chapter - v analysis and interpretation -...

87

CHAPTER - V

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter an attempt has been made to identify the factors that influenced the

purchase of Household Electronic Consumer Products. For this purpose, a field survey

method was employed to collect the first-hand information from 750 sample respondents.

The respondents have been chosen randomly from different parts of the study area. The

data thus collected were arranged into simple tabular form. The level of satisfaction

perceived by the respondents towards household electronic consumer products was

considered as a dependent variable. The independent variables selected for the study were

living place, age, gender, educational qualification, marital status, occupational status,

monthly income of the family, size of the family, nature of family, level of awareness,

number of products used, type of products used, mode of purchase and finally point of

purchase.

The data were analyzed by using some simple statistical tools like Percentage,

Average, Range, Standard Deviation, Two-way tables and Chi-Square test. In addition to

these tests, Multiple Correlation, Multiple Regression, Multi-Discriminant analysis and

Factor analysis were used appropriately. To further ease analysis and understanding seven

methods of tools/techniques are used and discussed.

I. Chi-Square Test

II. Percentage Analysis

III. Henry Garrett Ranking Technique

IV. Multiple Correlation Analysis

V. Multiple Regression Analysis

VI. Multi-Discriminant Analysis and

VII. Factor Analysis

88

1. CHI-SQUARE TEST

The level of satisfaction of consumers who utilized household electronic products

was measured based on their opinion on satisfaction perceived against their opinion in the

following aspects: Promotional offer, price, emotional value, model, convenience, after

sales service, warranty period, social status, standard of living, quality of product, festival

offers, discounts, power consumption, brand image, shop image, design, color, varieties,

availability, hygiene and packing. The respondents’ opinion were measured based on

scale scoring technique. Likert’s five points scaling was employed and the consumers’

level of satisfaction was classified as low (below 75), medium (76-90) and high (91-100)

based on mean and standard deviation.

TABLE NO. 5.1

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS

Sl. No. Category No. of

Respondents Percentage

1. Low (below 75) 115 15.3

2. Medium (76-90) 221 29.5

3. High (91-100) 414 55.2

Total 750 100.0

Source: Computed from Primary Data

It is observed from the above table that 15.3 percent of the respondents expressed

their level of satisfaction at the low level. It is followed by 29.5 percent at the medium

level and 55.2 percent of the respondents expressed satisfaction at the high level. The two-

way analysis was prepared based on these three strata for data analysis and through this

method chi-square test was employed to test the relationship between the selected

independent variables and dependent variable.

It is concluded that majority (55.2%) of the respondents are highly satisfied with

regard to the household electronic products.

89

CHART NO.5.1

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF THE RESPONDETNTS

90

LIVING PLACE AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

Living place is considered an important factor in this study as it influences ideas

and purchase of products differ accordingly. For this purpose living place was studied

under three classification viz., urban, semi-urban and rural. The 750 sample respondents

chosen consists 255 (34.0%) respondents belonging to urban, 214 (28.5%) respondents

belonging to semi-urban and 281 (37.5%) respondents belonged to rural.

The distribution of sample respondents according to their living place and level of

satisfaction are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.2


S. No. Living place No. of

Respondents % Ave rage

Range S.D Min Max

1. Urban 255 34.0 91.8 65 103 7.1 2. Semi-urban 214 28.5 89.7 58 105 7.4 3. Rural 281 37.5 87.9 60 103 7.5

Total 750 100.0


It could be observed from the above table that the level of satisfaction perceived by

the consumers who survived in urban place ranged between 65 and 103 with an average of

91.8, semi-urban revealed a satisfaction ranging between 58 and 105 with an average of

89.7 and the level of satisfaction perceived by the rural consumers ranged between 60 and

103 with an average of 87.9. It was found from the analysis that the maximum level of

satisfaction was perceived by consumers in urban area.

With a view to find the degree of association between living place of the

respondents and level of satisfaction, a two-way table was prepared and it is exhibited in

the following table.

91

TABLE NO. 5.3


(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S. No. Living place

Level of satisfaction Total Low Medium High

1. Urban 35

(13.7%)

67

(26.3%)

153

(60.0%) 255

2. Semi-urban 24

(11.2%)

58

(27.1%)

132

(61.7%) 214

3. Rural 56

(19.9%)

96

(34.2%)

129

(45.9%) 281

Total 115 221 414 750


It is surmised from the above table that the percentage of high level of satisfaction

of the respondents towards household electronic products was the highest (61.7%) among

the respondents in semi-urban area and the same was the lowest (45.9%) among the

respondents in rural area. The percentage of medium level of satisfaction of the

respondents is highest (34.2%) among the respondents rural area and the same was the

lowest (26.3%) among the respondents who lived in urban area. The percentage of low

level of satisfaction of the respondents towards household electronic products was the

highest (19.9%) among the respondents who survived in rural area and the same was the

lowest (11.2%) among the respondents who lived in semi-urban area.

92

In order to find the relationship between the living area of the respondents and level

of satisfaction, the following null hypothesis has been framed and tested with the help of

Chi-square test and the result is shown in the following table.

H0 : There is no significant relationship between living place of the respondents

and their level of satisfaction.

H1 : There is a significant relationship between living place of the respondents


TABLE NO. 5.4


(CHI-SQUARE TEST)

Factor Calculated χ2 Value Table Value D.F Remarks

Living place 17.148 13.277 4 Significant at 1%

level

Source: Computed

It is evident from the above table that the calculated chi-square value is greater than

the table value and the result is significant at 1% level. Hence, the hypothesis, viz., “living

place of the respondents and level of satisfaction are not associated”, does not hold good.

From the analysis, it is found that there is a close relationship between the living place of

the respondents and level of satisfaction.

93

AGE AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

Age is a prominent factor in deciding the level of satisfaction towards the

household electronic products. For this purpose, age of the consumers was classified into

four groups viz., below 25 years, 26-35 years, 36-45 years and above 45 years. The

sample consists of 193 (25.7%) respondents below 25 years age group, 225 (30.0%)

respondents were of 26-35 years age group, 195 (26.0%) respondents were of 36-45 years

age group and 137 (18.3%) respondents belonged to above 45 years group.

The distribution of sample respondents according to the age of the respondents and

their level of satisfaction are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.5


S. No.

Age (in years)

No. of Respondents % Ave

rage

Range S.D Min Max

1. Below 25 193 25.7 89.8 65 104 7.9 2. 26-35 225 30.0 88.9 58 105 7.8 3. 36-45 195 26.0 90.2 65 103 7.3 4. Above 45 137 18.3 88.3 72 102 6.1 Total 750 100.0


It could be observed from the above table that the level of satisfaction of the

respondents below 25 years towards household electronic products ranged between 65 and

104 with an average of 89.8. The respondents in the age group between 26 and 35 years

revealed their level of satisfaction ranging between 58 and 105 with an average of 88.9, the

level of satisfaction of the respondents between 36 and 45 years age group ranged between

65 and 103 with an average of 90.2 and respondents in the above 45 years group revealed

their level of satisfaction ranging between 72 and 102 with an average of 88.3. It was

found from the analysis that the maximum level of satisfaction of the respondents towards

household electronic products was among the age group between 36 and 45 years.

94

With a view to find the degree of association between age of the respondents and

their level of satisfaction, a two-way table was prepared and it is exhibited in the following

table.

TABLE NO. 5.6


(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S. No.

Age (in years)


1. Below 25 32

(16.6%)

42

(21.8%)

119

(61.7%) 193

2. 26-35 35

(15.6%)

70

(31.1%)

120

(53.3%) 225

3. 36-45 28

(14.4%)

55

(28.2%)

112

(57.4%) 195

4. Above 45 20

(14.6%)

54

(39.4%)

63

(46.0%) 137

Total 115 221 414 750


It is inferred from the above table that the percentage of high level of satisfaction of

the respondents towards household electronic products was the highest (61.7%) among the

respondents of below 25 years age group and the same was the lowest (46.0%) among the

respondents of above 45 years age group. The percentage of medium level of satisfaction

towards electronic products was the highest (39.4%) among the respondents of above 45

years of age category and the same was the lowest (21.8%) among the respondents of

below 25 years category. The percentage of low level of satisfaction of the respondents

towards household electronic products was the highest (16.6%) among the respondents of

below 25 years of age category and the same was the lowest (14.4%) among the

respondents between 36 and 45 years.

95

In order to find the relationship between the age of the respondents and their level

of satisfaction, the following null hypothesis was framed and tested with the help of Chi-

square test and the result is shown in the following table.

H0 : There is no significant relationship between age of the respondents and their

level of satisfaction.

H1 : There is a significant relationship between age of the respondents and their


TABLE NO. 5.7

AGE AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION (CHI-SQUARE TEST)


Age 13.059 12.592 6 Significant at 5%

Level

Source: Computed

The calculated chi-square value is greater than the table value and the result is

significant at 5% level. Hence, the hypothesis, viz., “age of the respondents and level of

satisfaction are not associated”, does not hold good. From the analysis, it is found that

there is a close relationship between age of respondents and level of satisfaction.

96

GENDER AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

Perception of electronic products fluctuates according to gender, in purchase for

their use. For the purpose of this study, gender has been classified into two strata viz.,

male and female. A sample of 363 (48.4%) male respondents and 387 (51.6%) female

respondents were identified.

The distribution of sample respondents according to the gender and their level of

satisfaction perceived are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.8


S. No. Gender No. of


Range S.D Min Max

1. Male 363 48.4 87.9 58 103 7.7 2. Female 387 51.6 90.7 60 105 6.9 Total 750 100.0


It could be observed from the above table that the level of satisfaction of male

respondents towards household electronic products ranged between 58 and 103 with an

average of 87.9. On the other hand, the level of satisfaction of the female respondents

ranged between 60 and 105 with an average of 90.7. From the analysis it could be inferred

that the maximum level of satisfaction was among the female respondents in the study

area.

97

With a view to find the degree of association between gender of the respondents

and level of satisfaction, a two-way table was prepared and it is shown in the following

table.

TABLE NO. 5.9


(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S. No. Gender


1. Male 75

(20.7%)

120

(33.1%)

168

(46.3%)

363

2. Female 40

(10.3%)

101

(26.1%)

246

(63.6%)

387

Total 115 221 414 750

Source: Computed

It is inferred from the table that the percentage of level of satisfaction of the

respondents was highest (63.6%) among the female respondents and the same was the

lowest (46.3%) among the male respondents. The percentage of medium level of

satisfaction was the high (33.1%) among the male respondents and the low (26.1%) among

the female respondents. The percentage of low level of satisfaction was high (20.7%)

among the male respondents and the same was the lowest (10.3%) among the female

respondents.

98

In order to find the relationship between the gender of the respondents and level of

satisfaction, the following null hypothesis was framed and tested with the help of Chi-


H0 : There is no significant relationship between gender and their level of

satisfaction.

H1 : There is a significant relationship between gender and their level of

satisfaction.

TABLE NO. 5.10


(CHI-SQUARE TEST)


Gender 26.240 9.210 2 Significant at 1%

level

Source: Computed

It is witnessed from the above table that the calculated chi-square value is greater

than the table value and the result is significant at 1% level. Hence, the hypothesis viz.,

“Gender of the respondents and level of satisfaction are not associated”, does not hold

good. From this analysis, it is concluded that there is a close relationship between the

gender of the respondents and their level of satisfaction.

99

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

In order to study the level of satisfaction in relation to educational qualification of

the respondents, a study was done wherein, four categories namely illiterate, school level,

college level and professional education was considered. In the sample 61 (8.1%)

respondents are illiterate, 178 (23.7%) respondents have school level education, 364

(48.6%) respondents have college level education and 147 (19.6%) respondents are

professionally qualified.

The distribution of sample respondents according to their educational qualification

and level of satisfaction perceived are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.11


S. No.

Educational status


rage Range

S.D Min Max

1. Illiterate 61 8.1 89.6 66 105 7.4 2. School level 178 23.7 88.9 60 103 7.2 3. College 364 48.6 90.4 69 103 7.3 4. Professional 147 19.6 88.7 58 103 8.0 Total 750 100.0


It could be observed from above table that the level of satisfaction of the

respondents regarding household electronic products of illiterate ranged between 66 and

105 with an average of 89.6, the satisfaction of school level ranged between 60 and 103

with an average of 88.9. The level of satisfaction of college level ranged between 69 and

103 with an average of 90.4 and the level of satisfaction of professional level ranged

between 58 and 103 with an average of 88.7. From the analysis it was concluded that the

maximum level of satisfaction towards household electronic products was among college

level educated consumers.

100

With a view to find the degree of association between the educational qualification

and level of satisfaction, a two-way table was prepared and it is exhibited in the following

table.

TABLE NO. 5.12


(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S. No.

Educational Qualification


1. Illiterate 7

(11.5%)

16

(26.2%)

38

(62.3%) 61

2. School level 26

(14.6%)

61

(34.3%)

91

(51.1%) 178

3. College 54

(14.8%)

103

(28.3%)

207

(56.9%) 364

4. Professional 28

(19.0%)

41

(27.9%)

78

(53.1%) 147

Total 115 221 414 750


It could be learned from the above table that the percentage of level of satisfaction

of the respondents was highest (62.3%) among illiterate respondents and the same was the

lowest (51.1%) among the respondents of school level. The percentage of medium level of

satisfaction was highest (34.3%) among the respondents of school level and the same was

the lowest (26.2%) among illiterate respondents. Percentage of low level of satisfaction

was highest (19.0%) among the respondents of professional category and the lowest

(11.5%) among illiterate respondents.

101

In order to find the relationship between the educational qualification of the

respondents and level of satisfaction, the following null hypothesis was framed and tested

with the help of Chi-square test and the result is shown in the following table.

H0 : There is no significant relationship between educational qualification and


H1 : There is a significant relationship between educational qualification and


TABLE NO. 5.13


(CHI-SQUARE TEST)


Educational

status 5.336 12.592 6 Not Significant

Source: Computed It is divulged from the table that the calculated chi-square value is less than the

table value and the result is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis “education qualification

of the respondents and their level of satisfaction are not associated”, holds good. From the

analysis it is concluded that there is no relationship between educational qualification of

the respondents and level of satisfaction.

