Measuring Café Lovability Using Google’s HEART and Understanding the Roles of Usability, Sustainability Innovation, and Innovation Cocreation in Café Lovability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article offers an interesting comparison of two different but related sectors (technology and coffee shops). After reading the introduction of the article the reader is supposed to have a cup of coffee. This study provides ground for further scientific research both quantitative and qualitative to define, test and apply the measures of lovable products to businesses outside technology and digital offerings. The article is structured and individual chapters have a logical continuity. Results show significant evidence of using Google’s HEART model for the purpose and indicate positive covariant relation of café usability and café innovation with café lovability. I positively evaluate the table, which at the end of the article shows the overall summary of hypotheses and results from tests using SEM analysis.
Author Response
The article offers an interesting comparison of two different but related sectors (technology and coffee shops). After reading the introduction of the article the reader is supposed to have a cup of coffee. This study provides ground for further scientific research both quantitative and qualitative to define, test and apply the measures of lovable products to businesses outside technology and digital offerings. The article is structured and individual chapters have a logical continuity. Results show significant evidence of using Google’s HEART model for the purpose and indicate positive covariant relation of café usability and café innovation with café lovability. I positively evaluate the table, which at the end of the article shows the overall summary of hypotheses and results from tests using SEM analysis.
Thank you so much.
Reviewer 2 Report
I positively evaluate the authors' approach to the processing of the article. However, the article does not correspond to the main meaning of the magazine - sustainability. I recommend that the authors frame the article more in an environment of long-term sustainability in view of current trends. The research background is focused on a general level. Editing resources does not match the article template - there are errors. Some sources are 20 years old - which is unacceptable for this type of article. I recommend correcting the English so that it is more understandable.
Author Response
I positively evaluate the authors' approach to the processing of the article.
However, the article does not correspond to the main meaning of the magazine - sustainability.
Hypothesis H3b tests for association between Café Lovability and innovation Sustainability. Also, more relevant text is now added:
Today, coffee consumers seek more than just a hot drink. Apart from unique flavors, blends, pour over preparation methods that are key to consumption experience; well-aware consumers pay extra premium for coffee that is organic, fair-trade, and sustainably grown. Catering to high-quality and complex demands of customers, specialty coffee shops carefully incorporate innovation and sustainability to deliver a cup that ensures end-end human connection and values. Rooted in concept of new product development and minimum lovable products, this scientific study aims to provide a quantifiable measure of product lovability in cafés. By exploring the under-developed notion of product lovability [9] and further extending it in café setups, the research fulfils the primary objective of defining and introducing a framework for measuring ‘café lovability’.
I recommend that the authors frame the article more in an environment of long-term sustainability in view of current trends.
Thank you for your comment. We added:
With cafes taking active role in sustainability development, understanding the association between café lovability and sustainability in future studies is an interesting avenue. Although research did not provide significant evidence to accept H3b, due to higher covariance and correlation of sustainability innovation and café lovability, it provides new constructs and variables to test within sustainability and café product lovability. There is an opportunity to further reconstruct the research with a focus on sustainable innovation and innovation knowledge creation in context of lovable cafés. Such focused research will provide insight to identify role of knowledge creation aspect of sustainable innovation in notions of café lovability, café innovation, and café innovation co-creation. Hence exploring if product lovability is driven by innovation, usability, or brand love within and outside the context of café.
Furthermore, studies on exploring and understanding café lovability as well as product lovability by virtue of usability (aesthetics, quality and experience) and innovation (co-creation, innovation sustainability and sustainability knowledge) in specialized context of circular economy, food-waste, ethical consumption, eco-friendly production, triple-bottom line, sustainable farming, green economy, as well as even human-nature connection through product aesthetics are some avenues for qualitative and quantitative research in future.
The research background is focused on a general level. Editing resources does not match the article template - there are errors.
We enhanced the research paper based on the respected journal’s template. Please consider the modified version. Thank you.
