systemy dostaw, Kuchnia w Chmurze nie będzie musiała płacić za dostawę. Poza tym,
obecność na tych platformach sprawi, że firma jest widoczna dla potencjalnych klientów.
Drugim zaleceniem jest nawiązanie współpracy z uzupełniającymi się restauracjami,
które nie są bezpośrednimi rywalami.
Istnieją pewne ograniczenia badania. Ankieta dotycząca właścicieli Kuchni w
Chmurze wymaga szczególnej uwagi pod kątem potencjalnych ulepszeń. Zakres czasowy
badania może stanowić ograniczenie, zwłaszcza jeśli obejmuje tylko określoną fazę
ewolucji sektora Kuchni w Chmurze. Dynamiczny charakter Kuchni w Chmurze i ich
zdolność do dostosowywania się do zmian rynkowych mogą sprawić, że wyniki badania
będą niejednoznaczne pod względem odzwierciedlenia wyzwań i możliwości, jakie
właściciele mogą napotkać w teraźniejszości lub przyszłości. Ponadto badanie nie
obejmuje wszystkich zmiennych kontekstowych, które wpływają na punkt widzenia
właścicieli Kuchni w Chmurze. Właściciele Kuchni w Chmurze mogą doświadczać
trudności, stosować różne strategie i osiągać różne wyniki w zależności od różnych
zmiennych, takich jak lokalizacja, różnice kulturowe lub specyficzne warunki rynkowe.
Zaniedbanie tych czynników kontekstowych może ograniczyć wyniki badania w
odniesieniu do ich zastosowania i możliwości uogólnienia.

57
 Autor pracy uważa, że istnieje kilka potencjalnych kierunków przyszłych badań dla
branży Kuchni w Chmurze. Na przykład, przyszłe badania mogą zoptymalizować operacje
Kuchni w Chmurze w celu zwiększenia wydajności i produktywności. Może to
obejmować inwestowanie w zaawansowane technologie, takie jak robotyka i
automatyzacja, w celu przyspieszenia procesów, obniżenia kosztów i poprawy ogólnej
wydajności. Ponadto cennym obszarem badań może być zbadanie technik optymalizacji
i personalizacji menu w Kuchni w Chmurze. Może to obejmować wykorzystanie analizy
danych i algorytmów uczenia maszynowego do analizy preferencji konsumentów i
projektowania pozycji menu, które odwołują się do indywidualnych preferencji i
ograniczeń dietetycznych.
Podsumowując, niniejsza praca zawiera dogłębną analizę usług dostarczania
żywności i ich ewolucji, koncentrując się na rozwoju Kuchni w Chmurze. Rozumiejąc tę
koncepcje, osoby z branży gastronomicznej mogą podejmować świadome decyzje w celu
zarządzania rozwijającym się rynkiem i wykorzystania jego ogromnego potencjału.
Wyniki badań stanowią cenne źródło informacji dla badaczy, specjalistów z branży i
właścicieli firm zainteresowanych przyszłością usług dostawy żywności i Kuchnią w
Chmurze.