102

MARITAL STATUS AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

Marital status plays an important role in purchase of household electronic products

and study was conducted to learn their level of satisfaction under two categories namely

married and unmarried. The sample chosen consists 383 (51.1%) married respondents and

367 (48.9%) in unmarried category.

The distribution of sample respondents according to the marital status of the

respondents and level of satisfaction are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.14


S.

No. Marital status No. of


Range S.D Min Max

1. Married 383 51.1 89.7 65 105 7.5 2. Unmarried 367 48.9 89.0 58 104 7.3 Total 750 100.0


It could be inferred from the above table that the level of satisfaction of the

respondents towards household electronic products by the married respondents ranged

between 65 and 105 with an average of 89.7 percent and the level of satisfaction of the

respondents towards household electronic products by the unmarried respondents ranged

between 58 and 104 with an average of 89.0. From the analysis it was concluded that the

maximum level of satisfaction was attained by married consumers towards household

electronic products.

103

With a view to find the degree of association between the marital status and level of

satisfaction, a two-way table was prepared and it is shown in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.15


(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S. No. Marital status Level of satisfaction Total Low Medium High

1. Married 59

(15.4%)

106

(27.7%)

218

(56.9%) 383

2. Unmarried 56

(15.3%)

115

(31.3%)

196

(53.4%) 367

Total 115 221 414 750 Source: Computed

It is highlighted from the above table that the percentage of high level of

satisfaction of the respondents towards household electronic products was the highest

(56.9%) among the married respondents and the lowest (53.4%) among the unmarried

respondents. On the other hand, the percentage of medium level of satisfaction of the

respondents was highest (31.3%) among the unmarried respondents and the lowest (27.7%)

among the married respondents. Finally, the percentage of the low level of satisfaction of

the respondents was highest (15.4%) among the married respondents and same was the

lowest (15.3%) among the respondents of unmarried category.

104

In order to find the relationship between the marital status of the respondents and

level of satisfaction, the following null hypothesis was framed and tested with the help of


H0 : There is no significant relationship between marital status and level of

satisfaction.

H1 : There is a significant relationship between marital status and level of

satisfaction.

TABLE NO. 5.16


(CHI-SQUARE TEST)


Marital

status 1.273 5.991 2

Not

Significant

Source: Computed

It is observed from the table that the calculated chi-square value is less than the

table value and the result is not significant. Hence, the hypothesis viz., “marital status of

the respondents and their level of satisfaction are not associated”, holds good. From the

analysis it is concluded that marital status has no bearing on the level of satisfaction in

purchased electronic products.

105

OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

Occupational status is very important factor in the study area. The consumers are

purchasing the household electronic products according to their present occupational

status. Influence of present occupational status on level of satisfaction was studied under

six classifications viz., housewife, agriculturist, business, private employee, government

employee and self employee. The 750 samples chosen consist of 136 (18.1%) respondents

housewives, 119 (15.9%) respondents agriculturists, 135 (18.0%) respondents in business,

152 (20.3%) respondents privately employed, 107 (14.3%) respondents government

employed and 101 (13.5%) respondents self-employed.

The distribution of sample respondents according to the present occupational status

of the respondents and level of satisfaction are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.17

OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

S. No. Occupational status No. of


Range S.D Min Max 1. Housewives 136 18.1 91.0 70 102 7.0 2. Agriculturists 119 15.9 89.7 65 101 6.7 3. Business 135 18.0 89.2 58 103 8.0 4. Private employee 152 20.3 89.3 65 105 7.8 5. Govt. employee 107 14.3 89.4 69 103 7.3 6. Self employed 101 13.5 87.9 60 104 7.4 Total 750 100.0


It could be noted from the above table that the level of satisfaction expressed by

housewives ranged between 70 and 102 with an average of 91.0. The level of satisfaction

of agriculturist ranged between 65 and 101 with an average of 89.7 and respondents in

business ranged between 58 and 103 with an average of 89.2. The level of satisfaction of

private employees ranged between 65 and 105 with an average of 89.3, government

employees ranged between 69 and 103 with an average of 89.4 and level of satisfaction of

the self employed ranged between 60 and 104 with an average of 87.9. It was found from

106

the analysis that the maximum level of satisfaction is perceived by housewives towards

utilizing household electronic products.

With a view to find the degree of association between present status of the

respondents and level of satisfaction, a two-way table was prepared and it is exhibited

below.

TABLE NO. 5.18

OCUPATIONAL STATUS AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S. No. Occupational status Level of satisfaction Total

Low Medium High

1. Housewives 28

(20.6%)

47

(34.6%)

61

(44.9%)

136

2. Agriculturists 15

(12.6%)

35

(29.4%)

69

(58.0%)

119

3. Business 19

(14.1%)

45

(33.3%)

71

(52.6%)

135

4. Private employee 17

(11.2%)

48

(31.6%)

87

(57.2%)

152

5. Govt. employee 27

(25.2%)

16

(15.0%)

64

(59.8%)

107

6. Self employee 9

(8.9%)

30

(29.7%)

62

(61.4%)

101


It is surmised from the above table that the percentage of high level of satisfaction

of the respondents was the highest (61.4%) among self employed respondents and lowest

(44.9%) among housewives. The percentage of medium level of satisfaction was highest

(34.6%) among housewives and the same lowest (15.0%) among government employees.

The percentage of low level of satisfaction was the highest (25.2%) among government

employees and lowest (8.9%) among self employed.

107

In order to find the relationship between the occupational status of the respondents

and level of satisfaction, the following null hypothesis was framed and tested with the help

of Chi-square test and the result is shown in the following table.

H0 : There is no significant relationship between occupational status of the

respondents and their level of satisfaction.

H1 : There is a significant relationship between occupational status of the


TABLE NO. 5.19

OCUPATIONAL STATUS AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

(CHI-SQUARE TEST)


Occupational

status 28.391 23.209 10 Significant at 1% level

Source: Computed

It is observed from the above table that the calculated chi-square value is greater

than the table value and the result is significant at 1% level. Hence, the hypothesis, viz.,

“occupational status of the respondents and level of satisfaction are not associated”, does

not hold good. From the analysis, it is found that there is a close relationship between the

present status of the respondents and level of satisfaction.

108

FAMILY INCOME AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

Family income is a major factor in drawing budget to purchase their household

electronic products. To study the level of satisfaction in relation to family monthly

income, monthly income has been grouped into five viz., below Rs.15000, Rs.15001-

25000, Rs.25001-35000, and Rs.35001-45000 and above Rs.45001. The sample consists

218 (29.1%) respondents earning Rs.15000 and below, 169 (22.5%) respondents earning

between Rs.15001 and 25000, 220 (29.3%) respondents between Rs.25001 and 35000, 102

(13.6%) respondents between Rs.35001 and 45000 and 41 (5.5%) respondents in the

earning above Rs.45000 group. The distribution of sample respondents according to the

family income level and level of satisfaction are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.20


S. No.

Family income level in Rs.


rage Range S.D Min Max

1. Below Rs.15000 218 29.1 89.1 60 104 7.9 2. Rs.15001-25000 169 22.5 88.5 58 103 7.3 3. Rs.25001-35000 220 29.3 90.6 65 105 7.4 4. Rs.35001-45000 102 13.6 90.2 73 103 6.5 5. Above Rs.45000 41 5.5 88.3 69 100 7.3 Total 750 100.0


It could be identified from the above table that the level of satisfaction of the

consumers of household electronic products in the family income below Rs.15000 group

ranged between 60 and 104 with an average of 89.1, level of satisfaction of consumers in

income between Rs.15001 and Rs.25000 ranged between 58 and 103 with an average of

88.5, level of satisfaction of consumer in family income between Rs.25001 and Rs.35000

ranged between 65 and 105 with an average of 90.6,the level of satisfaction of consumers

in family income group between Rs.35001 and Rs.45000 ranged between 73 and 103 with

an average of 90.2 and finally the level of satisfaction of consumers in Rs.45001 and

above family income group ranged between 69 and 100 with an average of 88.3. The

study exhibited maximum level of satisfaction of consumers among the group of family

income between Rs.25001-35000.

109

With a view to find the degree of association between the family income of the

respondents and level of satisfaction, a two-way table was prepared and it is exhibited in


TABLE NO. 5.21


(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S. No.

Family income level in Rs.


1. Below Rs.15000 33

(15.1%)

71

(32.6%)

114

(52.3%)

218

2. Rs.15001-25000 27

(16.0%)

56

(33.1%)

86

(50.9%)

169

3. Rs.25001-35000 34

(15.5%)

52

(23.6%)

134

(60.9%)

220

4. Rs.35001-45000 8

(7.8%)

34

(33.3%)

60

(58.8%)

102

5. Above Rs.45000 13

(31.7%)

8

(19.5%)

20

(48.8%)

41

Total 115 221 414 750

Source: Computed

It could be explained from the above table that the percentage of high level of

satisfaction of the respondents was highest (60.9%) among the respondents of family

income between Rs.25001 and 35000 and the same was the lowest (48.8%) among the

respondent of their family income of above Rs.45001, the percentage of medium level of

satisfaction was the highest (33.3%) among the respondents of family income between

Rs.35001 and 45000 and the same lowest (19.5%) among the respondents of family

income of Rs.45001 and above, the percentage of low level of satisfaction was highest

(31.7%) among the respondents of family income Rs. 45001 and above and same was the

lowest (7.8%) among the respondents of family income between Rs.35001-45000.

110

In order to find the relationship between the family income of the respondents and



H0 : There is no significant relationship between family income and their level

of satisfaction.

H1 : There is a significant relationship between family income and their level of

satisfaction.

TABLE NO. 5.22


(CHI-SQUARE TEST)


Family income

level 19.623 15.507 8

Significant at 5%

Level

Source: Computed

It is examined from the table that the calculated chi-square value is greater than the

table value and the result is significant at 5% level. Hence, the hypothesis viz., “family

income of the respondents and their level of satisfaction are not associated”, does not hold

well. From the study it is concluded that there is a close relationship between family

income of the respondents and their level of satisfaction.

111

SIZE OF THE FAMILY AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

A study of family size and its impact on level of satisfaction derived with regard to

household electronic products purchased was done. For this purpose, the size of the

family has been classified under three categories namely: upto 3 members, 4-5 members

and above 5 members. The sample consist 302 (40.3%) respondents belonging to 3

members, 269 (35.9%) respondents belonging to 4-5 members and 179 (23.9%)

respondents belonged to 5 members and above.

The distribution of sample respondents according to the size of the family and their

level of satisfaction are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.23


S. No. Size of the family No. of


Range S.D Min Max

1. Upto 3 members 302 40.3 88.5 65 103 7.2 2. 4-5 members 269 35.9 90.1 60 105 7.4 3. Above 5 members 179 23.9 89.7 58 103 7.9 Total 750 100.0


It could be observed from the above table that the level of satisfaction of the

respondents belonging to 3 member family ranged between 65 and 103 with an average of

88.5, level of satisfaction of the respondents in the 4-5 member family ranged between 60

and 105 with an average of 90.1 and, the level of satisfaction of the respondents in the 5+

family ranged between 58 and 103 with an average of 89.7. It was concluded from the

analysis that maximum level of satisfaction was attained by the respondents in the 4-5

member family group.

112

With a view to find the degree of association between the size of the family and

level of satisfaction, a two-way table was prepared and it is exhibited in the following

table.

TABLE NO. 5.24


(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S. No. Size of the family


1. Upto 3 members 55

(18.2%)

98

(32.5%)

149

(49.3%)

302

2. 4-5 members 32

(11.9%)

80

(29.7%)

157

(58.4%)

269

3. Above 5 members 28

(15.6%)

43

(24.0%)

108

(60.3%)

179

Total 115 221 414 750

Source: Computed

Above table indicates the percentage of high level of satisfaction of the respondents

was the highest (60.3%) among the respondents of 5+ members family and the same was

the lowest (49.3%) among the respondent of 3 members family. Similarly, the percentage

of medium level of satisfaction was the highest (32.5%) among the respondents of 3

member family and lowest (24.0%) among the respondents of 5 plus members family and

percentage of low level of satisfaction the highest (18.2%) in the 3member family and

lowest (11.9%) in 4-5 member family.

113

In order to find the relationship between the size of the family of the respondents

and their level of satisfaction, the following null hypothesis was framed and tested with the

help of Chi-square test and the result is shown in the following table.

H0 : There is no significant relationship between size of the family and their


H1 : There is a significant relationship between size of the family and their level

of satisfaction.

TABLE NO. 5.25


(CHI-SQUARE TEST)


Size of the

family 9.659 9.488 4

Significant at 5%

Level

Source: Computed

It is seen from the above table that the calculated chi-square value is greater than

the table value and the result is significant at 5% level. Hence, the hypothesis viz., “size of

the family and their level of satisfaction are not associated”, does not hold good. From the

analysis it is concluded that there is a close relationship between size of the family of the


114

NATURE OF FAMILY AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

Household electronic products have become necessary for every family in the

present day lifestyle. The level of perception regarding level of satisfaction is greatly

influenced by the nature of family adopted. The present study is considering the two types

family like nuclear family and joint family. The sample consists of 428 (57.1%)

respondents belonging to nuclear family and 322 (42.9%) joint family.

The distribution of sample respondents in respect to the level of satisfaction is

shown in the table below.

TABLE NO. 5.26


S. No. Nature of family No. of


Range S.D Min Max

1. Nuclear family 428 57.1 89.9 58 105 7.5 2. Joint family 322 42.9 88.6 65 103 7.4 Total 750 100.0


It could be explained from the above table that the level of satisfaction of the

respondents towards household electronic products of nuclear family ranged between 58

and 105 with an average of 89.9. And the level of satisfaction of the respondents in joint

families ranged between 65 and 103 with an average of 88.6. It was concluded from the

analysis that maximum level of satisfaction is attained by the nuclear family respondents.

