chapter 4 data analysis and interpretationshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/22925/9/09...71...

71

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Analysis of data is a general ways involves a number of closely

related operations, which are performed, with the purpose of summarizing the

collected data, organizing these in such a manner that they answer the

research questions. This chapter will present a study on the impact of

consumer behavior and brand equity and their impact on the consumer

durable products in Bangalore district.

The data analysis has following contents. The first section is a

frequencies and percentages analysis used to describe socio demographic

characters of sampled respondents. The second section analyzes the first &

second opinion regarding consumer behavior and brand equity of philosophy

relating to overall consumer buying behavior and brand preference among

respondents with their demographic variables. The third section studies the

brand equity relating to personal profile factors. The fourth section brings out

the impact of brand equity on consumer durable products.

4.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

CONSUMERS OF DURABLE PRODUCTS

The socio-economic characteristics of consumers of durable goods

were analyzed and the results are hereunder discussed.

72

4.2.1 Gender of Consumers

Gender is an important variable in a given Indian market situation

which is variably affected by any market or customer behviour. Hence the

variable gender was investigated for this study. The distribution of gender of

consumers of durable goods was analyzed and the results are presented in

Table 4.1.

Table-4.1 Distribution of gender of consumers of durable goods

Gender No. of Consumers Percentage

Male 361 72.20

Female 139 27.80

Total 500 100.00 Source: Primary Data

Figure 4.1 Distribution of Gender of Consumers of Durable Goods

The results show that about 72.20 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods are males and the rest of 27.80 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods are females.

73

4.2.2 Age of Consumers

Age of the respondents is one of the most important characteristics

in understanding their views about the particular problems; by medium and

large age indicates level of maturity of individuals in that sense age becomes

more important to examine the response. The distribution of age of consumers

of durable goods was analyzed and the results are presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Distribution of age of consumers of durable goods

Age(Years) No. of Consumers Percentage <20 21 4.20 21-30 116 23.20

31-40 160 32.00 41-50 141 28.20 >50 62 12.40


Figure 4.2 Distribution of age of consumers of durable goods

The results indicate that 32.00 per cent of the consumers of durable

goods belong to the age group of 31-40 years followed by 41-50 years

74

(28.20 per cent), 21-30 years (23.20 per cent), more than 50 years

(12.40 per cent) and less than 20 years (4.20 per cent).

4.2.3 Educational Qualification of Consumers

Education is one of the most important characteristics that might

affect the person’s behaviour and the way of looking and understanding any

particular brand. In a way, the response of an individual is likely to be

determined by his educational status and therefore it becomes imperative to

know the educational background of the respondents. The distribution of

educational qualification of consumers of durable goods was analyzed and the

results are presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Distribution of educational qualification of consumers of durable goods

Educational Qualification

No. of Consumers Percentage

School Level 139 27.80 Graduate Level 227 45.40 Post Graduate Level 84 16.80 Professional 50 10.00


Figure 4.3 Distribution of educational qualification of consumers of durable

75

From the above table, it is clear that 45.40 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods are educated up to graduate level followed by

school level of (27.80 per cent), post graduate level of (16.80 per cent) and

professional level of (10.00 per cent).

4.2.4 Occupation of Consumers

Person’s occupations do have a bearing on his or her personality

and so also the ways of looking at the problem before him. The quality of life

is also determined by an individual’s occupation and the incomes he derives

from it. Occupation of an individual also socialized him or her in a particular

fashion which in turn reflects his or her pattern of behaviors and his/her level

of understanding of particular phenomenon. The distribution of occupation of

consumers of durable goods was analyzed and the results are presented in

Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Distribution of occupation of consumers of durable goods

Occupation No. of Consumers Percentage

Salaried 225 45.00

Self-Employed 149 29.80

Housewife 62 12.40

Student 28 5.60

Professional 36 7.20


76

Figure 4.4 Distribution of occupation of consumers of durable goods

From the results, it is apparent that 45.00 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods are salaried followed by self- employed (29.80 per cent), housewife

(12.40 per cent), professional (7.20 per cent) and student (5.60 per cent).

4.2.5 Monthly Income of Consumers

Income of a person plays an important role in shaping the economic

conditions of an individual which in turn is likely to have bearing on the

responses about a problem posed to him. The researcher, therefore in this

study attempted to investigate the income as variable and the data related to

income of the respondents is presented in Table. 4.5.

Table 4.5 Distribution of monthly income of consumers of durable goods

Monthly Income(`) No. of Consumers Percentage < 10000 79 15.80 10001-20000 152 30.40 20001-30000 121 24.20 > 30000 148 29.60


77

Figure 4.5 Distribution of monthly income of consumers of durable goods

The result shows that about 30.40 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods belong to the income group of `10001-20000 followed by more

than `30000 (29.60 per cent), `20001-30000 (24.20 per cent) and less than

` 10000 (15.80 per cent).

4.2.6 Marital Status of Consumers

Marriage is one of the most important social institutions. In a

developing country like India, it has undergone many changes. The

perceptions, attitudes and behaviour of the person can also differ by the

marital status of the persons because the marriage might make the persons

little more responsible and matured in understanding and giving the responses

to the questions asked. The distribution of marital status of consumers of

durable goods was analyzed and the results are presented in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Distribution of marital status of consumers of durable goods

Marital Status No. of Consumers Percentage Married 408 81.60 Unmarried 92 18.40


78

Figure 4.6 Distribution of marital status of consumers of durable goods


goods are married, while, the rest of 18.40 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods are unmarried.

4.2. 7 Family Type of Consumers

The type of family in which a person lives and gets socialized has

immense importance in deciding his values, beliefs and behaviors patterns

which are likely to affects his or her attitudes towards a particular problem,

hence the family type plays its own role in giving the response of an

individual and therefore it was thought important to understand the family

type of the respondents. The distribution of family type of consumers of

durable goods was analyzed and the results are presented in Table 4. 7.

Table-4.7. Distribution of family type of consumers of durable goods

Family Type No. of Consumers Percentage

Joint Family 167 33.40

Nuclear Family 333 66.60


79

Figure 4.7 Distribution of family type of consumers of durable goods

From the results, it is observed that 33.40 per cent of the consumers

of durable goods belong to the joint family and the rest of 66.60 per cent of

the consumers of durable goods belong to the nuclear family.

4.2.8 Family Size of Consumers

The distribution of family size of consumers of durable goods was

analyzed and the results are presented in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8. Distribution of family size of consumers of durable goods

Family Size No. of Consumers Percentage

1-3 187 37.40

4-6 242 48.40

>6 71 14.20

Total 500 100.00

Source: Primary Data

80

From the table, it is clear that 48.40 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods have the family size of 4-6 followed by 1-3(37.40 per cent) and

more than six (14.20 per cent).

4.2.9 Place of Residents

Place of resident’s plays an important role in shaping pattern of an

individual which in turn is likely to have bearing on the responses about a

problem posed to him. The researcher, therefore in this study attempted to

investigate the place of residents as variable and the data related to income of

the respondents is presented in Table. 4.9.

Table 4.9 Distribution of place of residents of consumers of durable goods

Place of Residents No. of Consumers Percentage

Urban 223 44.60

Semi-Urban 146 29.20

Rural 131 26.20


From the results, it is apparent that 44.60 per cent of the consumers

of durable goods reside in urban area followed by semi-urban area

(29.20 per cent) and rural area (26.20 per cent).

4.3 PURCHASE OF DURABLE GOODS

The purchase of durable goods by the consumers was analyzed and

the results are hereunder discussed.

81

4.3.1 Television

The purchase of televisions by the consumers was analyzed and the


Table 4.10 Purchase of television by the consumers

Brand Name No. of Consumers PercentageAKAI 24 4.80 BPL 19 3.80 HAIER 7 1.40 LG 89 17.80 ONIDA 50 10.00 PANASONIC 20 4.00 PHILIPS 21 4.20 SAMSUNG 91 18.20 SANSUI 17 3.40 SHARP 12 2.40 SONY 94 18.80 TCL 10 2.00 THAMSON 11 2.20 THOSHIBA 4 0.80 VIDEOCON 31 6.20 Total 500 100.00


Figure 4.8 Purchase of television by the consumers

82

From the result, it is observed that 18.80 per cent of the consumers

of durable goods purchase SONY brand of television followed by

SAMSUNG (18.02 per cent), LG (17.80 per cent), ONIDA (10.00 per cent),

VIDEOCON (6.20 per cent), AKAI (4.80 per cent), PHILIPS (4.20 per cent),

PANASONIC (4.00 per cent), BPL (3.80 per cent), SANSUI (3.40 per cent),

SHARP (2.40 per cent), THOMSON (2.20 per cent), TCL (2.00 per cent),

HAIER (1.40 per cent) and THOSHIBA (0.80 per cent).

4.3.2 Refrigerator

The purchase of refrigerator by the consumers was analyzed and

the results are presented in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11 Purchase of refrigerator by the consumers

Brand Name No. of Consumers Percentage

ELECTROLUX 5 1.00

GODREJ 77 15.40

HAIER 5 1.00

KELVINATOR 33 6.60

LG 158 31.60

SAMSUNG 95 19.00

VIDEOCON 40 8.00

WHIRLPOOL 87 17.40


83

Figure 4.9 Purchase of refrigerator by the consumers

From the results, it is clear that 31.60 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods purchase LG brand of refrigerator followed by SAMSUNG

(19.00 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (17.40 per cent), GODREJ (15.40 per cent),

VIDEOCON (8.00 per cent), KELVINATOR (6.60 per cent), HAIER and

EELECTROLUX (1.00 per cent).

4.3.3 Washing Machine

The purchase of washing machine by the consumers was analyzed

and the results are presented in Table 4.12.

Table 4.12 Purchase of washing machine by the consumers

Brand Name No. of Consumers PercentageELECTROLUX 12 2.40GODREJ 32 6.40HAIER 2 0.40IFB 54 10.80LG 161 32.20ONIDA 16 3.20SAMSUNG 98 19.60VIDEOCON 37 7.40WHIRLPOOL 88 17.60Total 500 100.00


84

Figure 4.10 Purchase of washing machine by the consumers

The results show that 32.20 per cent of the consumers of durable

goods purchase LG brand of washing machine followed by SAMSUNG

(19.60 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (17.60 per cent), IFB (10.80 per cent),

VIDEOCON (7.40 per cent), GODREJ (6.40 per cent), ONDIA (3.20 per cent),

EELECTROLUX (2.40 per cent) and HAIER (0.40 per cent).

4.3.4 Mixer-Grinder

The purchase of mixer-grinder by the consumers was analyzed and


85

Table 4.13 Purchase of mixer-grinder by the consumers


AJANTA 5 1.00

APIX 2 0.40

BAJAJ 33 6.60

BUTTERFLY 60 12.00

GANGA 7 1.40

KAILASH 11 2.20

KANCHAN 16 3.20

KENSTAR 34 6.80

LAXMI 4 0.80

LEXUS 14 2.80

MAHARAJA 62 12.40

MORPHY 2 0.40

PANASONIC 21 4.20

PHILIPS 53 10.60

PIEGON 21 4.20

PREETHI 67 13.40

PRESTIGE 53 10.60

SUMEET 26 5.20

USHA 5 1.00

VIJAY 4 0.80


86

Figure 4.11Purchase of mixer-grinder by the consumers


goods purchase PREETHI brand of mixer-grinder followed by MAHARAJA

(12.40 per cent), BUTTERFLY (12.00 per cent), PHILIPS and PRESTIGE

(10.60 per cent), KENSTAR (6.80 per cent) and BAJAJ (6.60 per cent).

The results also show that 5.20 per cent of the consumers of durable goods

purchase SUMEET brand of mixer-grinder followed by PIEGON and

PANASONIC (4.20 per cent), KANCHAN (3.20 per cent), LEXUS

(2.80 per cent), KAILASH (2.20 per cent), GANGA (1.40 per cent), AJANTA

and USHA (1.00 per cent), LAXMI and VIJAY (0.80 per cent), APIX and

MORPHY (0.40 per cent).

4.3.5 Digital Camera

The purchase of digital camera by the consumers was analyzed and


87

Table 4.14 Purchase of digital camera by the consumers

Brand Name No. of Consumers Percentage CANON 175 35.00 CASIO 61 12.20 FUJI 30 6.00 KODAK 29 5.80 NIKON 34 6.80 OLYMBUS 17 3.40 PANASONIC 18 3.60 SAMSUNG 30 6.00 SONY 106 21.20


Figure-4.12Purchase of digital camera by the consumers


goods purchase CANON brand of digital camera followed by SONY

(21.20 per cent), CASIO (12.20 per cent), NIKON (6.80 per cent), FUJI and

SAMSUNG (6.00 per cent), KODAK (5.80 per cent), PANASONIC

(3.60 per cent) and OLYMBUS (3.40 per cent).

88

4.3.6 CD / DVD Player

The purchase of CD/ DVD player by the consumers was analyzed

and the results are presented in Table 4.15.

Table 4.15 Purchase of CD / DVD Player by the Consumers


AKAI 11 2.20

HAIER 8 1.60

INTEX 10 2.00

JVC 13 2.60

LG 42 8.40

MITASI 6 1.20

OMKAR 12 2.40

ONIDA 30 6.00

PHILIPS 43 8.60

PIONEER 7 1.40

SAMSUNG 32 6.40

SAMSUI 8 1.60

SHARP 2 0.40

SONY 177 35.40

VIDEOCON 99 19.80


89

Figure 4.13 Purchase of CD / DVD player by the consumers

From the above result, it is apparent that 35.40 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods purchase SONY brand of CD / DVD player

followed by VIDEOCON (19.80 per cent), PHILIPS (8.60 per cent), LG

(8.40 per cent), SAMSUNG (6.40 per cent) and ONIDA (6.00 per cent).

The results further indicate that about 2.60 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods purchase JVC brand of CD / DVD player followed by

OMKAR (2.40 per cent), AKAI (2.20 per cent), INTEX (2.00 per cent),

HAIER and SANSUI (1.60 per cent), PIONEER (1.40 per cent), MITASI

(1.20 per cent) and SHARP (0.40 per cent).

4.3.7 Purchase Value of Television

The purchase value of televisions by the consumers was analyzed

and the results are presented in Table 4.16 and the following hypothesis had

been formulated.

H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase value of

television brands by the consumers.

90

Table 4.16 Purchase value of television by the consumers

Brand Name Purchase Value (`)

Percentage F-Value Sig

AKAI 221500 2.20 BPL 179100 1.78 HAIER 67500 0.67

LG 2342900 23.29 ONIDA 637500 6.34 PANASONIC 278000 2.76 PHILIPS 219500 2.18

SAMSUNG 1855797 18.44 SANSUI 247350 2.46 SHARP 149000 1.48 SONY 3159500 31.40 TCL 104000 1.03 THAMSON 131000 1.30 THOSHIBA 75000 0.75 VIDEOCON 394100 3.92 Total 10061747 100.00

2.931 0.01


From the results, it is observed that out of ` 10061747 spend for

purchasing the television by the consumers, about 31.40 per cent of money is

spent to purchase of SONY brand of television followed by LG (23.29 per cent),

SAMSUNG (18.44 per cent), ONIDA (6.34 per cent) , VIDEOCON

(3.92 per cent), PANASONIC (2.76 per cent), SANSUI (2.46 per cent),

AKAI (2.20 per cent), PHILIPS (2.18 per cent), BPL(1.78 per cent),

SHARP(1.48 per cent), THAMSON (1.30 per cent), TCL (1.03 per cent),

THOSHIBA (0.75 per cent) and HAIER (0.67 per cent).The F-value of 2.931

is significant at one per cent level. Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no

91

significant difference in purchase value of television brands by the consumers

is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is a significant difference

in purchase value of brand names of the televisions among the consumers of

durable goods.

4.3.8 Purchase Value of Refrigerator

The purchase value of refrigerator by the consumers was analyzed

and the results are presented in Table 4.17 and the following hypothesis had

been formulated.


refrigerator brands by the consumers.

