Manipal Institute of Management, Manipal. Constituent College of Manipal University
A project report on CHANGE IN BRAND LOYALTY AMONG CIGARETTE SMOKERS ND
MBA 2
Semester
Submitted to: Dr. Manjunath Prasad Subject: Research Methodology Submitted by: GROUP 3; SECTION A Parth Garg (091202006) Amritayan Das (091202085) Stanley John (091202016) Akshatha Amin (091202065) Praveen Hegde (091202108)
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work is a synergistic compilation of many minds. We deem it a privilege to express our deepest gratitude for all the motivation, guidance and encouragement that led us through this tedious yet enjoyable task. We would like to thank the Director of Manipal Institute of Management Dr. K.V.M. Varambally Vara mbally for giving us the opportunity to study in this prestigious institution and giving us a chance to explore the vast field of management. We are highly obliged to Dr.Manjunath Prasad faculty, MIM for guiding us throughout this project and providing us with all the required information and patiently cooperating in our task. We would also like to thank all those who directly or indirectly helped in the preparation of this report.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Topic Objective of study Importance of study Research design Sample design Data collection Statistical tools Hypothesis Analysis Conclusion References Annexure
1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 28 29 29
3
Title: Change in brand loyalty among cigarette smokers. Topic of study: To find out change in brand loyalty among cigarette smokers in response to change in factors determining selection of a particular brand of cigarette. Objectives:
1. To find out the extent of change in brand loyalty among cigarette smokers, due to change in certain factors determining the brand selection. Those factors are mentioned below: y y y y y y y
Price Disposable income of student Taste Awareness Availability Peer pressure Free bees scheme
Importance of study :
1. A view of brand loyalty pattern to cigarette manufacturers (price sensitivity, income sensitivity) 2. An in depth view to students themselves about their consumption pattern. 3. It will act as a base to determine strategies towards cigarettes industry by government (as government government increases increas es tax every year assuming price a nd income elasticity.) 4. This study will also focus on factor leading to initiation of smoking habits amongst youngsters. Scope of the Study
The scope of study is restricted to final year B.tech students of MIT who smoke. Limitations of Study y y y
The sample might not be represented properly. There might be some errors in analysis. Response by respondents might not be unbiased or objective or correctly given.
Research design Type of Research: Analytical method has been used in this research. As the research is related to the study of consumer behavior which can more effectively be studied through direct questions, analytical research will be much effective as here we try to find out by analysising the data that whether whether the various factor s and brand loyalty are related or not.. not..
4
Sample design:
Population: The population size according to our scope of study is all students of B.tech of MIT who smoke. Sampling unit: Final year B.tech students of MIT Source list: NA Size of sample : Sample size is determined by the formula 2
n = Z²²/e
Confidence level= 95% So, Z= 1.96 = 4/6=0.667 Precision error (e) = 0.12 By substituting the values in the above formula we get n = 119. Parameters of interest : To find out that whether the factors and brand loyalty among cigarette smokers are related or not. Budgetary constraint: Has impact on decision related to size of sample and also type of sample so our budgetary constraint is Rs-500/-. Sampling technique (procedure): Here the sampling technique used is convenience sampling. A convenience convenience sample is a sample where the t he items are selected, in part or in whole, at the convenience of the researcher. The researcher makes no attempt, or only a limited attempt, to ensure that this sample is an accurate representation of some larger group or population. The classic example of a convenience sample is standing at a shopping mall and selecting shoppers as they walk by to fill out a survey Data collection: Primary data: we have given questionnaires to 119 respondents and collected information on their smoking habit and their preference to various factors when they start smoking and also when they switch their brand. Secondary data: We have ha ve collected secondary sec ondary data from journals, journals, books, magazines, reports, online articles and search engines regarding factors that are related to cigarette smoking and to get some guidance from the already done studies on this topic
5
STATISTICAL TOOLS USED CROSS TABULATION and HYPOTHESIS TEST: To determine the relation between two variables. In this survey we have crossed tabulated and to determine if there is any significant association between the:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Brand loyalty and price Brand loyalty and Income Brand loyalty and Taste Brand loyalty and Peer pressure Brand loyalty and Availability Brand loyalty and Free bees scheme.