58
 Literature
1. Ahuja, K., Chandra, V., Lord, V., Peens, C. (2021), "Ordering in: The rapid evolu-
tion of food delivery", McKinsey & Company Article, pp. 1-13.
2. AlakshmiKanteti, V. (2018), Innovative strategies of startup firms in India -A study
on online food delivery companies in India, International Research Journal of
Management Science & Technology, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 17 – 23.
3. Anderson, W. E., Fornell, C., Lehman, D. R. (1994), "Customer Satisfaction, Mar-
ket Share, and Profita-bility: Finding from Sweden", Journal of Marketing, Vol.
58, pp. 53-65.
4. Barry, B. (1998), Social Exclusion, Social Isolation, and the Distribution of Income;
London School of Economics: London, UK, pp 1-24.
5. Beniwal, T., Mathur, Dr. V. K. (2021), "Multi-Brand Cloud Kitchens: The Efficient
Route", International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 8, No. 8, pp. 551-560.
6. Beniwal, T., Mathur, Dr. V. K. (2021), Cloud Kitchen: A Profitable Venture, Inter-
national Ad-vanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology.
Vol. 8, No. 10, pp. 50-54.
7. Chang, H.H., Chen, S.W. (2009), "Consumer perception of interface quality, secu-
rity, and loyalty in electronic commerce", Information & Management, Vol. 46,
No. 7, pp 411–417.
8. Choudhary, N. (2019), "Management Today", An international journal of man-
agement studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 184-190.
9. Choudhary, N. (2019), Strategic analysis of Cloud Kitchen- A case study. An inter-
national journal of management studies, Vol. 9, pp. 184-190
10. Costell, E., Tarrega, A., Bayarri, S. (2010), "Food acceptance: The role of con-
sumer perception and attitudes", Chemosensory Perception, Vol. 3, No.1, pp. 43-
50.
11. Moura, A. D., Botter, C. (2016), "Delivery and pick-up problem transportation-
milk run or con-ventional systems," Independent journal od management & pro-
duction, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.747-770.

59
12. Durairaj, S., Gopinath, G. (2019), "Analytical Survey on Online Food Delivery Ap-
plications of Android Platform from a Service Perspective", International Journal
of Computer Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 7, Issue 5, pp. 1021-1025.
13. Hwang, T., Rabheru. K., Peisah. C., Reichman. W., Ikeda, M. (2020), "Loneliness
and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic", Int. Psychogeriatr., Vol. 32,
No. 10, pp.1217–1220.
14. Laborde, E. (2020), "Italy Taking the Ride ", New Orleans Magazine, Vol. 54, Issue
8, pp.64-64.
15. Lin, R. (2021), "The effects of Covid-19 on the Online Food Delivery Industry",
Advances in Econom-ics, Business and Management Research, Vol. 203, pp. 203-
207.
16. Moyeenudin, H.M., Anandan, R., ShaikJaveed, P., Bindu, G. (2020). "A reserch on
Cloud Kitchen pre-requisities and branding Strategies", Internation journal of in-
vovative tecnology and expolring engeenring, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 983-987.
17. Sanchez-Fernandez, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M. A. (2006), "Consumer perception of
value: Literature review and a new conceptual framework", Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol.19, pp. 40-58.
18. See-Kwong. G. (2017), "Outsourcing to online food delivery services: the per-
spective of F&B busi-ness owners", Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce,
Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 2-3
19. Singh, J., Sirdashmukh, D. (2000), "Agency and Trust Mechanisms in Consumer
Satisfaction and Loy-alty Judgements", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence, Vol. 28, pp. 150-167.
20. Thomke, S. (2012), "Mumbai's Models of Service Excellence," Journal of Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 90, No. 11, pp.121–126.
21. Upadhye, N., Sathe S. (2020), Cloud Kitchen - Case Study Of Swiggy Cloud Kitchen
In Pune, UGC Care Journal, Vo.l 06, No. 04. pp 107-114.
22. Yeung, R.M., Morris, J. (2001), "Food safety risk: Consumer perception and pur-
chase behaviour", British Food Journal, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp 170–187.
23. Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M.J., Gremler, D. (2018), Services Marketing - Integrating
Customers Focus across the Firm, Seventh Edition, Boston: McGraw-Hill, pp 50-
52.

