chapter 4 data analysis and interpretationshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/22925/9/09...71...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Total 500 100.00 Source: Primary Data
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
Total 500 100.00 Source: Primary Data
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
Total 500 100.00 Source: Primary Data
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
Total 500 100.00 Source: Primary Data
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
Total 500 100.00 Source: Primary Data
78
Figure 4.6 Distribution of marital status of consumers of durable goods
The results indicate that 81.60 per cent of the consumers of durable
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
Total 500 100.00 Source: Primary Data
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
Total 500 100.00 Source: Primary Data
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
results are presented in Table 4.10.
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
Source: Primary Data
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
Total 500 100.00 Source: Primary Data
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
Source: Primary Data
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
the results are presented in Table 4.13.
85
Table 4.13 Purchase of mixer-grinder by the consumers
Brand Name No. of Consumers Percentage
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
Total 500 100.00 Source: Primary Data
86
Figure 4.11Purchase of mixer-grinder by the consumers
The results indicate that 13.40 per cent of the consumers of durable
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
the results are presented in Table 4.14.
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
Total 500 100.00 Source: Primary Data
Figure-4.12Purchase of digital camera by the consumers
The results show that 35.00 per cent of the consumers of durable
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
Brand Name No. of Consumers Percentage
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
Total 500 100.00 Source: Primary Data
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
Source: Primary Data
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.
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase value of
refrigerator brands by the consumers.
Table 4.17 Purchase value of refrigerator by the consumers
Brand Name Purchase Value (`)
Percentage F-Value Sig
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
Source: Primary Data
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.
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase value of
washing machine brands by the consumers.
Table 4.18 Purchase value of washing machine by the consumers
Brand Name Purchase Value (`)
Percentage F-Value Sig
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
Source: Primary Data
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
(19.54 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (16.41 per cent), IFB (15.94 per cent),
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
analyzed and the results are presented in Table 4.19 and the following
hypothesis had been formulated.
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase value of
mixer grinder brands by the consumers.
94
Table 4.19 Purchase value of mixer-grinder by the consumers
Brand Name Purchase Value
(`)
Percentage F-Value Sig
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
Source: Primary Data
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
consumers is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is a significant
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
analyzed and the results are presented in Table 4.20 and the following
hypothesis had been formulated.
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase value of
digital camera brands by the consumers.
96
Table 4.20 Purchase value of digital camera by the consumers
Brand Name Purchase Value (`)
Percentage F-Value Sig
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
Source: Primary Data
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
analyzed and the results are presented in Table 4.21 and the following
hypothesis had been formulated.
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase value of
CD/DVD player brands by the consumers.
Table 4.21 Purchase value of CD / DVD player by the consumers
Brand Name Purchase Value (`)
Percentage F-Value Sig
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
Source: Primary Data
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
consumers is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is a significant
difference in purchase value of brand names of the CD/ DVD player among
the consumers of durable goods.
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.
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase value of
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
Source: Primary Data
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.
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of television
brands among the educational qualification of the
consumers of durable goods.
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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
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.
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of television
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
Total Chi-Square Value
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
Source: Primary Data
(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
(10.14 per cent). Besides, the purchase of television by the consumers of
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
(13.48 per cent). Besides, the purchase of television by the consumers of
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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
The results show that among the age group of less than 20 years,
95.24 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of
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
the consumers of durable goods.
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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
The results indicate that among the consumers of school level
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).
Among the consumers of post graduate level education, 35.71 per cent
of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of refrigerator
followed by SAMSUNG (17.86 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (14.29 per cent),
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
durable goods is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is a
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
presented in Table 4.28 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of
refrigerator brands among the monthly income of the
consumers of durable goods.
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
Source: Primary Data
(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, 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).
The Chi-Square value of 80.722 is significant at five per cent level.
. 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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
The results show that among the age group of less than 20 years,
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
followed by SAMSUNG (19.83 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (17.24 per cent),
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).
The Chi-Square value of 68.103 is significant at five per cent level.
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
the consumers of durable goods.
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.
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of washing
machine brands among the educational qualification of the
consumers of durable goods.
Table 4.30 Educational qualification and washing machine brands
Educational QualificationWashing MachineBrands
SchoolLevel
Graduate Level
PostGraduate
Level
ProfessionalTotal Chi-
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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
115
The results indicate that among the consumers of school level
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,
32.60 per cent of the consumers of durable goods purchase LG brand of
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
followed by SAMSUNG (19.05 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (15.48 per cent),
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).
The Chi-Square value of 65.827 is significant at five per cent level.
Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase
value of washing machine brands among the educational qualifications 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 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
is presented in Table 4.31 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.
116
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of washing
machine brands among the monthly income of the
consumers of durable goods.
