brand loyalty of cigarette smokers
TRANSCRIPT
Manipal Institute of Management, Manipal.
Constituent College of Manipal University
A project report
on
CHANGE IN BRAND LOYALTY AMONG CIGARETTE SMOKERS
MBA 2ND 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 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 1Topic 1Objective of study 1Importance of study 1Research design 1Sample design 2Data collection 2Statistical tools 3Hypothesis 3Analysis 4Conclusion 28References 29Annexure 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:
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 increases tax every year assuming price and 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
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 the various factors and brand loyalty are related or 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
n = Z²σ²/e2
Confidence level= 95%
So, Z= 1.96
σ = 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 sample is a sample where the 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 collected secondary data from 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. Brand loyalty and price2. Brand loyalty and Income3. Brand loyalty and Taste4. Brand loyalty and Peer pressure5. Brand loyalty and Availability6. Brand loyalty and Free bees scheme.
HYPOTHESIS:
1. Brand loyalty is not affected by change in price.2. Brand loyalty is not affected by peer pressure.3. Brand loyalty is not affected by change in income.4. Brand loyalty is not affected by scheme of free gift introduced by other brand.5. People give more importance to taste as compared to other attributes.6. Brand loyalty is not affected by non availability of their brand.7. Brand loyalty is not affected by awareness of their brand.8. There is no significant difference in brand loyalty between regular smokers and
occasional smokers.
6
ANALYSIS
Variables: following variables used in tables and in graphs below are defined as:
1. PRS: represents relevance to price when student started smoking2. INS: represents relevance to income when student started smoking3. TAS: represents relevance to taste when student started smoking4. AVS: represents relevance to availability when student started smoking5. AWAS: represents relevance to awareness when student started smoking 6. PPS: represents relevance to peer pressure when student started smoking7. FREES: represents relevance to free bees when student started smoking8. PRICE: represents relevance to price when a student switches to another brand9. INCOME: represents relevance to income when a student switches to another brand10. TASTE: represents relevance to taste when a student switches to another brand11. AVAILABTY: represents relevance to availability when a student switches to
another brand12. AWARNES: represents relevance to awareness when a student switches to another
brand13. PEERPRSR: represents relevance to peer pressure when a student switches to
another brand14. FREEBIES: represents relevance to free bees when a student switches to another
brand15. 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 Average preference rating when started smoking
Average preference rating when switching brand
Difference between later and earlier average preference
Price 2.2 4.2 2Income 2.5 3.8 1.3Taste 3.5 3.5 0Availability 3.6 3.4 -0.2Awareness 3 2.4 -0.6Peer pressure 3.8 1.9 -1.9Freebees 3.5 2.1 -1.4
Exhibit 1
7
Factor Difference value RankPrice 2 1Income 1.3 2Taste 0 3Availability -0.2 4Awareness -0.6 5Free bies -1.4 6Peer pressure -1.6 7
Exhibit 2
PRICE AND BRAND LOYALTY
Hypothesis 1
H0: price does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)
H1: price influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)
PRS
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative Percent
Valid least preferred 36 36.0 36.0 36.0less preferred 32 32.0 32.0 68.0moderately preferred
17 17.0 17.0 85.0
highly preferred
9 9.0 9.0 94.0
most preferred 6 6.0 6.0 100.0Total 100 100.0 100.0
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
prs
Pies show counts
36.00%
32.00%
17.00%
9.00%
6.00%
PRICE
8
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative Percent
Valid least preferred 2 2.0 2.0 2.0less preferred 5 5.0 5.0 7.0moderately preferred
13 13.0 13.0 20.0
highly preferred
31 31.0 31.0 51.0
most preferred 49 49.0 49.0 100.0Total 100 100.0 100.0
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
price
Pies show counts
2.00%5.00%
13.00%
31.00%
49.00%
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 analysisSMKHBY * PRS Cross tabulation
Count
PRS
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
regular 36 26 5 5 3 75Occasional
0 6 12 4 3 25
Total 36 32 17 9 6 100
9
regular occasional05
10152025303540
least preferredless preferredmoderately preferredhighly preferredmost preferred
SMKHBY * PRICE Cross tabulation
Count
PRICE
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
regular 2 5 13 31 24 75occasional
0 0 0 0 25 25
Total 2 5 13 31 49 100
regular occasional05
101520253035
least preferredless preferredmoderately preferredhighly preferredmost preferred
Smoking habit Average preference rating when started smoking
Average preference rating when switching brand
Regular 2.2 4.2Occasional 2.9 3.4
From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking, only 8% of them took price to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, and then 56% of them considered price to be an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 7% of them took price to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, then 25% of them considered price to be an important factor.
