br final document

8/6/2019 BR Final Document

1/39

CHAPTER NO 1:

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

1


2/39

1.1 Introduction & Background:

Consumers in urban areas drink carbonated drinks on a regular basis as they

increasingly adopt Western lifestyles, especially the younger generation which is

hugely influenced by the Western media. Younger consumers tend to follow Westerneating and drinking habits. There was an increase in demand for carbonated drinks

over the review period. However, some carbonated drinks are expensive compared to

other drinks and are unaffordable for many consumers in rural areas.

Soft drinks are very common in the world of today. People take soft drinks according

to different events. Especially in summer, people always prefer to take soft drinks to

chill out. Soft drinks give energy and pleasure. There are many factors which effects

decision making process of choosing to take which drink. Why people prefer one

drink over other? What are the factors which they consider while choosing soft drink?

Now a day, there are many types of beverages available. Different tastes are available

like Cola, Lemonade, Orange, Apple and twister etc.

We have conducted this survey with the motive to check the brand preference of

carbonated soft drinks offered by Pepsi, Coca Cola, Murree Brewery and Gourmet

Bakers in Lahore. We will study what are the factors that effects people to select a

brand over other? How much consumers are loyal to their brand?

Increasing health and hygiene awareness among Pakistanis has greatly increased sales

of fruit/vegetable juice products. Both the government and the media have started

health awareness campaigns to make Pakistanis realize that consumption of

fruit/vegetable juice is as essential as eating food. Fruit/vegetable juices are doing

very well in both urban and rural areas.

We have done basic research as it has been done to enhance the understanding of

certain problems that commonly occur in organizational settings and seek methods to

solve them. The results of this research can be presented to any organization and can

be used by any organization to solve their problems. We tried to find out people

preferences towards the carbonated soft drinks according to situation, flavor, favorite

companies brand, gender, how advertisement and promotion influence their choices

and perceptions, and what their monthly average expenditures on soft drinks are? We

2


3/39

also studied different factors like family preferences; friends advocacy, thirst

elimination, fun, satisfaction and dependency affect their brand preferences.

3


4/39

CHAPTER NO 2:

PROPOSAL

4


5/39

2.1 Problem Statement:

To study brand preferences of carbonated soft drinks by people based on different

events and occasions.

2.2 Research Objectives: To study favorite soft drink brands based on different demographic factors

like age, gender etc.

To study their drink choices based on different events and occasions.

To study awareness of injurious ingredients which are included in drinks?

To study the impact of advertising on their perception in preferring a drink.

To find out ratings of different drinks

To check the average monthly expenditure on soft drink of whole sample

To study the impact of different factors in preferring a brand

To study the effect of purchasing power (pocket money) on soft drink usage

2.3 Variables:

1. Frequency of usage

2. Advertising effect

3. Seasonal effect

4. Family preference

5. Events effect

6. Packaging effect

7. Flavors effect

8. Price effect

9. Taste effect

10. Fun/ enjoyment

11. Advocacy effect

2.4 Data Needs/Sources:

Data will be collected using primary sources like questionnaires and personnel

observation etc and secondary sources will be collected using literature review etc.

5


6/39

2.5 Sampling Design:

We will categorize our respondents on the basis of gender and profession.

Categorization on the basis of gender is given below.

Gender Categorization

Male

68%

Female

32%

Male

Female

Figure 1 Gender Categorization

Out of 250 of total respondents, 170 will be male and rest of 80 will be female.

Categorization on the basis of profession is given in below.

Professional Categorization

Student

84%

Professionals

16%

Student Professionals

Figure 2 Professional Categorization

6


7/39

2.6 Population:

We will choose teenagers between the age of 13 to 19 and youngsters from the age of

20 to 26, both male and female living in the major metropolitan areas of Lahore like

Johar Town, Model Town, Gulberg, Iqbal Town, Shahdra, Cantt, Ichra and ShadBagh etc. Also, we will visit some universities as well like Punjab University etc. We

will focus that our desired respondents should have an educated background so that

they will be able to understand our questionnaire and answer them accordingly.