60
Internet sources:
24. Anand, M. S. Confused about Cloud Kitchen Business Models? Which one suits
your business?, www.linkidin . com (access: 6.04.2023).
25. Beckett, E. L. Ghost kitchens could be a $1T global market by 2030 says Euromon-
itor, www. restaurantdive. com (access: 05.04.2023)
26. Bhatt, T. The food Delivery Business Model-A complete Guide for Funders,
www.inteivita.com (ac-cess: 18.11.2022).
27. Build a Better Restaurant Business, www.posease. com (access: 6.04.2023).
28. Canter, A. What consumers really want food delivery, www.nrn.com (access:
06.01.2023).
29. Choosing The Best Restaurant Format: Cloud Kitchen vs Dine-In Restaurant,
www.posist. Com (ac-cess: 06.04.2023).
30. Cloud Kitchen Business Model and How it Works?, www.kitchencentre.com (ac-
cess: 06.04.2023).
31. Cloud Kitchen Concept, www.uengage.in (access: 07.04.2023).
32. Cloud Kitchen Market Share Analysis Report 2021-2028, www. grandviewre-
search. com (access: 05.04.2023).
33. Consumer Delivery Expectations in 2022: What you need to know,
www.easyship. com (access: 29.11.2022).
34. Daryna P., Vlad, V. 3 popular Food Delivery Models and Real Challenges to be
aware of, www.rubygarage.org (access: 28.11.2022).
35. Demetriou, T. Cloud Kitchen business model: understanding and implementing
the concept, www.eposnow.com (access: 07.04.2023).
36. Food delivery business model, www.spdload. com (access: 29.11.2022).
37. Food delivery, www.wikipedia.org (access: 25.11.2022).
38. Guszkowski, J. Just how many virtual brands are there, www.restaurantbus-
sinessonline. com (ac-cess: 20.05.2023).
39. Hendelmann, V. The food delivery business model a complete guide,
www.productmint.com (access: 15.11.2022).
40. History of Food Delivery, www.blog.grubtech.com (access: 15.11.2022).
41. Hitt, C. The Tasty History of Takeout and Delivery, www.thrillist.com (access:
15.11.2022).

61
42. How Multi-Brand Cloud Kitchens Are Revolutionizing The F&B Space, www.po-
sist. Com (access: 06.04.2023).
43. Inani, A. Food Delivery Business Model & Platforms to Leverage, www.web-
writerspotlight. com (access: 28.11.2022).
44. Isha, M. A. Cloud Kitchen Business Model: Everything you need to know , www.
bdtask. com (ac-cess: 07.04.2023).
45. Joycelyn, T. The Pros and Cons of a Cloud Kitchen and the kinds of M'sian F&Bs
who can benefit from it, wwww.vulcanpost. com (access: 21.05.2023).
46. Jung-yup, K. eng. Naengmyeon, delivery food, www.seouland.com (access:
15.11.2022).
47. Loizos, C. The world's largest internet restaurant company' quietly raised $125
million this month, www.techcrunch.com (access: 05.04.2023).
48. Lypchenko, S. How to Make A Food Delivery Website in 2022, www.gowom-
bat.com (access: 28.11.2022).
49. Mladenov, V. Top 5 types of Customer Expectations. www.zonkafeedback.com
(access: 07.01.2023).
50. Oberoi, A. Understanding the Cloud Kitchen Model , www.insights.daffodilsw.
com (access: 07.04.2023).
51. Palaniappan, J. How technology and food delivery apps will restore the food in-
dustry, www.newfoodmagazine.com (access: 25.02.2023).
52. Panchal, M. Food Delivery Business Model-Types, Advantage and Challenges,
www.excellentwebworld. com (access: 17.11.2022).
53. Panda, A. Cloud Kitchen business model how do Cloud Kitchens make money?,
www.feedough. com (access: 27.03.2023).
54. Pros & Cons and the tech stack of Cloud Kitchens, www.smarther. com, (access:
21.05.2023).
55. Ravishankar, G. V. How Faasos disrupted its business model to create India's larg-
est Cloud Kitchen, www.sequoiacap. com (access: 05.04.2023).
56. Restaurant Delivery-Worlwide, www.statista.com (access: 18.11.2022).
57. Sharda, N. Serving food from the cloud, www.toptal. Com (access: 05.04.2023).
58. Shelby, E. The Ghost Kitchen Business Model Explained, www.startupmindset.
com (access: 20.05.2023).