Table 4.17 Purchase value of refrigerator by the consumers



ELECTROLUX 60000 0.82 GODREJ 1031500 14.18 HAIER 76000 1.04 KELVINATOR 374500 5.15 LG 2459300 33.80 SAMSUNG 1428390 19.63 VIDEOCON 562000 7.72 WHIRLPOOL 1284900 17.66 Total 7276590 100.00

4.160 0.01


The results show that out of `7276590 spend for purchasing the

refrigerator by the consumers, about 33.80 per cent of money is spent to

purchase of LG brand of refrigerator followed by SAMSUNG (19.63 per cent),

WHIRLPOOL (17.66 per cent), GODREJ (14.18 per cent), VIDEOCON

92

(7.72 per cent), KELVINATOR (5.15 per cent), HAIER (1.04 per cent) and

ELECTROLUX (0.82 per cent).The F-value of 4.160 is significant at one per

cent level. Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in

purchase value of refrigerator brands by the consumers is rejected. Therefore

it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in purchase value of

brand names of the refrigerator among the consumers of durable goods.

4.3.9 Purchase Value of Washing Machine

The purchase value of washing machine by the consumers was

analyzed and the results are presented in Table 4.18 and the following

hypothesis had been formulated.


washing machine brands by the consumers.

Table 4.18 Purchase value of washing machine by the consumers



ELECTROLUX 101500 1.31 GODREJ 426000 5.51

HAIER 25000 0.32 IFB 1233000 15.94 LG 2541400 32.85 ONIDA 161000 2.08 SAMSUNG 1511900 19.54 VIDEOCON 467000 6.04 WHIRLPOOL 1269950 16.41 Total 7736750 100.00

6.845 0.01


93

The results indicate that out of `7736750 spend for purchasing the

washing machine by the consumers, about 32.85 per cent of money is spent to

purchase of LG brand of washing machine followed by SAMSUNG


VIDEOCON (6.04 per cent), GODREJ (5.51 per cent), ONIDA (2.08 per cent),

ELECTROLUX (1.31 per cent) and HAIER (0.32 per cent). The F-value of

6.845 is significant at one per cent level. Hence, the null hypothesis of there is

no significant difference in purchase value of washing machine brands by the

consumers is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is a significant

difference in purchase value of brand names of the washing machine among

the consumers of durable goods.

4.3.10 Purchase Value of Mixer-Grinder

The purchase value of mixer-grinder by the consumers was




mixer grinder brands by the consumers.

94

Table 4.19 Purchase value of mixer-grinder by the consumers

Brand Name Purchase Value

(`)


AJANTA 16500 0.89

APIX 10000 0.54

BAJAJ 107250 5.78

BUTTERFLY 224700 12.10

GANGA 27300 1.47

KAILASH 31000 1.67

KANCHAN 49200 2.65

KENSTAR 131000 7.06

LAXMI 10600 0.57

LEXUS 52800 2.84

MAHARAJA 211800 11.41

MORPHY 8000 0.43

PANASONIC 86500 4.66

PHILIPS 215750 11.62

PIEGON 72100 3.88

PREETHI 269400 14.51

PRESTIGE 214100 11.53

SUMEET 90400 4.87

USHA 15200 0.82

VIJAY 13000 0.70

Total 1856600 100.00

3.794 0.01


95

From the results, it is clear that out of ` 1856600 spend for

purchasing the mixer-grinder by the consumers, about 14.51 per cent of

money is spent to purchase of PREETHI brand of mixer-grinder followed by

BUTTERFLY (12.10 per cent), PHILIPS (11.62 per cent), PRESTIGE

(11.53 per cent), MAHARAJA (11.41 per cent), KENSTAR (7.06 per cent),

BAJAJ (5.78 per cent), SUMEET (4.87 per cent) ,PANASONIC (4.66 per cent),

PIEGON(3.88 per cent), LEXUS(2.84 per cent), KANCHAN (2.65 per cent),

KAILASH (1.67 per cent), GANGA (1.47 per cent), AJANTA (0.89 per cent),

USHA(0.82 per cent), VIJAY (0.70 per cent), LAXMI (0.57 per cent),

APIX(0.54 per cent) and MORPHY(0.43 per cent).The F-value of 3.794 is

significant at one per cent level. Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no

significant difference in purchase value of mixer-grinder brands by the


difference in purchase value of brand names of the mixer-grinder among the

consumers of durable goods.

4.3.11 Purchase Value of Digital Camera

The purchase value of digital camera by the consumers was




digital camera brands by the consumers.

96

Table 4.20 Purchase value of digital camera by the consumers



CANON 1266500 33.59

CASIO 210000 5.57

FUJI 170598 4.53

KODAK 194800 5.17

NIKON 217800 5.78

OLYMBUS 100400 2.66

PANASONIC 192700 5.11

SAMSUNG 188000 4.99

SONY 1228900 32.60

Total 3769698 100.00

3.429 0.01


From the above table, it is observed that out of `3769698spend for

purchasing the digital camera by the consumers, about 33.59 per cent of

money is spent to purchase of CANON brand of digital camera followed by

SONY (32.60 per cent), NIKON (5.78 per cent), CASIO (5.57 per cent),

KODAK (5.17 per cent), PANASONIC (5.11 per cent), SAMSUNG

(4.99 per cent), FUJI (4.53 per cent) and OLYMBUS (2.66 per cent).The F-

value of 3.429 is significant at one per cent level. Hence, the null hypothesis

of there is no significant difference in purchase value of digital camera brands

by the consumers is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is a

significant difference in purchase value of brand names of the digital camera

among the consumers of durable goods.

97

4.3.12 Purchase Value of CD / DVD Player

The purchase value of CD/ DVD player by the consumers was




CD/DVD player brands by the consumers.

Table 4.21 Purchase value of CD / DVD player by the consumers



AKAI 31700 1.55

HAIER 22000 1.08

INTEX 31000 1.52

JVC 55500 2.71

LG 180000 8.80

MITASI 14000 0.68

OMKAR 22500 1.10

ONIDA 75000 3.67

PHILIPS 148990 7.29

PIONEER 29500 1.44

SAMSUNG 119990 5.87

SANSUI 28600 1.40

SHARP 5400 0.26

SONY 820000 40.10

VIDEOCON 460500 22.52

Total 2044680 100.00

10.626 0.01


98

The results show that out of ` 2044680 spend for purchasing the

CD/ DVD player by the consumers, about 40.10 per cent of money is spent to

purchase SONY brand of CD/ DVD player followed by VIDEOCON

(22.52 per cent), LG (8.80 per cent), PHILIPS (7.29 per cent), SAMSUNG

(5.87 per cent), ONIDA (3.67 per cent), JVC (2.71 per cent), AKAI

(1.55 per cent), INTEX(1.52 per cent), PIONEER (1.44 per cent), SANSUI

(1.40 per cent), OMKAR (1.10 per cent), HAIER (1.08 per cent), MITASI

(0.68 per cent) and SHARP (0.26 per cent).The F-value of 10.626 is

significant at one per cent level . . Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no

significant difference in purchase value of CD/ DVD player brands by the


difference in purchase value of brand names of the CD/ DVD player among


4.3.13 Purchase Value of Durable Goods

The purchase value of durable by the consumers was analyzed and

the results are presented in Table 4.22 and the following hypothesis had been

formulated.


durable goods by the consumers.

Table 4.22 Purchase Value of Durable Goods by the Consumers

Durable Goods Purchase Value (`) Percentage F-Value SigTelevision 10061747 30.73Refrigerator 7276590 22.22Washing machine 7736750 23.63Mixer –Grinder 1856600 5.67Digital Camera 3769698 11.51CD/DVD Player 2044680 6.24Total 32746065 100.00

44.574 0.01


99

The results indicate that out of ` 32746065 spend for purchasing the

durable goods by the consumers, about 30.73 per cent of money is spent to

purchase of television followed by washing machine (23.63 per cent),

refrigerator (22.22 per cent),digital camera (11.51 per cent), CD/DVD player

(6.24 per cent) and mixer-grinder (5.67 per cent).The F-value of 44.574 is

significant at one per cent level. Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no

significant difference in purchase value of durable goods by the consumers is

rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in

purchase value of durable goods among the consumers of durable goods.

4.3.14 Age Vs Television Brands

The combination of age with television brands is presented in Table

4.23 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.

H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of television

brands among the age groups of the consumers of durable

goods.

The results show that among the age group of less than 20 years,

52.38 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of

television followed by SAMSUNG (38.10 per cent) and SONY (9.52 per cent).

Among the age group of 21-30 years, 18.97 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods purchase SONY brand of television followed by SAMSUNG

(17.24 per cent) and LG (10.34 per cent). Besides, the purchase of television

by the consumers of durable goods is varying from ONIDA (9.48 per cent) to

HAIER (0.00 per cent).Among the age group of 31-40 years, 25.00 per cent

of the consumers of durable goods purchase SAMSUNG brand of television

followed by SONY and LG (14.38 per cent).

100

Table 4.23 Age and television brands

Age in YearsTelevision Brands <20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50

Total Chi-Square Value

Sig

AKAI 0(0.00) 5

(4.31) 9

(5.63) 9

(6.38) 1

(1.61) 24

(4.80)

BPL 0(0.00) 7

(6.03) 8

(5.00) 2

(1.42) 2

(3.23) 19

(3.80)

HAIER 0(0.00)

0(0.00) 1

(0.63) 5

(3.55) 1

(1.61) 7

(1.40)

LG 11 (52.38) 12

(10.34) 23

(14.38) 22

(15.60) 21

(33.87) 89

(17.80)

ONIDA 0(0.00) 11

(9.48) 11

(6.88) 22

(15.60) 6

(9.68) 50

(10.00)

PANASONIC 0(0.00) 5

(4.31) 9

(5.63) 4

(2.84) 2

(3.23) 20

(4.00)

PHILIPS 0(0.00) 5

(4.31) 8

(5.00) 7

(4.96) 1

(1.61) 21

(4.20)

SAMSUNG 8(38.10)

20 (17.24)

40 (25.00)

19 (13.48)

4(6.45)

91(18.20)

SANSUI 0(0.00) 7

(6.03) 6

(3.75) 2

(1.42) 2

(3.23) 17

(3.40)

SHARP 0(0.00) 6

(5.17)

0(0.00) 3

(2.13) 3

(4.84) 12

(2.40)

SONY 2(9.52) 22

(18.97) 23

(14.38) 33

(23.40) 14

(22.58) 94

(18.80)

TCL 0(0.00) 4

(3.45) 3

(1.88) 2

(1.42) 1

(1.61) 10

(2.00)

THAMSON 0(0.00) 2

(1.72) 4

(2.50) 3

(2.13) 2

(3.23) 11

(2.20)

THOSHIBA 0(0.00) 1

(0.86) 3

(1.88)

0(0.00)

0(0.00) 4

(0.80)

VIDEOCON 0(0.00) 9

(7.76) 12

(7.50) 8

(5.67) 2

(3.23) 31

(6.20)

Total 21 (4.20)

116(23.20)

160(32.00)

141(28.20)

62 (12.40)

500 (100.00)

70.063 0.04

Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)

101

Besides, the purchase of television by the consumers of durable

goods is ranging from VIDEOCON (7.50 per cent) to SHAPR (0.00 per cent).

Among the age group of 41-50 years, 23.40 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods purchase SONY brand of television followed by LG and

ONIDA (15.60 per cent) and SAMSUNG (13.48 per cent). Besides, the

purchase of television by the consumers of durable goods is varying from

AKAI (6.38 per cent) to THOSHIBA (0.00 per cent).

Among the age group of more than 50 years, 33.87 per cent of

the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of television followed by

SONY (22.58 per cent). Besides, the purchase of television by the consumers

of durable goods is ranging from ONIDA (9.68 per cent) to THOSHIBA

(0.00 per cent).The Chi-Square value of 70.063 is significant at five per cent

level. Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in

purchase value of television brands among the age groups of the consumers of

durable goods is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is a

significant difference in purchase of television brands among the age groups

of the consumers of durable goods.

4.3.15 Educational Qualification Vs Television Brands

The combination of educational qualification with television brands

is presented in Table 4.24 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.


brands among the educational qualification of the


102

Table 4.24 Educational qualification and television brands

Educational Qualification Television Brands School

Level Graduate

Level Post

Graduate Level

ProfessionalTotal Chi-

Square Value

Sig

AKAI 5(3.60)

8(3.52)

9(10.71)

2(4.00)

24(4.80)

BPL 7(5.04)

10 (4.41)

1(1.19)

1(2.00)

19(3.80)

HAIER 2(1.44)

3(1.32)

0(0.00)

2(4.00)

7(1.40)

LG 30 (21.58)

40 (17.62)

14 (16.67)

5(10.00)

89(17.80)

ONIDA 17 (12.23)

24 (10.57)

4(4.76)

5(10.00)

50(10.00)

PANASONIC 5(3.60)

10 (4.41)

2(2.38)

3(6.00)

20(4.00)

PHILIPS 5(3.60)

7(3.08)

7(8.33)

2(4.00)

21(4.20)

SAMSUNG 23 (16.55)

43 (18.94)

18 (21.43)

7(14.00)

91(18.20)

SANSUI 1(0.72)

6(2.64)

5(5.95)

5(10.00)

17(3.40)

SHARP 3(2.16)

7(3.08)

2(2.38)

0(0.00)

12(2.40)

SONY 30 (21.58)

43 (18.94)

10 (11.90)

11(22.00)

94(18.80)

TCL 0(0.00)

7(3.08)

2(2.38)

1(2.00)

10(2.00)

THAMSON 5(3.60)

3(1.32)

0(0.00)

3(6.00)

11(2.20)

THOSHIBA 0(0.00)

3(1.32)

1(1.19)

0(0.00)

4(0.80)

VIDEOCON 6(4.32)

13 (5.73)

9(10.71)

3(6.00)

31(6.20)

Total 139(27.80)

227(45.40)

84 (16.80)

50(10.00)

500 (100.00)

59.710 0.03


The results indicate that among the consumers of school level

education, 21.58 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG and

SONY brands of television followed by SAMSUNG (16.55 per cent) and

ONIDA (12.23 per cent). Besides, the purchase of television by the

consumers of durable goods is varying from BPL (5.04 per cent) to TCL and

THOSHIBA (0.00 per cent). Among consumers of graduate level education,

18.94 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase SAMSUNG and

103

SONY brands of television followed by LG (17.62 per cent) and ONIDA

(10.57 per cent). Besides, the purchase of television by the consumers of

durable goods is ranging from VIDEOCON (5.73 per cent) to HAIER,

THAMSON and THOSHIBA (1.32 per cent).

Among the consumers of post graduate level education, 21.43 per cent

of the consumers of durable goods purchase SAMSUNG brand of television

followed by LG (16.67 per cent), SONY (11.90 per cent) and AKAI and

VIDEOCON (10.71 per cent). Besides, the purchase of television by the

consumers of durable goods is varying from PHILIPS (8.33 per cent) to

HAIER and THAMSON (0.00 per cent).Among the consumers of

professionals, 22.00 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase

SONY brand of television followed by SAMSUNG (14.00 per cent), LG,

ONIDA and SANSUI (10.00 per cent). Besides, the purchase of television by

the consumers of durable goods is ranging from PANASONIC, THAMSON

and VIDEOCON (6.00 per cent) to SHARP and THOSHIBA

(0.00 per cent).The Chi-Square value of 59.710 is significant at five per cent

level Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in

purchase of television brands among the educational qualifications of the

consumers of durable goods is rejected. Therefore it can be that there is a

significant difference in purchase of television brands among the educational

qualifications of the consumers of durable goods.

4.3.16 Monthly Income Vs Television Brands

The combination of monthly income with television brands is

presented in Table 4.25 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.


brands among the monthly income of the consumers of

durable goods.