2.7 Sampling Method:

We will use clustering sampling method technique.

2.8 Sampling Size:

Sample size will be 250 individuals, which will include mostly students and some

professionals.

2.9 Sampling Unit:

Our sampling unit for the said research will be markets located in major areas of

Lahore like Johar Town, Model Town, Gulberg, Iqbal Town, Shahdra, Cantt, Mustafa

Town, Shad Bagh and Ichra etc. Also, we will visit some universities as well.

2.10 Sampling Elements:

We will focus on students as our major sampling elements and some professionals as

well.

2.11 Detail Of The Method:

We will use descriptive research design approach; we will clearly describe the

objective and aim of our research, which is the major objective of descriptive research

design. We will use single cross sectional design for our research as we will go to our

respondent only once. We will clearly describe our topic of research, characteristics

of different drinks on whom we are going to perform survey and we will also make

some specific prediction about our research.

We will use two major methods of conducting descriptive research.

Survey methods

Observation methods

7


8/39

Survey Methods

We will develop a structured questionnaire that will be offered to respondents to get

the specific information and feedback about brand preferences of carbonated soft

drinks. Further, we will use the Mall Intercept Surveys, by visiting the markets and

universities. We will focus on the questions and variables that have direct impact on

the people perceptions.

Observation Methods

Before developing the final structured questionnaire, we will execute an unstructured

observation to record the behavioral patterns of teenagers and youngsters in events

without specifying the details in advance about soft drink brands.

8


9/39

CHAPTER NO 3:

FINDINGS

9


10/39

3.1 Data Analysis:

3.1.1 Favorite Soft Drink Brands Based On Gender:

Soft Drinks Usage * Respondent Gender Cross tabulation

% of Total

Respondent Gender

TotalMale Female

Soft Drinks Usage Daily 38.2% 18.3% 56.5%

Twice a week 14.6% 2.8% 17.5%

Weekly 5.7% 5.3% 11.0%

Monthly 1.6% 1.2% 2.8%

Occasionally 4.9% 2.8% 7.7%

Rarely 3.3% 1.2% 4.5%

Total 68.3% 31.7% 100.0%

This table shows the frequency of consumption of carbonated beverages by both male

and female as daily, weekly, monthly, occasionally and rarely bases. Here we found

that about 56.5% of people in our total sample size are taking soft drinks on daily

bases. Out of this weight age, 38.2% are males and rest 18.3% are females. Similarly,

17.5% people say that they take soft drinks twice a week, out of which 14.6% aremales and 2.8% are females. People who claim that they take soft drinks on weekly

basis are 11.0% of total sample size out of them 5.7% is males and rest 5.3% are

females. People who tend to consume soft drinks on monthly, occasionally and rarely

contain the weight age of 2.8%, 7.7% and 4.5% respectively. Where division between

male and female is 1.6% and 1.2% monthly, 4.9% and 2.8% occasionally and 3.3%

and 1.2% rarely.

10


11/39

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 8.859a 5 .115

Likelihood Ratio 9.220 5 .101

Linear-by-Linear Association .311 1 .577

N of Valid Cases 246

a. 3 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected

count is 2.22.

Ho: There is no significant difference in the opinions of different genders about soft

drink usage.

H1: There is significant difference in the opinions of different genders about soft

drink usage.

On the basis of this available result, we will accept Ho and reject Hi as P-value 0.115

is greater than confidence interval 0.025. So we can interpret that there is not any

significant confliction in the consumption of carbonated soft drinks on the basis of

different genders.

Model Summary

Model R R SquareAdjusted R

SquareStd. Error of the

Estimate

1 .036a .001 -.003 1.488

a. Predictors: (Constant), Respondent Gender

This table represents the power of this regression model we created to test our

hypothesis. We can interpret that this is weak regression model that does not give any

accurate and reliable results since power of this model is 0.001.