10
INCOME AND BRAND LOYALTY
Hypothesis 2
H0: income does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)
H1: income influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)
INS
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative Percent
Valid least preferred 24 24.0 24.0 24.0less preferred 30 30.0 30.0 54.0moderately preferred
24 24.0 24.0 78.0
highly preferred
13 13.0 13.0 91.0
most preferred
9 9.0 9.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
ins
Pies show counts
24.00%
30.00%
24.00%
13.00%
9.00%
INCOME
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative Percent
Valid least preferred 4 4.0 4.0 4.0less preferred 6 6.0 6.0 10.0moderately preferred
17 17.0 17.0 27.0
highly preferred 51 51.0 51.0 78.0most preferred 22 22.0 22.0 100.0Total 100 100.0 100.0
11
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
income
Pies show counts
4.00%6.00%
17.00%
50.00%
23.00%
From data we see that only 22% of students consider income to be an important factor when selecting a brand but later 73% of students consider income to be an important factor when it comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that average preference difference for income comes to be 1.3 i.e. above 0.Also rank of income comes to be 2. So we say income influences brand loyalty. So we reject the null hypothesis.
Further analysis
SMKHBY * INS Cross tabulation
Count
INS
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
Regular 24 30 9 7 5 75occasional
0 0 15 6 4 25
Total 24 30 24 13 9 100
regular occasional05
1015202530 least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
12
SMKHBY * INCOME Cross tabulation
Count
INCOME
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
regular 4 6 17 36 12 75occasional
0 0 0 14 11 25
Total 4 6 17 50 23 100
regular occasional05
10152025303540
least preferredless preferredmoderately preferredhighly preferredmost preferred
Smoking habit Average preference rating when started smoking
Average preference rating when switching brand
Regular 2.1 3.6Occasional 3.5 4
From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking, only 12% of them took income to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, and then 58% of them considered income to be an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 10% of them took income to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, then 25% of them considered income to be an important factor.
TASTE AND BRAND LOYALTY
Hypothesis 3
H0: taste does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)
H1: taste influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)
13
TAS
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid least preferred
7 7.0 7.0 7.0
less preferred
13 13.0 13.0 20.0
moderately preferred
25 25.0 25.0 45.0
highly preferred
32 32.0 32.0 77.0
most preferred
23 23.0 23.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
tas
Pies show counts
7.00%
13.00%
25.00%
32.00%
23.00%
TASTE
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid least preferred
4 4.0 4.0 4.0
less preferred
11 11.0 11.0 15.0
moderately preferred
27 27.0 27.0 42.0
highly preferred
40 40.0 40.0 82.0
most preferred
18 18.0 18.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
14
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
taste
Pies show counts
4.00%
11.00%
27.00%
40.00%
18.00%
From data we see that only 55% of students consider taste to be an important factor when selecting a brand but later 58% of students consider taste to be an important factor when it comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that average preference difference for taste comes to be 0 i.e. equal to 0.Also rank of taste comes to be 3. So we say taste does not influence brand loyalty. So we accept the null hypothesis.
Further analysis
SMKHBY * TAS Cross tabulationCount
TAS
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
regular 7 13 25 18 12 75occasional
0 0 0 14 11 25
Total 7 13 25 32 23 100
regular occasional0
5
10
15
20
25
least preferredless preferredmoderately preferredhighly preferredmost preferred
15
SMKHBY * TASTE Cross tabulation
Count
TASTE
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
regular 4 11 27 23 10 75occasional
0 0 0 17 8 25
Total 4 11 27 40 18 100
regular occasional0
5
10
15
20
25
30
least preferredless preferredmoderately preferredhighly preferredmost preferred
Smoking habit Average preference rating when started smoking
Average preference rating when switching brand
Regular 3.2 3.3Occasional 4.4 4.3
From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking, only 30% of them took taste to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, and then 43% of them considered taste to be an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 25% of them took taste to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, then 25% of them considered taste to be an important factor.