Table 4.31 Monthly Income and Washing Machine Brands
Monthly Income (`)Washing MachineBrands < 10000 10001-
2000020001-30000
>30000
Total Chi-Square Value
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
Source: Primary Data (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, 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
(17.76 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (17.11 per cent), IFB (11.18 per cent),
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
followed by SAMSUNG (16.53 per cent), WHIRLPOOL (15.70 per cent),
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).
The Chi-Square value of 64.299 is significant at five per cent level.
Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase
value of washing machine 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 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
Table 4.32 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.
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
Total Chi-Square Value
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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
119
The results show that among the age group of less than 20 years,
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.
Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase
value of mixer-grinder brands among the age groups of the consumers of
durable goods is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is a
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
brands is presented in Table 4.33 and the following hypothesis had been
formulated.
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of mixer
grinder brands among the educational qualification of the
consumers of durable goods.
Table 4.33 Educational qualification and mixer-grinder brands
Educational QualificationMixer-GrinderBrands
SchoolLevel
Graduate Level
Post Graduate Level
ProfessionalTotal Chi-
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
The results indicate that among the consumers of school level
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).
Among the consumers of post graduate level education, 17.86 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).
The Chi-Square value of 73.876 is significant at five per cent level.
Therefore, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase
value of mixer-grinder brands among the educational qualifications of the
consumers of durable goods is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that
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
presented in Table 4.34 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of mixer
grinder brands among the monthly income of the
consumers of durable goods.
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
From the above results, it is clear that among the monthly income
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).
Among the monthly income group of ` 20001-30000, 15.70 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.
Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase
value of mixer-grinder brands among the monthly income groups of the
126
consumers of durable goods is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that
there is a significant difference in purchase of mixer-grinder brands among
the monthly income groups of the consumers of durable goods.
4.3.26 Age Vs Digital Camera Brands
The combination of age with digital camera brands is presented in
Table 4.35 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.
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
Total Chi-Square Value
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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
127
The results show that among the age group of less than 20 years,
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).
Among the age group of 41-50 years, 28.37 per cent of the
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).
The Chi-Square value of 73.343 is significant at one per cent level.
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
durable goods is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that there is a
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
brands is presented in Table 4.36 and the following hypothesis had been
formulated.
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of digital
camera brands among the educational qualification of the
consumers of durable goods.
Table 4.36 Educational qualification and digital camera brands
Educational QualificationDigital CameraBrands School
LevelGraduate
LevelPost
Graduate Level
ProfessionalTotal Chi-
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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
The results indicate that among the consumers of school level
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).
The Chi-Square value of 70.969 is significant at five per cent level.
Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase
value of digital camera brands among the educational qualifications of the
consumers of durable goods is rejected. Therefore it can be concluded that
there is a significant difference in purchase of digital camera brands among
the educational qualifications of the consumers of durable goods.
4.3.28 Monthly Income Vs Digital Camera Brands
The combination of monthly income with digital camera brands is
presented in Table 4.37 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.
130
H0 : There is no significant difference in purchase of digital
camera brands among the monthly income of the
consumers of durable goods.
Table 4.37 Monthly income and digital camera brands
Monthly Income(`)Digital CameraBrands < 10000 10001-
2000020001-30000
>30000
Total Chi-Square Value
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
Source: Primary Data (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, 35.44 per cent of the consumers of durable goods
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)
Among the monthly income group of ` 20001-30000, 27.27 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).
The Chi-Square value of 73.235 is significant at one per cent level.
Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase
value of digital camera 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 digital camera brands among
the monthly income groups of the consumers of durable goods.
4.3.29 Age Vs CD/DVD Player Brands
The combination of age with CD/DVD player brands is presented in
Table 4.38 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.
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
Total Chi-Square Value
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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
The results show that among the age group of less than 20 years,
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).
Among the age group of 31-40 years, 40.00 per cent of the
consumers of durable goods purchase SONY brand of CD/DVD player
followed by VIDEOCON (19.38 per cent). Besides, the purchase of CD/DVD
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.
Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase
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
consumers of durable goods.
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
ProfessionalTotal Chi-
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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
The results indicate that among the consumers of school level
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).
Among the consumers of post graduate level education, 41.67 per cent
of the consumers of durable goods purchase SONY brand of CD/DVD player
followed by VIDEOCON (16.67 per cent). Besides, the purchase of CD/DVD
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
consumers of durable goods purchase SONY brand of CD/DVD player
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).
The Chi-Square value of 70.066 is significant at five per cent level.
Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase
value of CD/DVD brands among the educational qualifications 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 educational qualifications of the consumers of durable goods.
4.3.31 Monthly Income Vs CD/DVD Player Brands
The combination of monthly income with CD/DVD player brands
is presented in Table 4.40 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.
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
Total Chi-Square Value
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
Source: Primary Data (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, 34.18 per cent of the consumers of durable goods
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
consumers of durable goods purchase SONY brand of CD/DVD player
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).