115

With a view to find the degree of association between the nature of family and level

of satisfaction, a two-way table was prepared and it is exhibited in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.27


(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S. No. Nature of family


1. Nuclear family 57

(13.3%)

116

(27.1%)

255

(59.6%)

428

2. Joint family 58

(18.0%)

105

(32.6%)

159

(49.4%)

322


It is explained from the above table that the percentage of high level of satisfaction

of the respondents towards household electronic products was the highest (59.6%) among

the respondents of nuclear family and the same was the lowest (49.4%) among the

respondent of joint family. Similarly, the percentage of medium levels of satisfaction of

the respondents the highest (32.6%) among the respondents of joint family and the lowest

(27.1%) among the respondents of nuclear family. On the other hand, the percentage of

low level of satisfaction of the respondents the highest (18.0%) among the respondents of

joint family and lowest (13.3%) among the respondents of nuclear family.

116

In order to find the relationship between the nature of family and their level of



H0 : There is no significant relationship between nature of family and their level

of satisfaction.

H1 : There is a significant relationship between nature of family and their level

of satisfaction.

TABLE NO. 5.28


(CHI-SQUARE TEST)


Nature of

family 7.995 5.991 2

Significant at 5%

Level

Source: Computed It is evident from the table that the calculated chi-square value is greater than the

table value and the result is significant at 5% level. Hence, the hypothesis viz., “nature of

family and their level of satisfaction are not associated”, does not hold good. From the

analysis it is concluded that there is a close relationship between nature of family and their


117

LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

Although electronic household products are manufactured and available in markets

to facilitate consumers in their everyday life not all electronic household products are not

known to everybody. So the analysis has to made to learn the level of awareness of these

products and to examine the level of satisfaction in relation to the awareness. For this

purpose, level of awareness has been classified into three categories namely low, medium

and high. The sample consists 82 (10.9%) respondents in the low level, 211 (28.1%)

respondents in the medium level and 457 (60.9%) respondents belonged to high level.

The distribution of sample respondents according to the level of awareness and

level of satisfaction are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.29


S. No. Level of Awareness No. of


Range S.D Min Max 1. Low 82 10.9 90.5 80 104 4.6 2. Medium 211 28.1 86.1 60 103 7.2 3. High 457 60.9 93.1 58 105 7.4 Total 750 100.0



respondents of low level of awareness ranged between 80 and 104 with an average of 90.5,

level of satisfaction of the respondents in the medium level of awareness ranged between

60 and 103 with an average of 86.1 and level of satisfaction in the high level of awareness

group ranged between 58 and 105 with an average of 93.1. From the findings it was

concluded that maximum level of satisfaction is attained by the respondents of high level

of product awareness.

118

With a view to find the degree of association between the level of awareness and

level of satisfaction, a two-way table was prepared and it is exhibited in the table below.

TABLE NO. 5.30


(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S. No. Level of awareness Level of Satisfaction Total Low Medium High

1. Low 12

(14.6%)

9

(11.0%)

61

(74.4%)

82

2. Medium 42

(19.9%)

86

(40.8%)

83

(39.3%)

211

3. High 61

(13.3%)

126

(27.6%)

270

(59.1%)

457

Total 115 221 414 750

Source: Computed

The above table shows that the percentage of high level of satisfaction was highest

(74.4%) among the respondents of low level of awareness and the same lowest (39.3%)

among the respondents of medium level of awareness. Similarly, the percentage of

medium level of satisfaction was the highest (40.8%) among the respondents of medium

level of awareness and the same was lowest (11.0%) among the respondents of low level

of awareness, and the percentage of low level of satisfaction was the highest (19.9%)

among the respondents of medium level of awareness and same was the lowest (13.3%)

among the respondents of high level of awareness.

119

In order to find the relationship between the level of awareness and their level of



H0 : There is no significant relationship between level of awareness and their


H1 : There is a significant relationship between level of awareness and their level

of satisfaction.

TABLE NO. 5.31


(CHI-SQUARE TEST)


Level of

awareness 39.616 13.277 4 Significant at 1% level

Source: Computed

It is witnessed from the table that the calculated chi-square value is greater than the

table value and the result is significant at 1% level. Hence, the hypothesis “level of

awareness and their level of satisfaction are not associated”, does not hold well. From the

analysis it is concluded that there is a close relationship between level of awareness and

their level of satisfaction.

120

NUMBER OF PRODUCTS USED AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

Level of satisfaction in regard to the number of electronic products purchased and

used was studied. For this purpose of the study, number of products used were classified

into three categories namely, upto10 products, 11-15 products and above 15 products. The

sample consist 563 (75.1%) respondents using below 10 products, 112 (14.9%) respondents

used between 11 and 15 and 75 (10.0%) respondents used above 15 products.

The distribution of sample respondents according to the number of products used

and level of satisfaction are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.32

NUMBER OF PRODUCTS USED BY THE RESPONDENTS AND LEVEL OF

SATISFACTION

S. No.

Number of products using


rage Range

S.D Min Max

1. < 10 products 563 75.1 89.1 60 105 7.6 2. 11-15 products 112 14.9 90.3 58 103 7.3 3. > 15 products 75 10.0 89.9 72 103 6.6 Total 750 100.0


It could be inferred from the above table that the level of satisfaction of the

respondents using below 10 products ranged between 60 and 105 with an average of 89.1,

level of satisfaction of respondents using between 11 and 15 products ranged between 58

and 103 with an average of 90.3, and the level of satisfaction of the respondents who were

using above 15 products ranged between 72 and 103 with an average of 89.9. From the

analysis it was concluded that maximum level of satisfaction was expressed by those

respondents who were using between 11 and 15 household electronic products.

121

With a view to find the degree of association between the number of products used

and level of satisfaction, a two-way table was prepared and it is exhibited as below.

TABLE NO. 5.33

NUMBER OF PRODUCTS USED AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S. No.

Number of products using


1. <10 products 90

(16.0%)

169

(30.0%)

304

(54.0%)

563

2. 11-15 products 13

(11.6%)

15

(13.4%)

84

(75.0%)

112

3. > 15 products 12

(16.0%)

37

(49.3%)

26

(34.7%)

75

Total 115 221 414 750

Source: Computed

It is observed from the above table that the percentage of high level of satisfaction

was the highest (75.0%) among the respondents using 11 to 15 products and the same was

the lowest (34.7%) among the respondents using 15+ products, the percentage of medium

level of satisfaction of the respondents was highest (49.3%) among the respondents using

15 plus products and the same was the lowest (13.4%) among 11 to15 product users and

the percentage of low level of satisfaction of the respondents was the highest (16.0%) in

both, the below 10 and above 15 product users, and same was the lowest (11.6%) among

the respondents of using between 11 and15 products.

122

In order to find the relationship between the number of products used and their



H0 : There is no significant relationship between number of products used and


H1 : There is a significant relationship between number of products used and


TABLE NO. 5.34

NUMBER OF PRODUCTS AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

(CHI-SQUARE TEST)


Number of

products used 34.947 13.277 4

Significant at 1%

Level

Source: Computed

It is evident from the table that the calculated chi-square value is greater than the

table value and the result is significant at 1% level. Hence, the hypothesis viz., “number of

products used and their level of satisfaction are not associated”, does not hold good. From

the analysis it is concluded that there is a close relationship between number of products

used and their level of satisfaction.

123

TYPE OF PRODUCTS PURCHASED AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

Brand names and their influence on the level of satisfaction in users was studied

taking into consideration the type –branded / non-branded - of product purchased and used.

The sample consist 404 (53.9%) respondents who used branded products and 346 (46.1%)

respondents who used non-branded products. The findings of the sample respondents

according to the type of products purchased and level of satisfaction are shown in the

following table.

TABLE NO. 5.35


S. No.

Type of products purchased


rage Range

S.D Min Max

1. Branded 404 53.9 90.5 65 104 7.3 2. Non-branded 346 46.1 88.3 58 105 7.5 Total 750 100.0


It was clear from the above table that the level of satisfaction of the respondents

using branded products ranged between 65 and 104 with an average of 90.5 and level of

satisfaction of the non-branded product users ranged between 58 and 105 with an average

of 88.3. From the study it was concluded that maximum level of satisfaction is attained by

the respondents using branded household electronic products.

124

With a view to find the degree of association between the type of products

purchased and level of satisfaction, a two-way table was prepared and it is exhibited in the

following table.

TABLE NO. 5.36


(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S. No.

Type of products purchased


1. Branded 74

(18.3%)

132

(32.7%)

198

(49.0%) 404

2. Non-branded 41

(11.8%)

89

(25.7%)

216

(62.4%) 346

Total 115 221 414 750

Source: Computed It is clear from the above table that the percentage of high level of satisfaction of

the respondents was the highest (62.4%) among the users of non-branded products and the

lowest (49.0%) among the users of branded products, the percentage of medium level of

satisfaction was the highest (32.7%) among the users of branded products and the same

was the lowest (25.7%) among the users non-branded products and, the percentage of low

level of satisfaction was highest (18.3%) among the users of branded products and was

lowest (11.8%) among the respondents using non-branded products.

125

In order to find the relationship between the type of products purchased and their



H0 : There is no significant relationship between type of products purchased and


H1 : There is a significant relationship between type of products purchased and


TABLE NO. 5.37


(CHI-SQUARE TEST)

Factor Calculated χ2 Value

Table Value D.F Remarks

Type of products

purchased 14.218 9.210 2

Significant at 1%

Level

Source: Computed

It is exhibited from the table that the calculated chi-square value is greater than the

table value and the result is significant at 1% level. Hence, the hypothesis viz., “type of

products purchased and their level of satisfaction are not associated”, does not hold good.

From the analysis it is concluded that there is a close relationship between type of products

purchased and their level of satisfaction.

126

MODE OF PAYMENT AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

Payment method is only the final movement of purchase pattern of consumer

goods. Mode of payment and its contribution to the level of satisfaction has been studied

under four heads namely cash/debit card, full credit, installment credit and use of credit

card. The sample consists 171 (22.8%) consumers who paid by cash/debit card, 198

(26.4%) purchasing for full credit, 206 (27.5%) by installment credit and 175 (23.3%)

respondents purchasing by credit card.

The distribution of sample respondents according to the mode of payment and level

of satisfaction are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.38


S. No. Mode of payment No. of


Range S.D Min Max

1. Cash / Debit card 171 22.8 88.6 65 105 7.6 2. Full credit 198 26.4 89.6 65 103 6.8 3. Installment credit 206 27.5 90.4 58 104 8.0 4. Use of credit card 175 23.3 90.4 60 103 7.1 Total 750 100.0



respondents who paid by cash/debit card ranged between 65 and 105 with an average of

88.6, level of satisfaction of the those on full credit ranged between 65 and 103 with an

average of 89.6, the level of satisfaction of those paying by installment credit ranged

between 58 and 104 with an average of 90.4 and consumers who purchased products by

credit card ranged between 60 and 103 with an average of 90.4. From the analysis it was

concluded that maximum level of satisfaction was experienced by consumers who

purchased household products by credit card and installment credit.

127

With a view to find the degree of association between mode of payment and level


TABLE NO. 5.39


(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S.

No. Mode of payment

Level of satisfaction Total

Low Medium High

1. Cash / Debit card 35

(20.5%)

56

(32.7%)

80

(46.8%) 171

2. Full credit 24

(12.1%)

63

(31.8%)

111

(56.1%) 198

3. Installment credit 38

(18.4%)

54

(26.2%)

114

(55.3%) 206

4. Use of credit card 18

(10.3%)

48

(27.4%)

109

(62.3%) 175

Total 115 221 414 750

Source: Computed

It is noted from the above table the percentage of level of satisfaction of the

consumers is the highest (62.3%) among the people using credit card payment and the

same was the lowest (46.8%) among the consumers paying by cash/debit card. Similarly,

the percentage of medium level of satisfaction was the highest (32.7%) among those

paying by cash/debit card and lowest (26.2%) among the consumers availing installment

credit, percentage of low level of satisfaction of consumers was the highest (20.5%) among

those paying by cash/debit card and same was the lowest (10.3%) among the consumers

using credit cards.

128

In order to find the relationship between the mode of payment and their level of



H0 : There is no significant relationship between mode of payment of


H1 : There is a significant relationship between mode of payment of respondents


TABLE NO. 5.40


(CHI-SQUARE TEST)


Mode of

payment 14.279 12.592 6

Significant at 5%

Level

Source: Computed

It is highlighted from the table that the calculated chi-square value is greater than

the table value and the result is significant at 5% level. Hence, the hypothesis viz., “mode

of payment and level of satisfaction of the respondents are not associated”, does not hold

good. From the analysis it is concluded that there is a close relationship between mode of

payment and their level of satisfaction.

129

POINT OF PURCHASE AND LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

Point of purchase is decided based on many factors such as proximity, after sales

service access, credit facility, reputation of outlet etc. In order to study the level of

satisfaction in relation to the point of purchase, purchase outlets have been classified into

six categories namely company showroom, retail outlets, wholesale stores, departmental

stores, super markets and other places like gift shop. The sample consists 125 (16.7%)

consumers purchasing from company showrooms, 139 (18.5%) from retail stores, 154

(20.5%) from wholesale stores, 145 (19.3%) purchasing from departmental stores, 118

(15.7%) consumers buying in supermarkets and 69 (9.2%) consumers buying in other

places like gift shops. The distribution of sample respondents according to the point of

purchase and level of satisfaction are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.41


S. No. Point of purchase No. of


Range S.D Min Max 1. Company showroom 125 16.7 89.9 72 104 6.7 2. Retail store 139 18.5 89.2 70 103 7.1 3. Wholesale store 154 20.5 89.9 58 103 8.1 4. Departmental store 145 19.3 87.9 68 105 7.6 5. Supermarket 118 15.7 89.3 60 103 7.4 6. Others 69 9.2 87.4 66 103 7.7 Total 750 100.0 Source: Computed from Primary Data

It could be seen from the above table that the level of satisfaction attained in

purchases made in company showroom ranged between 72 and 104 with an average of

89.9, level of satisfaction from purchases in retail store ranged between 70 and 103 with an

average of 89.2, level of satisfaction of those purchasing from wholesale store ranged

between 58 and 103 with an average of 89.9. Similarly level of satisfaction of consumers

purchasing from departmental store ranged between 68 and 105 with an average of 87.9,

the level of satisfaction for consumers purchasing in supermarket ranged between 60 and

103 with an average of 89.3 and level of satisfaction of consumers who chose other points

of purchase ranged between 66 and 103 with an average of 87.4. From the findings it was

concluded that maximum level of satisfaction was achieved by the consumers who chose

to buy household products from company showrooms and wholesale stores.

