CHAPTER - 3 DATA ANALYSIS AND...

CHAPTER - 3

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

73

CHAPTER 3

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

3.1 Introduction:

Specific purpose of this research is to identify the impact of brand equity on

marketing consumer household appliances in the consumer durable industry and how

these companies are giving priority to brand equity dimensions. The present study

extensively addresses the position of brand equity dimensions on marketing of

selected household appliances. Interestingly, branding is seen to be important in

household appliances of refrigerator and air conditioner. The primary data for this

research was gathered by using a pilot tested structure questionnaire, the study reveals

the consumer demographic information and consumer response towards brand equity

dimensions, marketing mix elements and purchase decisions of refrigerator and air

conditioner products.

The analysis is divided in to two parts; in the first part primary data was

analyzed by using survey questionnaire of the refrigerator with perception of the

product. In the second part statistics methods are used for analyzing the consumer

responses towards air conditioner products.

Analysis and Interpretation:

The present study focus on the influence of brand equity dimensions such as

brand awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand association on

refrigerator and air conditioner products. The relationships indicate refrigerator and

air conditioner brands of various companies influence on the each dimension of the

brand equity and overall brand equity. To understand the relationship of marketing

mix elements such as advertising, store, price promotion and buying behavior on

refrigerator and air conditioner products and to identify the various purchase decision

factors influencing on buying refrigerator and air conditioner was represented with the

help of a diagram. The below diagram indicates relationship between brand equity,

marketing mix elements and purchase decision factors of selected household

appliances.

74

Figure 3.1: The proposed Conceptual Model

(Source: Developed by researcher)

Influence of Marketing Mix Elements and Purchase Decisions on Brand Equity:

There are eighteen variables identified under marketing mix elements, the

eighteen variables are constructed into four marketing mix elements influencing on

brand equity and twenty one variables influencing to purchase the household appliances,

among twenty one variables there are eleven purchase decisions influencing relatively

more on brand equity is shown below.

Brand

awreness Market mix

elements

Purchase

decision

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

Brand

association

BASNF

BAF

PQF

BLF

Brand

equity

75

Same brand household

Figure 3.2: Structural Model on Effects of Marketing Mix Elements and Purchase

Decisions on Brand Equity

Advertisement

Store

Price buying interest

Same brand household

appliance liking

Cooling performance

Service of the product

Quality of the product

Performance

Durability

Available in retail outlets

Dealers brand loyalty

Less noise level

Environmental free

Warranty

Made in stereotype

BAF

BASNF

PQF

BLF

76

Hypotheses for the Study:

The hypotheses were tested by using appropriate statistical tools along with

testing of the reliability of the data.

Hypothesis- 1:

H1a: Brand awareness has a significant positive effect on brand equity (customer-based

brand equity)

H1b: Brand association has a significant positive effect on brand equity (customer-

based brand equity)

H1c: Perceived quality has a significant positive effect on brand equity (customer-

based brand equity)

H1d: Brand loyalty has a significant positive effect on brand equity (customer-based

brand equity)

Hypothesis- 2:

Advertising:

H2a: Advertising has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H2b: Advertising has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

H2c: Advertising has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H2d: Advertising has a significant positive effect on Brand Loyalty.

Hypothesis- 3:

Store:

H3a: Store has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H3b: Store has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

H3c: Store has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H3d: Store has a significant positive effect on Brand Loyalty.

Hypothesis- 4:

Price _buying interest:

H4a: Price _buying interest has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H4b: Price _buying interest has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

77

H4c: Price _buying interest has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H4d: Price _buying interest has a significant positive effect on Brand Loyalty.

Hypothesis- 5:

Same brand household appliance liking.

H5a: Same brand household appliance liking has a significant positive effect on Brand

Awareness.

H5b: Same brand household appliance liking interest has a significant positive effect on

Brand Association.

H5c: Same brand household appliance liking interest has a significant positive effect on

Perceived quality.

H5d: Same brand household appliance liking interest has a significant positive effect on

Brand Loyalty.

Hypothesis- 6:

Cooling performance:

H6a: Cooling performance has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H6b: Cooling performance has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

H6c: Cooling performance has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H6d: Cooling performance has a significant positive effect on Brand Loyalty.

Hypothesis- 7:

Service of the product:

H7a: Service of the product has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H7b: Service of the product has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

H7c: Service of the product has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H7d: Service of the product has a significant positive effect on Brand Loyalty.

Hypothesis- 8:

Quality of the product:

H8a: Quality of the product has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H8b: Quality of the product has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

78

H8c: Quality of the product has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H8d: Quality of the product has a significant positive effect on Brand Loyalty

Hypothesis- 9:

Performance:

H9a: Performance has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H9b: Performance has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

H9c: Performance has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H9d: Performance has a significant positive effect on Brand Loyalty.

Hypothesis- 10:

Durability:

H10a: Durability has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H10b: Durability has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

H10c: Durability has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H10d: Durability has a significant positive effect on Brand Loyalty.

Hypothesis- 11:

Retail outlet:

H11a: Retail outlet has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H11b: Retail outlet has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

H11c: Retail outlet has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H11d: Retail outlet has a significant positive effect on Brand Loyalty.

Hypothesis- 12:

Dealers brand loyalty:

H12a: Dealers brand loyalty has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H12b: Dealers brand loyalty has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

H12c: Dealers brand loyalty has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H12d: Dealers brand loyalty has a significant positive effect on Brand Loyalty.

79

Hypothesis- 13:

Less noise level:

H13a: Less noise level has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H13b: Less noise level has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

H13c: Less noise level has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H13d: Less noise level has a significant positive effect on Brand Loyalty.

Hypothesis- 14:

Environmental free:

H14a: Environmental free has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H14b: Environmental free has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

H14c: Environmental free has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H14d: Environmental free has a significant positive effect on Brand Loyalty.

Hypothesis- 15:

Warranty:

H15a: Warranty has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H15b: Warranty has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

H15c: Warranty has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H15d: Warranty has a significant positive effect on Brand loyalty

Hypothesis- 16:

Made in stereotype:

H16a: Made in stereotype has a significant positive effect on Brand Awareness.

H16b: Made in stereotype has a significant positive effect on Brand Association.

H16c: Made in stereotype has a significant positive effect on Perceived quality.

H16d: Made in stereotype has a significant positive effect on Brand Loyalty.

80

Table 3.1 An overview of the measurement of Brand Equity

Measurement Procedure Measurement Level of the Response

Four different items

1. Gender Ordinal scale

2. Age Ordinal scale

3. Education Ordinal scale

4. Income Ordinal scale

The functions of this refrigerator product are improved continuously

5- Point scale to describe consumer best opinion.

It is a brand leader i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

This refrigerator brand products are very trustworthy.

i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

The refrigerator brand is a social status symbol.


This refrigerator brand products appear to be dependable.


Using this refrigerator brand products are recommended by famous people with whom you identify.


This refrigerator brand gives the best value-for-money.


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


Four brand equity dimensions. 5- point scale to describe consumer best opinion.

1. Brand awareness i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

2. Brand association i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

3. Perceived quality i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

4. Brand loyalty i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

Marketing mix elements:(18 items)

81

1. Advertisement i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

2. Store i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

3. Price and buying interest i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

4. Same brand household appliance liking i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

Purchase decisions (21 items)

1. Cooling performance i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

2. Service of the product i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

3. Quality of the product i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

4. Performance i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

5. Durability i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

6. Retail outlet i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

7. Dealers’ brand loyalty i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

8. Less noise level i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

9. Environmental free i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

10. Warranty i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

11. Made in stereotype i.e. Strongly agree to Strongly disagree

The filled questionnaire from the respondents was personally collected from

different parts of Bangalore and Mysore. Out of total respondents 148 (49.33%)

respondents for refrigerator and 134 (44.67%) for air conditioner. Totally 282 filled

questionnaire were composed out of 300 questionnaires.

3.2 Analysis and Interpretation of Refrigerators:

In this research, Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 19.0 and

Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) were used for the data analysis. The methods

used in data analysis are descriptive analysis, factor analysis and multiple regression

analysis. Descriptive analysis is used to summarize the characteristic of respondents.

Factor analysis is conducted to determine the factor underling the twenty six (26)

variables of brand equity dimensions and thirty nine (39) variables of marketing

activities and purchase decisions that affect on overall brand equity. Finally multiple

82

regression analysis and multivariate analysis of variance are applied to determine

whether brand equity dimensions affect on brand equity and whether selected

marketing activities and purchase decisions have a significant positive effect on each

dimension of brand equity respectively

Demographic Characteristics:

The demographic variable such as gender, occupation, monthly income, age,

educational attainment, marital status, and number of members in the family of the

respondents are analyzed with the procedure of the refrigerator using suitable

statistical techniques.