62
59. Singh, T. Food on Demand: Business Models of Meal Delivery Startups, www.jun-
gleworks.com (ac-cess: 17.11.2022).
60. Southey, F. Online food delivery one of the only winners in coronavirus outbreak,
www.foodnavigator. com (access: 25.02.2023).
61. The history and evaluation of food delivery, www.ordermeal.co.nz (access:
15.11.2022).
62. The history of food delivery, www.historyguild.org (access: 15.11.2022).
63. The Reopening of Restaurants 2020: Insights From 100+ Operators & Managers
Research, www. raydiant. Com (access: 08.04.2023).
64. The Ultimate Guide to a Cloud Kitchen Business, www. posist. com (access:
28.03.2023).
65. Three popular Food Delivery Models and Real Challenges to be aware of,
www.rubygarage.org (access: 28.11.2022).
66. United States Food Delivery Companies, www.crunchbase.com (access:
19.11.2022).
67. What Is a Commissary Kitchen?, www.webstaurantstore. com (access:
06.04.2023).
68. What is a shared-use kitchen ?, www.thekitchendoor. com (access: 06.04.2023).
69. What You Need to Know About Using Commissary Kitchens, www.xtrachef. com
(access: 06.04.2023).
70. Will COVID-19 Lead to Accelerating Trends?, www.icg.citi.com (access:
25.02.2023).

63
 List of Tables
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of "The Order Only Model" ................... 10
Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of "The Order and Delivery Model" ...... 12
Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of the "Fully Integrated Model" ............ 15
Table 4. Pros and Cons of Cloud Kitchen from owner's perspective .................... 25
Table 5. Pros and Cons of Cloud Kitchens from the customer's perspective........ 29
Table 6. The minimum and maximum cost of starting Cloud Kitchen in Europe ..41

64
 List of Figures
Figure 1. "The Order Only Model" ......................................................................... 9
Figure 2. "The Order and Delivery Model" ............................................................ 11
Figure 3. "The Fully Integrated Model" ................................................................. 13
Figure 4. "An integrated POS solution model " ..................................................... 22

65
 List of Charts
Chart 1. "Maximum orders that respondents receive" ......................................... 37
Chart 2. "Benefits that respondents see with their Cloud Kitchen business" ....... 38
Chart 3. "Top 3 challenges faced by Cloud Kitchen providers" ............................. 39
Chart 4. "Business category of respondents" ........................................................ 40
Chart 5. "Factors that influence respondents' decision to order from Cloud
Kitchen" ........................................................................................................................... 43
Chart 6. "Delivery platforms that respondents prefer to order" .......................... 44
Chart 7. "Factors that respondents consider when assessing the value for money
offered by a Cloud Kitchen" ............................................................................................ 44
Chart 8. "Importance of wide range of menu options" ........................................ 45
Chart 9. "Respondents' concerns " ........................................................................ 46
Chart 10. "Recommendation of a Cloud Kitchen to friends or family" ................. 46
Chart 11. "Factors make respondents more likely to order from a specific Cloud
Kitchen" ........................................................................................................................... 47
Chart 12. "Preferred payment method by respondents" ..................................... 48
Chart 13. "Perception of the overall quality of food from Cloud Kitchens compared
to traditional restaurants" .............................................................................................. 49
Chart 14. "Feeling about Cloud Kitchen menu items pricing compared to similar
offerings from traditional restaurants" .......................................................................... 50
Chart 15. "Importance of attributes when ordering from Cloud Kitchen" ........... 50
Chart 16. "Likelihood of new or experimental Cloud Kitchens menu items." ...... 51
Chart 17. "Overall satisfaction with ordering from Cloud Kitchen" ...................... 52

66
Attachment 1: Customer survey on Cloud Kitchen

67
68
69
70
71
 72

View publication stats