11


12/39

3.1.2 Favorite Soft Drink Brands Based On Age:

Soft Drinks Usage * Respondent Age Cross tabulation

% of Total

Respondent Age

Total13-16 17-20 21-23 24-26

Soft Drinks Usage Daily 2.4% 13.5% 27.8% 13.1% 56.7%

Twice a week 2.0% 2.4% 9.8% 3.3% 17.6%

Weekly .4% 2.4% 6.9% 1.2% 11.0%

Monthly .4% .8% 1.2% 2.4%

Occasionally .4% 1.2% 5.3% .8% 7.8%

Rarely .8% .4% 1.6% 1.6% 4.5%

Total 6.1% 20.4% 52.2% 21.2% 100.0%

This table vaunts the frequency of consumption of both males and females as far as

the element of age is concerned. The overall consumption criteria is same that we

explored in last table as far as daily, weekly, monthly, occasionally and rarely

incidents are concerned. Here we noticed that the 2.4% of people between the age

ranges of 13-16 tend to consume soft drinks in daily basis, 2% twice a week, 0.4%

weekly, 0.4% occasionally and only 0.8% take them rarely.

Second age range is between 17-20, here we explored that 13.5% take drinks daily,

2.4% twice a week and weekly, 0.4% monthly, 1.2% occasionally and only 0.4%

consume drinks rarely.

Third age range is between 21-23, here 27.8% take drinks daily, 9.8% twice a week,

6.9% weekly, 0.8% monthly, 5.3% occasionally and only 1.6% consume drinks

rarely.

Fourth and final age category is in between the age of 24-26, here we found that

13.1% tend to take drinks daily, 3.3% twice a week, 1.2% weekly and monthly, 0.8%

occasionally and 1.6% like to consume drinks rarely.

12


13/39

Ho: There is no significant difference in the opinions of different people of differentage groups about soft drink usage.

H1: There is significant difference in the opinions of different people of different age

groups about soft drink usage.


is greater than confidence interval 0.025. So we can interpret that there not significant

confliction in the consumption patrons of carbonated soft drinks among the

respondents who belong to different age groups.

3.1.3 Favorite Soft Drink Brands Based On Education:

13

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)





a. 12 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is .37.


14/39

Soft Drinks Usage * Respondent Education Cross tabulation

% of Total

Respondent Education

TotalUnder Matric Matriculation Intermediate Graduation Masters

Soft

Drinks

Usage

Daily 1.6% 1.2% 7.7% 25.1% 21.1% 56.7%

Twice a

week.8% 1.2% 2.4% 6.9% 6.1% 17.4%

Weekly 2.8% 4.0% 4.0% 10.9%

Monthly .4% .4% 2.0% 2.8%

Occasionally .4% 1.2% 4.0% 2.0% 7.7%

Rarely .4% .4% 2.0% 1.6% 4.5%

Total 2.8% 3.2% 14.6% 42.5% 36.8% 100.0%

This table displays the usage patron of people, both male and female under the

category of their current educational status. The aggregate percentage of consumption

based on incidents is still same as shown in last two tables.

Here we can observe that our respondents who are under matriculation, 1.6% of them

consume soft drinks daily, 0.8% twice a week, no one is agree that he takes soft

drinks weekly, monthly and occasionally and only 0.4% of respondents say that they

use drinks rarely.

In the same way, respondents who are in matriculation, 1.2% of them consume drinksdaily and weekly, no one is agree that he takes soft drinks weekly and monthly, 0.4%

occasionally and rarely as well.

Third education category is intermediate, where 7.7% say that they take drinks daily,

2.4% twice a week, 2.8% weekly, 0.4% monthly, 1.2% occasionally and 2% rarely.

Fourth category is graduation, where 25.1% say that they take drinks daily, 6.9%

twice a week, 4.0% weekly, 0.4% monthly, 4% occasionally and 2% claims that they

take drinks rarely.