130

With a view to find the degree of association between point of purchase and level


TABLE NO. 5.42


(TWO-WAY TABLE)

S.

No. Point of purchase

Level of satisfaction Total

Low Medium High

1. Company showroom 16

(12.8%)

38

(30.4%)

71

(56.8%)

125

(100%)

2. Retail store 39

(28.1%)

20

(14.4%)

80

(57.6%)

139

(100%)

3. Wholesale store 9

(5.8%)

65

(42.2%)

80

(51.9%)

154

(100%)

4. Departmental store 26

(17.9%)

43

(29.7%)

76

(52.4%)

145

(100%)

5. Supermarket 17

(14.4%)

34

(28.8%)

67

(56.8%)

118

(100%)

6. Others 8

(11.6%)

21

(30.4%)

40

(58.0%)

69

(100%)

Total 115 221 414 750

Source: Computed

It is inferred from the above table that the percentage of high level of satisfaction

attained by consumers purchasing household electronic products from outlets like gift shop

was the highest (58.0%) and the same was the lowest (51.9%) among the people who

purchased in wholesale stores. Similarly, the percentage of medium level of satisfaction

was the highest (42.2%) among the respondents who purchased in wholesale store and the

same was the lowest (14.4%) for those who purchased in retail store. On the other hand,

the percentage of low level of satisfaction was the highest (28.1%) among the

respondents who purchased in retail store and same was the lowest (5.8%) among those

purchasing in wholesale store.

131

In order to find the relationship between the point of purchase and their level of



H0 : There is no significant relationship between point of purchase and their


H1 : There is a significant relationship between point of purchase and their level

of satisfaction.

TABLE NO. 5.43


(CHI-SQUARE TEST)

Factor Calculated χ2 Value

Table Value D.F Remarks

Point of

purchase 45.709 23.209 10

Significant at 1%

Level

Source: Computed

It is observed from the table that the calculated chi-square value is greater than the

table value and the result is significant at 1% level. Hence, the hypothesis viz., “point of

purchase and their level of satisfaction are not associated”, does not hold good. From the

analysis it is concluded that there is a close relationship between point of purchase and


132

II. PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS

AWARENESS ABOUT THE PRODUCTS

Period of awareness by the consumers about products was studied taking twenty-

five items into consideration and findings shown in table below.

TABLE NO.5.44

PERIOD OF AWARENESS ABOUT THE PRODUCTS

No. Products

≤ 5

Years

6-10

Years

> 10

Years Total

1 Radio 25

(3.3%)

346

(46.1%)

379

(50.5%)

750

(100%)

2 TV 175

(23.3%)

230

(30.7%)

345

(46.0%)

750

(100%)

3 Fan 129

(18.6%)

225

(32.4%)

341

(49.1%)

695

(100%)

4 Iron Box 157

(21.7%)

319

(44.2%)

246

(34.1%)

722

(100%)

5 Washing Machine 173

(27.5%)

169

(26.9%)

287

(45.6%)

629

(100%)

6 Refrigerator 187

(28.1%)

286

(42.9%)

193

(29.0%)

666

(100%)

7 Induction Stove 324

(66.7%)

125

(25.7%)

37

(7.6%)

486

(100%)

8 Mixer 154

(25.7%)

249

(41.5%)

197

(32.8%)

600

(100%)

9 Computer 241

(57.9%)

127

(30.5%)

48

(11.5%)

416

(100%)

10 Water Heater 215

(47.9%)

167

(37.2%)

67

(14.9%)

449

(100%)

11 DVD Player 345

(51.2%)

287

(42.6%)

42

(6.2%)

674

(100%)

133

No. Products

≤ 5

Years

6-10

Years

> 10

Years Total

12 Microwave Oven 167

(64.0%)

79

(30.3%)

15

(5.7%)

261

(100%)

13 Air Conditioner 257

(46.8%)

168

(30.6%)

124

(22.6%)

549

(100%)

14 Stabilizer 328

(51.3%)

147

(23.0%)

165

(25.8%)

640

(100%)

15 Rice Cooker 249

(45.9%)

167

(30.8%)

127

(23.4%)

543

(100%)

16 Water Purifier 357

(70.6%)

124

(24.5%)

25

(4.9%)

506

(100%)

17 Electronic Power Controller79

(49.7%)

56

(35.2%)

24

(15.1%)

159

(100%)

18 Home theatre 235

(45.8%)

159

(31.0%)

119

(23.2%)

513

(100%)

19 Vacuum Cleaner 219

(57.2%)

105

(27.4%)

59

(15.4%)

383

(100%)

20 DTH 239

(52.3%)

154

(33.7%)

64

(14.0%)

457

(100%)

21 Digital Camera 138

(35.0%)

154

(39.1%)

102

(25.9%)

394

(100%)

22 Wall Clock 49

(6.5%)

308

(41.1%)

393

(52.4%)

750

(100%)

23 Sewing Machine 158

(34.0%)

168

(36.1%)

139

(29.9%)

465

(100%)

24 Toys 298

(42.1%)

302

(42.7%)

107

(15.1%)

707

(100%)

25 Others _______________ 419

(58.8%)

189

(26.5%)

105

(14.7%)

713

(100%)


134

It is inferred from the above table that mostly all the respondents were aware about

all the products. Consumers were aware about products like radio, TV, fan, washing

machine and wall clock for more than 10 years with percentage being50.5, 46.0, 49.1, 45.6

and 52.4 percent respectively. The consumers were aware about the products like iron

box, refrigerator, mixer, digital camera, sewing machine and toys for 6-10 years as 44.2,

42.9, 41.5, 39.1, 36.1 and 42.7 percent respectively. The awareness in regard to products

like induction stove, computer, water heater, DVD player, microwave oven, air

conditioner, stabilizer, rice cooker, water purifier, electronic power controller, home

theatre, vacuum cleaner, DTH and other products was below 5 years as 66.7, 57.9, 47.9,

51.2, 64.0, 46.8, 51.3, 45.9, 70.6, 49.7, 45.8, 57.2, 52.3, and 58.8 percent respectively. It is

found from the analysis that majority (70.6%) of the consumers were aware about water

heater for less than 5 years.

135

SOURCE OF INFORMATION OF HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS

In general, everyone in the society has come to know about the household

electronic products through some source or person. For the purpose of identifying source

from where the people got to know about household products, sources are classified into

nine categories viz., Radio, TV, Magazine, Newspapers, Posters and Hoarding, Dealers /

Retailers, Relatives/Family members, Window display and other sources. The details are

furnished in the following table.

TABLE NO.5.45

SOURCE OF INFORMATION OF HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS

(Multiple choices)

Sl. No. Sources* No. of

ResponsesPercentage (Out of 750)

1 Radio 359 47.9

2 TV 658 87.7

3 Magazine 598 79.7

4 Newspapers 469 62.5

5 Posters and Hoarding 398 53.1

6 Dealer / Retailers 356 47.5

7 Relatives / Family members 514 68.5

8 Window display 249 33.2

9 Any other sources 341 45.5

Source: multiple responses were considered

It is surmised from the above table that 47.9 percent of the respondents were aware

about the product by listening to radio, 87.7 percent came to know about the product

through TV, 79.7 and 62.5 percent of the respondents knew about the product by reading

magazines and newspapers. 53.1 percent of the respondents through posters and hoardings,

and 47.5 percent of them came to know about the product through dealer/retailers,68.5

percent through relatives/family friends,33.2 percent by window displays and 45.5 percent

got to know of the products through other sources. It is noted from the analysis that

majority 87.7 percent were informed through the TV.

136

CHART NO.5.2

SOURCE OF INFORMATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS

137

PERIOD OF USING THE PRODUCTS

A study to learn the utility period of the purchased products was done with regard

to Radio, TV, Fan, Iron Box, Washing Machine, Refrigerator, Induction Stove, Mixer,

Computer, Water Heater, DVD Player, Microwave Oven, Air Conditioner, Stabilizer, Rice

Cooker, Water Purifier, Electronic Power Controller, Home theatre, Vacuum Cleaner,

DTH, Digital Camera, Wall Clock, Sewing Machine, Toys and Others. The details of study

are furnished in the following table.

TABLE NO.5.46

PERIOD OF USING THE PRODUCTS

No. Products ≤ 5 Years 6-10 Years > 10 Years Total

1 Radio 124

(17.1%)

237

(32.6%)

366

(50.3%)

727

(100%)

2 TV 128

(17.2%)

367

(49.4%)

248

(33.4%)

743

(100%)

3 Fan 157

(21.7%)

319

(44.2%)

246

(34.1%)

722

(100%)

4 Iron Box 179

(31.3%)

145

(25.4%)

247

(43.3%)

571

(100%)

5 Washing Machine 167

(27.7%)

247

(41.0%)

189

(31.3%)

603

(100%)

6 Refrigerator 249

(62.9%)

135

(34.1%)

12

(3.0%)

396

(100%)

7 Induction Stove 145

(25.7%)

233

(41.2%)

187

(33.1%)

565

(100%)

8 Mixer 223

(60.9%)

109

(29.8%)

34

(9.3%)

366

(100%)

9 Computer 218

(45.0%)

214

(44.3%)

52

(10.7)

484

(100%)

10 Water Heater 324

(54.5%)

246

(41.4%)

24

(4.0%)

594

(100%)

11 DVD Player 152 66 6 224

138

No. Products ≤ 5 Years 6-10 Years > 10 Years Total

(67.9%) (29.5%) (2.7%) (100%)

12 Microwave Oven 245

(48.9%)

154

(30.6%)

105

(20.8%)

504

(100%)

13 Air Conditioner 297

(51.7%)

132

(23.0%)

145

(25.3%)

574

(100%)

14 Stabilizer 215

(44.4%)

154

(31.8%)

115

(23.8%)

484

(100%)

15 Rice Cooker 318

(72.4%)

105

(23.9%)

16

(3.6%)

439

(100%)

16 Water Purifier 57

(55.9%)

25

(24.5%)

20

(19.6%)

102

(100%)

17 Electronic Power Controller 219

(48.1%)

142

(31.2%)

94

(20.7%)

455

(100%)

18 Home theatre 192

(59.6%)

88

(27.3%)

42

(13.0%)

322

(100%)

19 Vacuum Cleaner 222

(55.2%)

142

(35.3%)

38

(9.5%)

402

(100%)

20 DTH 124

(37.8%)

122

(37.2%)

82

(25.0%)

328

(100%)

21 Digital Camera 34

(5.1%)

285

(42.9%)

345

(52.0%)

664

(100%)

22 Wall Clock 148

(37.2%)

142

(35.7%)

108

(27.1)

398

(100%)

23 Sewing Machine 257

(40.3%)

289

(45.3%)

92

(14.4%)

638

(100%)

24 Toys 348

(59.7%)

146

(25.0%)

89

(15.3%)

583

(100%)

25 Others 324

(72.3%)

109

(24.3%)

15

(3.3%)

448

(100%)

Source: Computed

139

It is observed from the above table, consumers using the products like radio, iron

box and digital camera for more than 10 years are 50.3, 43.3 and 52.0 percent respectively.

Percentage of people using TV, fan, washing machine, induction stove and sewing

machine for 6-10 years as 49.4, 44.2, 41.0, 41.2 and 45.3 respectively. Those using

refrigerator, mixer, computer, water heater, DVD player, microwave oven, air conditioner,

stabilizer, rice cooker, water purifier, electronic power controller, home theatre, vacuum

cleaner, DTH, wall clock, toys and other products for below 5 years as 62.9, 60.9, 45.0,

54.5, 67.9, 48.9, 51.7, 44.4, 72.4, 55.9, 48.1, 59.6, 55.2, 37.9, 37.2, 59.7 and 72.3 percent

respectively. It is found from the analysis that majority (72.4%) of the consumers were

using rice cooker for below 5 years.

140

SOURCES OF INFLUENCE FOR THE PURCHASE DECISION

Analysis is made to know about the influencing sources to take purchase decision.

The radio, TV, magazine, newspapers, posters and hoarding, dealers / retailers,

relatives/family members, window display and other sources. The details are furnished in


TABLE NO.5.47


Sl. No. Sources* No. of

ResponsesPercentage (Out of 750)

1 Radio 254 33.9 2 TV 465 62.0 3 Magazine 387 51.6 4 Newspapers 415 55.3 5 Posters and Hoarding 354 47.2 6 Dealer / Retailers 346 46.1 7 Relatives / Family members 512 68.3 8 Window display 256 34.1 9 Any other sources 347 46.3

* Multiple responses were considered Source: Computed from Primary Data

It is determined from the above table that the purchase decision was influenced by

Relatives/Family members showing highest percentage of 68.3, followed by TV 62

percent, Newspaper 55.3percent, Magazines 51.6percent, Posters and Hoarding 47.2

percent, other sources 46.3 percent closely followed by Dealers/Retailers 46.1percent,

Window displays 34.1percent and Radio 33.9 percent.

It is noted from the analysis that majority (68.3) of the respondents gained the

maximum impact on the purchase decision through relatives / family members.