Gender of the respondents:

Table 3.2 Gender of the respondents Gender Refrigerator Users

Total Frequency

Percent Row Pct Col Pct

BPL Godrej IFB Kelvinator LG Samsung

Voltas Whirlpool Videocon

Female

1 0.68 1.82 50.00

5 3.38 9.09 33.33

2 1.35 3.64 100.00

1 0.68 1.82

100.00

16 10.81 29.09 30.77

13 8.78 23.64 41.94

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

12 8.11 21.82 44.44

5 3.38 9.09 29.41

55 37.16

Male

1 0.68 1.08 50.00

10 6.76 10.75 66.67

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

36 24.32 38.71 69.23

18 12.16 19.35 58.06

1 0.68 1.08

100.00

15 10.14 16.13 55.56

12 8.11 12.90 70.59

93 62.84

Total 2

1.35 15

10.14 2

1.35 1

0.68 52

35.14 31

20.95 1

0.68 27

18.24 17

11.49 148

100.00

In table 3.2 the gender of the research participants using refrigerator is tabulated. It is

observed that male and female respondents (35.14%) using LG refrigerators followed

by 31 respondents Samsung refrigerator (20.95%), 17 respondents Videocon

refrigerator (11.49%), and 15 respondents Godrej (10.14%) refrigerator products. It is

concluded that, out of 148 respondents 93 (62.84%) male respondents and

55(37.16%) are female respondents.

It is concluded that out of 148 respondents, 52 respondents prefer LG refrigerator

within 52 respondents 16 are female respondents and 36 are male respondents. It

indicates male and female consumers prefer LG refrigerator in household appliances.

83

Monthly Income of the respondents:

Table 3.3: Income of the respondents

Income Level

Refrigerator Users Total

BPL Godrej IFB Kelvinator LG Samsung Videocon Voltas Whirlpool

Less than – 6000 No. of consumers

Percent of consumers % of level of income users

% of brand users

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 0.68 4.35 6.67

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 4.05 26.09 11.54

8 5.41 34.78 25.81

4 2.70 17.39 23.53

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

4

2.70 17.39

14.81

23 15.54

6000 – 10000 No. of consumers


% of brand users

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 1.35 8.00 13.33

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 4.73 28.00 13.46

6 4.05 24.00 19.35

5 3.38 20.00 29.41

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 3.38 20.00 18.52

25 16.89



% of brand users

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 0.68 4.35 6.67

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 0.68 4.35

100.00

9 6.08 39.13 17.31

4 2.70 17.39 12.90

1 0.68 4.35 5.88

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

7

4.73

30.43

25.93

23 15.54

84



% of brand users

1 0.68 7.69

50.00

1 0.68 7.69 6.67

1 0.68 7.69

50.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 4.05

46.15 11.54

3 2.03

23.08 9.68

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 0.68 7.69 3.70

13 8.78



% of brand users

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 2.03

14.29 20.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

11 7.43

52.38 21.15

3 2.03

14.29 9.68

1 0.68 4.76 5.88

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 2.03

14.29 11.11

21 14.19

22000 and above No. of consumers


% of brand users

1

0.68 2.33

50.00

7

4.73 16.28 46.67

1

0.68 2.33

50.00

0

0.00 0.00 0.00

13

8.78 30.23 25.00

7

4.73 16.28 22.58

6

4.05 13.95 35.29

1

0.68 2.33

100.00

7

4.73 16.28 25.93

43

29.05

Total 2 1.35

15 10.14

2 1.35

1 0.68

52 35.14

31 20.95

17 11.49

1 0.68

27 18.24

148 100.00

85

From the table no.3.3 the low income (<6000-14000) people usage of

refrigerator is almost same but the middle income (14000 – 18000) people usage is

9% and the high income people (18000 and above 22000) usage is 43.24%. If we

consider brand wise irrespective of income, consumers’ interest lies in LG (35.14%),

Samsung (20.95%) and Whirlpool (18.24%). Hence out of 148 respondents, 52 people

suggest that LG refrigerator is the most preferred brand, Samsung is the second choice

followed by Whirlpool. The least brands are BPL (2 respondents) with 1.35%,

Kelivinator and Votas with 0.68% each.

Table no.3.4

Statistic DF Value Prob.

Chi-Square 40 38.0005 0.5606

Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square 40 35.8968 0.6555

Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square 1 4.1526 0.0416

Phi Coefficient 0.5067

Contingency Coefficient 0.4520

Cramer's V 0.2266

Sample Size = 148

From the table no.3.4, phi coefficient and contingency coefficient suggest that

there is nearly moderate association and Cramer’s V statistics suggests very low

association.

86

Age of the respondents:

Table 3.5: Age of the respondents

Refrigerator Users

Total Frequency Percent

20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 and above

BPL 1 0.68

0 0.00

0 0.00

1 0.68

2 1.35

Godrej 8 5.41

4 2.70

2 1.35

1 0.68

15 10.14

IFB 2 1.35

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

2 1.35

Kelvinator 0 0.00

0 0.00

1 0.68

0 0.00

1 0.68

LG 33 22.30

12 8.11

5 3.38

2 1.35

52 35.14

Samsung 18 12.16

6 4.05

4 2.70

3 2.03

31 20.95

Voltas 0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

1 0.68

1 0.68

Whirlpool 15 10.14

8 5.41

3 2.03

1 0.68

27 18.24

Videocon 10 6.76

6 4.05

1 0.68

0 0.00

17 11.49

Total 87 58.78

36 24.32

16 10.81

9 6.08

148 100.00

In the above table cross tabulation has been done for age of the respondents

and different brands of refrigerators. The analysis shows that majority of the research

participants are (35.14 %) belong to all the age bracket preferred LG, followed by

(20.95%) between the age bracket preferred Samsung. The remaining 11.49% prefer

Videocon, 1.35% prefers BPL, and 1.35 % prefers IFB respectively. It is concluded

that respondents using LG refrigerators are more in the age group of 20 to 30

(22.30%) and 30 to 40 (8.11%) years.

87

Marital Status of the respondents:

Table 3.6: Marital Status of the respondents

Refrigerator Users Total Frequency

Percent Married Single

BPL 1 0.68

1 0.68

2 1.35

Godrej 10 6.76

5 3.38

15 10.14

IFB 0 0.00

2 1.35

2 1.35

Kelvinator 1 0.68

0 0.00

1 0.68

LG 20 13.51

32 21.62

52 35.14

Samsung 15 10.14

16 10.81

31 20.95

Voltas 1 0.68

0 0.00

1 0.68

Whirlpool 17 11.49

10 6.76

27 18.24

Videocon 8 5.41

9 6.08

17 11.49

Total 73 49.32

75 50.68

148 100.00

The above table no. 3.6 highlights that majority of the respondents preferred to

purchase LG (35.14%) and Samsung (20.95%) with good number of both married

and single status, followed by whirlpool (18.24%), Godrej (10.14%), Videocon

(11.49%) and the brands like IFB, BPL, and Voltas are not preferred for both

respondents are single and married status category. From the above inference it can be

concluded that majority of the respondents for single and married category are

preferred by LG and Samsung refrigerators.

88

Family Members of the respondents:

Table 3.7: Family member of the respondents

Family members Refrigerator Users

BPL Godrej IFB Kelvinator LG Samsung Videocon Voltas Whirlpool Total

1 to 2 No. of consumers

Percent of consumers % of family users

% of brand users

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 1.35

12.50 13.33

1 0.68 6.25

50.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 2.03

18.75 5.77

6 4.05

37.50 19.35

2 1.35

12.50 11.76

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 1.35

12.50 7.41

16 10.81


Percent of consumers % of level of users

% of brand users

2 1.35 1.96

100.00

9 6.08 8.82

60.00

1 0.68 0.98

50.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

35 23.65 34.31 67.31

19 12.84 18.63 61.29

12 8.11

11.76 70.59

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

24 16.22 23.53 88.89

102 68.92



% of brand users

0

0.00 0.00 0.00

4

2.70 15.38 26.67

0

0.00 0.00 0.00

1

0.68 3.85

100.00

11

7.43 42.31 21.15

5

3.38 19.23 16.13

3

2.03 11.54 17.65

1

0.68 3.85

100.00

1

0.68 3.85 3.70

26

17.57

9 and above No. of consumers


% of brand users

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 2.03

75.00 5.77

1 0.68

25.00 3.23

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 2.70

Total 2 1.35

15 10.14

2 1.35

1 0.68

52 35.14

31 20.95

17 11.49

1 0.68

27 18.24

148 100.00

89

In table 3.7 family members living together living together using refrigerator

is tabulated. It is observed that family members living 3 to 4 members (68.92%) using

refrigerator followed by 5 to 8 members (17.57%), 1 to 2 members (10.81%), and 9

and above members (2.70%) using refrigerator. It is concluded that, out of 148

respondents 102 (68.92%) refrigerator users are 3 to 4 members living together in the

family.