HYPOTHESIS :
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Brand loyalty is not affected by change in price. Brand loyalty is not affected by peer pressure. Brand loyalty is not affected by change in income. Brand loyalty is not affected by scheme of free gift introduced by other brand. People give more importance to t o taste as compared compared to t o other attributes. Brand loyalty is not affected by non availability of their brand. Brand loyalty is not affected by awareness of their brand. There is no significant difference in brand loyalty between regular smokers and occasional s mokers. mokers.
6
ANALYSIS
Variables: following variables used in tables a nd in graphs below are defined as: 1. PRS: represents relevance to price when student started s moking 2. INS: represents relevance to income when student start ed smoking 3. TAS: represents relevance to taste when student start ed smoking 4. AVS: represents relevance to t o availability when student started smoking 5. AWAS : represents relevance t o awareness when student started smoking 6. PPS: represents relevance to peer pressure when student started s moking 7. FREES : represents relevance to free bees when student started smoking 8. PRICE: represents relevance to t o price when a student switches to another brand 9. INCOME : represents relevance to income when a student switches to another brand 10. TASTE : represents relevance to taste when a student switches to a nother brand 11. AVAILABTY : represents relevance to availability when a student switches to another brand 12. AWARNES: represents relevance to awareness when a student switches to another brand 13. PEERPRSR : represents relevance to peer pressure when a student switches to another brand 14. FREEBIES: represents relevance to free bees when a student switches to another brand 15. SMKHBY: represents smoking habit whether regular or occasional FOR ANALYSIS
To determine whether the particular factor is related to brand loyalty or not, we will find out the average preference rating given to that factor by all students when they started smoking. We will also the average preference rating given to those factors by all the students when they are asked about switching from current brand of cigarette to another. Then we will find out the difference between the two preferences and rank them. If difference comes out to be 0 or less than 0, we say the factor is not related to brand loyalty. We keep 0 as the benchmark. If difference comes out to be more than 0 we say that factor is related to brand loyalty. Factors
Price Income Taste Availability Awareness Peer pressure Freebees
Average preference Average preference Difference rating when started rating when switching between later and smoking brand earlier average preference 2.2 4.2 2 2.5 3.8 1.3 3.5 3.5 0 3.6 3.4 -0.2 3 2.4 -0.6 3.8 1.9 -1.9 3.5 2.1 -1.4 Exhibit 1
7
Factor Price Income Taste Availability Awareness Free bies Peer pressure
Difference value 2 1.3 0 -0.2 -0.6 -1.4 -1.6 Exhibit 2
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PRICE AND BRAND LOYALTY
Hypothesis 1 H0: price does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis) H1: price influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis) PRS
Valid
least preferred less preferred moderately preferred highly preferred most preferred Total
Frequency 36 32
Percent 36.0 32.0
Valid Percent 36.0 32.0
Cumulative Percent 36.0 68.0
17
17.0
17.0
85.0
9
9.0
9.0
94.0
6 100
6.0 100.0
6.0 100.0
100.0
6.00%
prs least preferred
9.00%
less preferred preferred moderate moderately ly preferred 36.00%
highlypreferred most most preferred Pies showcounts showcounts
17.00%
32.00%
PRICE
8
Valid
least preferred less preferred moderately preferred highly preferred most preferred preferr ed Total
Frequency 2 5
Percent 2.0 5.0
Valid Percent 2.0 5.0
Cumulative Percent 2.0 7.0
13
13.0
13.0
20.0
31
31.0
31.0
51.0
49 100
49.0 100.0
49.0 100.0
100.0
2.00%5.00%
price least preferred less preferred preferred
13.00%
moderate moderately ly preferred highlypreferred most most preferred Pies showcounts showcounts
49.00%
31.00%
From data we see that only 15% of students consider price to be an important factor when selecting a brand but later 80% of students consider price to be an important factor when it comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that average preference difference for price comes to be 2 i.e. above 0.Also rank of price comes to be 1 . So we say price influences brand loyalty. So we reject the null hypothesis. Further analysis SMKHBY * PRS Cross tabulation
Count
SMKHB Y Total
regular Occasion al
PRS moderately highly most preferred preferred preferred 5 5 3
least preferred 36
less preferred 26
0
6
12
4
3
25
36
32
17
9
6
100
9
Total 75
INCOME AND BRAND LOYALTY
Hypothesis 2 H0: income does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis) H1: income influences brand loyalty (alt ernate hypothesis) INS
Valid
Frequency least preferred 24 less preferred 30 moderately 24 preferred highly 13 preferred most 9 preferred Total 100
.