Last category is masters, where 21.1% say that they take drinks daily, 6.1% twice a

week, 4.0% weekly, 2.0% monthly and occasionally as well only and 1.6% claims

that they take drinks rarely.

14


15/39

In the end, we can assert that respondents belong to graduation and masters are tend

to consume carbonated soft drinks very much higher than others categories of

education we choose to conduct this survey.

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)







Ho: There is no significant difference in the opinions of different people of different

educational background about soft drink usage.

H1: There is significant difference in the opinions of different people of different

educational background about soft drink usage.


is greater than confidence interval 0.025. So we can interpret that there is not

significant confliction in the consumption patrons of carbonated soft drinks amongthe respondents who belong to different educational backgrounds.

15


16/39

3.1.4 Awareness Of Injurious Ingredients Which Are Included In

Drinks:

Soft Drink Contains Injurious ingredients

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Yes 110 44.0 44.4 44.4

No 138 55.2 55.6 100.0

Total 248 99.2 100.0

Missing System 2 .8

Total 250 100.0

This table shows the results of our investigative question either carbonated soft drinks

contain the ingredients that are injurious for health or not? We also requested the

respondents to mention the name of that ingredient in case of positive response.

From this table we can interpret that out of 250 respondents, 110 agrees that these

most of carbonated drinks contain ingredients that are injurious for human body and

health as well. Injuries ingredients they mentioned are Caffeine, carbonated gas, acids

and sugar. They also contain 44.4% of total sample size.

Out of rest 140 respondents, 138 claim that soft drinks do not contain any injuries

ingredients for health and they are not inhibited at all while drinking them. They

contain about 55.2% of total sample size. Here it is essential to tell that 2 respondents

did not inform us about their point view regarding this problem.

The respondents positive or negative comments about the opinion that most of

carbonated drinks are filled with ingredients that are injuries for health can be

displayed with the help of this diagram too.

16


17/39


18/39

which is given below, we can conclude that most of the people prefer cola in parties,

on other hand; twister is the flavor which is least used in parties.

3.1.6 Impact Of Advertising On Their Perception In Preferring A

Drink:

Advertisement Influence To Test Drink * Respondent Age Cross tabulation

% of Total

Respondent Age

Total13-16 17-20 21-23 24-26

Advertisement Influence To

Test Drink

Always 2.0% 8.2% 3.7% 13.9%

Sometimes 3.7% 9.0% 26.5% 6.9% 46.1%

Often .8% 4.9% 9.8% 4.1% 19.6%

Rare .4% 2.9% 5.3% 1.2% 9.8%

Never 1.2% 1.6% 2.9% 4.9% 10.6%

Total 6.1% 20.4% 52.7% 20.8% 100.0%

We took 250 respondents from these respondents 6.1%are from age of 13-16 and

20.4% are from age of 17-21, 52.7% are from age of 21-23 and respondents are from

age of 24-26 are 20.8%.

Now we are studying the effect of advertisement to taste a new drink with respect to

the age of respondent. Results shows that out of 250 respondents 13.9 % agree that

advertisement always influence to taste a brand. From these 13.9% respondents, 8.2%

18


19/39

respondents are from age of 21-23 and 3.7% respondents are from age of 24-26 and

2.0% respondents are from age of 17-20 while age range of 13-16 agree that

advertisement not influence to taste a brand.

Results shows that out of 250 respondents 46.1 % agree that advertisement sometimes

influence to taste a brand. From these 46.1% respondents, 26.5% respondents are

from age of 21-23 and 9.0% respondents are from age of 17-20 and 6.9%

respondents are from age of 24-26 .and response of age range from 13-16 is 3.7 %

about sometimes influence of advertisement to taste a new brand.

Results shows that out of 250 respondents 19.6 % agree that advertisement often

influence to taste a brand. From these 19.6% respondents, 9.8% respondents are from

age of 21-23 and 4.9% respondents are from age of 17-20 and 4.1% respondents are

from age of 24-26 .and response of age range from 13-16 is 0.8 % about often

influence of advertisement to taste a new brand.