Table no. 3.8: Effect of family members verses Refrigerator brand


Chi-Square 24 26.8820 0.3100





Cramer's V 0.2461

Sample Size = 148

From the table no.3.8 phi coefficient and contingency coefficient suggest there

is nearly moderate association and Cramer’s V statistics suggests very low

association.

90

Recognition of refrigerator among other competitive brands:

Table 3.9: Recognition of refrigerator among other competitive brands

Refrigerator brands Yes No No opinion Total %

BPL 0.68 0.68 0.00 1.35

Godrej 9.46 0.68 0.00 10.14

IFB 1.35 0.00 0.00 1.35

Kelvinator 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.68

LG 17.57 11.49 6.08 35.14

Samsung 17.57 2.70 0.68 20.95

Voltas 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68

Whirlpool 13.51 3.38 1.35 18.24

Videocon 8.78 1.35 1.35 11.49

Total 103

69.59

30

20.27

15

10.14

148

100.00

From the above table 3.9 it is determined that LG (17.57%) and Samsung

(17.57%) are most recognizable refrigerator brand among others competitive brands

and Whirlpool (13.51%) is ranked as second and Godrej (9.46%) at third position.

The least preference is given to BPL (0.68%) and Kelvinator (0.68%). Consumers are

completely not recognizing the Voltas (0%). The last row from the table suggests that

there is almost (69.59 %) over all recognition among the consumers and consumers

(20.27 %) are not able to recognize the brands.

91

Respondents’ response towards refrigerator brand leader:

Table 3.10: This refrigerator is a brand leader

Refrigerator Yes No No

opinion

Total %

BPL 0.68 0.68 0.00 1.35

Godrej 5.41 4.05 0.68 10.14

IFB 0.68 0.00 0.68 1.35

Kelvinator 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68

LG 29.05 2.03 4.05 35.14

Samsung 14.86 5.41 0.68 20.95

Voltas 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.68

Whirlpool 12.16 4.73 1.35 18.24

Videocon 6.08 4.05 1.35 11.49

Total 103

69.59

31

20.95

14

9.46

148

100.00

From the table no. 3.10 it is observed that, the respondents have rated LG

(35.14%) as the leading company followed by Samsung (20.95%), Whirlpool

(18.24%), Videocon (11.49%) and Godrej (10.14%).

92

Respondent’s response towards fashion of the refrigerator:

Table 3.11: Refrigerators are in fashion

Refrigerator Brand association Total

% Yes No

BPL 0.68 0.68 1.35

Godrej 9.46 0.68 10.14

IFB 1.35 0.00 1.35

Kelvinator 0.68 0.00 0.68

LG 23.65 11.49 35.14

Samsung 18.24 2.70 20.95

Voltas 0.68 0.00 0.68

Whirlpool 14.86 3.38 18.24

Videocon 10.14 1.35 11.49

Total 118

79.73

30

20.27

148

100.00

The above table no. 3.11 reveals that 26.35% of the respondents feel that LG

is fashionable than other brand, 18.24% of respondents prefer Samsung, 14.86 %

respondents prefer Whirlpool, 10.14 % prefers Videocon and 9.46% prefer Godrej

respectively. It is concluded that LG brands are more fashion in nature

93

Respondents’ response towards uniqueness of the refrigerator:

.

Table 3.12 Refrigerator has unique brand image

Brand association

Total % Refrigerator Yes No

BPL 0.00 1.35 1.35

Godrej 10.14 0.00 10.14

IFB 1.35 0.00 1.35

Kelvinator 0.68 0.00 0.68

LG 30.41 4.73 35.14

Samsung 19.59 1.35 20.95

Voltas 0.68 0.00 0.68

Whirlpool 18.24 0.00 18.24

Videocon 10.14 1.35 11.49

Total 135

91.22

13

8.78

148

100.00

From the above table no. 3.12 it is observed that, the respondents were LG

(30.41%), Samsung (19.59%), and Whirlpool (18.24%) perceived strong and unique

brand image of refrigerators than competitive refrigerator brands followed by

Videocon (10.14%) and Godrej (10.14%) refrigerators perceived relatively less

unique brand image. It is concluded that respondents of LG brand carries unique and

strong brand image of refrigerator.

94

Respondents’ response towards value for money of the refrigerator:

Table 3.13: Refrigerator gives best value for money

Perceived quality Total

% Refrigerator Agree Disagree Cannot say

BPL 1.35 0.00 0.00 1.35

Godrej 10.14 0.00 0.00 10.14

IFB 1.35 0.00 0.00 1.35

Kelvinator 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.68

LG 23.65 4.05 7.43 35.14

Samsung 15.54 2.03 3.38 20.95

Voltas 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.68

Whirlpool 16.22 1.35 0.68 18.24

Videocon 10.81 0.68 0.00 11.49

Total 119

80.41

12

8.11

17

11.49

148

100.00

Table no. 3.13 highlights that, out of 148 respondents, respondents using LG

(23.65%) and Samsung (15.54%) refrigerators perceived value for money among

others competitive brands followed by Whirlpool (16.22%), Videocon (10.81%) and

Godrej (10.14%) refrigerators. It is concluded that LG and Samsung consumers are

perceived that monetary value against benefits of this refrigerator are satisfactory.

95

Respondents’ response towards refrigerator line with Lifestyle:

Table 3.14: Refrigerator totally in line with Lifestyle

Perceived quality Total % Refrigerator Agree Disagree Cannot say

BPL 0.68 0.68 0.00 1.35

Godrej 8.78 1.35 0.00 10.14

IFB 0.68 0.68 0.00 1.35

Kelvinator 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.68

LG 26.35 4.73 4.05 35.14

Samsung 15.54 4.05 1.35 20.95

Voltas 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.68

Whirlpool 14.19 2.70 1.35 18.24

Videocon 8.11 2.03 1.35 11.49

Total 111 75.00

25 16.89

12 8.11

148 100.00

Table no. 3.14 highlights that, out of 148 respondents, respondents using LG

(26.35%) and Samsung (15.54%) refrigerators perceived refrigerators are in line with

life style, followed by Whirlpool (14.19%), Godrej (8.78%) and Videocon (8.11%)

refrigerators. It is concluded that LG and Samsung consumers are perceived products

are line with lifestyle.

96

Respondents’ response towards brand loyalty of the refrigerator:

Table 3.15: I will purchase the selected refrigerator again

Brand loyalty Total

% Refrigerator Agree Disagree Cannot say

BPL 0.68 0.00 0.68 1.35

Godrej 7.43 1.35 1.35 10.14

IFB 1.35 0.00 0.00 1.35

Kelvinator 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.68

LG 27.70 4.05 3.38 35.14

Samsung 15.54 2.70 2.70 20.95

Voltas 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.68

Whirlpool 15.54 2.03 0.68 18.24

Videocon 4.73 4.05 2.70 11.49

Total 110

74.32

21

14.19

17

11.49

148

100.00

From the table 3.15 it is inferred that, the respondents using LG

(27.70%), Samsung (15.54%), and Whirlpool (15.54%) refrigerators will

purchase the same refrigerator again than other competitive refrigerators,

followed by Godrej (7.43%) and Videocon (4.73%) refrigerators. It is concluded

that respondents LG and Samsung consumers using refrigerator are satisfied

with post purchase and loyal to same brand to purchase in future.

97

Respondents’ response towards willing to pay a higher price than other

competitive refrigerator:

Table 3.16: Willing to pay a higher price for this refrigerator than other

competitive refrigerator

Market mix

elements

Refrigerator Users Total

BPL Godrej IFB LG Samsung Whirlpool Videocon

Percent

Row Pct

Agree

Col Pct

0.68

0.87

50.00

8.78

11.30

81.25

1.35

1.74

100.00

29.73

38.26

81.48

14.19

18.26

67.74

13.51

17.39

74.07

9.46

12.17

87.50

77.70

Percent

Row Pct

Disagree

Col Pct

0.68

3.03

50.00

2.03

9.09

18.75

0.00

0.00

0.00

6.76

30.30

18.52

6.76

30.30

32.26

4.73

21.21

25.93

1.35

6.06

12.50

22.30

Total 2

1.35

16

10.81

2

1.35

54

36.49

31

20.95

27

18.24

16

10.81

148

100.00

From the table no. 3.16 it is observed that, out of 148 respondents, 77.70% of

respondents are willing to pay higher price than other competitive price, 22.30% of

respondents are not willing to pay high price for the home refrigerator. It is concluded

that majority of the respondents are willing to pay higher price for the branded

refrigerator than competitive refrigerator. It indicates that consumers are more loyal to

refrigerator.