141

CHART NO.5.3


142

BRAND PREFERENCE WHILE TAKING PURCHASE DECISION

In this study, an attempt was made to learn the brands preferred and twelve

different brands were identified namely: Sony, LG, Samsung, BPL, Onida, Videocon,

Voltas, Kenstar, Whirlpool, Electrolux, Butterfly and other brands. The details are

furnished in the following table.

TABLE NO.5.48

CUSTOMERS’ BRAND PREFERENCE WHILE TAKE PURCHASE DECISION

Sl. No.

Type of brand No. of Respondents

Percentage

1 Sony 24 5.9

2 LG 72 17.8

3 Samsung 50 12.4

4 BPL 43 10.6

5 Onida 29 7.2

6 Videocon 26 6.4

7 Voltas 30 7.4

8 Kenstar 33 8.2

9 Whirlpool 29 7.2

10 Electrolux 20 5.0

11 Butterfly 20 5.0

12 Others 28 6.9

Total 404 100.0


143

CHART NO.5.4

CUSTOMERS’ BRAND PREFERENCE WHILE TAKING PURCHASE DECISION

It is inferred from the above table that LG dominates sales with 17.8 percent of the

consumers interested in purchasing LG products.

144

SPECIFIC BRAND PREFERENCE OF CUSTOMERS AT EVERY PURCHASE

To identify whether consumers asked and insisted on specific brand at every

purchase, a survey was made and details are furnished in the following table.

TABLE NO.5.49

SPECIFIC BRAND PRERENCE AT EVERY PURCHASE

Sl. No. Opinion No. of Respondents Percentage

1 Yes 259 64.1

2 No 145 35.9

Total 404 100.0


As shown 64.1 percent of the consumers insisted on specific brand every time they

bought products, whereas 35.9 percent were not so particular about the brand.

CHART NO.5.5

SPECIFIC BRAND PREFERENCE OF CUSTOMERS AT EVERY PURCHASE

145

PERSON WHO INFLUENCED TO PURCHASE THE BRANDED AND NON-

BRANDED PRODUCTS

As mentioned earlier relatives played an important role in purchase decisions and

an attempt was made to know the persons influencing the decision of buying brand or non-

brand products. Six categories were classified viz., self, wife/husband, children, parents,

friends and neighbours. The findings are furnished in the following table.

TABLE NO.5.50

PERSONS INFLUENCING THE PURCHASE OF BRANDED PRODUCTS

Sl. No. Persons No. of


1 Self 73 18.1 2 Wife / Husband 65 16.1 3 Children 69 17.1 4 Parents 60 14.9 5 Friends 71 17.6 6 Neighbors 66 16.3 Total 404 100.0


It is inferred from the above table that majority 18.1 percent of the customers

selected brands independently, 16.1 and 17.1 percent were influenced by spouses and

children respectively, 14.9 percent by their parents, 17.6 percent of the customers were

influenced by their friends and 16.3 percent by neighbors. It is concluded from the study

that among different categories, self motivated category (18.1%) followed by friends

(17.6%) influence in the purchase of branded products.

146

CHART NO.5.6

PERSONS INFLUENCING THE PURCHASE OF BRANDED PRODUCTS

147

TABLE NO.5.51

PERSONS INFLUENCING THE PURCHASE OF NON-BRANDED PRODUCTS

Sl. No. Persons No. of


1 Self 64 18.5 2 Wife / Husband 58 16.8 3 Children 65 18.8 4 Parents 61 17.6 5 Friends 53 15.3 6 Neighbours 45 13.0 Total 346 100.0


The study indicated the fact children (18.8%) followed by self decision (18.5%)

were the influencing the purchase of non branded electronic products, whereas neighbours

role was only 13 percent. Hence it may be concluded that children play an important role

in the purchase of non branded products.

148

CHART NO.5.7

PERSONS INFLUENCING THE PURCHASE OF NON-BRANDED PRODUCTS

149

OPINION OF THE RESPONDENTS REGARDING PURHCASE OF HOUSEHOLD

ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS WITHOUT WARRANTY

A survey was made among 750 people to identify whether the consumers are

willing to buy household electronic products without warranty.

TABLE NO.5.52

PURCHASE OF HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS WITHOUT

WARRANTY

Sl. No. Opinion No. of Respondents Percentage

1 Yes 347 46.3 2 No 403 53.7 Total 750 100.0


The analysis reveals that majority (53.7%) of the respondents buys electronic

household products with warranty, whereas 46.3 percent buys without warranty.

150

CHART NO.5.8

PURCHASE OF HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS WITHOUT

WARRANTY

151

OPINION OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH REGARDS TO OFFERS TOWARDS

PURCHASE OF HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS

To identify consumer’s preference to any specific offer a study was done taking

into account some offers, which are prevalent in the market, such as, discount offer, price

cut, rebate, free gift, special offer, exchange offer, and without promotiobal offer.

TABLE NO.5.53

PROMOTIONAL OFFER PREFERRED BY THE CUSTOMERS ON

HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS

Sl. No. Preference No. of


1 Free gift 175 23.3 2 Rebate 131 17.5 3 Special offer 131 17.5 4 Exchange offer 103 13.7 5 Without promotional offer 79 10.5 6 Discount Offer 69 9.2 7 Price cut 62 8.3 Total 750 100.0


Among the respondents 23.3% of the respondents preferred free gifts, 17.5%

rebate, 17.5% special offer and price cut was preferred in least by 8.3percent. Therefore it

lead to the conclusion that free gift was preferred mostly than that of other offers.

152

CHART NO.5.9

PROMOTIONAL OFFER PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENTS TOWARDS


153

PRICE AS A FACTOR IN PURCHASE DECISION

Whether the price is an important factor in the purchase decision, a study was made

and it was found as shown below.

TABLE NO.5.54

PRICE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN PURCHASE DECISION

Sl. No. Opinion No. of


1 Yes 352 46.9 2 No 398 53.1 Total 750 100.0


It is seen from the above table that 46.9 percent of the respondents agreed the price

of the product as an important factor in the purchase decision and 53.1 percent of them

denied the statement.

CHART NO.5.10

PRICE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN PURCHASE DECISION

154

OPINION ABOUT THE QUALITY OF HIGHLY PRICED BRAND

The general perception is that the highly priced brand is better in quality compared

to others, so in order to find out if it is so or not, a study was done and the details are

furnished in the table below.

TABLE NO.5.55

OPINION ABOUT THE QUALITY OF HIGHLY PRICED BRANDS



1 Good 384 51.2 2 Not good 366 48.8 Total 750 100.0


The above table lucidly shows that majority (51.2 percent) of the respondents

believed that the highly priced brand products are better in quality compared to the other,

48.8 percent who opined that the highly priced brand may not be better in quality.

CHART NO.5.11

OPINION ABOUT THE HIGHLY PRICED BRAND IS BETTER IN QUALITY

COMPARED TO OTHERS

155

CUSTOMERS OPINION REGARDING PLACE OF PURCHASE

Customers’ behavior and preference regarding their place of purchase was studied

and whether they purchased in the same shop or different shops every time is tabulated

below.

TABLE NO. 5.56

OPINION OF THE RESPONDENTS ABOUT PLACE OF PURCHASE



1 Same shop 410 54.7

2 Any shop 340 45.3

Total 750 100.0


It is clear from the above table that 54.7 percent of the consumers preferred to buy

from the same shop and remaining 45.3 percent of them did not mind buying from any

store.

CHART NO.5.12

OPINION OF THE RESPONDENTS ABOUT PLACE OF PURCHASE

156

AMOUNT SPENT ON PURCHASE OF HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS

In order to get an idea of how much money was spent by consumers for household

electronic products per year, a survey was done assuming a range of four slabs viz:

Rs. 15000 and below, Rs.15001 to 25000, Rs.25001 to 35000 and Rs.35001 and above.

TABLE NO.5.57

AMOUNT SPENT FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC

PRODUCTS PER YEAR

Sl. No. Amount (in Rs.) No. of


1 Less than15000 155 20.7

2 15001to 25000 170 22.7

3 25001 to 35000 224 29.9

4 Above 35000 201 26.8

Total 750 100.0


It is inferred from the above table that 29.9 percent of the respondents spent around

Rs.25000 to Rs.35000 annually, followed by 26.8 percent of people spending more than

Rs.35000 and above spent by 26.8 percent of people, Rs.15001 to Rs.25000 spent by 22.7

percent by people sparing Rs.15000 to Rs.25000 and 20.7 percent spending less than

Rs.15000 per year.

157

CHART NO.5.13

AMOUNT SPENT FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC

PRODUCTS PER YEAR

158

CUSTOMERS’ OBSERVATION ON ISO/ISI CERTIFIED PRODUCTS

An attempt was made to analyse the customers’ observation in relation to the

quality mark such as ISI, ISO, authorized by Government to the products, before

purchasing the electronic products. Their habits of checking them has been classified into

four categories viz., always, frequently, sometimes and never for better understanding.

TABLE NO.5.58




1 Always 204 27.2

2 Frequently 284 37.9

3 Sometimes 170 22.7

4 Never 92 12.3

Total 750 100.0


It is inferred from the above table that only 27.2 percent of the consumers were

always examining the authorized mark before buying, whereas 37.9 percent of the

respondents were frequently viewing the certificate mark, 22.7 percent examined the

authorized mark sometime and the balance 12.3 percent of the consumers never gave any

attention to ISI and ISO certificate marks. So the majority happened to be those who only

frequently observed certificate marks

159

CHART NO.5.14


160

PREFERENCE TO ISI, ISO PRODUCTS

An attempt was made to identify the preference of customers towards ISI, ISO

products in the market. For this purpose, the preference to ISI, ISO products are classified

viz., always, frequently, sometimes and never. Most of the electronic products are ISI; ISO

certified products and many products are sold without these certification.

TABLE NO.5.59

PREFERENCE TO ISI & ISO CERTIFIED PRODUCTS



1 Always 226 30.1

2 Frequently 235 31.3

3 Sometimes 151 20.1

4 Never 138 18.4

Total 750 100.0


Above table shows that 30.1 percent of the consumers always insisted on ISI and

ISO products, 31.3 percent only frequently, 20.1 percent of the consumers preferred

sometimes and 18.4 percent never bought ISI and ISO products. It is noted from the

analysis that only (30.1%) of the respondents were always interested to purchase the ISI

and ISO goods.

161

CHART NO.5.15

PREFERENCE TO ISI & ISO CERTIFIED PRODUCTS

162

OPINION ABOUT THE PRICE OF THE ISI/ISO CERTIFIED PRODUCT

A study is made to assess the opinion of the customers about the price of the

products with ISI and ISO.

TABLE NO.5.60

OPINION ABOUT THE PRICE OF ISI/ISO CERTIFIED PRODUCT



1 Yes 411 54.8

2 No 339 45.2

Total 750 100.0

Source: Computed from Primary Data Majority (54.8 percent) of the consumers opined ISI and ISO certified goods are

costlier, whereas the balance 45.2 percent thought it was not so.

CHART NO.5.16

OPINION ABOUT THE PRICE OF ISI/ISO CERTIFIED PRODUCT

163

PREFERENCE TOWARDS ISI/ISO CERTIFIED PRODUCTS

Reasons for preference of ISI and ISO goods are surveyed and result shown below.

TABLE NO.5.61

REASON FOR THE PREFERENCE OF ISI/ISO CERTIFIED PRODUCTS

Sl.

No. Opinion

No. of


1 Guaranteed quality 236 31.5

2 Trust for durability 185 24.7

3 Brand image 166 22.1

4 Replacement in case of fault (or)

defective

163 21.7

Total 750 100.0


Among the studied consumers more than 31.5 percent revealed that ISI and ISO

standardized goods are guaranteed with quality, while 24.7 percent felt that trust for

durability is important, 22.17 percent preferred for the brand image and 21.7 percent for

replacement, in case of defect/fault, convenience.

164

CHART NO.5.17

REASON FOR THE PREFERENCE OF ISI/ISO CERTIFIED PRODUCTS

165

REASONS FOR NOT SELECTING ISI/ISO CERTIFIED PRODUCTS

The various reasons for not selecting the ISI/ISO marked goods was studied among

the consumers and are stated below.

TABLE NO.5.62


Sl. No. Reasons No. of


1 Costly 205 27.3

2 Not up to the standard 158 21.1

3 Not necessary, the same quality as to other goods 217 28.9

4 Bulk purchase 134 17.9

5 Any other 36 4.8

Total 750 100.0


It is analysed from the above table that 27.3 of consumers did not go for ISI

certified goods because of high price, 21.1 percent thought ISI/ISO marked goods are not

up to the standard, 28.9 percent of the customers had doubts on the quality in comparison

to other goods, 17.9 percent because it has to be purchased in bulk and 4.8 percent of the

consumers for other reasons. It is found from the analysis that majority thought the quality

of ISI/ISO marked goods is same as to other goods.

166

CHART NO.5.18


167

AWARENESS ABOUT THE QUALITY CONTROL ACT

An attempt was made to know whether the consumers are aware of the existence of

the Quality Control Act. The details of findings are furnished in the following table.

TABLE NO.5.63




1 Yes 393 52.4

2 No 357 47.6

Total 750 100.0

Source: Computed from Primary Data It is observed from the above table that 52.4 percent of respondents know about

the Quality Control Act towards product and remaining 47.6 percent not aware.

CHART NO.5.19


168

QUALITY CHECK AS PER QUALITY CONTROL ACT

In this study an attempt was made to identify if customers checked the quality of

the products under the control of Quality Control Act. The details are furnished in the

following table.

TABLE NO.5.64




1 Yes 321 42.8

2 No 429 57.2

Total 750 100.0


It is evident from the above table that 42.8 percent of the respondents checked the

quality of the products under the control of Quality Control Act and the majority 57.2

percent of the respondents did not check the quality of the product under the control of

Quality Control Act.

169

CHART NO.5.20


170

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PURCHASE OF HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC

PRODUCTS

In this study an attempt was to identify the factors that influenced people to buy

household electronic appliances. For this purpose, the factors are classified viz.,

Promotional offer, Low price, Emotional value, Value for money, Gives comfort in life,

After sales service, Warranty Period, Gives the social status, Improves standard of living,

Quality of product, Festival Offers, Discounts, Convenience for use, Power consumption,

Brand Image, Shop Image, Design, Colour, More Varieties and Availability. The details

are furnished in the following table.