Results show that out of 250 respondents 9.8 % agree that advertisement rare


age of 21-23 and 2.9% respondents are from age of 17-20 and 1.2% respondents are

from age of 24-26 .and response of age range from 13-16 is 0.4 % about Rare


Results shows that out of 250 respondents 10.6 % agree that advertisement never


age of 21-23 and 1.6 % respondents are from age of 17-20 and 4.9% respondents are

from age of 24-26 .and response of age range from 13-16 is 1.2% about never


Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)






expected count is 1.47.

19


20/39

Ho = There is no significant difference in the opinion of advertisement influence to

test drink by different age groups.

Hi = There is significant difference in the opinion of advertisement influence to test

drink by different age groups.

As p value is 0.038 in chi-square test which is less than alpha i-e 0.05. Since, 0.038 0.05 so accept Ho and results are insignificant. So, based on our sample with

95% confidence level, we can say that there is no significant difference in the opinion

of advertisement influence to test drink by different genders.

3.1.8 Advertisement Role In Selecting A Drink:

Advertisement Role in Selecting Drink


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Yes 193 77.2 77.2 77.2

No 57 22.8 22.8 100.0

Total 250 100.0 100.0

In this section we are studying the influence of advertisement to select a brand. From

the sample of 250 Respondents 193 respondents that are the 77.2% of total agree on

21


22/39

that the advertisement influence to select a brand while 57 respondents those are the

22.8% of total said that advertisement not influence to select a brand.

We take 1 for Yes and 2 for No and the results shows the mean of data is 1.23which is most near to the 1 its means the most of the respondents agree on that the

advertisement influence to select a brand.

22


23/39

3.1.9 Average Monthly Expenditure On Soft Drink Of Whole

Sample:

Personal Monthly Average Expenditure


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Up to 200 57 22.8 23.4 23.4

200 to 500 74 29.6 30.3 53.7

500 to 750 59 23.6 24.2 77.9

750 to 1000 36 14.4 14.8 92.6

More than 1000 18 7.2 7.4 100.0

Total 244 97.6 100.0

Missing System 6 2.4

Total 250 100.0

From our 250 respondents the 57 respondents 22.8% of total are spending up to

Rs.200 And 74 respondents they are the 29.6% of total are spending between Rs200-

Rs.500 And 59 respondents they are the 23.6% of total are spending between Rs.500-

Rs.750 and 36 respondents they are the 14.4% of total are spending between Rs.750-Rs.1000 and 18 respondents they are the 7.2 % of total are spending More

Rs.1000.Six respondent never gave the answer of this question they are only the 2.4

% of total.

23


24/39

We took

1 for up to 200

2 for 200-500

3 for 500-750

4 for 750-1000

5 for more then 1000

And the results shows that the mean of the data is 2.52 almost between the 2 and 3

which means the average monthly expenditure of the people on soft drink beverages

is almost between the 500 to 750.

3.1.10 Impact Of Different Factors In Preferring A Brand:Advertisement Effect On Brand Preference


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Low 18 7.2 7.4 7.4

1 15 6.0 6.2 13.6

2 36 14.4 14.8 28.4

3 29 11.6 11.9 40.3

4 54 21.6 22.2 62.6

High 91 36.4 37.4 100.0

Total 243 97.2 100.0


Total 250 100.0

24


25/39

We asked the people to rate the advertisement effect on brand preference from a scale

of 0 to 5 according to their own perception, where 0 represents lowest and 5 for

highest likeness.

Here we found that out of total sample size of 250 respondents, 7.4% rated 0, 6.2%

rated 1, 14.8% rated 2, 11.9% rated 3, 22.2% rated 4 and 37.4% rated 5 highest

likeness. We also interpreted that majority of respondents rated 5 that shows the

advertisement effect on brand preference is liked up to highest level.