Percent Percent 24.0 30.0
Cumulative Valid Percent Percent 24.0 24.0 30.0 54.0
24.0
24.0
78.0
13.0
13.0
91.0
9.0
9.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
in
%
l . % . %
t r f rr
l
r f rr
m
r t ly r f rr
i
ly r f rr
m t r f rr i
w
t
. % . %
INCOME
Valid
least preferred less preferred moderately preferred highly preferr ed most preferred preferr ed Total
Frequency 4 6
Percent 4.0 6.0
Valid Percent 4.0 6.0
Cumulative Percent 4.0 10.0
17
17.0
17.0
27.0
51 22 100
51.0 22.0 100.0
51.0 22.0 100.0
78.0 100.0
11
.
% .
in om
%
l
. %
t r f rr
l
r f rr
m
r t ly r f rr
i . %
ly r f rr
m t r f rr i
w
t
. %
F dat data we see t at onl onl 22% of st st dent dents consi consider i der income to be an impor tant ant fact factor when sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later 73% of st s tudent udents consi cons ider i der incomet ncometo be an impor tant ant fact factor when it comes to swit switch chiing from one current curren t brand to anot another bra b rand nd. We W e see that hat average preference difference for i for income comes to be 1.3 i.e. above 0.Al 0.Also rank of i of income comes to be 2. So we say income inf luences brand loyal oyalty. So we reject the null null hypothesi hypothesis. Fur ther anal ana l sis SMKHB SMKHB
* INS Cross tabul tabu lati ation
Count ount
SM
B
R egul egular occasi occas ion al
INS moderat moderatel preferred
least east preferred 24
less preferred 30
0
0
15
6
4
25
24
30
24
13
9
100
Tot Total
highl ghl most most preferred preferred 9 7 5
30
l a t pr f rr d
20
l
pr f rr d
m d rat ly pr f rr d
0
highly pr f rr d 0
r gular
a i nal
12
m
t pr f rr d
Tot Total 75
SMKHB SMKHB
* INCOME INCOME Cross tabul tabulati ation
Count ount
SM
B
regul regular occasi occasion al
Tot Total
least east preferred 4
INC INC M less moderat moderatel highl ghl most most preferred preferred preferred preferred 6 17 36 12
0
0
0
14
11
25
4
6
17
50
23
100
40
least preferred
30
less preferred
20
moderatel preferred
10
highl preferred
most preferred
0
regul ar
Smok ing habit habit R egul egular Occasi Occasional onal
Tot Total 75
occasional
Average preference rati ra ting ng when st star ted smok ing 2.1 3.5
Average preference rati ra ting ng when swit switch chiing brand 3.6 4
From the above cross tabul abu lations tions we see when regul regu lar smokers st star ted smok ing, onl onl 12% of them took i ook income to be an impor tant ant fact factor in sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later when it came to swit switch chiing to anot another brand from current curren t brand, and then he n 58% of them consi cons idered income t o be an impor tant ant fact factor. When occasi occas ional onal smokers st star ted smok ing, onl onl 10% of them took income to be an impor tant ant fact factor i or in sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later when it came to swit sw itch chiing to anot another brand from current curren t brand, then 25% of them consi cons ideredi dered income to be an impor tant ant fact factor.