TABLE NO.5.65

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PURCHASE OF HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC

PRODUCTS

No. Attributes Minorly Influenced

Fairly Influenced

Occasionally Influenced

Influenced

More

Majorly influenced

1 Promotional offer 292

(38.9%)

252

(33.6%)

149

(19.9%)

21

(2.8%)

36

(4.8%)

2 Low price 167

(22.3%)

234

(31.2%)

144

(19.2%)

143

(19.1%)

62

(8.3%)

3 Emotional value 198

(26.4%)

171

(22.8%)

208

(27.7%)

112

(14.9%)

61

(8.1%)

4 Value for money 213

(28.4%)

243

(32.4%)

183

(24.4%)

73

(9.7%)

38

(5.1%)

5 Gives comfort in life 170

(22.7%)

251

(33.5%)

199

(26.5%)

79

(10.5%)

51

(6.8%)

6 After sales service 151

(20.1%)

209

(27.9%)

162

(21.6%)

132

(17.6%)

96

(12.8%)

7 Warranty Period 185

(24.7%)

167

(22.3%)

173

(23.1%)

131

(17.5%)

94

(12.5%)

8 Gives the social status 169 174 87 172 148

171

No. Attributes Minorly Influenced

Fairly Influenced

Occasionally Influenced

Influenced

More

Majorly influenced

(22.5%) (23.2%) (11.6%) (22.9%) (19.7%)

9 Improves standard of

living

178

(23.7%)

124

(16.5%)

129

(17.2%)

140

(18.7%)

179

(23.9%)

10 Quality of product 148

(19.7%)

165

(22.0%)

161

(21.5%)

152

(20.3%)

124

(16.5%)

11 Festival Offers 156

(20.8%)

137

(18.3%)

155

(20.7%)

160

(21.3%)

142

(18.9%)

12 Discounts 125

(16.7%)

133

(17.7%)

130

(17.3%)

119

(15.9%)

243

(32.4%)

13 Convenience for use 140

(18.7%)

131

(17.5%)

197

(26.3%)

125

(16.7%)

157

(20.9%)

14 Power consumption 178

(23.7%)

215

(28.7%)

115

(15.3%)

146

(19.5%)

96

(12.8%)

15 Brand Image 170

(22.7%)

151

(20.1%)

128

(17.1%)

150

(20.0%)

151

(20.1%)

16 Shop Image 27

(3.6%)

39

(5.2%)

249

(33.2%)

200

(26.7%)

235

(31.3%)

17 Design 225

(30.0%)

163

(21.7%)

188

(25.1%)

109

(14.5%)

65

(8.7%)

18 Colour 214

(28.5%)

218

(29.1%)

161

(21.5%)

107

(14.3%)

50

(6.7%)

19 More Varieties 207

(27.6%)

196

(26.1%)

186

(24.8%)

105

(14.0%)

56

(7.5%)

20 Availability 56

(7.5%)

146

(19.5%)

194

(25.9%)

223

(29.7%)

131

(17.5%)


172

It is inferred from the above table that the customers were minorly influenced by

promotional offer, warranty period, brand image, design and more varieties as 38.9, 54.7,

22.7, 30.0, 27.6 percent respectively ,were fairly influenced by low price, value for money,

gives comfort in life, after sales service, gives the social status, quality of product, power

consumption and colour as 31.2, 32.4, 33.5, 27.9, 23.2, 22.0, 28.3 and 29.1 percent

respectively, influenced by emotional value, convenience for use and shop image as 27.7,

26.3 and 33.2 percent respectively. Similarly they were more influenced by festival offers

and availability as 21.3 and 29.7 percent respectively, by discounts and improved standard

of living as 32.4 and 23.9 percent respectively. It is noted that the majority (54.7%) of the

consumers were minorly influenced by warranty period.

173

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION TOWARDS THE HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC

PRODUCTS

In this study an attempt to know the customers level of satisfaction towards the

household products such as, Radio, TV, Fan, Iron Box, Washing Machine, Refrigerator,

Induction Stove, Mixer, Computer, Water Heater, DVD Player, Microwave Oven, Air

Conditioner, Stabilizer, Rice Cooker, Water Purifier, Electronic Power Controller, Home

theatre, Vacuum Cleaner, DTH, Digital Camera, Wall Clock, Sewing Machine, Toys and

Others. The details are furnished in the following table.

TABLE NO.5.66

LEVEL OF SATISFACTION TOWARDS THE HOUSEHOLD

ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS

Sl. No. Products Highly

satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Highly dissatisfied

1 Radio 282

(37.6%)

188

(25.1%)

92

(12.3%)

103

(13.7%)

85

(11.3%)

2 TV 268

(35.7%)

116

(15.5%)

98

(13.1%)

95

(12.7%)

173

(23.1%)

3 Fan 92

(12.3%)

93

(12.4%)

165

(22.0%)

188

(25.1%)

212

(28.3%)

4 Iron Box 68

(9.1%)

178

(23.7%)

232

(30.9%)

173

(23.1%)

99

(13.2%)

5 Washing

Machine

52

(6.9%)

240

(32.0%)

168

(22.4%)

144

(19.2%)

146

(19.5%)

6 Refrigerator 307

(40.9%)

112

(14.9%)

82

(10.9%)

143

(19.1%)

106

(14.1%)

7 Induction

Stove

172

(22.9%)

160

(21.3%)

115

(15.3%)

138

(18.4%)

165

(22.0%)

8 Mixer 71

(9.5%)

43

(5.7%)

108

(14.4%)

226

(30.1%)

302

(40.3%)

174



9 Computer 53

(7.1%)

100

(13.3%)

137

(18.3%)

266

(35.5%)

194

(25.9%)

10 Water

Heater

128

(17.1%)

211

(28.1%)

162

(21.6%)

104

(13.9%)

145

(19.3%)

11 DVD Player 150

(20.0%)

237

(31.6%)

157

(20.9%)

113

(15.1%)

93

(12.4%)

12 Microwave

Oven

237

(31.6%)

142

(18.9%)

236

(31.5%)

57

(7.6%)

78

(10.4%)

13 Air

Conditioner

24

(3.2%)

62

(8.3%)

161

(21.5%)

291

(38.8%)

212

(28.3%)

14 Stabilizer 45

(6.0%)

97

(12.9%)

197

(26.3%)

206

(27.5%)

205

(27.3%)

15 Rice Cooker 46

(6.1%)

141

(18.8%)

200

(26.7%)

191

(25.5%)

172

(22.9%)

16 Water

Purifier

63

(8.4%)

226

(30.1%)

174

(23.2%)

148

(19.7%)

139

(18.5%)

17

Electronic

Power

Controller

228

(30.4%)

189

(25.2%)

88

(11.7%)

138

(18.4%)

107

(14.3%)

18 Home

theatre

203

(27.1%)

160

(21.3%)

99

(13.2%)

156

(20.8%)

132

(17.6%)

19 Vacuum

Cleaner

239

(31.9%)

130

(17.3%)

155

(20.7%)

78

(10.4%)

148

(19.7%)

20 DTH 225

(30.0%)

152

(20.3%)

107

(14.3%)

104

(13.9%)

162

(21.6%)

21 Digital

Camera

126

(16.8%)

169

(22.5%)

159

(21.2%)

131

(17.5%)

165

(22.0%)

22 Wall Clock 134

(17.9%)

67

(8.9%)

151

(20.1)

210

(28.0)

188

(25.1)

175



23 Sewing

Machine

47

(6.3%)

78

(10.4%)

191

(25.5%)

251

(33.5%)

183

(24.4%)

24 Toys 138

(18.4%)

247

(32.9%)

172

(22.9%)

85

(11.3%

108

(14.4%)

25 Others

________

233

(31.1%)

150

(20.0%)

154

(20.5%)

119

(15.9%)

94

(12.5%)


It is surmised from the above table that the respondents were highly satisfied

towards the products like radio, TV, refrigerator, induction stove, microwave oven,

electronic power controller, home theatre, vacuum cleaner, DTH and other products with

% of 37.6, 35.7, 40.9, 22.9, 31.6, 30.4, 37.1, 31.9, 30.0, 31.1 respectively, were satisfied in

using the products like Fan, Washing Machine, Mixer, Computer, Water Heater, DVD

Player, Air Conditioner, Stabilizer, Water Purifier, Digital Camera, Sewing Machine and

Toys as 28.3, 32.0, 40.3, 35.5, 28.1, 31.6, 38.8, 27.5, 30.1, 22.5, 33.5 and 32.9 percent

respectively, neutral towards products like Iron Box, Rice Cooker and Wall Clock as 30.9,

26.7 and 28.0 percent respectively. From the interpretation it is noted that majority

(40.9%) of the respondents were highly satisfied in using refrigerators.

176

III. HENRY GARRETT RANKING TECHNIQUE

REASONS FOR PURCHASING HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS

The household electronic products are very much necessary in every home. Ten

factors influencing the purchase decision chosen and respondents were asked to rank the

above factors in the order of their importance. To identify the most important reason,

Henry Garrett Ranking Technique was employed and the details of the ranking of

important reason to purchase the household electronic products are shown in the following

table.

TABLE NO.5.67

REASONS FOR PURCHASING HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS

S.No. Reasons Total score

Mean Score Rank

1 Value of money 40899 54.5 III

2 Better performance 44701 59.6 I

3 Low price 37971 50.6 VI

4 Emotional value 40996 54.7 II

5 Gives social status 40360 53.8 IV

6 High quality 38306 51.1 V

7 Possessed by other 35108 46.8 VII

8 Durability 32050 42.7 IX

9 Latest Technology 31857 42.5 X

10 More features 33215 44.3 VIII


It is surmised from the above table that purchasing the household electronic goods

for the reason “better performance” was ranked first with the Garrett score of 44701 points.

It is followed by the second and third ranks for “emotional value” and “value of money”

177

with the total Garrett scores of 40996 and 40899 points respectively. The fourth, fifth and

sixth ranks were placed to the reasons such as “gives social status”, “high quality” and

“low price” with the Garrett scores of 40360, 38306 and 37971 points respectively. On the

other hand, the reasons such as “possessed by other”, “more features” and “durability”

were ranked in the seventh, eighth and ninth positions with the Garrett scores of 35108,

33215 and 32050 points respectively. Lastly “latest technology” was ranked in the tenth

position with Garrett score of 31857 points. From the analysis, it was inferred that

majority of the respondents ranked reasons like “better performance” and “emotional

value” as top among these ten reasons to purchase the household electronic products.

178

REASONS FOR PURCHASING BRANDED PRODUCTS

Customers purchasing the branded products were asked to rank six factors such as,

Gives Social Status, Better performance, High Quality, Durability, Brand Image and After

Sales Service, in the order of their importance perceived by them. Henry Garrett Ranking

Technique was employed and the details of the ranking of important reason to purchase the

branded household electronic products are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO.5.68

REASON FOR PURCHASING BRANDED PRODUCTS

S.No. Reasons Total score

Mean Score Rank

1 Gives social status 23336 57.8 I

2 Better performance 22150 54.8 II

3 High quality 19037 47.1 V

4 Durability 19528 48.3 IV

5 Brand Image 19542 48.4 III

6 After sales service 17750 43.9 VI

It is observed from the above table that purchase of branded products for the reason

“Gives social status” was ranked first with the Garrett score of 23336 points. It is followed

by the second and third ranks for “Better performance” and “Brand image” with the total

Garrett scores of 22150 and 19542 points respectively. The fourth and fifth ranks were

placed to the reasons such as “Durability” and “High quality” with the Garrett scores of

19528 and 19037 points respectively. Lastly “After sales service” was ranked in the sixth

position with Garrett score of 17750 points. From the analysis, it was inferred that

majority of the respondents ranked reasons like “Gives social status” and “Better

performance” as most important.

179

REASONS FOR PURCHASING NON-BRANDED PRODUCTS

The reasons for purchasing non-branded household goods was surveyed in respect

to six factors such as Gives Social Status, Better Performance, More Features, Competitive

Price, Low Price, Easy Availability and More Varieties. The respondents were asked to

rank the above factors in the order of their importance. To identify the most important

reason, Henry Garrett Ranking Technique was employed and the details furnished in below

table.

TABLE NO.5.69

REASONS FOR PURCHASING NON-BRANDED PRODUCTS

S. No. Reasons Total score

Mean Score Rank

1 Better performance 17155 49.6 III

2 More features 19560 56.5 I

3 Competitive Price 17480 50.5 II

4 Low price 16200 46.8 VI

5 Easy Availability 17048 49.3 IV

6 More varieties 16669 48.2 V

Source: Computed

It is evident from the above table that purchase of non-branded products for the

reason “more features” was ranked first with the Garrett score of 19560 points. It is

followed by the second and third ranks for “competitive price” and “better performance”

with the total Garrett scores of 17480 and 17155 points respectively. The fourth and fifth

ranks were placed to the reasons such as “easy availability” and “more varieties” with the

Garrett scores of 17048 and 16669 points respectively. Lastly “low price” was ranked in

the sixth position with Garrett score of 16200 points. From the analysis, it was inferred

that majority of the respondents ranked reasons like “more features” and “competitive

price” high among the six reasons.

180

PROBLEMS FACED BY THE RESPONDENTS WHILE USING THE


A study to understand the problems encountered in usage of electronic products

and reasons which could contribute to them was done taking into consideration fifteen

points viz., Unstable Price, Poor Quality, Unable to understand the technical features,

Confused functions, It is annoying to clean product, Product requires more care, Product is

not strong or durable enough, Product is not improved compared with its previous version,

Product’s design soon becomes obsolete or old-fashioned, Software support is seldom

updated, Worried about harming their health, Users have difficulty in finding a specific

function, Electronics are difficult to recycle, Products are quickly obsolete and discarded

and discarded electronics are managed badly. The problems are studied with the help of

Henry Garrett ranking technique and the details are shown in the following table.