98

Respondents’ response towards willingness to buy brand decided to sell products

other than household appliances:

Table 3.17: The brand decided to sell products other than household appliances,

you would still like them

Market mix

elements

Refrigerator Users

Total BPL Godrej IFB LG Samsung Whirlpool Videocon

Percent

Row Pct

Agree

Col Pct

1.35

1.54

100.00

10.81

12.31

100.00

0.68

0.77

50.00

33.11

37.69

90.74

17.57

20.00

83.87

15.54

17.69

85.19

8.78

10.00

81.25

87.84

Percent

Row Pct

Disagree

Col Pct

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.68

5.88

50.00

2.70

23.53

7.41

3.38

29.41

16.13

2.70

23.53

14.81

2.03

17.65

18.75

11.49

Percent

Row Pct

No opinion

Col Pct

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.68

100.00

1.85

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.68

Total 2

1.35

16

10.81

2

1.35

54

36.49

31

20.95

27

18.24

16

10.81

148

100.00

From the table no. 3.17 it is observed that, out of 148 respondents, 87.84% of

respondents using refrigerator are willing to purchase same brand products other than

household appliances, 11.49% of respondents were not willing purchase other than

house hold appliances. It is concluded that majority of the respondents are willing to

purchase other same brand products other than household appliances, consumers

ready to purchase extension of brand from appliances to other segments.

99

Factor analysis

Factor analysis is a statistical method that mostly used for data reduction and

summarization. Consequently factor can be explained as an underlying dimension that

describes the correlations among variables. In order to measures the relationship

between brand equity, marketing activities and purchase decision factors using the

dimensions of brand equity, we analyzed the factors which consist of 65 items. As a

result 31 items were retained for a total of 6 new constructs i.e., overall brand equity,

brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality, brand loyalty and marketing

activities such asadvertising, store, price & buying behavior, and same brand

household appliance liking, purchase decision factors cooling performance, service,

quality, performance, durability, retail outlet, dealer’s brand loyalty, less noise level,

environmental free, warranty, and made in stereotype.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s

test of shpericity can be used to test whether the factor analysis is appropriate or not.

A high value of KMO measure implies a factor analysis as a useful data in research

which the value close 1.0 whereas low value (less than 0.5) of KMO indicates the

result of factor analysis is not very useful (Marinova et al., 2011). Otherwise, if the

Bartlett’s test of sphericity is less than 0.05, the result is considered as acceptable. In

this study , the KMO measures of sampling adequacy are close 1.0 (overall brand

equity is 0.724, brand awareness is 0.585, brand association is 0.679 and perceived

quality is 0.658,brand loyalty is 0.705, market mix elements is 0.673 purchased

decision is 0.620) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicates that all of factors are

0.000. Based on these result this factor analysis is confirmed as applicable data and all

of the factors are valuable data. (Table No. 3.18)

100

Table: 3.18 Indicates the result of Factor Analysis of Refrigerators

S.No Item Factor

Loading

1. Over all Brand Equity (KMO =0.724), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Sig. 0.000

This refrigerator brand products appear to be dependable. 0.897

The functions of this refrigerator product are improved continuously

0.840

This refrigerator brand products are very trustworthy. 0.814

The refrigerator brand is a social status symbol. 0.790

It is a brand leader 0.749

Using this refrigerator brand products are recommended by famous people with whom you identify.

0.693

This refrigerator brand gives the best value-for-money. 0.691


0.690

2. Brand Awareness (KMO = 0.585), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Sig. 0.000

Most of my friends have same refrigerator brand products. 0.868

It is a brand leader. 0.868

I can recognize this refrigerator brand among other competitive brands.

0.691

The functions of this refrigerator product are improved continuously.

0.671

I am aware of this refrigerator brand. 0.661

3. Brand Loyalty (KMO = 0.705), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Sig. 0.000

I consider myself to be loyal to this refrigerator brand. 0.848

This refrigerator brand would be my first choice. 0.774

I will purchase the selected refrigerator brand again. 0.768


0.672

4. Perceived Quality (KMO = 0.658), Bartlett’s Test. Sig.0.000

This refrigerator brand products are very trustworthy. 0.822

This refrigerator brand gives the best value-for-money. 0.79

It is a brand totally in line with your lifestyle. 0.763

101

Using this refrigerator brand is a social status symbol. 0.752

The refrigerator brand has a good reputation. 0.730

This refrigerator brand products are recommended by famous people with whom you identify.

0.708

5. Brand Association (KMO = 0.679), Bartlett’s Test. Sig.0.000

I like and trust this product (or company) which makes this product.

0.701

This brand makes me feel good 0.681

I like this brand image 0.622

6. Market Mix Elements (KMO = 0.673), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Sig. 0.000

The stores where I can buy this refrigerator brand products carry products of a high quality.

0.814

The stores where I can buy this refrigerator brand products would be high quality stores.

0.785

Price promotions for this refrigerator brand products are presented too many times.

0.775

The advertisement campaigns for this refrigerator brand products are seen frequently.

0.739

Price deals for this refrigerator brand products are frequently offered.

0.735

The stores where I can buy this refrigerator brand products have well-known brands.

0.731

The advertisement campaigns for this refrigerator brand products seem very expensive, compared to campaigns of competitive brands.

0.728

This refrigerator brand is advertised intensively. 0.680

7. Purchased decision Brand Product (KMO = 0.620) Bartlett’s Test Sig. 0.000

Made in stereotype 0.823

Dealers brand loyalty 0.791

Performance 0.788

Durability 0.727

Warranty 0.712

User friendly 0.691

Parents,, relatives and friends. 0.638

Less power consumption. 0.695

102

Reliability

Reliability is a measure of the internal consistency of the construct indicators,

depicting the degree to which they “indicate” the common latent construct. More

reliable measures provide the researcher with greater confidence that the individual

indicators are all consistent in their measurements. A commonly used threshold value

for acceptable reliability is 0.70, although this is not an absolute standard and values

below 0.70 have been deemed acceptable if the research is exploratory in nature.

However that reliability does not ensure validity. Validity is the extent to which the

indicators “accurately” measure what they are supposed to measure. The reliability

and variance extracted for a latent construct must be computed separately for each

multiple indicator construct in the model. i.e.

(sum of standardized loading) 2

Construct reliability =

(sum of standardized loading) 2 +sum of indicator measurement error.

Where the measurement error is 1.0 – the reliability of the indicator which is the

square of the indicator’s standardized loading. The indicator reliabilities should

exceed 0.50 which is roughly corresponds to a standardized loading of 0.70

sum of squared standardized loadings

Variance extracted =

(sum of squared standardized loadings + sum of indicator measurement error.)

The variance extracted value should exceed 0.50 for a construct.

In this research all exogenous constructs exceed the suggested level 0.70, by using the

above two rules.

Multiple Regression Analysis (Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing)

Regression analysis in this study is used to determine whether the independent

variables explain the significant variations in the dependent variable and whether a

relationships exists (Malhotra and Birks, 2005). If p≤ 0.05, then the hypothesis is

supported and can be used to make predictions, suppose p ≥ 0.05 then the hypothesis

is not supported. Moreover, the explanatory power (R2)is used to determine the value

of explaining for the research. The value of (R2) below 0.2 is considered weak

explaining, if the adjusted R square is between 0.2 and 0.4 is moderate explaining and

above 0.4 is considered strong power for explaining.

103

Table No. 3.19 Analysis of relationship between brand equity and dimensions of

brand equity

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

1 .897a .805 .800 .44759540

a. Predictors: (Constant), Perceived quality, Brand awareness, Brand loyalty, Brand

association.

Look at the Model Summary (table no.3.19) the four independent variables

which constitute the brand equity of coefficient of determination R2 (R square) is

0.805 which implies a strong explanatory power.

Table. 3.20 indicates the coefficient of brand equity and its four dimensions Coefficients

Unstandardized coefficient

Standardized coefficient

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) -2.516 .123 -20.494 .000

Brand awareness .250 .042 .254 5.903 .000

Brand loyalty .167 .041 .168 4.029 .000

Brand association .467 .043 .495 10.898 .000

Perceived quality .271 .045 .263 5.973 .000

b. Dependent variable: BRAND EQUITY

In the proposed hypotheses, brand awareness (H1a), brand association (H1b),

perceived quality (H1c) and brand loyalty (H1d) have significant positive effect on

customer based brand equity. In the above table brand awareness (0.000), brand loyalty

(0.000), brand association (0.000) and perceived quality (0.000) were significant at p-

value <0.05. Hence these four hypotheses were positive. This finding is consistent with

previous conceptualizations at Marinova et al.(2011), Yooet al. (2000),Tong and

Hawley (2009) and Erenkol and Duygun (2010). To sum up all of dimensions of brand

equity brand have significant positive effect on consumer based brand equity in this

research. More over according to regression coefficient (beta) , brand association is at

the first place of importance for dimensions of brand equity on brand equity, perceived

quality stands second place, brand awareness and brand loyalty have shared the third and

fourth rank. According the t- test output that explains the significant of coefficients,

104

brand association has most positive effect on brand equity, whereas brand loyalty has

the lowest impact on brand equity.