Some sources are 20 years old - which is unacceptable for this type of article. I recommend correcting the English so that it is more understandable.
We added new resources such as:
Ufer, D., Lin, W., & Ortega, D. L. (2019). Personality traits and preferences for specialty coffee: Results from a coffee shop field experiment. Food Research International, 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108504
Moalem, R. M., & Mosgaard, M. A. (2021). A critical review of the role of repair cafés in a sustainable circular transition. In Sustainability, 13, (22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212351
Higgins-Desbiolles, F., & Wijesinghe, G. (2019). The critical capacities of restaurants as facilitators for transformations to sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(7), 1080–1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1510410
Also, the whole manuscript has been corrected. Please consider the modified version.
Reviewer 3 Report
The title is neither clear nor suggestive to understand the purpose of the paper.
Abstract: the deductive method is mentioned, but it is not presented in the paper; neither the purpose of the work nor the proposed approach is clearly highlighted. More clarity is needed.
Introduction: too short, does not present the context of the elaboration of the paper; it
seems more like a fictional description.
Suggestions for the introduction: the purpose of the paper, the objectives, the context, the approach, the literature, and previous approaches related to the topic.
Theoretical background: requires clarity and exact references, more numerous from the
literature; it would require a clear explanation of what ”Google heart” is, how it contributes to research, and why it was chosen; in fact, there is no actual theoretical framework, but rather a description of a current state with general references to coffee.
Line 147: don’t start the paragraph like that, with […]
From point 3 (line 162) the methodology must be extracted and mentioned in a separate Chapter.
The questions and hypotheses must be grouped in the same subchapter (methodology).
The ideas are quite mixed, it is not understood why there were such different approaches to the product ”coffee”.
What are the concepts on which the work is based?
Chapters 2 and 5 don’t overlap?
Too much talk about coffee and Lovability (it is a qualitative, perceptual aspect, difficult to measure).
On methodology: to clearly highlight the hypotheses, questions, variables, research methods used, and previous literature supporting the research. Are there similar validated research models?
The work must be structured, with the grouping of similar ideas in the same chapters
(subchapters) and with a separate methodology.
The literature is limited.
How was the sample chosen? line 543
Line 560: the picture is not appropriate for the content of the work and the consent of the mentioned person is required.
SPSS tables can be put in the supplementary material.
The discussions are brief and unclear.
Research design is lacking.
Conclusions:
There should be no tables placed in the conclusions.
What is the utility and how to exploit the results?
It should be mentioned whether the objectives of the work have been achieved.
References: to check if they are written according to the requirements of the guideline.
Correlation tables and other statistical data could appear as supplementary material.
Author Response
The title is neither clear nor suggestive to understand the purpose of the paper.
Thank you for your comment. However, we prefer to keep it unchanged as it depicts the objectives of the research.
Abstract: the deductive method is mentioned, but it is not presented in the paper; neither the purpose of the work nor the proposed approach is clearly highlighted. More clarity is needed.
Thank you. Refined.
Introduction: too short, does not present the context of the elaboration of the paper; it
seems more like a fictional description.
Suggestions for the introduction: the purpose of the paper, the objectives, the context, the approach, the literature, and previous approaches related to the topic.
Thank you. Introduction is now refined to clearly state research aim, objectives, approach and context in light of gap in existing research.
Theoretical background: requires clarity and exact references, more numerous from the
literature; it would require a clear explanation of what ”Google heart” is, how it contributes to research, and why it was chosen;
The concept of 'product lovability' / Product Love is not sufficiently referenced or discussed in scholarly research papers. Added elaboration about Google Heart (Line 171-173). Justification of using Googles' Heart is given in covered in section 3 (Line 202-217).
in fact, there is no actual theoretical framework, but rather a description of a current state with general references to coffee.