104

Table 4.25 Monthly income and television brands

Monthly Income(`)Television Brands < 10000 10001-20000 20001-30000 > 30000


Sig

AKAI 4(5.06)

9(5.92)

7(5.79)

4(2.70)

24(4.80)

BPL 5(6.33)

9(5.92)

5(4.13)

0(0.00)

19(3.80)

HAIER 1(1.27)

3(1.97)

2(1.65)

1(0.68)

7(1.40)

LG 21(26.58)

27(17.76)

22 (18.18)

19(12.84)

89(17.80)

ONIDA 9(11.39)

18(11.84)

10 (8.26)

13(8.78)

50(10.00)

PANASONIC 1(1.27)

7(4.61)

4(3.31)

8(5.41)

20(4.00)

PHILIPS 0(0.00)

5(3.29)

7(5.79)

9(6.08)

21(4.20)

SAMSUNG 10(12.66)

24(15.79)

26 (21.49)

31(20.95)

91(18.20)

SANSUI 4(5.06)

3(1.97)

4(3.31)

6(4.05)

17(3.40)

SHARP 4(5.06)

2(1.32)

3(2.48)

3(2.03)

12(2.40)

SONY 17(21.52)

32(21.05)

18 (14.88)

27(18.24)

94(18.80)

TCL 1(1.27)

0(0.00)

2(1.65)

7(4.73)

10(2.00)

THAMSON 1(1.27)

3(1.97)

2(1.65)

5(3.38)

11(2.20)

THOSHIBA 0(0.00)

3(1.97)

1(0.83)

0(0.00)

4(0.80)

VIDEOCON 1(1.27)

7(4.61)

8(6.61)

15(10.14)

31(6.20)

Total 79(15.80)

152(30.40)

121 (24.20)

148 (29.60)

500 (100.00)

83.094 0.01


(The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)

From the above results, it is clear that among the monthly income

group of less than `10000. About 26.58 per cent of the consumers of durable

goods purchase LG brand of television followed by SONY (21.52 per cent),

SAMSUNG (12.66 per cent) and ONIDA (11.39 per cent). Besides, the

purchase of television by the consumers of durable goods is ranging from

BPL (6.33 per cent) to PHILIPS and THOSHIBA (0.00 per cent). Among the

monthly income group of ` 10001-20000, about 21.05 per cent of the

105

consumers of durable goods purchase SONY brand of television followed by

LG (17.76 per cent), SAMSUNG (15.79 per cent) and ONIDA (11.84 per cent).

Besides, the purchase of television by the consumers of durable goods is

varying from AKAI and BPL (5.92 per cent) to TCL (0.00 per cent).Among

the monthly income group of `20001-30000, about 21.49 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods purchase SAMSUNG brand of television

followed by SONY (18.18 per cent), LG (12.84 per cent) and VIDEOCON


durable goods is ranging from ONIDA (8.26 per cent) to THOSHIBA

(0.83 per cent).

Among the monthly income group of more than ` 30000,

20.95 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase SAMSUNG brand

of television followed by SONY (18.24 per cent) and SAMSUNG


durable goods is varying from ONIDA (8.78 per cent) to BPL and

THOSHIBA (0.00 per cent).The Chi-Square value of 83.094 is significant at

five per cent level. Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant

difference in purchase of television brands among the monthly income groups

of the consumers of durable goods is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded

that there is a significant difference in purchase of television brands among

the monthly income groups of the consumers of durable goods.

4.3.17 Age Vs Refrigerator Brands

The combination of age with refrigerator brands is presented in

Table 4.26 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.

H0: There is no significant difference in purchase of refrigerator

brands among the age groups of the consumers of durable

goods.

106

Table 4.26 Age Vs refrigerator brands

Age in YearsRefrigerator

Brands <20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50

Total Chi-Square

Value

Sig

ELECTROLUX 0

(0.00)

3

(2.59)

2

(1.25)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

5

(1.00)

GODREJ 0

(0.00)

15

(12.93)

19

(11.88)

27

(19.55)

16

(25.81)

77

(15.40)

HAIER 0

(0.00)

3

(2.59)

2

(1.25)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

5

(1.00)

KELVINATOR 0

(0.00)

6

(5.17)

14

(8.75)

8

(5.67)

5

(8.06)

33

(6.60)

LG 20

(95.24)

23

(19.83)

53

(33.13)

47

(33.33)

15

(24.19)

158

(31.60)

SAMSUNG 0

(0.00)

31

(26.72)

30

(18.75)

23

(16.31)

11

(17.74)

95

(19.00)

VIDEOCON 1

(4.76)

16

(13.79)

13

(8.13)

5

(3.55)

5

(8.06)

40

(8.00)

WHIRLPOOL 0

(0.00)

19

(16.38)

27

(16.88)

31

(21.99)

10

(16.13)

87

(17.40)

Total 21

(4.20)

116

(23.20)

160

(32.00)

141

(28.20)

62

(12.40)

500

(100.00)

65.835 0.02




refrigerator followed by VIDEOCON (4.76 per cent).Among the age group of

21-30 years, about 26.72 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase

SAMSUNG brand of refrigerator followed by LG (19.83 per cent),

WHIRLPOOL (19.38 per cent), VIDEOCON (13.79 per cent), GODREJ

(12.93 per cent), KELVINATOR (5.17 per cent), ELECTROLUX and

HAIER(2.59 per cent).Among the age group of 31-40 years, 33.13 per cent of

107

the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of refrigerator followed

by SAMSUNG (18.75 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (16.88 per cent), GODREJ

(11.88 per cent), KELVINATOR (8.75 per cent), VIDEOCON (8.13 per cent),

ELECTROLUX and HAIER (1.25 per cent).Among the age group of 41-50

years, about 33.33 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG

brand of refrigerator followed by WHIRLPOOL (21.99 per cent), GODREJ

(19.55 per cent), SAMSUNG (16.31 per cent), KELVINATOR (5.67 per cent)

and VIDEOCON (3.55 per cent).

Among the age group of more than 50 years, 25.81 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods purchase GODREJ brand of refrigerator followed

by LG (24.19 per cent), SAMSUNG (17.74 per cent), WHIRLPOOL

(16.13 per cent), KELVINATOR and VIDEOCON (8.06 per cent).The Chi-

Square value of 65.835 is significant at five per cent level. Hence, the null

hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase of refrigerator

brands among the age groups of the consumers of durable goods is rejected.

Therefore it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in purchase

of refrigerator brands among the age groups of the consumers of durable

goods.

4.3.18 Educational Qualification Vs Refrigerator Brands

The combination of educational qualification with refrigerator

brands is presented in Table 4.27 and the following hypothesis had been

formulated.

H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of

refrigerator brands among the educational qualification of


108

Table 4.27 Educational qualification and refrigerator brands

Educational QualificationRefrigerator

Brands School

Level

Graduate Level

PostGraduate

Level

Professional

Total Chi-Square

Value

Sig

ELECTROLUX 0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

4

(4.76)

1

(2.00)

5

(1.00)

GODREJ 27

(19.42)

34

(14.98)

10

(11.90)

6

(12.00)

77

(15.40)

HAIER 3

(2.16)

0

(0.00)

2

(2.38)

0

(0.00)

5

(1.00)

KELVINATOR 11

(7.91)

17

(7.49)

4

(4.76)

1

(2.00)

33

(6.60)

LG 40

(28.78)

73

(32.16)

30

(35.71)

15

(30.00)

158

(31.60)

SAMSUNG 25

(17.99)

42

(18.50)

15

(17.86)

13

(26.00)

95

(19.00)

VIDEOCON 8

(5.76)

21

(9.25)

7

(8.33)

4

(8.00)

40

(8.00)

WHIRLPOOL 25

(17.99)

40

(17.62)

12

(14.29)

10

(20.00)

87

(17.40)

Total 139

(27.80)

227

(45.40)

84

(16.80)

50

(10.00)

500

(100.00)

61.825 0.05



education, 28.78 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG

brand of refrigerator followed by GODREJ (19.42 per cent), SAMSUNG and

WHIRLPOOL (17.99 per cent), VIDEOCON (5.76 per cent) and HAIER

(2.16 per cent). Among consumers of graduate level education, about 32.16

per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of refrigerator

followed by SAMSUNG (18.50 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (17.62 per cent),

109

GODREJ (14.98 per cent), VIDEOCON (9.25 per cent) and KELVINATOR

(7.49 per cent).


of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of refrigerator


GODREJ (11.90 per cent), VIDEOCON (8.33 per cent), ELECTROLUX and

KELVINATOR (4.76 per cent) and HAIER (2.38 per cent). Among the

consumers of professionals, 22.00 per cent of the consumers of durable goods

purchase SONY brand of refrigerator followed by SAMSUNG (14.00 per cent),

LG, ONIDA and SANSUI (10.00 per cent) and VIDEOCON (8.33 per cent).

The Chi-Square value of 61.825 is significant at five per cent level.

Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase of

refrigerator brands among the educational qualifications of the consumers of


significant difference in purchase of refrigerator brands among the

educational qualifications of the consumers of durable goods.

4.3.19 Monthly Income Vs Refrigerator Brands

The combination of monthly income with refrigerator brands is


H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of

refrigerator brands among the monthly income of the


110

Table 4.28 Monthly income and refrigerator brands

Monthly Income(`)Refrigerator

Brands <10000

10001-20000

20001-30000

>30000

Total Chi-Square

Value

Sig

ELECTROLUX 0

(0.00)

2

(1.32)

2

(1.65)

1

(0.68)

5

(1.00)

GODREJ 16

(20.25)

29

(19.08)

19

(15.70)

13

(8.78)

77

(15.40)

HAIER 4

(5.06)

0

(0.00)

1

(0.83)

0

(0.00)

5

(1.00)

KELVINATOR 7

(8.86)

9

(5.92)

10

(8.26)

7

(4.73)

33

(6.60)

LG 20

(25.32)

47

(30.92)

43

(35.54)

48

(32.43)

158

(31.60)

SAMSUNG 15

(18.99)

27

(17.76)

19

(15.70)

34

(22.97)

95

(19.00)

VIDEOCON 8

(10.13)

13

(8.55)

8

(6.61)

11

(7.43)

40

(8.00)

WHIRLPOOL 9

(11.39)

25

(16.45)

9

(15.70)

34

(22.97)

87

(17.40)

Total 79

(15.80)

152

(30.40)

121

(24.20)

148

(29.60)

500

(100.00)

80.722 0.05


(The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)


group of less than `10000, 25.32 per cent of the consumers of durable goods

purchase LG brand of refrigerator followed by GODREJ (20.25 per cent),

SAMSUNG (18.99 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (11.39 per cent),

111

VIDEOCON(10.13 per cent), KELVINATOR (8.86 per cent) and

HAIER(5.06 per cent).Among the monthly income group of `10001-20000,

about 30.92 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of

refrigerator followed GODREJ (19.98 per cent), SAMSUNG (17.76 per cent),

WHIRLPOOL (16.45 per cent), VIDEOCON (8.55 per cent), KELVINATOR

(5.92 per cent) and ELECTROLUX (1.32 per cent).

Among the monthly income group of ` 20001-30000, 35.54 per cent

of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of refrigerator

followed by GODREJ, SAMSUNG and WHIRLPOOL (15.70 per cent),

KELVINATOR (8.26 per cent), VIDEOCON (6.61 per cent),

ELECTROLUX (1.65 per cent) and HAIER (0.83 per cent). Among the

monthly income group of more than ` 30000, 32.43 per cent of the consumers

of durable goods purchase LG brand of refrigerator followed by SAMSUNG

and WHIRLPOOL (22.97 per cent), GODREJ (8.78 per cent), VIDEOCON

(7.43 per cent), KELVINATOR (4.73 per cent) and ELECTROLUX

(0.68 per cent).


. Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase

value of refrigerator brands among the monthly income groups of the

consumers of durable goods is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that

there is a significant difference in purchase of refrigerator brands among the

monthly income groups of the consumers of durable goods

4.3.20 Age Vs Washing Machine Brands

The combination of age with washing machine brands is presented

in Table 4.29 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.

112

H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of washing

machine brands among the age of the consumers of

durable goods.

Table 4.29 Age Vs washing machine brands

Age in YearsWashing Machine

Brands <20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50

Total Chi-Square

Value

Sig

ELECTROLUX 0

(0.00)

4

(3.45)

3

(1.88)

5

(3.55)

0

(0.00)

12

(2.40)

GODREJ 2

(9.52)

8

(5.17)

15

(9.38)

6

(4.26)

3

(4.84)

32

(6.40)

HAIER 0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

1

(0.71)

1

(1.61)

2

(0.40)

IFB 0

(0.00)

11

(9.48)

11

(6.88)

18

(12.77)

14

(22.58)

54

(10.80)

LG 10

(47.62)

34

(29.31)

52

(32.50)

48

(34.04)

17

(27.42)

161

(32.20)

ONIDA 0

(0.00)

3

(2.59)

8

(5.00)

4

(2.84)

1

(1.61)

16

(3.20)

SAMSUNG 9

(42.86)

21

(19.83)

32

(20.00)

23

(16.31)

11

(17.74)

98

(19.60)

VIDEOCON 0

(0.00)

15

(12.93)

12

(7.50)

5

(3.55)

5

(8.06)

37

(7.40)

WHIRLPOOL 0

(0.00)

20

(17.24)

27

(16.88)

31

(21.99)

10

(16.13)

88

(17.60)

Total 21

(4.20)

116

(23.20)

160

(32.00)

141

(28.20)

62

(12.40)

500

(100.00)

68.103 0.03



about 47.62 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of

washing machine followed by SAMSUNG (42.86 per cent) and GODREJ

113

(9.52 per cent).Among the age group of 21-30 years, about 29.31 per cent of

the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of washing machine


VIDEOCON (12.93 per cent), IFB(9.48 per cent), GODREJ (5.17 per cent),

ELECTROLUX (3.45 per cent) and ONIDA (2.59 per cent).

Among the age group of 31-40 years, 32.50 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of washing machine followed

by SAMSUNG (20.00 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (16.88 per cent), GODREJ

(9.38 per cent), VIDEOCON (7.50 per cent), IFB (6.88 per cent), ONIDA

(5.00 per cent) and ELECTROLUX (1.88 per cent). Among the age group of

41-50 years, 34.04 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG

brand of washing machine followed by WHIRLPOOL (21.99 per cent),

GODREJ (19.55 per cent), SAMSUNG (16.31 per cent), WHIRLPOOL

(21.99 per cent), SAMSUNG (16.31 per cent), IFB (12.77 per cent), GODREJ

(4.26 per cent), ELECTROLUX and VIDEOCON (3.55 per cent), ONIDA

(2.84 per cent) and HAIER (0.71 per cent).Among the age group of more than

50 years, about 27.42 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase

LG brand of washing machine followed by IFB (22.58 per cent), SAMSUNG

(17.74 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (16.13 per cent), VIDEOCON (8.06 per cent),

GODREJ (4.84 per cent), HAIER and ONIDA (1.61 per cent).


Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase of

washing machine brands among the age groups of the consumers of durable

goods is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is a significant

difference in purchase of washing machine brands among the age groups of


114

4.3.21 Educational Qualification Vs Washing Machine Brands

The combination of educational qualification with washing

machine brands is presented in Table 4.30 and the following hypothesis had

been formulated.


machine brands among the educational qualification of the


Table 4.30 Educational qualification and washing machine brands

Educational QualificationWashing MachineBrands

SchoolLevel

Graduate Level

PostGraduate

Level


Square Value

Sig

ELECTROLUX 2(1.44)

2(0.88)

6(7.14)

2(4.00)

12(2.40)

GODREJ 10(7.19)

17(7.49)

4(4.76)

1(2.00)

32(6.40)

HAIER 1(0.72)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

1(2.00)

2(0.40)

IFB 20(14.39)

23(10.13)

8(9.52)

3(6.00)

54(10.80)

LG 43(30.94)

74(32.60)

29(34.52)

15(30.00)

161(32.20)

ONIDA 5(3.60)

8(3.52)

2(2.38)

1(2.00)

16(3.20)

SAMSUNG 25(17.99)

43(18.94)

16(19.05)

14(28.00)

98(19.60)

VIDEOCON 8(5.76)

20(8.81)

6(7.14)

3(6.00)

37(7.40)

WHIRLPOOL 25(17.99)

40(17.62)

13(15.48)

10(20.00)

88(17.60)

Total 139(27.80)

227(45.40)

84(16.80)

50(10.00)

500(100.00)

65.827 0.03


115


education, 30.94 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG

brand of washing machine followed by SAMSUNG and WHIRLPOOL

(17.99 per cent), IFB (14.39 per cent), GODREJ (7.19 per cent), VIDEOCON

(5.76 per cent), ONIDA (3.60 per cent), ELECTROLUX (1.44 per cent) and

HAIER (0.72 per cent). Among consumers of graduate level education,


washing machine followed by SAMSUNG (18.94 per cent), WHIRLPOOL

(17.62 per cent), IFB (10.13 per cent), VIDEOCON (8.81 per cent), GODREJ

(7.49 per cent), ONIDA (3.52 per cent) and ELECTROLUX (0.88 per cent).

Among the consumers of post graduate level education, about 34.52 per cent

of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of washing machine


IFB (9.52 per cent), ELECTROLUX and VIDEOCON (7.14 per cent),

GODREJ (4.76 per cent) and ONIDA (2.38 per cent). Among the consumers

of professionals, 30.00 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase

LG brand of washing machine followed by SAMSUNG (28.00 per cent),

WHIRLPOOL (20.00 per cent), IFB and VIDEOCON (6.00 per cent),

ELECTROLUX (4.00 per cent), GODREJ, HAIER and ONIDA (2.00 per cent).


Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase

value of washing machine brands among the educational qualifications of the


there is a significant difference in purchase of washing machine brands

among the educational qualifications of the consumers of durable goods.

4.3.22 Monthly Income Vs Washing Machine Brands

The combination of monthly income with washing machine brands


116


machine brands among the monthly income of the


Table 4.31 Monthly Income and Washing Machine Brands

Monthly Income (`)Washing MachineBrands < 10000 10001-

2000020001-30000

>30000


Sig

ELECTROLUX 2(2.53)

3(1.97)

4(3.31)

3(2.03)

12(2.40)

GODREJ 7(8.86)

15(9.87)

9(7.44)

1(0.68)

32(6.40)

HAIER 1(1.27)

0(0.00)

1(0.83)

0(0.00)

2(0.40)

IFB 13(16.46)

17(11.18)

13(10.74)

11(7.43)

54(10.80)

LG 23(29.11)

47(30.92)

41(33.88)

50(33.78)

161(32.20)

ONIDA 1(1.27)

5(3.29)

6(4.96)

4(2.70)

16(3.20)

SAMSUNG 15(18.99)

27(17.76)

20(16.53)

36(24.32)

98(19.60)

VIDEOCON 8(10.13)

12(7.89)

8(6.61)

9(6.08)

37(7.40)

WHIRLPOOL 9(11.39)

26(17.11)

19(15.70)

34(22.97)

88(17.60)

Total 79(15.80)

152(30.40)

121(24.20)

148(29.60)

500(100.00)

64.299 0.04



group of less than ` 10000, 29.11 per cent of the consumers of durable goods

purchase LG brand of washing machine followed by SAMSUNG

(18.99 per cent), IFB (16.46 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (11.39 per cent),

VIDEOCON (10.13 per cent), VIDEOCON (8.86 per cent), ELECTROLUX

(2.53 per cent), HAIER and ONIDA (1.27 per cent). Among the monthly

117

income group of ` 10001-20000, 30.92 per cent of the consumers of durable

goods purchase LG brand of washing machine followed SAMSUNG


GODREJ (9.87 per cent), VIDEOCON (7.89 per cent), ONIDA (3.29 per cent)

and ELECTROLUX (1.97 per cent).

Among the monthly income group of `20001-30000, 33.88 per cent

of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of washing machine


IFB (10.74 per cent), GODREJ (7.44 per cent), VIDEOCON (6.61 per cent),

ONIDA (4.96 per cent), ELECTROLUX (3.31 per cent) and HAIER

(0.83 per cent). Among the monthly income group of more than ` 30000, 33.78

per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of washing

machine followed by SAMSUNG (24.32 per cent), WHIRLPOOL

(22.97 per cent), IFB (7.43 per cent), VIDEOCON (6.08 per cent), ONIDA

(2.70 per cent), ELECTROLUX (2.03 per cent) and GODREJ (0.68 per cent).



value of washing machine brands among the monthly income groups of the


there is a significant difference in purchase of washing machine brands

among the monthly income groups of the consumers of durable goods.

4.3.23 Age Vs Mixer-Grinder Brands

The combination of age with mixer-grinder brands is presented in


H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of mixer

grinder brands among the age of the consumers of durable

goods.

118

Table 4.32 Age Vs Mixer-Grinder Brands

Age in Years Mixer-GrinderBrands <20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50


Sig

AJANTA 0(0.00)

3(2.59)

2(1.25)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

5(1.00)

APIX 0(0.00)

0(0.00)

1(0.63)

1(0.71)

0(0.00)

2(0.40)

BAJAJ 0(0.00)

8(6.90)

13 (8.13)

9(6.38)

3(4.84)

33(6.60)

BUTTERFLY 0(0.00)

12 (10.34)

13 (8.13)

20(14.18)

15(24.19)

60(12.00)

GANGA 0(0.00)

0(0.00)

2(1.25)

3(2.13)

2(3.23)

7(1.40)

KAILASH 0(0.00)

3(2.59)

5(3.13)

2(1.42)

1(1.61)

11(2.20)

KANCHAN 0(0.00)

6(5.17)

5(3.13)

2(1.42)

3(4.84)

16(3.20)

KENSTAR 0(0.00)

8(6.90)

6(3.75)

14(9.93)

6(9.68)

34(6.80)

LAXMI 0(0.00)

0(0.00)

1(0.63)

3(2.13)

0(0.00)

4(0.80)

LEXUS 0(0.00)

4(3.45)

4(2.50)

5(3.55)

1(1.61)

14(2.80)

MAHARAJA 0(0.00)

20 (17.24)

25 (15.63)

13(9.22)

4(6.45)

62(12.40)

MORPHY 0(0.00)

2(1.72)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

2(0.40)

PANASONIC 0(0.00)

2(1.72)

10 (6.25)

8(5.67)

1(1.61)

21(4.20)

PHILIPS 11(52.38)

7(6.03)

23 (14.38)

10(7.09)

2(3.23)

53(10.60)

PIEGON 0(0.00)

7(6.03)

5(3.13)

4(2.84)

5(8.06)

21(4.20)

PREETHI 10(47.62)

14 (12.07)

18 (11.25)

16(11.35)

9(14.52)

67(13.40)

PRESTIGE 0(0.00)

10 (8.62)

12 (7.50)

23(16.31)

8(12.90)

53(10.60)

SUMEET 0(0.00)

7(6.03)

12 (7.50)

6(4.26)

1(1.61)

26(5.20)

USHA 0(0.00)

1(0.86)

2(1.25)

2(1.42)

0(0.00)

5(1.00)

VIJAY 0(0.00)

2(1.72)

1(0.63)

0(0.00)

1(1.61)

4(0.80)

Total 21(4.20)

116(23.20)

160(32.00)

141(28.20)

62(12.40)

500 (100.00)

88.561 0.01


119


52.38 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase PHILIPS brand of

mixer-grinder followed by PREETHI (47.62 per cent). Among the age group

of 21-30 years, 17.24 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase

MAHARAJA brand of mixer-grinder followed by PREETHI (12.04 per cent)

and BUTTERFLY (10.34 per cent). Besides, the purchase of mixer-grinder by

the consumers of durable goods is ranging from PRESTIGE (8.62 per cent) to

APIX and GANGA (0.83 per cent).

Among the age group of 31-40 years, total 15.63 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods purchase MAHARAJA brand of mixer-grinder

followed by PHILIPS (14.38 per cent) and PREETHI (11.25 per cent).

Besides, the purchase of mixer-grinder by the consumers of durable goods is

varying from BAJAJ and BUTTERFLY (8.13 per cent) to MORPHY

(0.00 per cent). Among the age group of 41-50 years, 16.31 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods purchase PRESTIGE brand of mixer-grinder

followed by PREETHI (11.35 per cent). Besides, the purchase of mixer-

grinder by the consumers of durable goods is ranging from KENSTAR

(9.93 per cent) to AJANTA, MORPHY and VIJAY (0.00 per cent).Among

the age group of more than 50 years, 24.19 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods purchase BUTTERFLY brand of mixer-grinder followed by

PREETHI (14.52 per cent) and PRESTIGE (12.90 per cent). Besides, the

purchase of mixer-grinder by the consumers of durable goods is varying from

KENSTAR (9.68 per cent) to AJANTA, APIX, LAXMI, MORPHY and USHA

(0.00 per cent).

The Chi-Square value of 88.561 is significant at one per cent level.


value of mixer-grinder brands among the age groups of the consumers of


120

significant difference in purchase of mixer-grinder brands among the age

groups of the consumers of durable goods.

4.3.24 Educational Qualification Vs Mixer-Grinder Brands

The combination of educational qualification with mixer-grinder


formulated.


grinder brands among the educational qualification of the


Table 4.33 Educational qualification and mixer-grinder brands

Educational QualificationMixer-GrinderBrands

SchoolLevel

Graduate Level

Post Graduate Level


Square Value

Sig

AJANTA 0(0.00)

0(0.00)

4(4.76)

1(2.00)

5(1.00)

APIX 1(72)

0(0.00)

1(1.19)

0(0.00)

2(0.40)

BAJAJ 9(6.47)

17(7.49)

5(5.95)

2(4.00)

33(6.60)

BUTTERFLY 23(16.55)

25(11.01)

8(9.52)

4(8.00)

60(12.00)

GANGA 5(3.60)

2(0.88)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

7(1.40)

KAILASH 2(1.44)

6(2.64)

2(2.38)

1(2.00)

11(2.20)

KANCHAN 4(2.88)

8(3.52)

2(2.38)

2(4.00)

16(3.20)

KENSTAR 13(9.35)

15(6.61)

4(4.76)

2(4.00)

34(6.80)

LAXMI 2(1.44)

2(0.88)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

4(0.80)

73.876 0.05

121

Table 4.33 (Continued)

Educational QualificationMixer-Grinder

BrandsSchool

Level

Graduate Level

Post Graduate Level

Professional

Total Chi-Square

Value

Sig

LEXUS 2

(1.44)

8

(3.52)

1

(1.19)

3

(6.00)

14

(2.80)

MAHARAJA 12

(8.63)

29

(12.78)

15

(17.86)

6

(12.00)

62

(12.40)

MORPHY 0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

2

(2.38)

0

(0.00)

2

(0.40)

PANASONIC 7

(5.04)

8

(3.52)

5

(5.95)

1

(2.00)

21

(4.20)

PHILIPS 14

(10.07)

27

(11.89)

7

(8.33)

5

(10.00)

53

(10.60)

PIEGON 3

(2.16)

9

(3.96)

4

(4.76)

5

(10.00)

21

(4.20)

PREETHI 17

(12.23)

31

(13.66)

11

(13.10)

8

(16.00)

67

(13.40)

PRESTIGE 19

(13.67)

24

(10.57)

3

(3.57)

7

(14.00)

53

(10.60)

SUMEET 5

(3.60)

11

(4.85)

8

(9.52)

2

(4.00)

26

(5.20)

USHA 0

(0.00)

3

(1.32)

1

(1.19)

1

(2.00)

5

(1.00)

VIJAY 1

(0.72)

2

(0.88)

1

(1.19)

0

(0.00)

4

(0.80)

Total 139

(27.80)

227

(45.40)

84

(16.80)

50

(10.00)

500

(100.00)Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)

122


education, 16.55 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase

BUTTERFLY brand of mixer-grinder followed by PRESTIGE (13.67 per cent),

PREETHI (12.23 per cent) and PHILIPS (10.07 per cent). Besides, the

purchase of mixer-grinder by the consumers of durable goods is varying from

KENSTAR (9.35 per cent) to AJANTA, MORPHY and USHA (0.00 per cent).

Among consumers of graduate level education, about 13.66 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods purchase PREETHI brand of mixer-grinder

followed by MAHARAJA (12.78 per cent), PHILIPS (11.89 per cent),

BUTTERFLY (11.01 per cent) and PRESTIGE (10.57 per cent). Besides, the

purchase of mixer-grinder by the consumers of durable goods is ranging from

BAJAJ (7.49 per cent) to AJANTA, APIX and MORPHY (0.00 per cent).


of the consumers of durable goods purchase MAHARAJA brand of mixer-

grinder followed by PREETHI (13.10 per cent). Besides, the purchase of

mixer-grinder by the consumers of durable goods is varying from

BUTTERFLY and SUMEET (9.52 per cent) to GANGA and LAXMI

(0.00 per cent). Among the consumers of professionals, about 16.00 per cent

of the consumers of durable goods purchase PREETHI brand of mixer-grinder

followed by PRESTIGE (14.00 per cent), MAHARAJA (12.00 per cent),

PHILIPS and PIEGON (10.00 per cent). Besides, the purchase of mixer-grinder

by the consumers of durable goods is ranging from BUTTERFLY (8.00 per

cent) to APIX, GANGA, LAXMI, MORPHY and VIJAY (0.00 per cent).


Therefore, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase

value of mixer-grinder brands among the educational qualifications of the


123

there is a significant difference in purchase of mixer-grinder brands among

the educational qualifications of the consumers of durable goods.

4.3.25 Monthly Income Vs Mixer-Grinder Brands

The combination of monthly income with mixer-grinder brands is



grinder brands among the monthly income of the


Table 4.34 Monthly Income and Mixer-Grinder Brands

Monthly Income(`)Mixer-GrinderBrands < 10000 10001-

2000020001-30000

> 30000Total Chi-

Square Value

Sig

AJANTA 0(0.00)

2(1.32)

2(1.65)

1(0.68)

5(1.00)

APIX 2(2.53)

1(0.66)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

2(0.40)

BAJAJ 6(7.59)

13(8.55)

10(8.26)

3(2.03)

33(6.60)

BUTTERFLY 15(18.99)

19(12.50)

15(12.40)

11(7.43)

60(12.00)

GANGA 2(2.53)

3(1.97)

0(0.00)

2(1.35)

7(1.40)

KAILASH 1(1.27)

1(0.66)

5(4.13)

4(2.70)

11(2.20)

KANCHAN 4(5.06)

7(4.61)

3(2.48)

2(1.35)

16(3.20)

KENSTAR 7(8.86)

16(10.53)

7(5.79)

4(2.70)

34(6.80)

LAXMI 1(1.27)

3(1.97)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

4(0.80)

93.906 0.01

124

Table 4.34 (Continued)

Monthly Income(`)Mixer-Grinder

Brands < 10000 10001-20000

20001-30000

> 30000

Total Chi-Square

Value

Sig

LEXUS 2

(5.06)

1

(0.66)

3

(2.48)

8

(5.41)

14

(2.80)

MAHARAJA 3

(8.86)

13

(8.55)

19

(15.70)

27

(18.24)

62

(12.40)

MORPHY 0

(0.00)

1

(0.66)

1

(0.83)

0

(0.00)

2

(0.40)

PANASONIC 4

(5.06)

6

(3.95)

7

(5.79)

4

(2.70)

21

(4.20)

PHILIPS 4

(5.06)

17

(11.18)

13

(10.74)

19

(12.84)

53

(10.60)

PIEGON 6

(7.59)4

(2.63)

3

(2.48)

8

(5.41)

21

(4.20)

PREETHI 13

(16.46)

19

(12.50)

14

(11.57)

21

(14.19)

67

(13.40)

PRESTIGE 8

(10.13)

16

(10.53)

10

(8.26)

19

(12.84)

53

(10.60)

SUMEET 0

(0.00)

8

(5.26)

7

(5.79)

11

(7.43)

26

(5.20)

USHA 0

(0.000

1

(0.66)

2

(1.65)

2

(1.35)

5

(1.00)

VIJAY 1

(1.27)

1

(0.66)

0

(0.00)

2

(1.35)

4

(0.80)

Total 79

(15.80)

152

(30.40)

121

(24.20)

148

(29.60)

500

(100.00)Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)

125


group of less than `10000, 18.99 per cent of the consumers of durable goods

purchase BUTTERFLY brand of mixer-grinder followed by PREETHI

(16.46 per cent) and PRESTIGE (10.13 per cent). Besides, the purchase of

mixer-grinder by the consumers of durable goods is ranging from KENSTAR

and MAHARAJA (8.86 per cent) to AJANTA MORPHY, SUMEET and

USHA (0.00 per cent). Among the monthly income group of ` 10001-20000,

12.50 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase BUTTERFLY and

PREETHI brands of mixer-grinder followed PHILIPS (11.18 per cent),

KENSTAR and PRESTIGE (10.53 per cent). Besides, the purchase of mixer-

grinder by the consumers of durable goods is varying from MAHARAJA

(8.55 per cent) to APIX, KAILASH, LEXUS, MORPHY, USHA and VIJAY

(0.66 per cent).


of the consumers of durable goods purchase MAHARAJA brand of mixer-

grinder followed by BUTTERFLY (12.40 per cent), PREETHI (11.57 per cent)

and PHILIPS (10.74 per cent). Besides, the purchase of mixer-grinder by the

consumers of durable goods is ranging from BAJAJ and PRESTIGE

(8.26 per cent) to APIX, GANGA, LAXMI and VIJAY (0.00 per cent).