25


26/39

Family Effect On Brand Preference


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Low 25 10.0 10.3 10.3

1 26 10.4 10.7 21.0

2 29 11.6 11.9 32.9

3 55 22.0 22.6 55.6

4 69 27.6 28.4 84.0

High 39 15.6 16.0 100.0

Total 243 97.2 100.0


Total 250 100.0

We asked the people to rate the Family effect on brand preference from a scale of 0 to

5 according to their own perception, where 0 represents lowest and 5 for highest

likeness.


rated 1, 11.9% rated 2, 22.6% rated 3, 28.4% rated 4 and 16% rated 5 highest

26


27/39


family effect on brand preference is liked up to high level.

Friend Effect On Brand Preference


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Low 8 3.2 3.3 3.3

1 15 6.0 6.2 9.5

2 23 9.2 9.5 19.0

3 67 26.8 27.7 46.7

4 85 34.0 35.1 81.8

High 44 17.6 18.2 100.0

Total 242 96.8 100.0


Total 250 100.0

27


28/39

We asked the people to rate the friend effect on brand preference from a scale of 0 to

5 according to their own perception, where 0 represents lowest and 5 for highest

likeness.




friend effect on brand preference is liked up to high level.

Thirst Elimination Effect On Brand Preference


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Low 13 5.2 5.5 5.5

1 23 9.2 9.7 15.1

2 42 16.8 17.6 32.8

3 60 24.0 25.2 58.0

4 59 23.6 24.8 82.8

High 41 16.4 17.2 100.0

Total 238 95.2 100.0


Total 250 100.0

28


29/39

We asked the people to rate the thirst elimination effect on brand preference from a

scale of 0 to 5 according to their own perception, where 0 represents lowest and 5 for

highest likeness.



likeness. We also interpreted that majority of respondents rated 3 that shows the thirst

elimination effect on brand preference is liked up to moderate level.

29


30/39

Fun Effect on brand preference


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Low 20 8.0 8.3 8.3

1 15 6.0 6.2 14.5

2 43 17.2 17.8 32.2

3 53 21.2 21.9 54.1

4 57 22.8 23.6 77.7

High 54 21.6 22.3 100.0

Total 242 96.8 100.0


Total 250 100.0

30


31/39

We asked the people to rate the fun effect on brand preference from a scale of 0 to 5

according to their own perception, where 0 represents lowest and 5 for highest

likeness.



likeness. We also interpreted that majority of respondents rated 4 that shows the fun

effect on brand preference is liked up to high level.

Satisfaction Effect on brand preference


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Low 14 5.6 5.8 5.8

1 28 11.2 11.6 17.4

2 29 11.6 12.0 29.5

3 37 14.8 15.4 44.8

4 57 22.8 23.7 68.5

High 76 30.4 31.5 100.0

Total 241 96.4 100.0


Total 250 100.0

31


32/39

We asked the people to rate the satisfaction effect on brand preference from a scale of

0 to 5 according to their own perception, where 0 represents lowest and 5 for highest

likeness.


rated 1, 12% rated 2, 15.4% rated 3, 23.7% rated 4 and 31.5% rated 5 highest


satisfaction effect on brand preference is liked up to highest level.

32


33/39

Dependency Effect on brand preference


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Low 42 16.8 17.6 17.6

1 32 12.8 13.4 31.0

2 36 14.4 15.1 46.0

3 63 25.2 26.4 72.4

4 40 16.0 16.7 89.1

HIgh 26 10.4 10.9 100.0

Total 239 95.6 100.0


Total 250 100.0

33


34/39

We asked the people to rate the dependency effect on brand preference from a scale

of 0 to 5 according to their own perception, where 0 represents lowest and 5 for

highest likeness.




dependency effect on brand preference is liked up to moderate level.

3.1.11 Effect Of Purchasing Power (Pocket Money) On Soft Drink

Usage:

Above table shows the effect of respondent pocket money on soft drink usage. 57.1%

respondents told us that their usage of soft drink is on daily basis. Out of those 57.1%,

1.2% of respondents are those who have pocket money up to 500, 5.3% of

respondents are those who have pocket money from 500 to 1500, 12.2% ofrespondents are those who have pocket money from 1500 to 3000m 17.1%

respondents are those who have pocket money from 3000 to 6000 and 21.2% of

respondents are those who have pocket money more than 6000.