Thank you for your comment. We added:
With cafes taking active role in sustainability development, understanding the association between café lovability and sustainability in future studies is an interesting avenue. Although research did not provide significant evidence to accept H3b, due to higher covariance and correlation of sustainability innovation and café lovability, it provides new constructs and variables to test within sustainability and café product lovability. There is an opportunity to further reconstruct the research with a focus on sustainable innovation and innovation knowledge creation in context of lovable cafés. Such focused research will provide insight to identify role of knowledge creation aspect of sustainable innovation in notions of café lovability, café innovation, and café innovation co-creation. Hence exploring if product lovability is driven by innovation, usability, or brand love within and outside the context of café.
Furthermore, studies on exploring and understanding café lovability as well as product lovability by virtue of usability (aesthetics, quality and experience) and innovation (co-creation, innovation sustainability and sustainability knowledge) in specialized context of circular economy, food-waste, ethical consumption, eco-friendly production, triple-bottom line, sustainable farming, green economy, as well as even human-nature connection through product aesthetics are some avenues for qualitative and quantitative research in future.
Theoretical concept is based on 1) New Product Development Theory and Minimum Lovable Products, and 2) Brand Love Theory - “fondness of brand”, based on customers’ organized mental prototype arising from cognitions, emotions. Also, we added new resources such as:
Ufer, D., Lin, W., & Ortega, D. L. (2019). Personality traits and preferences for specialty coffee: Results from a coffee shop field experiment. Food Research International, 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108504
Moalem, R. M., & Mosgaard, M. A. (2021). A critical review of the role of repair cafés in a sustainable circular transition. In Sustainability, 13, (22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212351
Higgins-Desbiolles, F., & Wijesinghe, G. (2019). The critical capacities of restaurants as facilitators for transformations to sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(7), 1080–1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1510410
Line 147: don’t start the paragraph like that, with […]
Fixed. (now on Line 228)
From point 3 (line 162) the methodology must be extracted and mentioned in a separate Chapter.
Methodology is now in a separate section.
The questions and hypotheses must be grouped in the same subchapter (methodology).
Questions and hypotheses are derived based on theoretical discussion of each construct (Café Lovability, Café Usability and Café Innovation), and therefore kept in flow of discussion. Questions and Hypothesis related to each construct are kept in their relevant sections to maintain flow.
The ideas are quite mixed, it is not understood why there were such different approaches to the product ”coffee”.
The product being discussed here is the overall experience of coffee consumption and not coffee alone. The selected approach of "product lovability" in café is described in sections 2.2, 3, 4, 5
What are the concepts on which the work is based?
Product Love / Product Lovability / Minimum Lovable Product. There is no research work on these Scientific papers, only professional / industry use e.g. Amazon. The parallel concept is Brand Love which is mentioned and compared.
Chapters 2 and 5 don’t overlap?
Too much talk about coffee and Lovability (it is a qualitative, perceptual aspect, difficult to measure).
Yes, this is what the research is attempting to do - measure it using Google's Heart Framework. Added more clarity in the introduction to clearly explain the aim and objectives.
On methodology: to clearly highlight the hypotheses, questions, variables, research methods used, and previous literature supporting the research. Are there similar validated research models?
There has not been any prior research to measure "product lovability" in cafes. There is commercial research available to measure "customer satisfaction", "experience" and quality at cafes.
The work must be structured, with the grouping of similar ideas in the same chapters
(subchapters) and with a separate methodology.
Fixed chapter and sub-chapter numbers. All main constructs are in separate chapters with relevant sub-chapters. Methodology is separate chapter.
The literature is limited.
Indeed, there does not exist a lot of literature on product lovability, and café love. This research attempts to provide ground for building these concepts further and explains the notion of product lovability and café lovability in light “new product development” and “brand Love”.
How was the sample chosen? line 543
Section 8 – Lines (566-573). A combination of different sampling methods based on cluster sampling (nationality & geographic location); stratified sampling (based on role, interest, and age) and purposive, heterogenous sampling
Line 560: the picture is not appropriate for the content of the work and the consent of the mentioned person is required.