T STE AND BRAND LOYALT OYALTY Y
Hypot Hypothesi hesis 3 H0: H0: tast aste does not not inf luence brand loyalt oyalty y (null (null hypot hypothesi hesis) H1: H1: tast aste inf luences brand loyalt oyalty y (alt (alterna ernatte hypot hypothesi hesis)
13
TAS
Valid
least preferred less preferred moderately preferred highly preferred most preferred Total
Frequenc y
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
7
7.0
7.0
7.0
13
13.0
13.0
20.0
25
25.0
25.0
45.0
32
32.0
32.0
77.0
23
23.0
23.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
7.
tas
%
l . % . %
t r f rr
l
r f rr
m
r t ly r f rr
i
ly r f rr
m t r f rr i
w
t
. %
. %
TASTE
Valid
least preferred less preferred moderately preferred highly preferred most preferred Total
Frequenc y
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
4
4.0
4.0
4.0
11
11.0
11.0
15.0
27
27.0
27.0
42.0
40
40.0
40.0
82.0
18
18.0
18.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
14
4.
%
taste
8.00%
l
. %
t
l
f f
m i
t l l
m t i
f f
f t
. %
40.00%
From dat data we see that hat onl only 55% of st s tudent udents consi consider tast aste to be an impor tant ant fact factor when sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later 58% of st s tudent udents consi cons ider t der tast aste to be an impor tant ant fact factor when it comes to swit switch chiing from one current curren t brand to anot another brand. We see that hat average preference difference for t for tast aste comes to be 0 i.e. equal equa l to 0.Al 0.Also rank of t of tast aste comes to be 3. So we say taste does not inf luence brand loyal oyalty. So we accept the null null hypothesi hypothesis.
Fur ther anal ana lysi ysis SMKHB SMKHBY * TAS Cross tabul tabulati ation
Count ount
SM HB
regul regular occasi occasion al
Tot Total
TAS moderat moderately highl ghly most most preferred preferred preferred 25 18 12
least east preferred 7
less preferred 13
0
0
0
14
11
25
7
13
25
32
23
100
25 l a t pr f rr d
20
l
15
pr f rr d
m d rat ly pr f rr d
10
highly pr f rr d 5
m 0
r gular
a i nal
15
t pr f rr d
Tot Total 75
SMKHB SMKHBY * TASTE ASTE Cross tabul tabulati ation
Count ount
SM HB
regul regular occasi occasion al
Tot Total
TASTE moderat moderately highl ghly most most preferred preferred preferred 27 23 10
least east preferred 4
less preferred 11
0
0
0
17
8
25
4
11
27
40
18
100
Tot Total 75
30
25
least preferred
20
less preferred
15
moderately preferred
10
highly preferred
5
most preferred
0
regul ar
Smok ing habit habit R egul egular Occasi Occasional onal
occasional
Average preference rati ra ting ng when st star ted smok ing 3.2 4.4
Average preference rati ra ting ng when swit switch chiing brand 3.3 4.3
From the above cross tabul abu lations tions we see when regul regu lar smokers st star ted smok ing,onl ng,only 30% of them took tast aste to be an impor tant ant fact factor in sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later when it came to swit switch chiing to anot another brand from current curren t brand, and then 43% of t of them consi considered tast aste to be an impor tant ant fact factor. When occasi occas ional onal smokers st star ted smok ing, onl only 25% of t of them took t ook tast aste to be an impor tant ant fact factor i or in sel se lecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later when it came to swit sw itch chiing to anot another brand from current curren t brand, then 25% of t of them consi cons idered tast aste to be an impor tant ant fact factor. AVAIL AVAILABILITY AND BRAND LOYALT OYALTY Y
Hypot Hypothesi hesis 4
H0: H0: avail ava ilab abilit ility y does not not inf luence brand loyalt oya lty y (null (null hypot hypothesi hesis) H1: H1: avail ava ilab abilit ility y inf luences brand loyalt oyalty y (alt (alterna ernatte hypot hypothesi hesis)
16
AVS
Valid
least preferred less preferred moderately preferred highly preferred most preferred Total
Frequenc y
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
5
5.0
5.0
5.0
12
12.0
12.0
17.0
23
23.0
23.0
40.0
36
36.0
36.0
76.0
24
24.0
24.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
5.00%
s
av
least preferred 12.00%
24.00%
less preferred preferred moderate moderately ly preferred highlypreferred most most preferred Pies showcounts showcounts
23.00%
36.00%
AVAILBTY
Valid
least preferred less preferred moderately preferred highly preferred most preferred Total
Frequenc y
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
7
7.0
7.0
7.0
9
9.0
9.0
16.0
36
36.0
36.0
52.0
33
33.0
33.0
85.0
15
15.0
15.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
17
7.
availbty
%
. %
l .