Among the monthly income group of more than ` 30000, 18.24 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods purchase MAHARAJA brand of mixer-grinder

followed by PREETHI (14.19 per cent), PHILIPS and PRESTIGE

(12.84 per cent). Besides, the purchase of mixer-grinder by the consumers of

durable goods is varying from BUTTERFLY and SUMEET (7.43 per cent) to

APIX, LAXMI and MORPHY, (0.00 per cent).

The Chi-Square value 93.906 is significant at five per cent level.


value of mixer-grinder brands among the monthly income groups of the

126


there is a significant difference in purchase of mixer-grinder brands among


4.3.26 Age Vs Digital Camera Brands

The combination of age with digital camera brands is presented in


H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of digital

camera brands among the age of the consumers of durable

goods.

Table 4.35 Age Vs digital camera brands

Age(Years)Digital CameraBrands <20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50


Sig

CANON 5(23.81)

54(46.55)

70(43.75)

40(28.37)

6(9.68)

175(35.00)

CASIO 3(14.29)

6(5.17)

11(6.88)

33(23.40)

8(12.90)

61(12.20)

FUJI 0(0.00)

0(0.00)

17(10.63)

8(5.67)

5(8.06)

30(6.00)

KODAK 4(19.05)

1(0.86)

10(6.25)

9(6.38)

5(8.06)

29(5.80)

NIKON 0(0.00)

13(11.21)

9(5.63)

7(4.96)

5(8.06)

34(6.80)

OLYMBUS 0(0.00)

12(10.34)

0(0.00)

2(1.42)

3(4.84)

17(3.40)

PANASONIC 0(0.00)

6(5.17)

7(4.38)

4(2.84)

1(1.61)

18(3.60)

SAMSUNG 8(38.10)

4(3.45)

6(3.75)

7(4.96)

5(8.06)

30(6.00)

SONY 1(4.76)

20(17.24)

30(18.75)

31(21.99)

24(38.71)

106(21.20)

Total 21(4.20)

116(23.20)

160(32.00)

141(28.20)

62(12.40)

500(100.00)

73.343 0.01


127


38.10 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase SAMSUNG brand of

digital camera followed by CANON (23.81 per cent) KODAK (19.05 per cent),

CASIO (14.29 per cent) and SONY (4.76 per cent). Among the age group of

21-30 years, 46.55 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase

CANON brand of digital camera followed by SONY (17.24 per cent), NIKON

(11.21 per cent), OLYMBUS (10.31 per cent), CASIO and PANASONIC

(5.17 per cent), SAMSUNG (3.45 per cent) and KODAK(0.86 per cent). Among

the age group of 31-40 years, 43.75 per cent of the consumers of durable

goods purchase CANON brand of digital camera followed by SONY

(18.75 per cent), FUJI (10.63 per cent), CASIO (6.88 per cent), KODAK

(6.25 per cent), NIKON (5.63 per cent), PANASONIC (4.38 per cent) and

SAMSUNG (3.75 per cent).


consumers of durable goods purchase CANON brand of digital camera

followed by CASIO (23.40 per cent), SONY (21.99 per cent), KODAK

(6.38 per cent), FUJI (5.67 per cent), NIKON and SAMSUNG (4.96),

PANASONIC (2.84 per cent) and OLYMBUS (1.42 per cent). Among the age

group of more than 50 years, 38.71 per cent of the consumers of durable goods

purchase SONY brand of digital camera followed by CASIO (12.90 per cent),

CANON (9.68 per cent), FUJI, KODAK, NIKON and SAMSUNG (8.06 per

cent), OLYMBUS (4.84 per cent) and PANASONIC (1.61 per cent).


Therefore, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase

value of digital camera brands among the age groups of the consumers of


significant difference in purchase of digital camera brands among the age

groups of the consumers of durable goods.

128

4.3.27 Educational Qualification Vs Digital Camera Brands

The combination of educational qualification with digital camera


formulated.


camera brands among the educational qualification of the


Table 4.36 Educational qualification and digital camera brands

Educational QualificationDigital CameraBrands School

LevelGraduate

LevelPost

Graduate Level


Square Value

Sig

CANON 59(42.45)

80(35.24)

25(29.76)

11(22.00)

175(35.00)

CASIO 15(10.79)

41(18.06)

3(3.57)

2(4.00)

61(12.20)

FUJI 12(8.63)

10(4.41)

7(8.33)

1(2.00)

30(6.00)

KODAK 10(7.19)

14(6.17)

2(2.38)

3(6.00)

29(5.80)

NIKON 7(5.04)

10(4.41)

16(19.05)

1(2.00)

34(6.80)

OLYMBUS 7(5.04)

5(2.20)

2(2.38)

3(6.00)

17(3.40)

PANASONIC 3(2.16)

8(3.52)

4(4.76)

3(6.00)

18(3.60)

SAMSUNG 8(5.76)

9(3.96)

5(5.95)

8(16.00)

30(6.00)

SONY 18(12.95)

50(22.03)

20(23.81)

18(36.00)

106(21.20)

Total 139(27.80)

227(45.40)

84(16.80)

50(10.00)

500(100.00)

70.969 0.04



education, 42.45 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase

129

CANON brand of digital camera followed by SONY (12.95 per cent), CASIO

(10.79 per cent), FUJI (8.63 per cent), KODAK (7.19 per cent), SAMSUNG

(5.76 per cent), NIKON and OLYMBUS (5.04 per cent) and PANASONIC

(2.16 per cent). Among consumers of graduate level education, about

35.24 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase CANON brand of

digital camera followed by SONY (22.03 per cent), CASIO (18.06 per cent),

KODAK (6.17 per cent), FUJI and NIKON (4.41 per cent), SAMSUNG

(3.96 per cent), PANASONIC (3.52 per cent) and OLYMBUS (2.20 per cent).

Among the consumers of post graduate level education, 29.76 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods purchase CANON brand of digital camera followed

by SONY (23.81 per cent), NIKON (19.05 per cent), FUJI (8.33 per cent),

SAMSUNG (5.95 per cent), PANASONIC (4.76 per cent), CASIO

(3.57 per cent), KODAK and OLYMBUS (2.38 per cent). Among the

consumers of professionals, 36.00 per cent of the consumers of durable goods

purchase SONY brand of digital camera followed by CANON (22.00 per cent),

SAMSUNG (16.00 per cent), KODAK, OLYMBUS and PANASONIC

(6.00 per cent), CASIO (4.00 per cent), FUJI and NIKON (2.00 per cent).



value of digital camera brands among the educational qualifications of the


there is a significant difference in purchase of digital camera brands among


4.3.28 Monthly Income Vs Digital Camera Brands

The combination of monthly income with digital camera brands is


130


camera brands among the monthly income of the


Table 4.37 Monthly income and digital camera brands

Monthly Income(`)Digital CameraBrands < 10000 10001-

2000020001-30000

>30000


Sig

CANON 28(35.44)

59(38.82)

26(21.49)

62(41.89)

175(35.00)

CASIO 10(12.66)

20(13.16)

24(19.83)

7(4.73)

61(12.20)

FUJI 9(11.39)

15(9.87)

4(3.31)

2(1.35)

30(6.00)

KODAK 9(11.39)

6(3.95)

6(4.96)

8(5.41)

29(5.80)

NIKON 6(7.59)

13(8.55)

8(6.61)

7(4.73)

34(6.80)

OLYMBUS 2(2.53)

4(2.63)

6(4.96)

5(3.38)

17(3.40)

PANASONIC 4(5.06)

2(1.32)

6(4.96)

6(4.05)

18(3.60)

SAMSUNG 3(3.80)

7(4.61)

8(6.61)

12(8.11)

30(6.00)

SONY 8(10.13)

26(17.11)

33(27.27)

39(26.35)

106(21.20)

Total 79(15.80)

152(30.40)

121(24.20)

148(29.60)

500(100.00)

73.235 0.01




purchase CANON brand of digital camera followed by CASIO (12.66 per cent),

FUJI and KODAK (11.39 per cent), SONY (10.13 per cent), NIKON

(7.59 per cent), PANASONIC (5.06 per cent), SAMSUNG (3.80 per cent) and

OLYMBUS (2.53 per cent). Among the monthly income group of `10001-

131

20000, 38.82 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase CANON

brand of digital camera followed SONY (17.11 per cent), CASIO (13.16 per cent),

FUJI (9.87 per cent), NIKON (8.55 per cent), SAMSUNG (4.61 per cent),

KODAK (3.95 per cent), OLYMBUS (2.63 per cent) and PANASONIC

(1.32 per cent)


of the consumers of durable goods purchase SONY brand of digital camera

followed by CANON (21.49 per cent), CASIO (19.83 per cent), NIKON and

SAMSUNG (6.61 per cent), KODAK, OLYMBUS and SAMSUNG

(6.61 per cent) and FUJI (3.31 per cent). Among the monthly income group of

more than ` 30000, 41.89 per cent of the consumers of durable goods

purchase CANON brand of digital camera followed by SONY (26.35 per cent),

SAMSUNG (8.81 per cent), KODAK (5.41 per cent), CASIO and NIKON

(4.73 per cent), PANASONIC (4.05 per cent), OLYMBUS (3.38 per cent) and

FUJI (1.35 per cent).



value of digital camera brands among the monthly income groups of the


there is a significant difference in purchase of digital camera brands among


4.3.29 Age Vs CD/DVD Player Brands

The combination of age with CD/DVD player brands is presented in


H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of CD/DVD

player brands among the age of the consumers of durable

goods.

132

Table 4.38 Age Vs Digital CD/DVD Player Brands

Age in YearsCD/DVD player Brands <20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50


Sig

AKAI 0(0.00)

4(3.45)

3(1.88)

4(2.84)

0(0.00)

11 (2.20)

HAIER 0(0.00)

1(0.86)

3(1.88)

3(2.13)

1(1.61)

8(1.60)

INTEX 0(0.00)

2(1.72)

4(2.50)

2(1.42)

2(3.23)

10 (2.00)

JVC 0(0.00)

5(4.31)

6(3.75)

2(1.42)

0(0.00)

13 (2.60)

LG 0(0.00)

7(6.03)

6(3.75)

16 (11.35)

13 (20.97)

42 (8.40)

MITASI 0(0.00)

3(2.59)

3(1.88)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

6(1.20)

OMKAR 0(0.00)

1(0.86)

4(2.50)

5(3.55)

2(3.23)

12 (2.40)

ONIDA 0(0.00)

8(6.90)

11(6.88)

5(3.55)

6(9.68)

30 (6.00)

PHILIPS 5(23.81)

4(3.45)

8(5.00)

20 (14.18)

6(9.68)

43 (8.60)

PIONEER 0(0.00)

3(2.59)

3(1.88)

1(0.71)

0(0.00)

7(1.40)

SAMSUNG 2(9.52)

8(6.90)

11(6.88)

8(5.67)

3(4.84)

32 (6.40)

SAMSUI 0(0.00)

3(2.59)

3(1.88)

2(1.42)

0(0.00)

8(1.60)

SHARP 0(0.00)

1(0.86)

0(0.00)

1(0.71)

0(0.00)

2(0.40)

SONY 14(66.67)

42(36.21)

64(40.00)

39 (27.66)

18 (29.03)

177(35.40)

VIDEOCON 0(0.00)

24(20.69)

31(19.38)

33 (23.40)

11 (17.74)

99 (19.80)

Total 21(4.20)

116 (23.20)

160 (32.00)

141(28.20)

62 (12.40)

500(100.00)

59.213 0.03



66.67 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase SAMSUNG brand

of CD/DVD player followed by PHILIPS (23.81 per cent) and SAMSUNG

(9.52 per cent). Among the age group of 21-30 years, about 36.21 per cent of

the consumers of durable goods purchase SONY brand of CD/DVD player

followed by VIDEOCON (20.69 per cent). Besides, the purchase of CD/DVD

133

player by the consumers of durable goods is ranging from ONIDA and

SAMSUNG (6.90 per cent) to HAIER, OMKAR and SHARP (0.86 per cent).


consumers of durable goods purchase SONY brand of CD/DVD player


player by the consumers of durable goods is varying from ONIDA and

SAMSUNG (6.88 per cent) to SHARP (0.00 per cent). Among the age group

of 41-50 years, 27.66 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase

SONY brand of CD/DVD player followed by VIDEOCON (23.40 per cent)

PHILIPS (14.18 per cent) and LG (11.35 per cent). Besides, the purchase of

CD/DVD player by the consumers of durable goods is ranging from

SAMSUNG (5.67 per cent) to MITASI (0.00 per cent). Among the age group

of more than 50 years, 29.03 per cent of the consumers of durable goods

purchase SONY brand of CD/DVD player followed by LG (20.97 per cent)

and VIDEOCON (17.74 per cent). Besides, the purchase of CD/DVD player

by the consumers of durable goods is varying from PHILIPS (9.68 per cent)

to AKAI, JVC, MITASI, PIONEER, SAMSUI and SHARP (0.00 per cent).

The Chi-Square value of 59.213 is significant at one five cent level.


value of CD/DVD brands among the age groups of the consumers of durable

goods is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is a significant

difference in purchase of CD/DVD player brands among the age groups of the


4.3.30 Educational Qualification Vs CD/DVD Player Brands

The combination of educational qualification with CD/DVD player

brands is presented in Table 4.39 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.

134

H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of CD/DVD player brands among the educational qualification of the consumers of durable goods.