TABLE NO.5.70

PROBLEMS FACED WHILE USING THE HOUSEHOLD

ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS

S. No. Problems Total

Score Mean Score Rank

1 Unstable Price 27315 36.4 XV

2 Less Quality 33540 44.7 XIV

3 Unable to understand the technical features 36662 48.9 X

4 Confused functions 39745 53.0 V

5 It is annoying to clean product. 39580 52.8 VII

6 Product requires more care. 40435 53.9 II

7 Product is not strong or durable enough 36556 48.7 XI

8 Product is not improved compared with its

previous version 38006 50.7 VIII

9 Product’s design soon becomes boring or old-

fashioned 34770 46.4 XIII

10 Software support is seldom updated. 36466 48.6 XII

11 Worried about harming their health. 37941 50.6 IX

181

S. No. Problems Total

Score Mean Score Rank

12 Users have difficulty in finding a specific

function 40330 53.8 III

13 Electronics are difficult to recycle 38560 51.4 VI

14 Products are quickly obsolete and discarded 40090 53.5 IV

15 Discarded electronics are managed badly 40985 54.6 I

Source: Computed

It is explained from the above table that the problem “Discarded electronics are

managed badly” was ranked first with the Garrett score of 40985 points. It is followed by

the second and third ranks for “Product requires more care” and “Users have difficulty in

finding a specific function” with the total Garrett scores of 40435 and 40330 points

respectively. The fourth, fifth and sixth ranks were placed to the problems such as

“Products are quickly obsolete and discarded”, “Confused functions” and “Electronics are

difficult to recycle” with the Garrett scores of 40090, 39745 and 38560 points respectively.

The seventh and eighth ranks for “It is annoying to clean product” and “Product is not

improved compared with its previous version” with the total Garrett scores of 39580 and

38006 points respectively. The ninth, tenth and eleventh ranks were placed to the problems

such as “worried about harming their health”, “unable to understand the technical features”

and “Product is not strong or durable enough” with the Garrett scores of 37941, 36662 and

36556 points respectively. On the other hand, the problems such as “Software support is

seldom updated”, “Product’s design soon becomes boring or old-fashioned” and “Less

Quality” were ranked in the twelfth, thirteen and fourteen positions with the Garrett scores

of 36466, 34770 and 33540 points respectively. Lastly “Unstable price” was ranked in the

fifteenth position with Garrett score of 27315 points. From the analysis, it was inferred

that majority of the respondents faced the major problems like “Discarded electronics are

managed badly” and “Product requires more care” among these fifteen problems while

utilizing the household electronic products.

182

IV. MULTIPLE CORRELATION ANALYSIS

Correlation analysis attempts to determine the degree of relationship between

variables. The correlation co-efficient of the selected independent variables with the level

of influence and satisfaction of the consumers who have household electronic products has

been worked out in order to identify the most important variables which have relationship

with level of satisfaction. Also the correlation co-efficient among the different variables

determining the level of influence and satisfaction has been worked out so as to arrive at a

correlation matrix, which incorporates correlation co-efficient of all the selected variables

with the dependent variables as well as correlation co-efficient among different

independent variables. The calculated correlation co-efficient values were compared with

a critical value of simple correlation co-efficient available in the statistical tables (Fishers

and Yates) for its significance.

CORRELATION ANALYSIS – LEVEL OF INFLUENCE

The correlation co-efficient matrix of the selected variables with dependent

variables, level of influence of the consumers are induced to prefer to buy the household

electronic products is given in Table No.5.71

185

From the Table No. 1, it is identified that the variables X1 (Living Place), X2 (Age),

X3 (Gender), X4 (Educational Status), X7 (Family Income level) and X14 (Point of

purchase) had significant positive correlation with the level of influence of the consumers

towards characteristics of the household electronic products. The variables X9 (Type of

family), X10 (Level of awareness), X11 (Number of products using) and X12 (Type of

products using) had significant negative correlation with the level of influence. The

correlation is also positive but insignificant with the two variables namely, X6 (Present

status) and X8 (Family size). On the other hand, the correlation was negative but

insignificant with the variables X5 (Marital Status) and X13 (Mode of purchase).

It is found from the correlation analysis, the level of influence are induced to prefer

to buy the household electronic products is highly correlated with Living Place, Age,

Gender, Educational Status, Family Income level, Point of purchase, Type of family, Level

of awareness, Number of products used and Type of products used.

186

CORRELATION ANALYSIS – LEVEL OF SATISFACTION

The correlation co-efficient matrix of the selected variables with dependent

variables, level of satisfaction of the consumers towards household electronic products is

given in Table No.5.72.

188

From the Table No. 5.72 it could be noted that the variables X2 (Age), X3 (Gender),

X6 (Present Status), X7 (Family Income level), X8 (Family size), X10 (Level of awareness),

X11 (Number of products using), X12 (Type of products using) and X13 (Mode of purchase)

had significant positive correlation with the level of satisfaction of the consumers towards

household electronic products. The variables X1 (Living place) and X9 (Type of family)

had significant negative correlation with the level of satisfaction. The correlation is also

positive but insignificant with the variable X14 (point of purchase). On the other hand, the

correlation was negative but insignificant with the variables X4 (Educational Status) and

X5 (Marital Status).

It is found from the correlation analysis, the level of satisfaction of the consumers

towards using household electronic products is highly correlated with Living Place, Age,

Gender, Present Status, Family Income level, Family size, Type of family, Level of

awareness, Number of products using, Type of products using and Mode of purchase.

189

IV. MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

In the following analysis, the relationship between the level of satisfaction among

the consumers who utilize household electronic products and fourteen independent factors

were studied. It was found that out of fourteen, thirteen factors were closely associated

with the level of satisfaction towards their usage of household electronic products by the

selected sample respondents.

Selected fourteen independent factors are.

1. Living Place

2. Age

3. Gender

4. Educational Status

5. Marital Status

6. Present Status

7. Family Monthly Income

8. Family size

9. Type of family

10. Level of Awareness

11. Number of products used

12. Type of products used

13. Mode of purchase

14. Point of Purchase

In order to measure the interdependence of independent factors and their level of

satisfaction towards household electronic products, the results were subjected to multiple

regression analysis. The results of multiple regression analysis are shown in Table 5.73.

190

TABLE NO.5.73

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Sl. No. Variables

Unstandardized coefficients

Standardized coefficients T Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 3.062 0.239

1 Living Place 0.088 0.030 0.109 2.913 1%

2 Age 0.166 0.053 0.126 3.129 1%

3 Gender -0.027 0.053 -0.020 -0.518 NS

4 Educational Status -0.052 0.021 -0.087 -2.535 5%

5 Marital Status -0.112 0.047 -0.082 -2.375 5%

6 Present Status -0.095 0.015 -0.229 -6.469 1%

7 Family Monthly

Income 0.077 0.036 0.081 2.122 5%

8. Family Size 0.202 0.032 0.231 6.255 1%

9 Type of Family -0.149 0.054 -0.108 -2.784 1%

10 Level of Awareness 0.073 0.033 0.082 2.223 5%

11 No. of products

using 0.228 0.051 0.174 4.432 1%

12 Type of products 0.254 0.058 0.172 4.391 1%

13 Mode of Purchase 0.127 0.037 0.135 3.463 1%

14 Point of Purchase 0.079 0.037 0.075 2.122 5%

191

R-Value

R2 -Value

Degree of freedom – V1

Degree of freedom –

V2

F Value Significance

0.947 0.896 14 735 452.95 1% Level

The multiple linear regression co-efficient (dependent variable) is found to be

statistically good fit as R2 is 0.896. It shows that independent variables contribute about

89.6 per cent of the variation in the level of satisfaction felt by the selected sample

respondents and this is statistically significant at 1% level and 5% level respectively.

The table indicated that the co-efficient of Living Place, Age, Family Monthly

Income, Family Size, Level of Awareness, Number of products using, Type of products,

Mode of Purchase and Point of Purchase are positively associated with the level of

satisfaction. On the other hand, the co-efficient of Educational Status, Marital Status,

Present Status and Type of Family are negatively associated. The variable gender is not

associated with level of satisfaction. Further, it indicated that the contribution of Living

Place, Age, Family Monthly Income, Family Size, Level of Awareness, No. of products

using, Type of products, Mode of Purchase and Point of Purchase are statistically

significant implying that their satisfaction on household electronic products is stronger

than the other variables.

Thus from the above analysis, the following observation could be made. The level

of satisfaction towards their household electronic products is positively associated with

their Living Place, Age, Family Monthly Income, Family Size, Level of Awareness, No. of

products using, Type of products, Mode of Purchase and Point of Purchase in the study

area.

192

VI. DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS

Opinions of consumers towards their level of satisfaction on using electronic

products according to their experience were collected in the study area. In the study area

750 respondents were divided into two groups, one showing low level of satisfaction and

the other showing high level of satisfaction. The difference of opinion of one group with

the other was studied with the help of Discriminant Function Analysis. For the purpose of

the study fourteen variables were selected.

1. Living Place

2. Age

3. Gender

4. Educational Status

5. Marital Status

6. Present Status

7. Family Monthly Income

8. Family size

9. Type of family

10. Level of Awareness

11. Number of products used

12. Type of products used

13. Mode of purchase

14. Point of Purchase

The Discriminant Function Analysis was attempted to construct a function with

these and other variables, so that the consumers belonging to these two groups are

differentiated at the maximum. The linear combination of variables is known as

discriminant function and its parameters are called discriminant function coefficients. In

constructing this discriminant function, all the variables which contribute more to

differentiate these two groups were examined.

Mahalanobis minimum D2 method is based on the generalized squared Euclidean

distance that adjusts for unequal variances in the variables. The major advantage of this

193

procedure is that it is computed in the original space of the predictor (independent)

variables rather than as a collapsed version which is used in the other method.

Generally, all the variables selected will not contribute to explain the maximum

discriminatory power of the function. So a selection rule is applied based on certain criteria

to include those variables which best discriminate. Stepwise selection method was applied

in constructing discriminant function which selects one variable at a time to include in the

function. Before entering into the function, the variables are examined for inclusion in the

function.

The variables which have maximum D2 value, if entered into the function are

selected for inclusion in the function. Once entered, any variable already in the equation is

again considered for removal based on certain removal criteria. Likewise, at each step, the

next best discriminating variable is selected and included in the function and any variable

already included in the function is considered for removal, based on the selection and

removal criteria respectively.

DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROBLEM UNDER STUDY

Since discriminant function analysis involved classification problem also, to

ascertain the efficiency of the discriminant function analysis all the variables which satisfy

the entry and removal criteria were entered into the function. Normally, the criteria used to

select the variables for inclusion in the function is minimum ‘F’, to enter into the equation

i.e. F statistic calculated for the qualified variable to enter into the function is fixed as ≥ 1.

Similarly, any variable entered in the equation will be removed from the function if

‘F’ statistic for the variable calculated is <1. The two groups are defined as

Group 1 - Low level of Satisfier

Group 2 - High level of Satisfier

The mean and standard deviation for these groups and for the entire samples are

given for each variable considered in the analysis.

194

TABLE NO.5.74

GROUP MEANS

(BETWEEN LOW & HIGH SATISFIER GROUPS)

S. No. Factor LOW HIGH TOTAL

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1 Living Place 2.149 0.858 1.942 0.824 2.035 0.845

2 Age 2.467 1.065 2.287 1.042 2.368 1.055

3 Gender 1.420 0.494 1.594 0.492 1.516 0.500

4 Educational Status 2.238 1.142 2.186 1.146 2.209 1.144

5 Marital Status 1.509 0.501 1.473 0.500 1.489 0.500

6 Present Status 3.202 1.661 3.507 1.638 3.371 1.654

7 Family Monthly Income 2.384 1.219 2.483 1.176 2.439 1.196

8. Family Size 1.756 0.780 1.901 0.783 1.836 0.784

9 Type of Family 1.485 0.501 1.384 0.487 1.429 0.495

10 Level of Awareness 2.524 0.562 2.481 0.771 2.500 0.685

11 No. of products using 1.330 0.652 1.365 0.656 1.349 0.654

12 Type of products 1.387 0.488 1.522 0.500 1.461 0.499

13 Mode of Purchase 2.396 1.085 2.609 1.074 2.513 1.084

14 Point of Purchase 3.271 1.530 3.261 1.587 3.265 1.561

Source: Computed

195

The overall step wise D.F.A. results after all significant discriminators have been

included in the estimation of discriminated function is given in the following table.

TABLE NO. 5.75

SUMMARY TABLE BETWEEN LOW AND HIGH GROUPS

Step Variable entered Wilk’s lambda

Minimum D2 Significance

1. Gender 0.970 0.125 *

2. Type of products using 0.956 0.187 *

3. Living Place 0.945 0.233 *

4. Family size 0.925 0.329 *

5. Mode of purchase 0.916 0.368 *

* Significant at 1% level Source: Computed

The summary of the table indicated that the variable gender entered in step 1, type

of products using entered in step 2, Living place entered in step 3, Family size in step 4

and variable mode of purchase entered in the step 5. The variables gender, type of

products using, living place, family size and mode of purchase are significant at 1percent

level. All the variables are significant discriminator’s based on their Wilk’s Lambda and

D2 value. The multivariate aspect of the model is given in the following table.

196

TABLE NO. 5.76

CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION

(BETWEEN LOW AND HIGH SATISFIER GROUPS )

Canonical correlation

Wilks Lambda

Chi-square D.F. Sig

0.289 0.916 65.163 5 Significant at

1% level

Source: Computed

The canonical correlation is 0.289 when squared is 0.083 that is 8.3% of the

variance in the discriminant group can be accounted for by this model, Wilk’s Lambda and

chi-square value suggested that D.F. is significant at 1percent level.

The variables given above are identified finally by the D.F.A. as the eligible

discriminating variables. Based on the selected variables, the corresponding D.F.

coefficients are calculated. They are given in the following table.