%
t r f rr
l
r f rr
m
r t ly r f rr
i
ly r f rr
m t r f rr i
w
t
. % . %
From dat data we see that hat onl only 60% of st s tudent udents consi consider avail ava ilab abilit ility y to be an impor tant ant fact factor when sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later 48% of st s tudent udents consi cons ider avail ava ilab abilit ility y to be an impor tant ant fact factor when it comes to swit switch chiing from one current curren t brand to anot another brand. We see that hat ility average preference di difference for avail ava ilab abilit y comes to be -0.2 i.e. less than 0.Al 0.Also rank of avail availab abilit ility y comes to be 4. So we say avail availab abili ility ty does not inf luence brand loyal oyalty. So we accept the null null hypothesi hypothesis. Fur ther anal ana lysi ysis SMKHB SMKHBY * AVS Cross tabul tabu lati ation
Count ount
SM HB
regul regular occasi occasion al
Tot Total
AVS moderat moderately highl ghly most most preferred preferred preferred 23 22 13
least east preferred 5
less preferred 12
0
0
0
14
11
25
5
12
23
36
24
100
30
least preferred
20
less preferred moderatel preferred
0
highl preferred 0
regular
occasional
18
most preferred
Tot Total 75
SMKHB SMKHBY * AVAILBT AVAILBTY Y Cross tabul tabulati ation Count
SM HB Y
regul regular occasi occasion al
Tot Total
least east preferred 7
AVAILB AVAILBTY less moderat moderately highl ghly most most preferred preferred preferred preferred 9 36 15 8
Tot Total 75
0
0
0
18
7
25
7
9
36
33
15
100
40 least preferred
30
less preferred 20
moderately preferred highly preferred
0
most preferred 0
regular
Smok ing habit habit R egul egular Occasi Occasional onal
occasional
Average preference rati ra ting ng when st star ted smok ing 3.1 4.4
Average preference rati ra ting ng when swit switch chiing brand 3.1 4.2
Fur ther anal ana lysi ysis From the above cross tabul abu lations tions we see when regul regu lar smokers st star ted smok ing, onl only 54% of them took avail ava ilab abilit ility y to be an impor tant ant fact factor i or in sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later when it came to swit switch chiing to anot another brand from current curren t brand, and then 23% of t of them consi cons ideredava deredavail ilab abilit ility y to be an impor tant ant fact factor. When occasi occas ional onal smokers st star ted smok ing, onl only 25% of t of them took avail availab abilit ility y to be an impor tant ant fact factor i or in sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later when it came to swit switch chiing to anot another brand from current curren t brand, then 26% of them consi cons idered avail ava ilab abilit ility y to be an impor tant ant fact factor.
AWAR ENESS AND BRAND LOYALT OYALTY Y
Hypot Hypothesi hesis 5
H0: H0: awareness does not not inf luence brand loyalt oyalty y (null (null hypot hypothesi hesis) H1: H1: awareness inf luences brand loyalt oyalty y (alt (alterna ernatte hypot hypothesi hesis) 19
AWAS
Valid
least preferred less preferred moderately preferred highly preferred most preferred Total
Frequenc y
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
7
7.0
7.0
7.0
16
16.0
16.0
23.0
21
21.0
21.0
44.0
26
26.0
26.0
70.0
30
30.0
30.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
7 00%
awas l eas
preerred pre erred
l ess pre erred
30 00% 00%
odera el y pre erred
1600 16 00% %
h ghl y pre erred os preerred pre erred es sho coun s
2100% 2100%
2600% 2600%
AWARNES
Valid
least preferred less preferred moderately preferred highly preferred most preferred Total
Frequenc y
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
24
24.0
24.0
24.0
34
34.0
34.0
58.0
22
22.0
22.0
80.0
12
12.0
12.0
92.0
8
8.0
8.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
20
.