Analysis of relation between the Dimensions of Brand Equity, Marketing Mix

elements and Purchase Decisions:

Brand Awareness:

H2a. Advertisement has a significant positive effect on brand awareness

H3a. Store has a significant positive effect on brand awareness

H4a. Price has a significant positive effect on brand awareness

H5a. MME8, MME7 MME15, MME14 MME1 have a significant positive effect on

brand awareness

H6a. (PBPS) Other influential construct has a significant positive effect on brand

awareness

Table no. 3.21 Multivariate Testsc

Effect Value F Hypothesis

df Error df. Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared

Intercept

Pillai's Trace 0.98 768.171a 3.000 46.000 0 0.98

Wilks' Lambda

0.02 768.171a 3.000 46.000 0 0.98

Hotelling's Trace

50.098 768.171a 3.000 46.000 0 0.98

Roy's Largest Root

50.098 768.171a 3.000 46.000 0 0.98

Brand awareness

Pillai's Trace 2.267 1.5 297.000 144.000 0.003 0.756

Wilks' Lambda

0.011 1.614 297.000 138.935 0.001 0.775

Hotelling's Trace

11.324 1.703 297.000 134.000 0 0.791

Roy's Largest Root

5.231 2.536b 99.000 48.000 0 0.84

a. Exact statistic

b. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.

c. Design: Intercept + Brand awareness

As table no shown below dependent variable is advertisement and brand awareness is

an independent variable.

105

Table no. 3.22: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source

Dependent Variable

Type III Sum of Squares

Df Mean

Square F Sig. Prob. Of influence

Corrected Model ADVT_MMEQ12 110.717a 99 1.118 1.113 0.345 0.697

ADVT_MMEQ11 110.535b 99 1.117 2.044 0.003 0.808

ADVT_MMEQ10 111.822c 99 1.13 2.273 0.001 0.824

Intercept ADVT_MMEQ12 728.628 1 728.628 725.271 0 0.938

ADVT_MMEQ11 731.805 1 731.805 1339.575 0 0.965

ADVT_MMEQ10 684.613 1 684.613 1377.596 0 0.966

Brand awareness ADVT_MMEQ12 110.717 99 1.118 1.113 0.345 0.697

ADVT_MMEQ11 110.535 99 1.117 2.044 0.003 0.808

ADVT_MMEQ10 111.822 99 1.13 2.273 0.001 0.824

Error ADVT_MMEQ12 48.222 48 1.005

ADVT_MMEQ11 26.222 48 0.546

ADVT_MMEQ10 23.854 48 0.497

Total ADVT_MMEQ12 1069 148

ADVT_MMEQ11 1032 148

ADVT_MMEQ10 992 148

a. (Adjusted R Squared = .071) b. (Adjusted R Squared = .413)

c. (Adjusted R Squared = .462)

We considered the significance level as usually 5%. Therefore it can be seen

that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator is 2.273 with significance of 0.001.

Since this value is < the significance level 0.05. The proposed hypothesis (Ho) is

rejected otherwise accepted. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the advertisement of

the refrigerator is expensive does influence refrigerators. Now look at last column and

the value of 0.824 indicates 82.4% influence on the observed variance of the

refrigerator indicating it is a strong influencer.

As table no shown below dependent variable is store and brand awareness is


106

Table no. 3.23: Tests of between –subjects Effects

Source Dependent Variable


Df Mean Square

F Sig. Prob. Of influence

Corrected Model srore_mmeq4 70.447a 99 0.71 1.41 0.094 0.744

store_mmeq5 50.869b 99 0.51 2.22 0.001 0.821

store_mmeq6 74.901c 99 0.76 1.92 0.007 0.798

Intercept srore_mmeq4 468.164 1 468.16 927.74 0.000 0.951

store_mmeq5 464.579 1 464.58 2008.23 0.000 0.977

store_mmeq6 385.823 1 385.82 979.36 0.000 0.953

Brand awareness srore_mmeq4 70.447 99 0.71 1.41 0.094 0.744

store_mmeq5 50.869 99 0.51 2.22 0.001 0.821

store_mmeq6 74.901 99 0.76 1.92 0.007 0.798

Error srore_mmeq4 24.222 48 0.51

store_mmeq5 11.104 48 0.23

store_mmeq6 18.91 48 0.39

Total srore_mmeq4 715 148

store_mmeq5 646 148

store_mmeq6 616 148

a. (Adjusted R Squared = .216) b. (Adjusted R Squared = .451) c. (Adjusted R Squared = .383)

From the above multivariate analysis indicates the relationship between

stores constructs on brand awareness. The significance level is as usually 5%.

Therefore it can be seen that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator is 2.22 with

significance of 0.001. Since this value is < the significance level 0.05. The proposed

hypothesis (Ho) is rejected otherwise accepted. Hence it is inferred that the variable,

the store where we can buy this refrigerator would be high quality stores influence

brand awareness. Now look at last column and the value of 0.821 indicates 82.1%

influence on the observed variance of the refrigerator indicating it is a strong

influencer.

As table no shown below dependent variable is price & buying interest and

brand awareness is an independent variable.

107

Table no. 3.24: Tests of between –subjects Effects

Source Dependent Variable Type III Sum of Squares

df Mean Square F Sig. Prob. Of

influence

Corrected Model PRICE_MMEQ3 100.831a 99 1.018 1.22 0.222 0.716

PRICE_MMEQ2 108.048b 99 1.091 1.34 0.134 0.734

PROB_BUY_MME16 104.433c 99 1.055 1.24 0.210 0.718

Intercept PRICE_MMEQ3 721.191 1 721.191 865.43 0.000 0.947

PRICE_MMEQ2 816.401 1 816.401 999.11 0.000 0.954

PROB_BUY_MME16 639.327 1 639.327 748.61 0.000 0.940

Brand awareness PRICE_MMEQ3 100.831 99 1.018 1.22 0.222 0.716

PRICE_MMEQ2 108.048 99 1.091 1.34 0.134 0.734

PROB_BUY_MME16 104.433 99 1.055 1.24 0.210 0.718

Error PRICE_MMEQ3 40 48 0.833

PRICE_MMEQ2 39.222 48 0.817

PROB_BUY_MME16 40.993 48 0.854

Total PRICE_MMEQ3 1041 148

PRICE_MMEQ2 1154 148

PROB_BUY_MME16 959 148





Since this value is > the significance level 0.05. The proposed hypothesis (Ho) is

accepted otherwise rejected. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the price promotion

of the refrigerators are presented too many times does influence brand association.

Now look at last column and the value of 0.734 indicates 73.4% influence on the

observed variance of the refrigerator indicating it is a moderate influencer.

As table no shown below dependent variable are marketing mix elements and

brand awareness is an independent variable.

108

Table no. 3.25 Tests of between –subjects Effects (other influential constructs)



Df Mean

Square F Sig. Prob. Of influence

Corrected Model LIKEING_MME15 48.836a 99 0.493 0.495 0.998 0.505

MMEQ8 93.611b 99 0.946 1.319 0.144 0.731

MMEQ7 109.389c 99 1.105 0.954 0.587 0.663

MMEQ14 108.115d 99 1.092 1.319 0.144 0.731

MMEQ1 174.526e 99 1.763 1.558 0.045 0.763

Intercept LIKEING_MME15 422.715 1 422.715 424.188 0 0.898

MMEQ8 635.766 1 635.766 886.864 0 0.949

MMEQ7 681.157 1 681.157 588.005 0 0.925

MMEQ14 667.572 1 667.572 806.266 0 0.944

MMEQ1 987.153 1 987.153 872.532 0 0.948

Brand awareness LIKEING_MME15 48.836 99 0.493 0.495 0.998 0.505

MMEQ8 93.611 99 0.946 1.319 0.144 0.731

MMEQ7 109.389 99 1.105 0.954 0.587 0.663

MMEQ14 108.115 99 1.092 1.319 0.144 0.731

MMEQ1 174.526 99 1.763 1.558 0.045 0.763

Error LIKEING_MME15 47.833 48 0.997

MMEQ8 34.41 48 0.717

MMEQ7 55.604 48 1.158

MMEQ14 39.743 48 0.828

MMEQ1 54.306 48 1.131

Total LIKEING_MME15 717 148

MMEQ8 951 148

MMEQ7 1085 148

MMEQ14 1009 148

MMEQ1 1531 148

a. (Adjusted R Squared = -.515) b. Adjusted R Squared = .177) c. (Adjusted R Squared = -.032) d. (Adjusted R Squared = .177)

e. (Adjusted R Squared = .273)

From the above multivariate analysis indicates the relationship between marketing

mix elements constructs on brand awareness. The significance level as usually 5%,

therefore it can be seen that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator is 1.558 with


hypothesis (Ho) is rejected. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the marketing mix

element the price of the refrigerator is expensive influence on brand awareness. Now

109

look at last column and the value of 0.763 indicates 76.3% influence on the observed

variance of the refrigerator indicating it is a strong influencer.

As table no shown below dependent variables are purchase decisions and brand

awareness is an independent variable.