197

TABLE NO. 5.77

DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION COEFFICIENTS

(BETWEEN LOW AND HIGH SATISFIER GROUPS)

Living Place -0.670

Gender 1.098

Family size 0.711

Type of Products using 0.809

Mode of Purchase 0.304

Constant -3.552


Z = - 3.552

- 0.670 (Living Place)

+ 1.098 (Gender)

+ 0.711 (Family size)

+ 0.809 (Type of products using)

+ 0.304 (Mode of purchase)

Using this D.F. coefficients and variables, discriminating scores for 2 groups are

found out which are called group centroids or group means.

For low user (Z1) it is – 0.335

For high user (Z2) it is + 0.272

Discriminating factor is the weighted average of Z1 and Z2.

(336 × Z1) + (414 × Z2 )

(ie.) Z =

336 + 414

198

if it is represented diagrammatically it will be

Thus, to classify any respondents as to low or high satisfaction level respondents,

the Z score for the respondents is found out by using the equation. If the score found out

for any respondents is Z0 and if the value is >Z (i.e. Z0> Z) then it is classified into high

satisfier and if Z0<Z then (i.e. Z0< Z ) it is classified in the low satisfier.

Now the questions remain to be answered are

1. How efficient are the discriminating variables in the D.F.A. ?

2. How efficient the D.F. itself is?

Z1 Z Z2

-0.335 0

+0.272

Low level High level

199

The first question cannot be answered directly however, the discriminating power

or the contribution of each variable to the function can sufficiently answer the question.

For this, the following table is considered.

TABLE NO. 5.78

RELATIVE DISCRIMINATING INDEX

(BETWEEN LOW AND HIGH SATISFIER GROUPS)

Variables Group 1 Mean X1

Group 2 Mean X2

Unstandardized dic. Coeff. (kj)

Ij = ABS (Kj) Mean

(Xjo – x ji)

Rj = Ij / sum

Ij j*100

Living Place 2.149 1.942 1.098 0.537 17.34

Gender 1.420 1.594 0.711 0.472 15.24

Family size 1.756 1.901 0.809 0.442 14.29

Type of

Products using 1.330 1.365 0.304 0.226 7.29

Mode of

Purchase 2.396 2.609 -3.552 1.419 45.84

Total 3.096 100.00


RELATIVE DISCRIMINATING INDEX

For each variable, the respective D.F. co-efficient, its mean for each group and Rj

are given. Rj called relative discriminating index is calculated from the discriminant

function coefficient and group means. Rj tells how much each variable is contributing to

the function. By looking at this column it is found that ‘Mode of purchase’ is maximum

discriminating variable and ‘Type of products using’ is the least discriminating variable.

The second question is answered by reclassifying the already grouped individuals

into low or high satisfier the D.F.(Z) defined in the equation. This reclassification is called

predictor group membership. In short, the efficiency of the D.F. is how correctly it predicts

the respondents into respective groups.

200

TABLE NO. 5.79

CLASSIFICATION RESULTS

(BETWEEN LOW AND HIGH SATISFIER LEVEL GROUP)

Actual group No. of cases Predicted group membership

Group I Group II

Group I

(Low Satisfier) 336

192

(57.14%)

144

(42.86%)

Group 2

(High Satisfier) 414

158

(38.16%)

256

(61.84%)

Source: Computed Note: Percent of grouped cases correctly classified: 59.7%.

The above table gives the results of the reclassification. The function, using the

variables selected in the analysis classified 59.7% of the cases correctly in the respective

groups.

Discriminate Function Analysis was applied to the respondents based on the low

and high satisfier level. The following factors significantly discriminate the two groups.

They are

1. Living Place ( at 1% level)

2. Age (at 1% level)

3. Gender (at 1% level)

4. Type of Products using (at 1% level)

5. Mode of Purchase (at 1% level)

201

VII. FACTOR ANALYSIS

A ‘factor’ is an underlying dimension that accounts for several observed variables.

There can be one or more factors, depending upon the nature of the study and the number

of variables involved in it. ‘Factor-loadings are those values which explain how closely the

variables are related to each one of the factors discovered. ‘Communality’, symbolized as

h2, shows how much of each variable is accounted for by the underlying factor taken

together. A high value of communality means that not much of the variable is left over

after whatever the factors represent is taken into consideration. It is worked out in respect

of each variable as under:

h2 of the ith variable = (ith factor loading of factor A)

+ (ith factor loading of factor B) + …

When the sum of squared values of factor loadings relating to a factor is taken, then

such sum is referred to as ‘Eigen Value’ or latent root. Eigen value indicates the relative

importance of each factor in accounting for the particular set of variables being analysed.

When Eigen values of all factors are totaled, the resulting value is termed as the

total sum of squares. This value, when divided by the number of variables, results in an

index that shows how the particular solution accounts for what all the variables taken

together represent.

‘Rotation’, in the context of factor analysis, is something like staining a microscope

slide. Just as different stains on it reveal different structures in the tissue, different rotations

reveal different structures in the data. Though different rotations give results that appear to

be entirely different, but from a statistical point of view, all results are taken as equal, none

superior or inferior to others. However, from the standpoint of making sense of the results

of factor analysis, one must select the right rotation. If the factors are independent,

orthogonal rotation is done and if the factors are correlated, an oblique rotation is made.

Communality for each variable will remain undisturbed regardless of rotation but the

Eigen values will change as a result of rotation.

202

‘Factor score’ represents the degree to which each respondent gets high on the

group of items that load high on each factor. Factor scores can help to explain what the

factors mean. With such scores, several other multivariate analyses can be performed.

Principal-Component Method of Factor Analysis:

Principal-components method (or simply P.C. method) of factor analysis,

developed by H. Hotelling, seeks to maximize the sum of squared loadings of each factor

extracted in turn. Accordingly PC factor explains more variance than the loadings would

obtain from any other method of factoring.

The aim of the principal-components method is the construction out of a given set

of variables Xj’s (j = 1, 2, …, k), of new variables (pi), called principal components which

are linear combinations of the Xs.

p1 = a11X1 + a12X2 + … + a1kXk

p2 = a21X1 + a22X2 + … + a2kXk . . . .

. . . . . .

pk = ak1X1 + ak2X2 + … + akkXk

The method is being applied mostly by using the standardized variables, i.e., zj =

(Xj- X j)2 / σj.

The σij’s are called loadings and are worked out in such a way that the extracted

principal components satisfy two conditions: (i) principal components are uncorrelated

(orthogonal) and (ii) the first principal component (p1) has the maximum variance, the

second principal component (p2) has the next maximum variance and so on.

203

The Research Study

All the selected 20 items of the questionnaire were factor analysed using principle

component extraction with an orthogonal (Varimax) rotation. The number of factors was

unconstrained. For the sake of convergent validity, 0.50 was used as a factor loading cut-

off point.

The factor matrix is a matrix of loading and correlations between the variables and

factors. Pure variables have loading of 0.5 and greater or only one factor. Complex

variables may have high loading on more than one factor and they make the interpretation

of the output difficult. The researcher rotated the components nine times to get the

significant variables under six factors.

Table No. 1 shows the reliability statistics and proves the data could support 85.3

percentage reliability to do this analysis. Table No. 2 indicates that the Kaiser-Meyer-

Olkin (KMO) measures of sampling adequacy in the study is 0.832. This is good result, as

it exceeds 0.5 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity which is 0.000, meaning that factors that form

the variables are adequate.

TABLE NO. 5.80

REALIABILITY STATISTICS

Cronbach's Alpha No. of Items

0.853 20


TABLE NO. 5.81

KMO AND BARTLETT’S TEST

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.832

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 8397.49

Df 190

Sig. 0.000


204

TOTAL VARIANCE EXPLAINED

Table No. 3 depicts the total variance explained. Total variance is explained with

rotation, the Eigen values are different for factor 1, 2,3,4,5 and 6. The Eigen values for

factor 1, 2,3,4,5 and 6 are 4.306, 2.094, 1.997, 1.524, 1.351 and 1.052. Percentage of

variance for factors 1, 2,3,4,5 & 6 are 21.531, 10.470, 9.987, 7.622, 6.756 and 5.260

respectively. It indicates that six factors extract from 20 factors have cumulative

percentage up to 61.626% of the total variance.

TABLE NO. 5.82

TOTAL VARIANCE EXPLAINED

Compo-nent

Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance

Cumula tive %

Total % of Variance

Cumula- tive %

Total % of Variance

Cumu- lative %

1 4.306 21.531 21.531 4.306 21.531 21.531 3.646 18.229 18.229

2 2.094 10.470 32.001 2.094 10.470 32.001 2.333 11.665 29.894

3 1.997 9.987 41.988 1.997 9.987 41.988 2.325 11.627 41.521

4 1.524 7.622 49.610 1.524 7.622 49.610 1.369 6.847 48.368

5 1.351 6.756 56.366 1.351 6.756 56.366 1.328 6.638 55.006

6 1.052 5.260 61.626 1.052 5.260 61.626 1.324 6.620 61.626

7 0.992 4.958 66.584

8 0.981 4.904 71.488

9 0.902 4.511 75.999

10 0.851 4.254 80.253

11 0.837 4.186 84.439

12 0.765 3.826 88.266

205

Compo-nent

Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance

Cumulative %

Total % of Variance

Cumulative %

Total % of Variance

Cumulative %

13 0.694 3.470 91.735

14 0.653 3.264 94.999

15 0.475 2.376 97.375

16 0.267 1.337 98.712

17 0.137 0.685 99.397

18 0.076 0.378 99.775

19 0.031 0.153 99.928

20 0.014 0.072 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Source: Computed from Primary Data

Rotated Component Matrix

The rotated component matrix is discussed in the following table. After a factor

solution has been obtained, in which all variables have a significant loading on a factor, the

researchers attempted to assign some meaning to the pattern of factor loadings. Variables

with higher loadings are considered more important and have greater influence on the

name or label selected to represent a factor. Researchers examined all the underlined

variables for a particular factor and placed greater emphasis on those variables with higher

loadings to assign a name or label to a factor that accurately reflected the variables loading

on that factor. The names or labels are not derived or assigned by the factor analysis

computer program; rather, the label is intuitively developed by the factor analyst based on

its appropriateness for representing the underlying dimension of a particular factor. All six

factors have given appropriate names on the basis of the variable represented in each case.

206

TABLE NO. 5.83 ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX

No. Factors Component

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6

1 Promotional offer 0.816

2 Low price 0.905

3 Value for money 0.817

4 Gives comfort in life 0.425

5 After sales service 0.596

6 Warranty Period 0.744

7 Gives the social status 0.571

8 Improves standard of living 0.404

9 Quality of product 0.756

10 Festival Offers 0.914

11 Discounts 0.821

12 Convenience for use 0.354

13 Power consumption 0.867

14 Brand Image 0.603

15 Shop Image 0.628

16 Design 0.746

17 Colour 0.692

18 More Varieties

19 Availability of Products 0.963

20 Availability of spare parts 0.728

207

Extraction Method : Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method : Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Rotation converged in 21 iterations. Source: Computed from Primary Data

The above table shows the rotated component matrix, in which the extracted factors

are assigning a new naming related together. From the above table it is noted that all the

loading factors which are having the loading value less than 0.5 are rejected from the

analysis.

a) Factor 1 is the most important factor which explained 21.531% of the variation.

The factors ‘Promotional Offer (0.816)’, ‘Low Price (0.905)’, ‘Value for Money

(0.817)’, ‘Festival Offers (0.914)’ and ‘Discounts (0.821)’ are highly correlated

with each other. These statements reflect cost related consciousness of consumers

of household products; hence, the researcher names this segment as ‘Cost

Conscious Consumers’.

b) The second kind of factors explained 10.470% of the variances. In this segment,

the researcher took the four important variables such as ‘Quality of products

(0.756)’, ‘Power consumption (0.867)’, ‘Design (0.746), and ‘Color (0.692). These

statements reflected consciousness to quality of products and hence the researcher

grouped it as ‘Quality Conscious Consumers’.

c) This factor explained 9.987% of the variations. In this segment, the researchers

took four variables like ‘After sales service (0.596)’, ‘Warranty Period (0.744)’,

‘Availability of Products (0.963), and ‘Availability of spare parts (0.728). These

statements reflected consciousness to services support for their products and hence

the classification as ‘Service Conscious Consumers’.

d) The factor explained 7.622 percent of the variations. The extracted statements are

‘Gives the Social Status (0.571), ‘Brand Image (0.603) and ‘Shop Image (0.628)’

and these statements indicates the social status of the consumers when using these

products. Hence, the segment ‘Social Status Conscious Consumers’.

208

e) The fifth factor explained 6.756 percent of the variations. In this factor, loading

values are very less i.e., 0.425 which is less than 0.5 and hence the variable is

rejected.

f) The sixth factor explained 5.260 percent of the variations. In this factor, loading

values are very less i.e., 0.404 and 0.354 which is less than 0.5 and hence the

variables are rejected.

Conclusion

From the present study it was noticed that the level of satisfaction of consumers

using household electronic products varied and it was classified into four categories. The

first category as ‘Cost Conscious Consumers’, who are purchased the electronic products

at the time of discount offers, promotional offers and festival offers. Secondly the ‘Quality

Conscious Consumers’, who after getting the discounts and offers, need the electronic

products in good quality, design and colour. Followed by the quality electronic products,

the consumers expect well equipped service centres hence, the ‘Service Conscious

consumers’. Consumers who felt their social status enhanced in using the electronic

products were classified as Social Status Conscious Consumers’.

`

Due to the changing lifestyle of today’s consumers, the role of household electronic

products is remarkable. With joint family system diminishing and nuclear families

increasing with double income, they prefer the usage of electronic products to save time

and energy. Most of the consumers prefer to take the privilege of credit cards and

installment credit for their purchases. It is discovered that consumers persist on specific

brands while every purchase and LG modules dominate the household electronic products

market.

chapter - v analysis and interpretation -...

Documents