awar n s
%
l 24. 24. % 2. %
t r f rr
l
r f rr
m
r t ly r f rr
i
ly r f rr
m t r f rr i
w
t
22. 22. %
4. %
From dat da ta we see that hat onl only 56% of st student udents consi consider awarenesst awareness to be an impor tant ant fact factor when sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later 20% of st s tudent udents consi cons ider awarenesst awarenessto be an impor tant ant fact factor when it comes to swit switch chiing from one current current brand to anot another brand. We see that hat average preference di difference for awareness comes to be -0.6 i.e. less than 0.Al 0.Also rank of awareness comes to be 5. So we say awareness does not inf luence brand loyal oyalty. So we accept the null null hypothesi hypothesis. Fur ther anal ana lysi ysis SMKHB SMKHBY * AWAS Cross tabul tabu lati ation
Count ount
SM HB Y
regul regular Occasi Occasion al
Tot Total
AWAS moderat moderately highl ghly most most preferred preferred preferred 21 18 13
least east preferred 7
less preferred 16
0
0
0
8
17
25
7
16
21
26
30
100
30
least preferred less preferred
20
moderatel preferred
10
highl preferred 0
most preferred regular
occasi onal
21
Tot Total 75
SMKHB SMKHBY * AWARNE AWARNES Cross tabul tabulati ation
Count ount
SM HB Y
regul regular occasi occasion al
Tot Total
least east preferred 24
AWAR AWAR NES less moderat moderately highl ghly most most preferred preferred preferred preferred 34 6 7 4
Tot Total 75
0
0
16
5
4
25
24
34
22
12
8
100
35 30 least preferred
25
less preferred
20
moderatel preferred
15
highl preferred
10
most preferred
5 0
regular
Smok ing habit habit R egul egular Occasi Occasional onal
occasi onal
Average preference rati ra ting ng when st star ted smok ing 3.1 4.6
Average preference rati ra ting ng when swit switch chiing brand 2.1 3
From the above cross tabul abu lations tions we see when regul regu lar smokers st star ted smok ing,onl ng,only 31% of them took awareness to be an impor tant ant fact factor i or in sel se lecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later when it came to swit switch chiing to anot another brand from current current brand, and then 11% of them consi cons idered awareness to be an impor tant ant fact factor. When occasi occas ional onal smokers st star ted smok i ok ing, onl only 25% of t of them took awareness to be an impor tant ant fact factor i or in sel selecti ecting ng a brand but but later when it came to swit sw itch chiing to anot another brand from current curren t brand, and then 9% of them consi cons idered awareness to be an impor tant ant fact factor.
PEE EER R PR ESSUR E AND BRAND LOYALT OYALTY Y
H0: H0: peer pressure does not no t inf luence brand loyalt oyalty y (null (null hypot hypothesi hesis) H1: H1: peer pressure inf luences brand loyalt oyalty y (alt (alterna ernatte hypot hypothesi hesis)
22
PPS
Valid
least preferred less preferred moderately preferred highly preferred most preferred Total
Frequenc y
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
3
3.0
3.0
3.0
9
9.0
9.0
12.0
22
22.0
22.0
34.0
36
36.0
36.0
70.0
30
30.0
30.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
3.
% .