Table 4.39 Educational qualification and CD/DVD player brands

Educational Qualification CD/DVD PlayerBrands School

Level Graduate

Level Post

Graduate Level


Square Value

Sig

AKAI 2(1.44)

2(0.88)

5(5.95)

2(4.00)

11(2.20)

HAIER 2(1.44)

4(1.76)

2(2.38)

0(0.00)

8(1.60)

INTEX 3(2.16)

5(2.20)

2(2.38)

0(0.00)

10(2.00)

JVC 5(3.60)

6(2.64)

1(1.19)

1(2.00)

13(2.60)

LG 17(12.23)

17(7.49)

4(4.76)

4(8.00)

42(8.40)

MITASI 2(1.44)

1(0.44)

3(3.57)

0(0.00)

6(1.20)

OMKAR 4(2.88)

7(3.08)

1(1.19)

0(0.00)

12(2.40)

ONIDA 9(6.47)

14(6.17)

4(4.76)

3(6.00)

30(6.00)

PHILIPS 17(12.23)

19(8.37)

4(4.76)

3(6.00)

43(8.60)

PIONEER 0(0.00)

5(2.20)

1(1.19)

1(2.00)

7(1.40)

SAMSUNG 7(5.04)

15(6.61)

5(5.95)

5(10.00)

32(6.40)

SAMSUI 2(1.44)

3(1.32)

2(2.38)

1(2.00)

8(1.60)

SHARP 0(0.00)

1(0.44)

1(1.19)

0(0.00)

2(0.40)

SONY 41(29.50)

82(36.12)

35 (41.67)

19 (38.00)

177 (35.40)

VIDEOCON 28(20.14)

46(20.26)

14 (16.67)

11 (22.00)

99(19.80)

Total 139(27.80)

227 (45.40)

84 (16.80)

50 (10.00)

500 (100.00)

70.066 0.05



education, 29.50 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase SONY

brand of CD/DVD player followed by VIDEOCON (20.14 per cent), LG and

PHILIPS (12.23 per cent). Besides, the purchase of CD/DVD player by the

135

consumers of durable goods is varying from ONIDA (6.47 per cent) to

PIONEER (0.00 per cent). Among consumers of graduate level education,

36.12 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase SONY brand of

CD/DVD player followed by VIDEOCON (20.26 per cent). Besides, the

purchase of CD/DVD player by the consumers of durable goods is ranging

from PHILIPS (8.37 per cent) to MITASI and SHARP (0.44 per cent).


of the consumers of durable goods purchase SONY brand of CD/DVD player


player by the consumers of durable goods is varying from AKAI and

SAMSUNG (5.95 per cent) to JVC, OMKAR, PIONEER and SHARP

(1.19 per cent). Among the consumers of professionals, 38.00 per cent of the


followed by VIDEOCON (22.00 per cent)and SAMSUNG (11.00 per cent).

Besides, the purchase of CD/DVD player by the consumers of durable goods

is ranging from LG (8.00 per cent) to HAIER, INTEX, MITASI, OMKAR

and SHARP (0.00 per cent).



value of CD/DVD brands among the educational qualifications of the


there is a significant difference in purchase of CD/DVD player brands among


4.3.31 Monthly Income Vs CD/DVD Player Brands

The combination of monthly income with CD/DVD player brands


136

H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of CD/DVD

player brands among the monthly income of the consumers

of durable goods.

Table 4.40 Monthly income and CD/DVD player brands

Monthly Income(`)CD/DVD Player Brands < 10000 10001-

20000 20001-30000

>30000


Sig

AKAI 2(2.53)

3(1.97)

3(2.48)

3(2.03)

11 (2.20)

HAIER 2(2.53)

3(1.97)

3(2.48)

0(0.00)

8(1.60)

INTEX 1(1.27)

5(3.29)

3(2.48)

1(0.68)

10 (2.00)

JVC 4(5.06)

6(3.95)

3(2.48)

0(0.00)

13 (2.60)

LG 9(11.39)

14(9.21)

9(7.44)

10 (6.76)

42 (8.40)

MITASI 3(3.80)

0(0.00)

3(2.48)

0(0.00)

6(1.20)

OMKAR 2(2.53)

6(3.95)

3(2.48)

1(0.68)

12 (2.40)

ONIDA 7(8.86)

7(4.61)

8(6.61)

8(5.41)

30 (6.00)

PHILIPS 9(11.39)

21(13.82)

9(7.44)

4(2.70)

43 (8.60)

PIONEER 0(0.00)

1(0.66)

1(0.83)

5(3.38)

7(1.40)

SAMSUNG 2(2.53)

8(5.26)

7(5.79)

15 (10.14)

32 (6.40)

SAMSUI 0(0.00)

1(0.66)

4(3.31)

3(2.03)

8(1.60)

SHARP 0(0.00)

1(0.66)

1(0.83)

0(0.00)

2(0.40)

SONY 27(34.18)

45(29.61)

44 (36.36)

61 (41.22)

177(35.40)

VIDEOCON 11(13.92)

31(20.39)

20 (16.53)

37 (25.00)

99 (19.80)

Total 79(15.80)

152 (30.40)

121 (24.20)

148 (29.60)

500(100.00)

71.659 0.01




purchase SONY brand of CD/DVD player followed by VIDEOCON

(13.92 per cent), LG and PHILIPS (11.39 per cent). Besides, the purchase of

137

CD/DVD player by the consumers of durable goods is ranging from ONIDA

(8.86 per cent) to PIONEER, SAMSUI and SHARP (0.00 per cent). Among

the monthly income group of ` 10001-20000, at 29.61 per cent of the


followed VIDEOCON (20.39 per cent), PHILIPS (13.82 per cent). Besides,

the purchase of CD/DVD player by the consumers of durable goods is varying

from LG (9.21 per cent) to MITASI (0.00 per cent).


of the consumers of durable goods purchase SONY brand of CD/DVD player


player by the consumers of durable goods is ranging from LG and PHILIPS

(7.44 per cent) to PIONEER and SHARP (0.83 per cent). Among the monthly

income group of more than ` 30000, 41.22 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods purchase SONY brand of CD/DVD player followed by

VIDEOCON (25.00 per cent) and SAMSUNG (10.14 per cent). Besides, the

purchase of CD/DVD player by the consumers of durable goods is varying

from LG (6.76 per cent) to HAIER, JVC, MITASI and SHARP (0.00 per cent).



value of CD/DVD brands among the monthly income groups of the


there is a significant difference in purchase of CD/DVD player brands among


138

4.4 CONSUMER BUYING BEHAVIOUR OF DURABLE

PRODUCTS

Consumer buying behavior of durable Products is an action,

thought process and perceived outcome, in collaboration with environmental

factors, during the course of making a decision, which could result in a

purchase. Some of the factors that are significant in consumer behavior are

external environment, demographics and personal characteristics, which are

influenced by the consumer’s beliefs, values and attitudes. The consumer

buying behaviour of durable goods was analyzed and the results are presented

in Table 4.41and the following hypothesis had been formulated.

H0 : There is no significant difference in consumer buying

behaviour of durable goods.

Table 4.41 Consumer Buying Behaviour of Durable Products

Statements Strongly Agee Agree

Neither AgreeNor

Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree Total F-

Value Sig

I will recognize or need of the product or brand before buying.

324(64.80)

153(30.60)

19(3.80)

2(0.40)

2(0.40)

500(100.00)

I will search information from various sources before buying.

192(38.40)

268(53.60)

31(6.20)

8(1.60)

1(0.20)

500(100.00)

I will compare or evaluate the number of alternatives before buying.

189(37.80)

247(49.40)

61(12.20)

1(0.20)

2(0.40)

500(100.00)

I will select the best product or brand among alternative.

229(45.80)

222(44.40)

44(8.80)

5(1.00)

0(0.00)

500(100.00)

I will purchase the product repetitively once satisfied with the product or brand.

209(41.80)

223(44.60)

63(12.60)

4(0.80)

1(0.20)

500(100.00)

11.287 0.01

Source: Primary Data and The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals.

139


goods is strongly agreed with they will recognize or need of the product or

brand before buying followed by agree (30.60 per cent), neither agree nor

disagree (3.80 per cent), disagree and strongly disagree (0.40 per cent).

The consumers will search information from various sources before buying is

agreed by 53.60 per cent of them followed by strongly agree (38.40 per cent),

neither agree nor disagree (6.20 per cent), disagree (1.60 per cent) and

strongly disagree (0.20 per cent). The results indicate that 49.40 per cent of

the consumers are agreed with they will compare or evaluate the number of

alternatives before buying followed by strongly agree (37.80 per cent), neither

agree nor disagree (12.20 per cent), strongly disagree (0.40 per cent) and

disagree (0.20 per cent).

The consumers will select the best product or brand among

alternative is strongly agreed by 45.80 per cent of them followed by agree

(44.40 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (8.80 per cent) and disagree

(1.00 per cent). It is observed that 44.60 per cent of the consumers agreed with

they will purchase the product repetitively once satisfied with the product or

brand followed by strongly agree (41.80 per cent), neither agree nor disagree

(12.60 per cent), disagree (0.80 per cent) and strongly disagree (0.20 per cent).

The F-value of 11.287 is significant at one per cent level. Hence,

the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in consumer buying

behaviour of durable goods is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is a

significant difference in consumer buying behaviour of durable goods.

4.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIMENSIONS OF BUYING

BEHAVIOUR OF DURABLE GOODS

The relationship between dimensions of buying behaviour of

durable goods was analyzed by computing correlation coefficients and the

140

results are presented in Table 4.42 and the following hypothesis had been

formulated.

H0 : There is no relationship between variours dimensions of

buying behaviour of durable goods

Table 4.42 Relationship between dimensions of buying behaviour of durable goods

Consumer’s Need

Information Evaluation Selection Purchase

Consumer’s Need

1.00

Information 0.21** 1.00 Evaluation 0.24** 0.40** 1.00 Selection 0.12** 0.24** 0.34** 1.00 Purchase 0.18** 0.26** 0.27** 0.36** 1.00 Note: ** indicates significant at one per cent level.

The correlation analysis indicates that need is positively and weekly

associated with selection and purchase and it is also positively and moderately

correlated with information and evaluation at one per cent level of

significance.

The results show that information is positively and moderately

correlated with evaluation, selection and purchase at one per cent level of

significance. The evaluation is positively and moderately associated with

selection and purchase. Besides, selection is also positively and moderately

correlated with purchase at one per cent level of significance. Hence, the null

hypothesis of there is no relationship between dimensions of buying

behaviour of durable goods is rejected.

141

4.6 INFLUENCE OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS ON

CONSUMER’S PURCHASE DECISIONS OF

DURABLE PRODUCTS

In order to assess the influence of demographic factors on

consumers purchase decisions of durable products, the multiple linear

regression by Ordinary Least Square (OLS) estimation and the results are

presented in Table 4.43. The results indicate that the coefficient of multiple

determination (R2) is 0.66 and adjusted R2 is 0.62 indicating the regression

model is moderately fit and the following hypothesis had been formulated.

H0 : There is no significant influence of demographic factors on

consumers purchase decisions of durable products

Table 4.43 Influence of demographic factors on consumers purchase decisions of durable products -multiple regression

Demographic Factors Regression Coefficients

t-value Sig

Intercept 8.516 9.219 .000 Age(X1) .239** 4.350 .010 Educational Qualification (X2) .261** 4.998 .014 Occupation (X3) .125 1.726 .085 Monthly Income(X4) .284** 5.197 .012 Marital Status(X5) .293** 4.417 .011 Family Type(X6) .260 1.786 .142 Family Size(X7) .238* 3.080 .038 Place of Residents(X8) .138 1.400 .162

R2 0.66 Adjusted R2 0.62

F 1.974 0.048 N 500

Note: * Significance at one per cent level ** Significance at five per cent level Source: Primary & Computed Data

142

The results show that age, educational qualification, monthly

income and marital status are positively influencing the consumer’s purchase

decisions of durable products at one per cent level of significance, while

family size is also positively influencing the consumer’s purchase decisions of

durable products at five per cent level of significance. Therefore, the null

hypothesis of there is no significant influence of demographic factors on

consumers purchase decisions of durable products is rejected.

4.7 CONSUMER BASED BRAND EQUITY ON DURABLE

PRODUCTS

4.7.1 Dimensions of Consumer based Brand Equity on Durable

Products

The dimensions of consumer based brand equity on durable goods

were analyzed and the results are hereunder discussed.

4.7.2 Brand Awareness

Brand awareness is the second brand equity asset. It includes brand

recognition and brand recall. Brand recognition is the ability to confirm prior

exposure and recall is the ability to remember the brand when a product

category is thought about. The brand awareness of consumer on durable

goods was analyzed and the results are presented in Table 4.44 and the

following hypothesis had been formulated.

H0 : There is no significant difference in brand awareness


143

Table 4.44 Brand awareness of consumer on durable goods

Awareness Strongly Agree

Agree NeitherAgreeNor

Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

Total F-Value

Sig

I am familiar with this brand.

281

(56.20)

182

(36.40)

35

(7.00)

2

(0.40)

0

(0.00)

500

(100.00)

I can recognize this brand quickly among other competing brands.

146

(29.20)

266

(53.20)

68

(13.60)

11

(2.20)

9

(1.80)

500

(100.00)

I automatically know which of the consumer durable products to buy

107

(21.40)

303

(60.60)

67

(13.40)

19

(3.80)

4

(0.80)

500

(100.00)

When I think about consumer durable products, I always remember the brand or product.

156

(31.20)

260

(52.00)

65

(13.00)

14

(2.80)

5

(1.00)

500

(100.00)

I heard about this many times

169

(33.80)

229

(45.80)

83

(16.60)

15

(3.00)

4

(0.80)

500

(100.00)

32.472 0.01



goods are strongly agreed with they are familiar with the brand followed by

agree (36.40 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (7.00 per cent). Consumers

can recognize the brand quickly among other competing brands is agreed by

53.20 per cent of the consumers of durable goods followed by strongly agree

(29.20 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (13.60 per cent), disagree

(2.20 per cent) and strongly disagree (1.80 per cent).

144


goods agreed with that automatically know which of the customer durable

products to buy followed by strongly agree (21.40 per cent), neither agree nor

disagree (13.40 per cent), disagree (3.80 per cent) and strongly disagree

(0.80 per cent). When consumers think about consumer durable products, they

always remember the brand or product is agreed by 52.00 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods followed by strongly agree (31.20 per cent),


strongly disagree (1.00 per cent).The results also show that 45.80 per cent of

the consumers of durable goods are agreed with they heard about the brands

many times followed by strongly agree (33.80 per cent), neither agree nor


(0.80 per cent).

The F-value of 32.472 is significant at one per cent level of

significance indicating that there is a significance difference in brand

awareness among the consumers of durable goods. Hence, the null hypothesis

of there is no significant difference in brand awareness among the consumers

of durable goods is rejected.

4.7.3 Brand Image

Brand image is schematic memory of a brand. It contains the target

market’s interpretation of the product’s attributes, benefits, use and

characteristics of users and manufactures. It is consumers think of and feel

when they hear or see a brand. The brand image of consumer on durable

goods was analyzed and the results are presented in Table 4.45 and the

following hypothesis had been formulated.

H0 : There is no significant difference in brand image among


145

Table 4.45 Brand image of consumer on durable goods

Image Strongly Agree

Agree Neither AgreeNor

Disagree


Total F-Value

Sig

Some characteristics of my brand come to my mind quickly.

250(50.00)

195(39.00)

43(8.60)

6(1.20)

6(1.20)

500(100.00)

I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of my brand.

148(29.60)

252(50.40)

87(17.40)

5(1.00)

8(1.60)

500(100.00)

My brand has created a distinct image in my mind.

151(30.20)

232(46.40)

88(17.60)

23(4.60)

6(1.20)

500(100.00)

Compared with competitors, I appreciate my brand.

159(31.80)

239(47.80)

70(14.00)

29(5.80)

3(0.60)

500(100.00)

My brand would be my first choice.

177(35.40)

233(46.60)

59(11.80)

26(5.20)

5(1.00)

500(100.00)

Brand has fair price.

203(40.60)

204(40.80)

69(13.80)

9(1.80)

15(3.00)

500(100.00)

My brand is high quality.

153(30.60)

237(47.40)

85(17.00)

15(3.00)

10(2.00)

500(100.00)

My Brand has durability.

144(28.80)

267(53.40)

67(13.40)

16(3.20)

6(1.20)

500(100.00)

My brand has many features compare to other brands.

129(25.80)

267(53.40)

82(16.40)

19(3.80)

3(0.60)

500(100.00)

The reliability of my brand is very high.

150(30.00)

217(43.40)

104(20.80)

24(4.80)

5(1.00)

500(100.00)

My brand product has very good service.