Among the monthly income group of ` 20001-30000, 36.36 per cent
of the consumers of durable goods purchase SONY brand of CD/DVD player
followed by VIDEOCON (16.53 per cent). Besides, the purchase of CD/DVD
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).
The Chi-Square value of 71.659 is significant at one per cent level.
Hence, the null hypothesis of there is no significant difference in purchase
value of CD/DVD 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 CD/DVD player brands among
the monthly income groups of the consumers of durable goods.
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
The results show that 64.80 per cent of the consumers of durable
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
among the consumers of durable goods.
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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
The results show that 56.20 per cent of the consumers of durable
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
The results indicate that 60.60 per cent of the consumers of durable
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),
neither agree nor disagree (13.00 per cent), disagree (2.80 per cent) and
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
disagree (16.60 per cent), disagree (3.00 per cent) and strongly disagree
(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
the consumers of durable goods.
145
Table 4.45 Brand image of consumer on durable goods
Image Strongly Agree
Agree Neither AgreeNor
Disagree
Disagree Strongly 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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
The results indicate that 50.00 per cent of the consumers of durable
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
50.40 per cent of the consumers of durable goods followed by strongly agree
(29.60 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (17.40 per cent), strongly disagree
(1.60 per cent) and disagree (1.00 per cent).
The results indicate that 46.40 per cent of the consumers of durable
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
47.80 per cent of the consumers of durable goods followed by strongly agree
(31.80 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (14.00 per cent), disagree
(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
(17.00 per cent), disagree (3.00 per cent) and strongly disagree (2.00 per cent).
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
agree (25.80 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (16.40 per cent), disagree
(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
(20.80 per cent), disagree (4.80 per cent) and strongly disagree (1.00 per cent).
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
agree (30.00 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (19.20 per cent), disagree
(4.80 per cent) and strongly disagree (2.60 per cent).
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
hypothesis had been formulated.
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
Disagree Strongly 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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
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
51.00 per cent of the consumers of durable goods followed by strongly agree
(28.20 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (17.00 per cent), disagree
(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),
neither agree nor disagree (13.40 per cent), disagree (3.40 per cent) and
strongly disagree (0.80 per cent).
The brand have very good service facilities is agreed by
49.40 per cent of the consumers of durable goods followed by strongly agree
(26.60 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (21.80 per cent), disagree
(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).
The F-value of 30.016 is significant at one per cent level of
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
presented in Table 4.47 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.
150
H0 : There is no significant difference in brand association
among the consumers of durable goods.
Table 4.47 Brand Association of Consumer on Durable Goods
Association Strongly Agree
Agree Neither Agree Nor
Disagree
Disagree Strongly 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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
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
agree (41.80 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (10.20 per cent), disagree
(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
disagree (10.40 per cent), disagree (3.20 per cent) and strongly disagree
(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
strongly agree (30.40 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (13.80 per cent),
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
consumers of durable goods followed by strongly agree (27.00 per cent),
neither agree nor disagree (12.20 per cent), disagree (6.00 per cent) and
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
(2.80 per cent) and strongly disagree (0.80 per cent).
The brand is always available is agreed by 52.20 per cent of the
consumers of durable goods followed by strongly agree (29.60 per cent),
neither agree nor disagree (12.80 per cent), disagree (3.20 per cent) and
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
followed by strongly agree (31.00 per cent), neither agree nor disagree
(14.00 per cent), disagree (3.20 per cent) and strongly disagree (2.60 per cent).
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
the consumers of durable goods.
Table 4.48 Brand Loyalty of Consumer on Durable Goods
Loyalty Strongly Agree
Agree Neither AgreeNor
Disagree
Disagree Strongly 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
Source: Primary Data (The figures in the parentheses are percentages to totals)
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
followed by strongly agree (24.80 per cent), neither agree nor disagree
(20.20 per cent), disagree (1.40 per cent) and strongly disagree (1.20 per cent).
The results indicate that 45.80 per cent of the consumers of durable
goods is agreed with they would love to recommend this brand to their friends
followed by strongly agree (30.60 per cent), neither agree nor disagree
(21.40 per cent), disagree (1.80 per cent) and strongly disagree (0.40 per cent).
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
disagree (21.60 per cent), disagree (5.60 per cent) and strongly disagree
(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 agree (30.40 per cent), neither agree nor disagree (19.60 per cent),
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).
The F-value of 29.982 is significant at one per cent level of
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
presented in Table 4.49 and the following hypothesis had been formulated.
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 consumers of durable goods.
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
Source: Primary & Computed Data
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
results are presented in Table 4.52.
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
Source: Primary & Computed Data
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
Source: Primary & Computed Data
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*
Source: Primary & Computed Data
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
Source: Primary & Computed Data
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
Source: Primary & Computed Data
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
Source: Primary & Computed Data
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.