Table no. 3.26 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Type III Sum of

Source Variable Squares Df Mean Square

F Sig. Partial

Eta Squared

Corrected Model PBPQ4 41.334a 99 0.418 2.022 0.004 0.807

Brand awareness PBPQ5 75.980b 99 0.767 4.21 0.000 0.897

PBPQ6 48.338c 99 0.488 1.267 0.182 0.723

PBPQ8 51.197d 99 0.517 0.904 0.669 0.651

PBPQ10 43.284e 99 0.437 2.211 0.001 0.82

PBPQ11 32.960f 99 0.333 0.653 0.962 0.574

PBPQ12 27.771g 99 0.281 0.729 0.906 0.601

PBPQ13 98.915h 99 0.999 1.291 0.164 0.727

PBPQ16 80.694i 99 0.815 1.174 0.272 0.708

PBPQ17 85.036j 99 0.859 1.014 0.490 0.676

PBPQ18 87.839k 99 0.887 1.874 0.009 0.794

a. (Adjusted R Squared = .408)

b. (Adjusted R Squared = .684)


d.(Adjusted R Squared = -.069)


f. (Adjusted R Squared = -.305)

g. (Adjusted R Squared = -.223)

h.(Adjusted R Squared = .164)

i. (Adjusted R Squared = .105)

j.(Adjusted R Squared = .009)

k.(Adjusted R Squared = .371)


purchase elements constructs on brand awareness, at significance level of 5%.

Therefore it can be seen that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator is 4.21 with


hypothesis (Ho) is rejected. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the service of the

refrigerator to purchase decision does influence brand awareness. Now look at last

column and the value of 0.897 indicates 89.7% influence on the observed variance of

the refrigerator indicating it is a strong influencer.

110

Brand Association:

H2b. Advertisement has a significant positive effect on brand association

H3b. Store has a significant positive effect on brand association

H4b. Price has a significant positive effect on brand association

H5b. MME8, MME7, MME15, MME14 MME1 have a significant positive effect

on brand association

H6b. (pbpapur) Other influential construct has a significant positive effect on

brand association

Table 3.27 Multivariate Testsc

Effect

Value F Hypoth

esis df

Error

df Sig.

Prob. Of

influence

Intercept

Pillai's Trace 0.962 520.860a 3 61 0 0.962

Wilks' Lambda 0.038 520.860a 3 61 0 0.962

Hotelling's Trace 25.616 520.860a 3 61 0 0.962

Roy's Largest Root 25.616 520.860a 3 61 0 0.962

Brand association

Pillai's Trace 1.729 1.02 252 189 0.444 0.576

Wilks' Lambda 0.067 1.067 252 183.90 0.322 0.594

Hotelling's Trace 4.74 1.122 252 179 0.205 0.612

Roy's Largest Root 2.741 2.056b 84 63 0.002 0.733

a. Exact statistic

b. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.

c. Design: Intercept + Brand association

As table no shown below dependent variable is advertisement and brand association is


111

Table 3.28: Tests of Between-Subjects


Type III Sum

of Squares

Df Mean Square



ADVT_MMEQ11 75.429b 84 0.898 0.922 0.638 0.552

ADVT_MMEQ10 95.915c 84 1.142 1.809 0.007 0.707

Intercept ADVT_MMEQ12 660.121 1 660.121 624.283 0.000 0.908

ADVT_MMEQ11 650.988 1 650.988 668.739 0.000 0.914

ADVT_MMEQ10 621.978 1 621.978 985.5 0.000 0.94

Brand association ADVT_MMEQ12 92.323 84 1.099 1.039 0.44 0.581

ADVT_MMEQ11 75.429 84 0.898 0.922 0.638 0.552

ADVT_MMEQ10 95.915 84 1.142 1.809 0.007 0.707

Error ADVT_MMEQ12 66.617 63 1.057

ADVT_MMEQ11 61.328 63 0.973

ADVT_MMEQ10 39.761 63 0.631



ADVT_MMEQ10 992 148

a. (Adjusted R Squared = .022) b.(Adjusted R Squared = -.046)

c.(Adjusted R Squared = .316)

We considered the significance level at 5%. Therefore it can be seen that the F

value corresponding to the refrigerator is 1.809 with significance of 0.007. Since this

value is < the significance level 0.05. The proposed hypothesis (Ho) is rejected.

Hence it is inferred that the variable, this refrigerator is advertised intensively does

influence brand association. Now look at last column and the value of 0.707 indicates

70.7% influence on the observed variance of the refrigerator indicating it is a strong

influencer.

As table no shown below, dependent variable is store and brand association is an

independent variable

112




Df Mean Square



store_mmeq5 37.462b 84 0.446 1.146 0.286 0.604

store_mmeq6 64.500c 84 0.768 1.65 0.019 0.688


store_mmeq5 396.262 1 396.262 1018.497 0.000 0.942

store_mmeq6 368.777 1 368.777 792.633 0.000 0.926

Brand association srore_mmeq4 56.774 84 0.676 1.124 0.316 0.600

store_mmeq5 37.462 84 0.446 1.146 0.286 0.604

store_mmeq6 64.5 84 0.768 1.65 0.019 0.688


store_mmeq5 24.511 63 0.389

store_mmeq6 29.311 63 0.465


store_mmeq5 646 148

store_mmeq6 616 148



From the above multivariate analysis indicates the relationship between stores

constructs on brand association, the significance level as usually 5%. Therefore it can

be seen that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator is 1.65 with significance of

0.019. Since this value is < the significance level 0.05. The proposed hypothesis (Ho)

is rejected. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the store where we can buy

refrigerator influence brand association. Now look at last column and the value of

0.688 indicates 68.8% influence on the observed variance of the refrigerator

indicating it is a strong influencer.

As table no shown below, dependent variable is price &buying interest and

brand association is an independent variable

113


Source Dependent Variable Type III Sum of Squares

Df Mean Square



PRICE_MMEQ2 96.087b 84 1.144 1.408 0.078 0.652

PROB_BUY_MME16 104.965c 84 1.25 1.946 0.003 0.722


PRICE_MMEQ2 741.044 1 741.044 912.129 0.000 0.935

PROB_BUY_MME16 615.489 1 615.489 958.347 0.000 0.938

Brand association PRICE_MMEQ3 89.831 84 1.069 1.321 0.124 0.638

PRICE_MMEQ2 96.087 84 1.144 1.408 0.078 0.652

PROB_BUY_MME16 104.965 84 1.25 1.946 0.003 0.722

Error PRICE_MMEQ3 51 63 0.81

PRICE_MMEQ2 51.183 63 0.812

PROB_BUY_MME16 40.461 63 0.642






From the above multivariate analysis indicates the relationship between price

& buying constructs on brand awareness, the significance level as usually 5%.

Therefore it can be seen that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator is 1.946

with significance of 0.003. Since this value is < the significance level 0.05. The

proposed hypothesis (Ho) is rejected otherwise accepted. Hence it is inferred that the

variable, the product decided to sell other than household appliances would buy them

does influence brand association. Now look at last column and the value of 0.722

indicates 72.2% influence on the observed variance of the refrigerator indicating it is a

strong influencer.

As table no shown below, dependent variable marketing mix elements and

brand association is independent variable

114

Table 3.31 Tests of Between-Subjects



df Mean Square



MMEQ8 82.554b 84 0.983 1.362 0.1 0.645

MMEQ7 102.093c 84 1.215 1.217 0.207 0.619

MMEQ14 84.047d 84 1.001 0.988 0.525 0.568

MMEQ1 156.937e 84 1.868 1.637 0.021 0.686

Intercept LIKEING_MME15 419.566 1 419.566 724.293 0.000 0.92

MMEQ8 596.388 1 596.388 826.373 0.000 0.929

MMEQ7 613.476 1 613.476 614.451 0.000 0.907

MMEQ14 618.563 1 618.563 610.701 0.000 0.906

MMEQ1 902.312 1 902.312 790.682 0.000 0.926

Brand association LIKEING_MME15 60.174 84 0.716 1.237 0.189 0.622

MMEQ8 82.554 84 0.983 1.362 0.1 0.645

MMEQ7 102.093 84 1.215 1.217 0.207 0.619

MMEQ14 84.047 84 1.001 0.988 0.525 0.568

MMEQ1 156.937 84 1.868 1.637 0.021 0.686


MMEQ8 45.467 63 0.722

MMEQ7 62.9 63 0.998

MMEQ14 63.811 63 1.013

MMEQ1 71.894 63 1.141


MMEQ8 951 148

MMEQ7 1085 148

MMEQ14 1009 148

MMEQ1 1531 148

a. (Adjusted R Squared = .119) b. (Adjusted R Squared = .171) c. (Adjusted R Squared = .110) d. (Adjusted R Squared = -.007)



marketing mix elements constructs on brand association. The significance level as

usually 5%, therefore it can be seen that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator

is 1.637 with significance of 0.021. Since this value is < the significance level 0.05.