150(30.00)

217(43.40)

96(19.20)

24(4.80)

13(2.60)

500(100.00)

24.639 0.02



goods are strongly agreed with some characteristics of their brand come to

their mind quickly followed by agree (39.00 per cent), neither agree nor

146

disagree (8.60 per cent), disagree and strongly disagree (1.20 per cent).

Consumers can quickly recall the symbol or logo of their brand is agreed by


(29.60 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (17.40 per cent), strongly disagree

(1.60 per cent) and disagree (1.00 per cent).


goods agreed with their brand have created a distinct image in their mind

followed by strongly agree (30.20 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (17.60

per cent), disagree (4.60 per cent) and strongly disagree (1.20 per cent).

Compared with competitors, they appreciate their brand and it is agreed by



(5.80 per cent) and strongly disagree (0.60 per cent).From the above table, it

is clear that 46.60 per cent of the consumers of durable goods are agreed with

their brand would be their first choice followed by strongly agree

(35.40 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (11.80 per cent), disagree (5.20 per

cent) and(1.00 per cent) strongly disagree.

Brand has fair price is agreed by 40.80 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods followed by strongly agree (40.60 per cent), neither agree nor

disagree (13.80 per cent), strongly disagree (3.00 per cent) and disagree

(1.80 per cent). From the above results, it is apparent that 47.40 per cent of

the consumers of durable goods are agreed with their brand are high quality

followed by strongly agree (30.60 per cent), neither agree nor disagree


The results further show that their brands have durability is agreed

by 53.40 per cent of the consumers of durable goods followed by strongly

agree (28.80 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (13.40 per cent), disagree

147

(3.20 per cent) and strongly disagree (1.20 per cent). The results also indicate

that 53.40 per cent of the consumers of durable goods are agreed with their

brands have many features compare to other brands followed by strongly


(3.80 per cent) and strongly disagree (0.60 per cent). The reliability of their

brands are very high is agreed by 43.40 per cent of the consumers of durable

goods followed by strongly agree (30.00 per cent), neither agree nor disagree


The results also show that 43.40 per cent of the consumers of durable goods

agreed with their brand products have very good service followed by strongly



The F-value of 24.639 is significant at five per cent level of

significance indicating that there is a significance difference in brand image

among the consumers of durable goods. Hence, the null hypothesis of there is

no significant difference in brand image among the consumers of durable

goods is rejected.

4.7.4 Perceived Quality

Perceived quality is one of the important dimensions of brand

equity. Itcan be defined as the customer’s perception of the overall quality or

superiority of a product or service relative to alternatives. Perceived quality

cannot necessarily be objectively determined, because perceived quality itself

is a summary construct. The perceived quality of consumer on durable goods

was analyzed and the results are presented in Table 4.46 and the following


H0 : There is no significant difference in perceived quality

image among the consumers of durable goods.

148

Table 4.46 Perceived Quality of Consumer on Durable Goods

Perceived Quality

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree


Total F-Value

Sig

I trust the quality of this brand.

262

(52.40)

194

(38.80)

41

(8.20)

3

(0.60)

0

(0.00)

500

(100.00)

Products from this brand would be of very good quality.

171

(34.20)

253

(50.60)

59

(11.80)

11

(2.20)

6

(1.20)

500

(100.00)

Products from this brand offer excellent features.

141

(28.20)

255

(51.00)

85

(17.00)

10

(2.00)

9

(1.80)

500

(100.00)

The brand has met my expectation

134

(26.80)

278

(55.60)

67

(13.40)

17

(3.40)

4

(0.80)

500

(100.00)

The brand has very good service facilities

133

(26.60)

247

(49.40)

109

(21.80)

9

(1.80)

2

(0.40)

500

(100.00)

The brand has very good technology

155

(31.00)

231

(46.20)

95

(19.00)

14

(2.80)

5

(1.00)

500

(100.00)

30.016 0.01


The results indicate that about 52.40 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods strongly agreed with and they trust the quality of the brand

followed by the consumers who agree (38.80 per cent), neither agree nor the

consumers who disagree (8.20 per cent) and the consumers who disagree

(0.60 per cent). Products from those brand would be of very good quality is

agreed by 50.60 per cent of the consumers of durable goods followed by

strongly agree (34.20 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (11.80 per cent),

disagree (2.20 per cent) and strongly disagree (1.20 per cent).

149

Products from those brand offer excellent features is agreed by



(2.00 per cent) and strongly disagree (1.80 per cent). The results indicate that

about 55.60 per cent of the consumers of durable goods is agreed with the

brand has met their expectations followed by strongly agree (26.80 per cent),


strongly disagree (0.80 per cent).

The brand have very good service facilities is agreed by



(1.80 per cent) and strongly disagree (0.40 per cent). The results further show that

about 46.20 per cent of the consumers of durable goods agreed with the brand

which has very good technology followed by strongly agree (31.00 per cent),

neither agree nor disagree (19.00 per cent), disagree (2.80 per cent) and strongly

disagree (1.00 per cent).


significance indicating that there is a significant difference in perceived

quality among the consumers of durable goods. Therefore, the null hypothesis

of there is no significant difference in perceived quality among the consumers

of durable goods is rejected.

4.7.5 Brand Association

Brand association may have connected associations of feelings,

character, symbols, lifestyle, user, etc. Associations tend to have strength. Some

associations linked to the brand may be strong, while others could be weak. The

brand association of consumer on durable goods was analyzed and the results are


150

H0 : There is no significant difference in brand association


Table 4.47 Brand Association of Consumer on Durable Goods

Association Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree Nor

Disagree


Total F-Value Sig

This brand has very unique brand image, compared with the competing brands.

226 (45.20)

209(41.80)

51(10.20)

10(2.00)

4(0.80)

500(100.00)

I respect and admire people who are having this brand.

94(18.80)

285(57.00)

87(17.40)

14(2.80)

20 (4.00)

500(100.00)

I like the brand image of this company.

156 (31.20)

267(53.40)

52(10.40)

16(3.20)

9(1.80)

500(100.00)

I like and trust this brand.

152 (30.40)

248(49.60)

69(13.80)

24(4.80)

7(1.40)

500(100.00)

The brand has enough warranty.

135 (27.00)

270(54.00)

61(12.20)

30(6.00)

4(0.80)

500(100.00)

The brand has elegant.

112 (22.40)

246(49.20)

124 (24.80)

14(2.80)

4(0.80)

500(100.00)

This brand is always available.

148 (29.60)

261(52.20)

64(12.80)

16(3.20)

11 (2.20)

500(100.00)

The brand or product has very good service facilities.

155 (31.00)

246(49.20)

70(14.00)

16(3.20)

13 (2.60)

500(100.00)

26.548 0.03


From the above table, it is clear that about 45.20 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods are strongly agreed with those brands which have

very unique brand image, compared with the competing brands followed by


(2.00 per cent) and strongly disagree (0.80 per cent). The results show that

about 57.00 per cent of the consumers of durable goods agreed with what they

respect and admire people who are having those brands followed by strongly

agree (18.80 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (17.40 per cent), strongly

disagree (4.00 per cent) and disagree (2.80 per cent).

151

From the above table, it is observed that about 53.40 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods agreed with they like the brand image of those

companies followed by strongly agree (31.20 per cent), neither agree nor


(1.80 per cent). It is apparent that about 49.60 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods agreed with they like and trust those brands followed by


disagree (4.80 per cent) and strongly disagree (1.40 per cent).

The brand is enough warranty is agreed by 54.00 per cent of the



strongly disagree (0.80 per cent). The brand has elegant is agreed by

49.20 per cent of the consumers of durable goods followed by neither agree

nor disagree (24.80 per cent), strongly agree (22.40 per cent), disagree


The brand is always available is agreed by 52.20 per cent of the



strongly disagree (2.20 per cent). The brand or product has very good service

a facility is agreed by 49.20 per cent of the consumers of durable goods



The F-value of 26.548 is significant at five per cent level of

significance indicating that there is a significance difference in brand

association among the consumers of durable goods. Hence, the null

hypothesis of there is no significant difference in brand association among the

consumers of durable goods is rejected.

152

4.7.6 Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty is the biased behavioural response expressed over time by

some decision making unit, with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a

set of such brands, and is a function of psychological processes. The brand loyalty

of consumer on durable goods was analyzed and the results are presented in Table

4.48 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.

H0 : There is no significant difference in brand loyalty among


Table 4.48 Brand Loyalty of Consumer on Durable Goods

Loyalty Strongly Agree

Agree Neither AgreeNor

Disagree


Total F-Value

Sig

I consider myself to be loyal to this brand.

206(41.20)

239(47.80)

55(11.00)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

500(100.00)

In future, I want to buy this brand and it will be my first choice.

124(24.80)

262(52.40)

101(20.20)

7(1.40)

6(1.20)

500(100.00)

I would love to recommend this brand to my friends.

153(30.60)

229(45.80)

107(21.40)

9(1.80)

2(0.40)

500(100.00)

I will buy this brand even its price increased.

130(26.00)

223(44.60)

108(21.60)

28(5.60)

11(2.20)

500(100.00)

When buying product this brand will be my first choice.

152(30.40)

243(48.60)

98(19.60)

3(0.60)

4(0.80)

500(100.00)

I will not buy other brands if my brand is available at the store.

149(29.80)

261(52.20)

71(14.20)

9(1.80)

10(2.00)

500(100.00)

29.982 0.01


153

The results show that about 47.80 per cent of the consumers of

durable goods agreed with they consider themselves to be loyal to the brand

followed by strongly agree (41.20 per cent) and neither agree nor disagree

(11.00 per cent). In future, consumers want to buy this brand and it will be

their first choice is agreed by 52.40 per cent of the consumers of durable goods




goods is agreed with they would love to recommend this brand to their friends



From the above table, it is observed that about 44.60 per cent of the

consumers of durable goods is agreed with they will buy this brand even its

price increased followed by strongly agree (26.00 per cent), neither agree nor


(2.20 per cent).When buying product this brand will be their first choice is

agreed by 48.60 per cent of the consumers of durable goods followed by


strongly disagree (0.80 per cent) and disagree (0.60 per cent).The results

further indicate that 52.20 per cent of the consumers of durable goods agreed

with and they will not buy other brands if their brands are available at the

store followed by strongly agree (29.80 per cent), neither agree nor disagree

(14.20 per cent), strongly disagree (2.00 per cent) and disagree (1.80 per cent).


significance indicating that there is a significance difference in brand loyalty

among the consumers of durable goods. Therefore, the null hypothesis of

there is no significant difference in brand loyalty among the consumers of

durable goods is rejected.

154

4.7.7 Difference between Dimensions of Consumer based Brand

Equity on Durable Products

The difference between dimensions of consumer based brand

equity on durable goods was analyzed through t-test and the results are


H0 : There is no significant difference between dimensions of

consumer based brand equity on durable goods.

Table 4.49 Difference between dimensions of consumer based brand equity on durable products

Dimensions of Brand Equity t-Value Df Sig

Brand Awareness-Brand Image 42.855 998 0.01

Brand Awareness-Perceived Quality

42.914 998 0.01

Brand Awareness-Brand Association

11.236 998 0.01

Brand Awareness-Brand Loyalty 11.241 998 0.01

Brand Image- Perceived Quality 29.393 998 0.01

Brand Image- Brand Association 29.422 998 0.01

Brand Image- Brand Loyalty 13.446 998 0.01

Perceived Quality-Brand Association

13.451 998 0.01

Perceived Quality-Brand Loyalty 34.089 998 0.01

Brand Association-Brand Loyalty 34.053 998 0.01 Source: Primary & Computed Data

The results show that the t-value for Brand Awareness-Brand

Image is 42.855 which is significant at one per cent level of significance.

Hence, there is a significant difference exiting between Brand Awareness-

Brand Image among the consumers of durable goods. The t-value for Brand

155

Awareness-Perceived Quality is 42.914, significant at one per cent level of

significance. It indicates there is a significant difference between Brand

Awareness-Perceived Quality among the consumers of durable goods. The

results also indicate that t-value for Brand Awareness-Brand Association is

11.236 significant at one per cent level of significance. Therefore, there is a

significant difference between Brand Awareness-Brand Association among


The results show that the t-value for Brand Awareness-Brand

Loyalty is 11.241 which is significant at one per cent level of significance.

Hence, there is a significant difference exiting between Brand Awareness-

Brand Loyalty among the consumers of durable goods. The t-value for Brand

Image- Perceived Quality is 29.393, significant at one per cent level of

significance. It indicates there is a significant difference between Brand

Image- Perceived Quality among the consumers of durable goods.

The results also indicate that t-value for Brand Image- Brand

Association is 29.422 significant at one per cent level of significance.

Therefore, there is a significant difference between Brand Image- Brand

Association among the consumers of durable goods. The results show that the

t-value for Brand Image- Brand Loyalty is 13.446 which is significant at one

per cent level of significance. Hence, there is a significant difference exiting

between Brand Image- Brand Loyalty among the consumers of durable goods.

The t-value for Perceived Quality-Brand Association is 13.451, significant at one

per cent level of significance. It indicates there is a significant difference between

Perceived Quality-Brand Association among the consumers of durable goods.

The results also indicate that t-value for Perceived Quality-Brand

Loyalty is 34.089 significant at one per cent level of significance. Therefore,

there is a significant difference between Perceived Quality-Brand Loyalty

156

among the consumers of durable goods. The results show that the t-value for

Brand Association-Brand Loyalty is 34.053which is significant at one per

cent level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant

difference between dimensions of consumer based brand equity on durable

goods brand awareness among the consumers of durable goods is rejected.

Hence, there is a significant difference exiting between Brand Association-

Brand Loyalty among the consumers of durable goods.

4.8 CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA) FOR

BRAND EQUITY ON DURABLE GOODS

Brand equity helps customers in information processing. A brand is

useful in aiding customers in interpreting, processing, and storing information

about products and brands. It simplifies this process. Brands are taken by

customers as chunks of information which are easily decoded and stored in a

proper order. It considerably reduces chaos possibilities that may occur in the

absence of branding. Brands allow customers to store great quantities of

information about brands without getting confused. The confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA) was carried out for each dimensions of brand equity on

durable goods and the results are presented in Table 4.50.

Table 4.50 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for brand equity on durable goods

Brand Equity Chi-Square Value

P-Value

GFI CFI RMR RMSEA

Brand Awareness 4.856 0.722 0.99 1.00 0.07 0.00 Brand Image 14.771 0.444 0.99 1.00 0.09 0.00 Perceived Quality 5.046 0.410 0.99 1.00 0.09 0.06 Brand Association 5.351 0.606 0.98 0.99 0.02 0.06 Brand Loyalty 4.888 0.430 0.99 1.00 0.01 0.00

Source: Primary & Computed Data

157

The brand awareness is presented by five items and based on results

of the CFA. It indicates an excellent fit with chi-square statistic of 4.856.

The Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) is 0.99 and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is

1.00. These GFI and CFI fit perfectly. The standardized Root Mean Residual

(RMR) is 0.07 and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is

0.00 which indicate that they fit excellently.

The results of CFA for brand image show an excellent fit with

chi-square value of 14.771 and GFI and CFI are greater than 0.90 and RMR

and RMSEA values are less than 0.1 that they fit excellently. The results of

CFA for perceived quality indicate an excellent fit with chi-square value of

5.046 and GFI and CFI are greater than 0.90 and RMR and RMSEA values

are less than 0.1 that they fit excellently.

The results for brand association show chi-square value of 5.351

with other indices (GFI and CFI) that they fit excellently which is more than

0.90 with RMR and RMSEA less than 0.1. The results for brand loyalty

indicate chi-square value of 4.888 with other indices (GFI and CFI) that they

fit excellently which is more than 0.90 with RMR and RMSEA less than 0.1.

4.9 CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY FOR

BRAND EQUITY ON DURABLE GOODS

In addition, the adequacy of the measurement model for brand

equity on durable goods is also evaluated based on the criteria of Composite

Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Discriminant

Validity (DV) of the constructs and the results are presented in Table 4.51.