17.1% respondents told us that their usage of soft drink is twice a week. Out of those

17.1%, 1.6% of respondents are those who have pocket money up to 500, 2% of

34

Soft Drinks Usage * Respondent Pocket Money Cross tabulation

% of Total

Respondent Pocket Money

TotalUp to 500 500 - 1500 1500 - 3000 3000 - 6000 More than 6000

Soft

Drinks

Usage

Daily 1.2% 5.3% 12.2% 17.1% 21.2% 57.1%

Twice a

week1.6% 2.0% 3.7% 4.9% 4.9% 17.1%

Weekly .8% 2.0% 1.6% 3.7% 2.9% 11.0%

Monthly .4% .8% .4% 1.2% 2.9%

Occasionall

y2.0% 2.0% 1.6% 1.6% 7.3%

Rarely .4% .4% .4% .8% 2.4% 4.5%

Total 4.5% 11.8% 20.8% 28.6% 34.3% 100.0%


35/39

respondents are those who have pocket money from 500 to 1500, 3.7% of

respondents are those who have pocket money from 1500 to 3000, 4.9% respondents

are those who have pocket money from 3000 to 6000 and 4.9% of respondents are

those who have pocket money more than 6000.

11% respondents told us that their usage of soft drink is on weekly basis. Out of those

11%, .8% of respondents are those who have pocket money up to 500, 2% of



are those who have pocket money from 3000 to 6000 and 2.9% of respondents are

those who have pocket money more than 6000.

2.9% respondents told us that their usage of soft drink is on monthly basis. Out of

those 2.9%, .4% of respondents are those who have pocket money up to 500, 0% of

respondents are those who have pocket money from 500 to 1500, .8% of respondents

are those who have pocket money from 1500 to 3000, .4% respondents are those who

have pocket money from 3000 to 6000 and 1.2% of respondents are those who have

pocket money more than 6000.

7.3% respondents told us that their usage of soft drink is occasionally. Out of those

7.3%, .0% of respondents are those who have pocket money up to 500, 2% of

respondents are those who have pocket money from 500 to 1500, 2% of respondents

are those who have pocket money from 1500 to 3000, 1.6% respondents are those

who have pocket money from 3000 to 6000 and 1.6% of respondents are those who

have pocket money more than 6000.

4.5% respondents told us that their usage of soft drink is rarely. Out of those 4.5%,

0.4% of respondents are those who have pocket money up to 500, 0.4% of



are those who have pocket money from 3000 to 6000 and 2.4% of respondents arethose who have pocket money more than 6000.

35


36/39

Chi-Square Tests

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)



Linear-by-Linear Association 1.888 1 .169




Ho: There is no significant influence of pocket money on soft drink usage.

HA: There is significant influence of pocket money on soft drink usage.

As p value is 0.408 in chi-square test which is greater than alpha i-e 0.05. Since,

0.408 > 0.05 so accept Ho and results are insignificant. So, based on our sample with

95% confidence level we can say that there is no significant influence of pocket

money on soft drink usage.

Model Summary

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .088a .008 .004 1.475

a. Predictors: (Constant), Respondent Pocket Money

As value of r square is 0.008, so correlation of coefficient is weak.

3.2 Coding scheme

We have used SPSS for data analysis. Also, we will submit data file of SPSS.

36


37/39

CHAPTER NO 4:

TIMEFRAME & BUDGET

37


38/39

4.1 Time frame

38


39/39

4.2 Budget

Detail Amount (Rs)

Transportation Charges 900

Photo Copy Charges 1000

Printing Charges 100Total 2000

4.3 References http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15281041

http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/5/1/60
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15281041http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/5/1/60http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15281041http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/5/1/60

br final document

Documents