115

The proposed hypothesis (Ho) is rejected otherwise accepted. Hence it is inferred that

the variable, the marketing mix element the price of the refrigerator is expensive

influence on brand association. Now look at last column and the value of 0.686

indicates 68.6% influence on the observed variance of the refrigerator indicating it is a

strong influencer.

As table no shown below dependent variables are purchase decisions and brand

association is an independent variable.

Table no. 3.32 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects



Df Mean Square F Sig. Partial

Eta Squared

Corrected PBPQ4 32.532a 84 0.387 1.304 0.135 0.635

Model PBPQ5 55.819b 84 0.665 1.448 0.062 0.659

PBPQ6 38.431c 84 0.458 1.015 0.48 0.575

Brand PBPQ8 45.902d 84 0.546 1.051 0.422 0.583

Association PBPQ10 32.716e 84 0.389 1.223 0.202 0.62

PBPQ11 37.816f 84 0.45 1.446 0.063 0.658

PBPQ12 24.349g 84 0.29 0.834 0.783 0.527

PBPQ13 67.374h 84 0.802 0.736 0.906 0.495

PBPQ16 63.509i 84 0.756 0.943 0.602 0.557

PBPQ17 72.325j 84 0.861 1.016 0.477 0.575

PBPQ18 72.650k 84 0.865 1.437 0.066 0.657

a. (Adjusted R Squared = .148) b. (Adjusted R Squared = .204) b. c. (Adjusted R Squared = .008) d. (Adjusted R Squared = .028)

e. (Adjusted R Squared = .113) f. (Adjusted R Squared = .203)

g. (Adjusted R Squared = -.105) h. (Adjusted R Squared = -.178) i. (Adjusted R Squared = -.034) j. (Adjusted R Squared = .009)

k. (Adjusted R Squared = .200)


purchase elements constructs on brand association, the significance level as usually

5%. Therefore it can be seen that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator is 1.448

with significance of 0.062. Since this value is >the significance level 0.05. The

proposed hypothesis (Ho) is accepted. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the

116

service of the refrigerator to purchase decision does not influence brand association.

Now look at last column and the value of 0.659 indicates 65.9% influence on the

observed variance of the refrigerator indicating it is a less influencer.

Perceived Quality:

H2c. Advertisement has a significant positive effect on perceived quality

H3c. Store has a significant positive effect on perceived quality

H4c. Price has a significant positive effect on perceived quality

H5c. MME8, MME7, MME15, MME14 MME1 have a significant positive effect on

perceived quality

H6c. (PBPS PUR) Other influential construct has a significant positive effect on

perceived quality

Table 3.33 Multivariate Tests

Effect

Value F Hypothesis

df Error df Sig.

Prob. Of

influence

Intercept Pillai's Trace 0.989 760.126a 3 26 0.000 0.989

Wilks' Lambda 0.011 760.126a 3 26 0.000 0.989

Hotelling's Trace 87.70 760.126a 3 26 0.000 0.989

Perceived quality Roy's Largest Root 87.70 760.126a 3 26 0.000 0.989

Pillai's Trace 2.461 1.074 357 84 0.353 0.82

Wilks' Lambda 0.005 1.117 357 78.96 0.281 0.835



a. Exact statistic b. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance

level.

c. Design: Intercept + Perceived quality

As table no shown below, dependent variable is an advertisement and perceived

quality is an independent variable

117

Table no. 3.34: Tests of Between –subjects Effects

Source Dependent

Variable #


Df Mean Square



ADVT_MMEQ11 110.153b 119 0.926 0.974 0.559 0.805

ADVT_MMEQ10 118.592c 119 0.997 1.633 0.067 0.874


ADVT_MMEQ11 791.805 1 791.805 833.349 0.000 0.967

ADVT_MMEQ10 748.229 1 748.229 1226.365 0.000 0.978

Perceived quality ADVT_MMEQ12 135.356 119 1.137 1.35 0.18 0.852

ADVT_MMEQ11 110.153 119 0.926 0.974 0.559 0.805

ADVT_MMEQ10 118.592 119 0.997 1.633 0.067 0.874

Error ADVT_MMEQ12 23.583 28 0.842

ADVT_MMEQ11 26.604 28 0.95

ADVT_MMEQ10 17.083 28 0.61



ADVT_MMEQ10 992 148

a. (Adjusted R Squared = .221) b. (Adjusted R Squared = -.021)

c. (Adjusted R Squared = .339) # ADVT_MMEQ12 = the advertisement campaigns for this Refrigerator brand products are seen frequently.

ADVT_MMEQ11 = the advertisement campaigns for this Refrigerator brand products

seem very expensive, compared to campaigns of competitive brands.

ADVT_MMEQ10 = This Refrigerator brand is advertised intensively.



Since this value is > the significance level 0.05. The proposed hypothesis (Ho) is

accepted. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the advertisement of the refrigerator is

advertised intensively does influence refrigerators. Now look at last column and the

value of 0.874 indicates 87.4% influence on the observed variance of the refrigerator

indicating it is a less influencer.

As table no shown below, dependent variable is an advertisement and

perceived quality is an independent variable

118

Table no.3. 35: Test of Between- Subjects Effects


#

Type III Sum

of Squares

Degrees

of

freedom

Mean

Square F Sig.

Prob. Of influence


store_mmeq5 54.723b 119 0.46 1.776 0.04 0.883

store_mmeq6 86.727c 119 0.729 2.881 0.001 0.924


store_mmeq5 498.647 1 498.647 1925.808 0.000 0.986

store_mmeq6 439.754 1 439.754 1738.322 0.000 0.984

Perceived quality srore_mmeq4 81.502 119 0.685 1.456 0.125 0.861

store_mmeq5 54.723 119 0.46 1.776 0.04 0.883

store_mmeq6 86.727 119 0.729 2.881 0.001 0.924


store_mmeq5 7.25 28 0.259

store_mmeq6 7.083 28 0.253


store_mmeq5 646 148

store_mmeq6

a. (Adjusted R Squared = .270) b. (Adjusted R Squared = .386) c. (Adjusted R Squared = .604)


constructs on perceived quality, the significance level as usually 5%. Therefore it can

be seen that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator is 2.881 with significance of

0.01. Since this value is < the significance level 0.05. The proposed hypothesis (Ho)

is rejected otherwise accepted. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the store where

we can buy refrigerator have well known brands influence on perceived quality. Now

look at last column and the value of 0.924 indicates 92.4% influence on the observed

variance of the refrigerator indicating it is a strong influencer.

As table no shown below, dependent variable is price & buying interest and


119

Table no.3.36 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source

Dependent

Variable

#

Type III

Sum of

Squares

Degrees

of

freedom

Mean

Square F Sig.

Prob. Of

influence


PRICE_MMEQ2 124.499b 119 1.046 1.286 0.223 0.845

PROB_BUY_MME16 131.238c 119 1.103 2.177 0.01 0.902


PRICE_MMEQ2 870.428 1 870.428 1070.316 0.000 0.975

PROB_BUY_MME16 718.992 1 718.992 1418.979 0.000 0.981

Perceived quality PRICE_MMEQ3 127.748 119 1.074 2.297 0.006 0.907

PRICE_MMEQ2 124.499 119 1.046 1.286 0.223 0.845

PROB_BUY_MME16 131.238 119 1.103 2.177 0.01 0.902

Error PRICE_MMEQ3 13.083 28 0.467

PRICE_MMEQ2 22.771 28 0.813

PROB_BUY_MME16 14.188 28 0.507







& buying constructs on perceived quality, the significance level as usually 5%.


with significance of 0.006. Since this value is < the significance level 0.05. The

proposed hypothesis (Ho) is rejected. Hence it is inferred thatthe variable, the price

promotion of the refrigerator presented too many times does influence perceived

quality. Now look at last column and the value of 0.907 indicates 90.7% influence on

the observed variance of the refrigerator indicating it is a strong influencer.

As table no shown below, dependent variables are marketing mix elements are

advertisement and perceived quality is an independent variable

120

Table no. 3.37Tests of Between-Subjects Effects



Df Mean Square

F Sig. Partial

Eta Squared


MMEQ8 107.937b 119 0.907 1.265 0.24 0.843

MMEQ7 133.222c 119 1.12 0.987 0.542 0.807

MMEQ14 124.608d 119 1.047 1.261 0.243 0.843

MMEQ1 184.394e 119 1.55 0.976 0.556 0.806

Intercept LIKEING_MME15 527.152 1 527.152 1370.39 0 0.98

MMEQ8 730.427 1 730.427 1018.354 0 0.973

MMEQ7 783.711 1 783.711 690.694 0 0.961

MMEQ14 767.108 1 767.108 923.829 0 0.971

MMEQ1 1160.528 1 1160.528 731.247 0 0.963

PQQ_FACT1 LIKEING_MME15 85.898 119 0.722 1.876 0.028 0.889

MMEQ8 107.937 119 0.907 1.265 0.24 0.843

MMEQ7 133.222 119 1.12 0.987 0.542 0.807

MMEQ14 124.608 119 1.047 1.261 0.243 0.843

MMEQ1 184.394 119 1.55 0.976 0.556 0.806


MMEQ8 20.083 28 0.717

MMEQ7 31.771 28 1.135

MMEQ14 23.25 28 0.83

MMEQ1 44.438 28 1.587


MMEQ8 951 148

MMEQ7 1085 148

MMEQ14 1009 148

MMEQ1 1531 148

a. (Adjusted R Squared = .415) b. (Adjusted R Squared = .176) c. (Adjusted R Squared = -.011) d. (Adjusted R Squared = .174)

e. (Adjusted R Squared = -.020)


marketing mix elements constructs on perceived quality. The significance level as

usually 5%, therefore it can be seen that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator

is 1.876 with significance of 0.028. Since this value is <the significance level 0.05.