pp s
%
l
30. 30.00% 00%
t r f rr
l
r f rr
m
r t ly r f rr
i
ly r f rr
m t r f rr 22. 22. %
i
w
t
36. 36. %
PEERPRSR
Valid
least preferred less preferred moderately preferred highly preferred most preferred Total
Frequenc y
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
37
37.0
37.0
37.0
40
40.0
40.0
77.0
16
16.0
16.0
93.0
5
5.0
5.0
98.0
2
2.0
2.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
23
.00% .00%
pe e r pr s r l
t
l m
.00%
i .00%
f f t l
l
m t
f f
f
i
t
40.00%
From dat data we see that hat onl only 66% of st student udents consi consider peer pressure to be an impor tant ant fact factor when sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later 7% of st student udents consi consider peer pressuret pressure to be an impor tant ant fact factor when it comes to swit switch chiing from one current curren t brand to anot another brand. We see that hat average preference di d ifference for peer pressure comes to be -1.4 i.e. less than 0.Al 0.Also rank of oyalty. So peer pressure comes to be 6. So we say peer pressure does not inf luence brand loyal we accept the null null hypothesi hypothesis. Fur ther anal ana lysi ysis SMKHB SMKHBY * PPS Cross tabul tabulati ation
Count ount
SM HB Y
regul regular occasi occas ion al
least east preferred 3
Tot Total
less preferred 9
PPS moderat moderately highl ghly most most preferred preferred preferred 22 28 13
0
0
0
8
17
25
3
9
22
36
30
100
30 25
least preferred
20
less preferred
15
moderatel preferred
10
highl preferred
5
most preferred
0
regular
Tot Total 75
occasi onal
24
SMKHB SMKHBY * PEE PEERPRSR RPRSR Cross tabul tabu lati ation
Count ount
SM HB Y
regul regular occasi occasion al
Tot Total
least east preferred 37
PEER PEER PR SR less moderat moderately highl ghly most most preferred preferred preferred preferred 26 8 3 1
Tot Total 75
0
14
8
2
1
25
37
40
16
5
2
100
40 35 30
least preferred
25
less preferred
20
moderatel preferred
15
highl preferred
10
most preferred
5 0
regular
Smok ing habit habit R egul egular Occasi Occasional onal
occasional
Average preference rati ra ting ng when st star ted smok ing 3.5 4.6
Average preference rati ra ting ng when swit switch chiing brand 1.7 2.6
From the above cross tabul abu lations tions we see when regul regu lar smokers st star ted smok ing, onl only42% of them took peer pressure to be an impor tant ant fact factor i or in sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later when it came to swit switch chiing to anot another brand from current curren t brand, and then 4% of them consi cons idered peer pressure to be an impor tant ant fact factor. When occasi occas ional onal smokers st star ted smok ing, onl only25% of them took peer pressure to be an impor tant ant fact factor i or in sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later when it came to swit switch chiing to anot another brand from current curren t brand, then 3% of t of them consi cons idered peer pressure to be an impor tant ant fact factor.
FR EE EE BIES AND BRAND LOYALT OYALTY Y
Hypot Hypothesi hesis 7 H0: H0: free bi bies does not no t inf luence brand loyalt oyalty y (null (null hypot hypothesi hesis) H1: H1: free bi bies inf luences brand loyalt oyalty y (alt (alterna ernatte hypot hypothesi hesis)
25
FREES
Valid
least preferred less preferred moderately preferred highly preferred most preferred Total
Frequenc y
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
9
9.0
9.0
9.0
13
13.0
13.0
22.0
21
21.0
21.0
43.0
30
30.0
30.0
73.0
27
27.0
27.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
r ees f rees
9.00% 00%
l 27. 27.00% 00% 3.00% 00%
t r f rr
l
r f rr
m
r t ly r f rr
i
ly r f rr
m t r f rr i
w
t
21. 21.00% 00%
30. 30.00% 00%
FREEBIES
Valid
least preferred less preferred moderately preferred highly preferred most preferred Total
Frequenc y
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
31
31.0
31.0
31.0
39
39.0
39.0
70.0
16
16.0
16.0
86.0
9
9.0
9.0
95.0
5
5.0
5.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
26
.00% 00%
re e bies f re l
9.00% 00% 31. 31.00% 00%
t r f rr
l
r f rr
m
r t ly r f rr
i
ly r f rr
m t r f rr 16. 16.00% 00%
i
w
t
39. 39.00% 00%
From dat data we see that hat onl only 57% of st s tudent udents consi cons ider free bi b ies to be an impor tant ant fact factor when sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later 14% of st s tudent udents consi cons ider free free bies to be an impor tant ant fact factor when it comes to swit switch chiing from one current curren t brand to anot another brand. We see that hat average preference di difference for free bi b ies comes to be -1.9 i.e. less than 0.Al 0.Also rank of free bi b ies comes to be 7. So we say free bi b ies does not inf luence brand loyal oyalty. So we accept the null null hypothesi hypothesis.