AVAILABILITY AND BRAND LOYALTY
Hypothesis 4
H0: availability does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)
H1: availability influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)
16
AVS
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid least preferred
5 5.0 5.0 5.0
less preferred
12 12.0 12.0 17.0
moderately preferred
23 23.0 23.0 40.0
highly preferred
36 36.0 36.0 76.0
most preferred
24 24.0 24.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
avs
Pies show counts
5.00%
12.00%
23.00%
36.00%
24.00%
AVAILBTY
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid least preferred
7 7.0 7.0 7.0
less preferred
9 9.0 9.0 16.0
moderately preferred
36 36.0 36.0 52.0
highly preferred
33 33.0 33.0 85.0
most preferred
15 15.0 15.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
17
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
availbty
Pies show counts
7.00%
9.00%
36.00%
33.00%
15.00%
From data we see that only 60% of students consider availability to be an important factor when selecting a brand but later 48% of students consider availability to be an important factor when it comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that average preference difference for availability comes to be -0.2 i.e. less than 0.Also rank of availability comes to be 4. So we say availability does not influence brand loyalty. So we accept the null hypothesis.
Further analysis
SMKHBY * AVS Cross tabulation
Count
AVS
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
regular 5 12 23 22 13 75occasional
0 0 0 14 11 25
Total 5 12 23 36 24 100
regular occasional05
10152025
least preferredless preferredmoderately preferredhighly preferredmost preferred
18
SMKHBY * AVAILBTY Cross tabulation
Count
AVAILBTY
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
regular 7 9 36 15 8 75occasional
0 0 0 18 7 25
Total 7 9 36 33 15 100
regular occasional05
10152025303540
least preferredless preferredmoderately preferredhighly preferredmost preferred
Smoking habit Average preference rating when started smoking
Average preference rating when switching brand
Regular 3.1 3.1Occasional 4.4 4.2
Further analysis
From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking, only 54% of them took availability to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, and then 23% of them considered availability to be an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 25% of them took availability to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, then 26% of them considered availability to be an important factor.
AWARENESS AND BRAND LOYALTY
Hypothesis 5
H0: awareness does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)
H1: awareness influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)
19
AWAS
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid least preferred
7 7.0 7.0 7.0
less preferred
16 16.0 16.0 23.0
moderately preferred
21 21.0 21.0 44.0
highly preferred
26 26.0 26.0 70.0
most preferred
30 30.0 30.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
awas
Pies show counts
7.00%
16.00%
21.00%
26.00%
30.00%
AWARNES
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid least preferred
24 24.0 24.0 24.0
less preferred
34 34.0 34.0 58.0
moderately preferred
22 22.0 22.0 80.0
highly preferred
12 12.0 12.0 92.0
most preferred
8 8.0 8.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
20
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
awarnes
Pies show counts
24.00%
34.00%
22.00%
12.00%
8.00%
From data we see that only 56% of students consider awareness to be an important factor when selecting a brand but later 20% of students consider awareness to be an important factor when it comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that average preference difference for awareness comes to be -0.6 i.e. less than 0.Also rank of awareness comes to be 5. So we say awareness does not influence brand loyalty. So we accept the null hypothesis.
Further analysis
SMKHBY * AWAS Cross tabulation
Count
AWAS
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
regular 7 16 21 18 13 75Occasional
0 0 0 8 17 25
Total 7 16 21 26 30 100
regular occasional0
5
10
15
20
25
least preferredless preferredmoderately preferredhighly preferredmost preferred
21
SMKHBY * AWARNES Cross tabulation
Count
AWARNES
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
regular 24 34 6 7 4 75occasional
0 0 16 5 4 25
Total 24 34 22 12 8 100
regular occasional0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
least preferredless preferredmoderately preferredhighly preferredmost preferred
Smoking habit Average preference rating when started smoking
Average preference rating when switching brand
Regular 3.1 2.1Occasional 4.6 3
From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking, only 31% of them took awareness to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, and then 11% of them considered awareness to be an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 25% of them took awareness to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, and then 9% of them considered awareness to be an important factor.
PEER PRESSURE AND BRAND LOYALTY
H0: peer pressure does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)
H1: peer pressure influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)
PPS
22
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid least preferred
3 3.0 3.0 3.0
less preferred
9 9.0 9.0 12.0
moderately preferred
22 22.0 22.0 34.0
highly preferred
36 36.0 36.0 70.0
most preferred
30 30.0 30.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
pps
Pies show counts
3.00%9.00%
22.00%
36.00%
30.00%
PEERPRSR
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid least preferred
37 37.0 37.0 37.0
less preferred
40 40.0 40.0 77.0
moderately preferred
16 16.0 16.0 93.0
highly preferred
5 5.0 5.0 98.0
most preferred
2 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
23
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
peerprsr
Pies show counts
37.00%
40.00%
16.00%
5.00%2.00%
From data we see that only 66% of students consider peer pressure to be an important factor when selecting a brand but later 7% of students consider peer pressure to be an important factor when it comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that average preference difference for peer pressure comes to be -1.4 i.e. less than 0.Also rank of peer pressure comes to be 6. So we say peer pressure does not influence brand loyalty. So we accept the null hypothesis.