Yes - consent is there. The person mentioned is the researcher. The idea is to provide evidence for such posts.
SPSS tables can be put in the supplementary material.
As this is first of its kind research, and a new model is being constructed, SPSS table to show validation are included.
The discussions are brief and unclear.
Research design is lacking.
Conclusions:
There should be no tables placed in the conclusions.
What is the utility and how to exploit the results?
Thank you. Covered in Lines 897-907, 908-937
It should be mentioned whether the objectives of the work have been achieved.
Covered in Lines 908-937
References: to check if they are written according to the requirements of the guideline.
Thank you. It has been modified based on the respected journal’s template.
Correlation tables and other statistical data could appear as supplementary material.
Thank you for your comment. We think these are considered useful to include as this is a new model and framework being devised.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I recommend publishing
Author Response
I recommend publishing.
Thank you so much.
Reviewer 3 Report
The title - requires revision and adaptation to the specifics of the journal.
The introduction is irrelevant to the paper and does not present the research approach.
Is the work adequate for the purpose and objectives of the journal? Because it's more about marketing and consumer behavior.
Attention to the beginning of line 158!
The methodology must be placed before the start of the research, to explain what will follow clearly.
The methodology is brief and unclear. Please check the methodology development in accordance with the author's guidelines.
Although quantitative statistical analysis is used, the discussions and results are more like descriptive qualitative research. Is not a very well-presented structure of the survey (how many questions, the concepts used to create the survey, etc.)
Linkedin is not a good reference for the performance of this Journal.
If there is no literature related to the paper's topic, how do you support the validity of the research?
Lines 867-873: the idea appears only here, at the end of the paper, in the content none of these aspects were caught. With the working variables used, the paper is a marketing analysis.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your valuable comments. Please consider the modifications we made.
The title - requires revision and adaptation to the specifics of the journal.
Done.
The introduction is irrelevant to the paper and does not present the research approach.
Done necessary updates. The introduction is purposefully written to create a psychological connection of the reader with café setting, thus igniting positive feelings through aesthetics, leisure, and coffee love. Such mental connections as cited [61] are considered sustainable experiences and behaviors.
Is the work adequate for the purpose and objectives of the journal? Because it's more about marketing and consumer behavior.
The discussion of Measuring product lovability experience in café and analyzing the roles of Usability and Innovation (Sustainability Innovation and Sustainability knowledge) in café lovability contributes to building new knowledge in Sustainability in context of café experiences, café innovation, café usability and café lovability. The article provides specific details on further research in the overlapping and multidisciplinary setting of cafés.
Attention to the beginning of line 158!
Done
The methodology must be placed before the start of the research, to explain what will follow clearly.
The methodology is brief and unclear. Please check the methodology development in accordance with the author's guidelines.
Done. Adjusted sections and titles, and numbers.
Although quantitative statistical analysis is used, the discussions and results are more like descriptive qualitative research. Is not a very well-presented structure of the survey (how many questions, the concepts used to create the survey, etc.)
The statistical analysis is covered in Results sections. Discussion is to elaborate it in more descriptive way and outline the key outcomes.
Linkedin is not a good reference for the performance of this Journal.
Done, removed.
If there is no literature related to the paper's topic, how do you support the validity of the research?
Validity is based on comparing the results of research with parallel research in brand love and using the scale items from industry and commercial results.
Lines 867-873: the idea appears only here, at the end of the paper, in the content none of these aspects were caught. With the working variables used, the paper is a marketing analysis.
The variables under the Café innovation construct covers sustainability innovation and sustainability knowledge. The paper creates a logical relation between sustainability and café innovation, café lovability and provides commentary on these lines for future research ideas.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Even if the paper can still be improved, the authors' effort to respond to the revisions' requirements is appreciated.