Fur ther anal ana lysi ysis SMKHB SMKHBY * FR EES EES Cross tabul tabulati ation
Count ount
SM HB Y
regul regular occasi occasion al
Tot Total
FR EES EES moderat moderately highl ghly most most preferred preferred preferred 21 19 13
least east preferred 9
less preferred 13
0
0
0
11
14
25
9
13
21
30
27
100
30
l a t pr f rr d l
20
pr f rr d
m d rat l pr f rr d 10
highl pr f rr d m
0
r gular
a i nal
27
t pr f rr d
Tot Total 75
SMKHB SMKHBY * FR EEBI EEBIES Cross tabul tabulati ation
Count ount
SM HB Y
regul regular occasi occasion al
Tot Total
FR EEB EEBIES less moderat moderately highl ghly most most preferred preferred preferred preferred 31 5 5 3
least east preferred 31
Tot Total 75
0
8
11
4
2
25
31
39
16
9
5
100
35
30
least preferred
25
less preferred
20
moderatel preferred
15
highl preferred
10
most preferred
5 0 r egular
Smok ing habit habit R egul egular Occasi Occasional onal
occasional
Average preference rati ra ting ng when st star ted smok ing 3.1 4.56
Average preference rati ra ting ng when swit switch chiing brand 1.9 3
From the above cross tabul abu lations tions we see when regul regu lar smokers st star ted smok ing; ng; onl only 32% of them took free bi b ies to be an impor tant ant fact factor in sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later when it came to swit switch chiing to anot another brand from current curren t brand, and then 8% of them consi considered free bi bies t o be an impor tant ant fact factor. When occasi occas ional onal smokers st star ted smok ing, onl only 25% of them took free bi bies to be an impor tant ant fact factor i or in sel selecti ecting ng a brand but bu t later when it came to swit switch chiing to anot another brand from current curren t brand, and then 6% of them consi cons idered free bi b ies to be an impor tant ant fact factor. CONCL CONCLUSION
The anal ana lysi ysis of the dat data coll collec ectted through the questi ques tionna onnaiire br ings out out useful useful informati nformation on about about brand loyalt oyalty y among ci cigarett garettee smokers (st (students of M of MIT). It It tells lls that hat pr ice and income are the fact factors that hat are rel related to brand loyalt oyalty. y. It means that hat any change in pr ice of ci cigarett garette, e, income of st student udent woul would lead to swit sw itch ch from present presen t brand of ci c igarette tte to some ot other brand. Study al a lso shows that hat awareness of exi ex isting ting brands in market market, peer pressure or free gi g if ts or schemes or free bi b ies provi provided by any an y brand bra nd, tast aste and avail ava ilab abilit ility y of t of the brand woul wou ld not not be a successful successful fact factor in gai gaining the cust customers omers bran br and d loyalt oyalty y i.e. awareness, aware ness, peer pressure, pres sure, free fre e bi bies, tast aste and avail ava ilab abilit ility y are fact factors that hat are not not rel related to brand loyalt oyalty y among ci cigarett garettee smokers. 28
REFERENCES
1. Text book: C.R.KOTHARI 2. Wikipedia.org.in 3. India Today magazine
ANNEXURE
QUESTIONNAIRE
To study change in brand loyalty among cigarette smokers in response to change in factors determining selection of a particular brand of cigarette. Dear friends, We are conducting a survey to study change in brand loyalty of cigarette smokers, due to change in certain factors determining the brand selection. The survey is being done for the purpose of our Research Methodology project and the information given by you will be kept confidential with us. We would be grateful if you could spare some time in filling up this questionnaire. NAME (optional):_________________________________________
GENDER:
Female
Male
AGE (in years):_____________
Q1) Are you a regular regula r smoker:
yes
no
Q2) Rate the factors below (from 1 to 5) according to the priority you give, while purchasing/selecting a particular brand of cigarette when you started smoking? smoking? Rating scale:
Factors Rating Price Income Availability Taste Peer pressure Free bees scheme Awareness
1: Least preferred 2: Less preferred 3: Moderately preferred 4: Highly preferred 5: Most preferred
29
Q3) Rate the factors below (from 1 t o 5) according to the priority you give, while switching from a particular brand of cigarette to another brand? Rating scale: 1: Least preferred
Factors Rating Price Income Availability Taste Peer pressure Free bees scheme Awareness
2: Less preferred 3: Moderately preferred 4: Highly preferred 5: Most preferred
Thank you
30