158

Table 4.51Construct reliability for brand equity on durable goods

Brand Equity CR AVE DV Brand Awareness 0.72 0.64 0.64 Brand Image 0.76 0.74 0.68 Perceived Quality 0.82 0.62 0.61 Brand Association 0.78 0.70 0.62 Brand Loyalty 0.74 0.62 0.68


The results show that composite reliability for brand equity on durable

goods is above the cut off value of 0.70, average variance extracted is greater than

the minimum value of 0.50 and discriminant validity is above 0.60which indicate

that convergent validity is confirmed for brand equity on durable goods.

4.10 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIMENSIONS OF BRAND

EQUITY ON DURABLE GOODS

The relationship between dimensions of brand equity on durable

goods was analyzed by computing Pearson correlation coefficients and the


Table 4.52 Relationship between dimensions of brand equity on durable goods

Brand Awareness

Brand Image

Perceived Quality

Brand Association

Brand Loyalty

Brand Awareness 1.00 Brand Image 0.54** 1.00 Perceived Quality 0.37** 0.61** 1.00 Brand Association 0.26** 0.47** 0.55** 1.00 Brand Loyalty 0.29** 0.38** 0.46** 0.64** 1.00 Note: ** indicates significant at one per cent level.

159

The correlation coefficients indicate that the brand awareness of

consumers of durable goods is positively and moderately correlated with

brand image, while the brand awareness is also positively but weekly

associated with perceived quality, brand association and brand loyalty at one

per cent level of significance. The results show that the brand image of the

consumers on durable goods is positively and strongly associated with the

perceived quality, while, the brand image is also positively and moderately

correlated with brand association. Besides, the brand image is also positively

and weekly correlated with brand loyalty at one per cent level of significance.

The results also indicate that the perceived quality of the consumers

on durable goods is positively and moderately correlated with both brand

association and brand loyalty at one per cent level of significance. Besides,

the brand association of consumers on durable goods is strongly associated

with the brand loyalty at one per cent level of significance. Therefore, the

null hypothesis of there is no significant relationship between dimensions of brand equity on durable goods is rejected.

4.11 DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS FOR BRAND EQUITY ON

DURABLE GOODS

In order to discriminate the consumers of urban, semi-urban and

rural areas based on the dimensions of brand equity on durable goods, the

discriminant analysis has been employed and the results are hereunder

discussed.

4.11.1 Selection of Discriminating Variables

In order to determine the dimensions of brand equity on durable

goods, which significantly contribute to the differentiation of consumers of

urban, semi-urban and rural areas, F test is used for Wilks’ Lambda. The

ANOVA results are presented in Table 4.53.

160

Table 4.53 Tests of equality of group means

Brand EquityDimensions

Wilks' Lambda F df1 df2 Sig.

Familiarity of brand .997 .638 2 497 .529Recognization of brand .997 .774 2 497 .461Knowing the products .998 .495 2 497 .610Remembrance of brand .992 2.077 2 497 .126Hearing the brand .975 6.458 2 497 .002Characteristics of brand .999 .183 2 497 .833Symbol/ Logo of brand .995 1.296 2 497 .275Distinctness of brand .994 1.478 2 497 .229Appreciation of brand .993 1.827 2 497 .162First choice of brand .986 3.552 2 497 .029Fair price of brand .999 .126 2 497 .882High quality of brand .990 2.502 2 497 .083Durability of brand .983 4.350 2 497 .013Brand features .972 7.083 2 497 .001Brand reliability .997 .655 2 497 .520Service of brand/ product .991 2.225 2 497 .109Trust on quality of brand .992 1.903 2 497 .150Quality products .977 5.878 2 497 .003Product features .991 2.352 2 497 .096Consumer’s expectations .994 1.593 2 497 .204Service facilities of products .997 .634 2 497 .531Technology .993 1.796 2 497 .167Uniqueness of brand .993 1.766 2 497 .172Respect and Admiration .971 7.314 2 497 .001Brand Image .995 1.325 2 497 .267Likeness of brand .993 1.788 2 497 .168Warranty .998 .483 2 497 .617Elegant .998 .381 2 497 .684Availability of brands .977 5.895 2 497 .003Availability of service facilities .991 2.370 2 497 .095Brand loyalty .995 1.145 2 497 .319Future purchase .991 2.303 2 497 .101Recommendation .990 2.621 2 497 .074Price of brand .994 1.619 2 497 .199Priority of brand .997 .762 2 497 .467Brand specific .992 2.007 2 497 .136Source: Primary & Computed Data

The F test is significant for seven variables of hearing of brand, first

choice of brand, durability of brands, brand features, quality products, respect

and admiration and availability of brands.

161

4.11.2 Estimation of Discriminant Function

In this study, the discriminant analysis is carried out for three

groups of consumers and it results one discriminant function and

consequently two eigen values and the results are presented in Table 4.54.

Table 4.54 Eigen Values

Function Eigenvalue % of Variance

Cumulative % Canonical Correlation

1 0.83 60.00 60.00 .873 2 0.49 40.00 100.00 .407


The highest value (0.83) corresponds to the discriminant function,

which shows that it has the strongest power of discrimination of the three

groups of consumers. The canonical correlation coefficient, measuring the

relation between discriminant factorial coordinates and the grouping variable

shows that 76.21 i.e (0.873)2of the total variance accounts for the differences

among the three groups of consumers through the discriminant function.

4.11.3 Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients

The standardized coefficients for the discriminant function are calculated

and the results are presented in Table 4.55. The discriminant function coefficients

are used for calculating the discriminant score for each case in particular.

The discriminant function is:

Z = 0.152 Z1 - 0.129 Z2 - 0.168Z3+0.134Z4 -0.515Z5 - 0.021 Z6 - 0.090 Z7

+ 0.165Z8 + 0.042Z9 - 0.075 Z10+0.066 Z11- 0.220 Z12 + 0.552 Z13- 0.666 Z14+ 0.138 Z15 + 0.024 Z16 -0.287 Z17 + 0.132 Z18 - 0.075 Z19- +0.217 Z20- 0.208 Z21 + 0.074 Z22

+0.048 Z23+ 0.011 Z24 - 0.051 Z25 + 0.012 Z26+ 0.054 Z27 + 0.078 Z28 +0.570 Z29 - 0.383 Z30 -0.156 Z31 + 0.254 Z32 -0.204 Z33+ 0.182 Z34 - 0.061 Z35 - 0.067 Z36

The Z1 to Z36are standardized X1 to X36variables.

162

Table 4.55 Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients

Brand Equity Dimensions

Function 1 Function 2

Familiarity of brand .152 .078 Recognization of brand -.129 -.101 Knowing the products -.168 -.113 Remembrance of brand .134 .272 Hearing the brand -.515 -.036 Characteristics of brand -.021 -.104 Symbol/ Logo of brand -.090 .017 Distinctness of brand .165 -.423 Appreciation of brand .042 .412 First choice of brand -.075 .484 Fair price of brand .066 -.125 High quality of brand -.220 .065 Durability of brand .552 .006 Brand features -.666 -.200 Brand reliability .138 .324 Service of brand/ product .024 -.359 Trust on quality of brand -.287 .594 Quality products .132 -.588 Product features -.075 -.223 Consumer’s expectations .217 -.267 Service facilities of products -.208 .284 Technology .074 -.330 Uniqueness of brand .048 .259 Respect and Admiration .011 -.080 Brand Image -.051 .104 Likeness of brand .012 -.212 Warranty .054 -.046 Elegant .078 .097 Availability of brands .570 .016 Availability of service facilities -.383 .115 Brand loyalty -.156 -.299 Future purchase .254 .218 Recommendation -.204 -.201 Price of brand .182 .082 Priority of brand -.061 -.010 Brand specific -.067 .293


The size of the coefficients indicates hearing of brand, durability of

brands, brand features and availability of brands discriminate best among the

three groups of consumers.

163

4.11.4 Structure Matrix

The structure matrix coefficients are presented in Table 4.56. From

the table, the results indicate the correlation between each predictor measures

and the discriminant function.

Table 4.56 Structure Matrix

Brand Equity Dimensions

Function 1 Function 2

Hearing the brand .479* -.073 Durability of brand -.498* -.101 Brand features -.495* -.023 Availability of brands .481* .029Knowing the products .142 .018*

Appreciation of brand -.183 -.021*

Price of brand -.181 -.064*

Symbol/ Logo of brand -.179 .000*

Brand reliability .175 .025*

Respect and Admiration -.155 -.095*

Brand Image .155 -.015*

Future purchase .146 .032*

Priority of brand -.104 -.100*

Fair price of brand -.102 -.002*

High quality of brand -.100 .024*

Product features -.079 .028*

Familiarity of brand -.076 -.064*

First choice of brand -.041 -.035*

Trust on quality of brand .033 -.030*

Brand specific .081 -.330*

Warranty -.020 .267*

Availability of service facilities -.008 .192*

Characteristics of brand -.006 -.190*

Recommendation -.059 .188*

Service facilities of products -.067 .188*

Likeness of brand .041 -.172*

Recognization of brand -.031 -.169*

Consumer’s expectations .072 .167*

Uniqueness of brand -.090 .162*

Distinctness of brand .123 -.158*

Service of brand/ product -.074 -.123*

Quality products .090 -.122*

Brand loyalty -.010 .114*

Remembrance of brand -.028 .108*

Technology .043 -.084*

Elegant .052 -.061*


164

For the first discriminant function, it can be seen that correlation

coefficients have high values for four measures viz., hearing the brand,

durability of brand, brand features and availability brands which means that

four measures are most strongly correlated with the discriminant function.

These measures would probably characterize the best division of consumers

of durable goods based on brand equity dimensions.

4.11.5 Efficiency of Discriminant Function

The efficiency of discriminate function is presented in Table 4.57.

Table 4.57 Efficiency of Discriminant Function

Predicted Group Membership Place

Urban Semi-Urban Rural

Total

Urban 174 18 31 223

Semi-Urban 13 119 14 146

Rural 15 14 102 131

%

Urban 78.03 8.07 13.90 100.00

Semi-Urban 8.90 81.51 9.59 100.00

Rural 11.45 10.69 77.86 100.00 Note: 79.00 % of original grouped cases correctly classified


Based on the discriminant function, 79.00 per cent of the measures

have been correctly classified. Therefore, the null hypothesis of there is no

significant brand equity dimensions discrimination in the urban, semi-urban

and rural consumers of durable goods.

165

4.12 IMPACT OF BRAND EQUITY DIMENSIONS ON

OVERALL BRAND EQUITY OF DURABLE GOODS

In order to assess the impact of brand equity dominions on overall

brand equity of durable products, the multiple linear regression by Ordinary

Least Square (OLS) estimation and the results are presented in Table 4.58.

The results indicate that the coefficient of multiple determination (R2 ) is 0.66

and adjusted R2 is 0.62 indicating the regression model is moderately fit.

Table 4.58 Impact of brand equity dimensions on brand equity of durable goods -multiple regression

Dimensions of Brand Equity Regression Coefficients

t-value Sig

Intercept .887** 3.799 .010

Brand Awareness(X1) .933** 6.271 .011

Brand Image (X2) 1.088** 5.675 .014

Perceived Quality (X3) .626 1.156 .549

Brand Association(X4) .561 1.782 .482

Brand Loyalty(X5) .998** 6.927 .011

R2 0.76

Adjusted R2 0.75

F 1.965 0.01

N 500 Note: ** Significance at one per cent level


The results show that brand awareness, brand image and brand

loyalty have positive impact on overall brand equity of durable products at

one per cent level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no

166

significant impact of brand equity dominions on overall brand equity of

durable products is rejected.

4.13 IMPACT OF BRAND EQUITY DIMENSIONS ON

CONSUMER’S BUYING BEHAVIOUR OF DURABLE GOODS

In order to assess the impact of brand equity dominions on

consumer’s buying behaviour of durable products, the multiple linear

regression by Ordinary Least Square (OLS) estimation and the results are

presented in Table 4.59 The results show that the coefficient of multiple

determination (R2 ) is 0.59 and adjusted R2 is 0.57 indicating the regression

model is moderately fit.

Table 4.59 Impact of Brand Equity Dimensions on Consumer Buying Behaviour of Durable Goods -Multiple Regression

Dimensions of Brand Equity Regression Coefficients

t-value Sig

Intercept 4.144** 9.005 .011

Brand Awareness(X1) .312** 6.837 .010

Brand Image (X2) .448** 5.031 .010

Perceived Quality (X3) .362** 6.579 .010

Brand Association(X4) -.007 -.286 .775

Brand Loyalty(X5) .056 1.644 .101

R2 0.59

Adjusted R2 0.57

F 2.358 0.01

N 500 Note: ** Significance at one per cent level


167

The results indicate that brand awareness, brand image and

perceived quality have positive impact on consumer’s buying behaviour of

durable products at one per cent level of significance. Hence, the null

hypothesis of there is no significant impact of brand equity dominions on

consumer’s buying behaviour of durable products is rejected.

4.14 MEASUREMENT OF CUSTOMER BASED BRAND

EQUITY ON DURABLE PRODUCTS

In order to measure the customer based brand equity on durable

products, a Structural Equation Model (SEM) was developed and the results

are presented in Table 4.60. In Structural Equation Model (SEM) for

measurement of customer based brand equity, the brand equity dimensions of

brand awareness, brand image, perceived quality, brand association and brand

loyalty were considered as exogenous factors and the customer based overall

brand equity was considered as endogenous factors.

Table 4.60 Parameter estimates- SEM

Relationship Estimate Std Error

P-Value

Overall Brand Equity Brand Awareness

.733 .020 ***

Overall Brand Equity Brand Image 1.088 .011 ***

Overall Brand Equity Perceived Quality

1.026 .020 ***

Overall Brand Equity Brand Association

.961 .013 ***

Overall Brand Equity Brand Loyalty .998 .017 *** Note: *** indicates significant at one per cent level

168

From the results of structural equation model, the estimate for

overall brand equity against brand awareness is 0.733 and it is statistically

significant at one per cent level. It is inferred that the brand awareness is

directly and positively influences the overall brand equity. Hence, the null

hypothesis of brand awareness has no significant positive direct effect on

overall brand equity is rejected. The estimate for overall brand equity against

brand image is 1.088 and it is statistically significant at one per cent level.

It reveals that the brand image is directly and positively influences the overall

brand equity. Hence, the null hypothesis of brand image has no significant

positive direct effect on overall brand equity is rejected. Meanwhile, the

estimate for overall brand equity against perceived quality is 1.026 and it is

statistically significant at one per cent level. It is observed that the perceived

quality is directly and positively influences the overall brand equity. Hence,

the null hypothesis of perceived quality has no significant positive direct

effect on overall brand equity is rejected.

The estimate for overall brand equity against brand association is

0.961 and it is statistically significant at one per cent level. It is apparent that

the brand association is directly and positively influences the overall brand

equity. Hence, the null hypothesis of brand association has no significant

positive direct effect on overall brand equity is rejected. Besides, the estimate

for overall brand equity against brand loyalty is 0.998 and it is significant at

one per cent level. It is clear that the brand loyalty is directly and positively

influences the overall brand equity. Hence, the null hypothesis of brand

loyalty has no significant positive direct effect on overall brand equity is

rejected.

The structural equation model for customer based brand equity on

durable goods is presented in Figure 4.14

170

The model fit parameters are presented in Table 4.61.

Table- 4.61 Model Fit

Chi-Square Value P-Value GFI CFI RMR RMSEA7.317 0.06 0.95 0.95 0.01 0.04

It indicates an excellent fit with chi-square statistic of 7.317.

The Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) is 0.95 and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is

0.95. These GFI and CFI indicate perfect fit. The standardized Root Mean

Residual (RMR) is 0.01 and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA) is 0.04 indicating excellent fit. Hence, the null hypothesis of there

is no inter-relationship between customer based brand equity dimensions for

durable products is rejected.

chapter 4 data analysis and interpretationshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/22925/9/09...71...

Documents