Further analysis
SMKHBY * PPS Cross tabulationCount
PPS
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
regular 3 9 22 28 13 75occasional
0 0 0 8 17 25
Total 3 9 22 36 30 100
regular occasional0
5
10
15
20
25
30
least preferredless preferredmoderately preferredhighly preferredmost preferred
24
SMKHBY * PEERPRSR Cross tabulationCount
PEERPRSR
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
regular 37 26 8 3 1 75occasional
0 14 8 2 1 25
Total 37 40 16 5 2 100
regular occasional0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
least preferredless preferredmoderately preferredhighly preferredmost preferred
Smoking habit Average preference rating when started smoking
Average preference rating when switching brand
Regular 3.5 1.7Occasional 4.6 2.6
From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking, only 42% of them took peer pressure to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, and then 4% of them considered peer pressure to be an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 25% of them took peer pressure to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, then 3% of them considered peer pressure to be an important factor.
FREE BIES AND BRAND LOYALTY
Hypothesis 7
H0: free bies does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)
H1: free bies influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)
25
FREES
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid least preferred
9 9.0 9.0 9.0
less preferred
13 13.0 13.0 22.0
moderately preferred
21 21.0 21.0 43.0
highly preferred
30 30.0 30.0 73.0
most preferred
27 27.0 27.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
frees
Pies show counts
9.00%
13.00%
21.00%
30.00%
27.00%
FREEBIES
Frequency Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid least preferred
31 31.0 31.0 31.0
less preferred
39 39.0 39.0 70.0
moderately preferred
16 16.0 16.0 86.0
highly preferred
9 9.0 9.0 95.0
most preferred
5 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
26
least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
freebies
Pies show counts
31.00%
39.00%
16.00%
9.00%
5.00%
From data we see that only 57% of students consider free bies to be an important factor when selecting a brand but later 14% of students consider free bies to be an important factor when it comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that average preference difference for free bies comes to be -1.9 i.e. less than 0.Also rank of free bies comes to be 7. So we say free bies does not influence brand loyalty. So we accept the null hypothesis.
Further analysisSMKHBY * FREES Cross tabulation
Count
FREES
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
regular 9 13 21 19 13 75occasional
0 0 0 11 14 25
Total 9 13 21 30 27 100
regular occasional0
5
10
15
20
25
least preferredless preferredmoderately preferredhighly preferredmost preferred
SMKHBY * FREEBIES Cross tabulation
27
Count
FREEBIES
Totalleast
preferredless
preferredmoderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred
SMKHBY
regular 31 31 5 5 3 75occasional
0 8 11 4 2 25
Total 31 39 16 9 5 100
regular occasional0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
least preferredless preferredmoderately preferredhighly preferredmost preferred
Smoking habit Average preference rating when started smoking
Average preference rating when switching brand
Regular 3.1 1.9Occasional 4.56 3
From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking; only 32% of them took free bies to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, and then 8% of them considered free bies to be an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 25% of them took free bies to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another brand from current brand, and then 6% of them considered free bies to be an important factor.
CONCLUSION
The analysis of the data collected through the questionnaire brings out useful information about brand loyalty among cigarette smokers (students of MIT). It tells that price and income are the factors that are related to brand loyalty. It means that any change in price of cigarette, income of student would lead to switch from present brand of cigarette to some other brand. Study also shows that awareness of existing brands in market, peer pressure or free gifts or schemes or free bies provided by any brand, taste and availability of the brand would not be a successful factor in gaining the customers brand loyalty i.e. awareness, peer pressure, free bies, taste and availability are factors that are not related to brand loyalty among cigarette smokers.
28
REFERENCES1. Text book: C.R.KOTHARI2. Wikipedia.org.in3. 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 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?
Rating scale:
1: Least preferred
2: Less preferred
3: Moderately preferred
4: Highly preferred
5: Most preferred
29
Factors Rating PriceIncomeAvailabilityTastePeer pressureFree bees schemeAwareness
Q3) Rate the factors below (from 1 to 5) according to the priority you give, while switching from a particular brand of cigarette to another brand?
Rating scale:
1: Least preferred
2: Less preferred
3: Moderately preferred
4: Highly preferred
5: Most preferred
Thank you
30
Factors Rating PriceIncomeAvailabilityTastePeer pressureFree bees schemeAwareness