The proposed hypothesis (Ho) is rejected. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the

marketing mix element the brand decided to sell other than house hold appliances

121

would still like them influence on perceived quality. Now look at last column and the



As table no shown below, dependent variables are purchase decision factors

elements are advertisement and perceived quality is an independent variable

As table no shown below, dependent variables are purchase decisions and


Table 3.38 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects



Df Mean Square

F Sig. Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model PBPQ4 46.327a 80 0.389 2.217 0.008 0.904

Perceived quality PBPQ5 77.396b 80 0.65 2.483 0.003 0.913

PBPQ6 57.248c 80 0.481 1.406 0.149 0.857

PBPQ8 64.565d 80 0.543 1.077 0.426 0.821

PBPQ10 51.173e 80 0.43 7.506 0 0.97

PBPQ11 49.578f 80 0.417 1.485 0.113 0.863

PBPQ12 31.410g 80 0.264 0.498 0.995 0.679

PBPQ13 113.470h 80 0.954 1.181 0.313 0.834

PBPQ16 88.104i 80 0.74 0.8 0.796 0.773

PBPQ17 98.703j 80 0.829 0.86 0.717 0.785

PBPQ18 91.790k 80 0.771 1.151 0.344 0.83

a. (Adjusted R Squared = .496) b. (Adjusted R Squared = .546) c. (Adjusted R Squared = .247) d. (Adjusted R Squared = .059)

e. (Adjusted R Squared = .840) f. (Adjusted R Squared = .282)

g. (Adjusted R Squared = -.684) h. (Adjusted R Squared = .128) i. (Adjusted R Squared = -.193) j. (Adjusted R Squared = -.128)

k. (Adjusted R Squared = .109)


purchase elements constructs on perceived quality,the significance level as usually

5%. Therefore it can be seen that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator is

2.483with significance of 0.003. Since this value is <the significance level 0.05. The

proposed hypothesis (Ho) is rejected. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the service

of the refrigerator to purchase decision does influence brand perceived quality. Now

122

look at last column and the value of 0.913 indicates 91.3 % influence on the observed

variance of the refrigerator indicating it is a less influencer.

Brand Loyalty:

H2d. Advertisement has a significant positive effect on brand loyalty

H3d. Store has a significant positive effect on brand loyalty

H4d. Price has a significant positive effect on brand loyalty

H5d. MME8, MME7, MME15, MME14 MME1 have a significant positive effect

on brand loyalty

H6d. (Pspbpur) other influential construct has a significant positive effect on brand

loyalty

Table 3.39 Multivariate Tests

Effect Value F

Hypothesis

df Error df Sig.

Prob. Of

influence

Intercept Pillai's Trace 0.963 556.893a 3 65 0 0.963

Wilks' Lambda 0.037 556.893a 3 65 0 0.963

Hotelling's Trace 25.703 556.893a 3 65 0 0.963

Roy's Largest Root 25.703 556.893a 3 65 0 0.963

Brand loyalty Pillai's Trace 1.768 1.201 240 201 0.089 0.589

Wilks' Lambda 0.064 1.222 240 195.891 0.072 0.6



a. Exact statistic b. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.

c. Design: Intercept + Brand loyalty

As table no shown below, dependent variable is advertisement and brand

loyalty is the independent variable

123

Table no. 3.40 Tests of between –subjects Effects


Type III Sum

of Squares

Df Mean Square



ADVT_MMEQ11 84.740b 80 1.059 1.364 0.096 0.62

ADVT_MMEQ10 87.342c 80 1.092 1.513 0.041 0.644


ADVT_MMEQ11 624.18 1 624.18 803.974 0.000 0.923

ADVT_MMEQ10 608.886 1 608.886 844.042 0.000 0.926

Brand loyalty ADVT_MMEQ12 99.973 80 1.25 1.42 0.070 0.629

ADVT_MMEQ11 84.74 80 1.059 1.364 0.096 0.620

ADVT_MMEQ10 87.342 80 1.092 1.513 0.041 0.644

Error ADVT_MMEQ12 58.967 67 0.88

ADVT_MMEQ11 52.017 67 0.776

ADVT_MMEQ10 48.333 67 0.721



ADVT_MMEQ10 992 148





Since this value is <the significance level 0.05. The proposed hypothesis (Ho) is

rejected. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the advertisement of the refrigerator is

advertised intensively does influence refrigerators. Now look at last column and the



As table no shown below, dependent variable is store and brand loyalty is the

independent variable

124

Table 3.41 Tests of Between-Subjects



Df Mean Square



store_mmeq5 36.423b 80 0.455 1.194 0.228 0.588

store_mmeq6 54.994c 80 0.687 1.187 0.236 0.586

Intercept srore_mmeq4 403.152 1 403.152 622.856 0 0.903

store_mmeq5 394.648 1 394.648 1034.889 0 0.939

store_mmeq6 352.322 1 352.322 608.13 0 0.901

Brand loyalty srore_mmeq4 51.302 80 0.641 0.991 0.519 0.542

store_mmeq5 36.423 80 0.455 1.194 0.228 0.588

store_mmeq6 54.994 80 0.687 1.187 0.236 0.586


store_mmeq5 25.55 67 0.381

store_mmeq6 38.817 67 0.579


store_mmeq5 646 148

store_mmeq6 616 148

a. (Adjusted R Squared = -.005) b. (Adjusted R Squared = .095)



constructs on brand loyalty, the significance level as usually 5%. Therefore it can be

seen that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator is 1.194 with significance of

0.228. Since this value is > the significance level 0.05. The proposed hypothesis (Ho)

is accepted otherwise rejected. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the store where

we can buy refrigerator would be high quality stores influence on perceived quality.

Now look at last column and the value of 0.588 indicates 58.8 % influence on the

observed variance of the refrigerator indicating it is a moderate influencer.

As table no shown below, dependent variable price & buying interest and

brand loyalty is the independent variable

125

Table no. 3.42Tests of Between-Subjects


Type III Sum

of Squares

df Mean Square



PRICE_MMEQ2 87.487b 80 1.094 1.226 0.196 0.594

PROB_BUY_MME16 87.109c 80 1.089 1.251 0.173 0.599


PRICE_MMEQ2 752.227 1 752.227 843.032 0.000 0.926

PROB_BUY_MME16 548.348 1 548.348 629.996 0.000 0.904

Brand loyalty PRICE_MMEQ3 79.098 80 0.989 1.073 0.385 0.562

PRICE_MMEQ2 87.487 80 1.094 1.226 0.196 0.594

PROB_BUY_MME16 87.109 80 1.089 1.251 0.173 0.599

Error PRICE_MMEQ3 61.733 67 0.921

PRICE_MMEQ2 59.783 67 0.892

PROB_BUY_MME16 58.317 67 0.87







& buying constructs on perceived quality, the significance level as usually 5%.


with significance of 0.173. Since this value is > the significance level 0.05. The

proposed hypothesis (Ho) is accepted. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the

product decided to sell other than house hold appliances we should buy them does

influence perceived quality. Now look at last column and the value of 0.599 indicates

59.9% influence on the observed variance of the refrigerator indicating it is a

moderate influencer.

As table no shown below, dependent variable are others marketing mix

elements and brand loyalty is an independent variable

126

Table no. 3.43 Tests of Between-Subjects



df Mean Square



MMEQ8 80.020b 80 1 1.396 0.08 0.625

MMEQ7 93.160c 80 1.164 1.086 0.365 0.565

MMEQ14 97.558d 80 1.219 1.624 0.021 0.66

MMEQ1 141.298e 80 1.766 1.352 0.102 0.617

Intercept LIKEING_MME15 447.557 1 447.557 639.595 0.000 0.905

MMEQ8 551.159 1 551.159 769.325 0.000 0.92

MMEQ7 607.051 1 607.051 566.206 0.000 0.894

MMEQ14 584.65 1 584.65 778.759 0.000 0.921

MMEQ1 957.451 1 957.451 732.854 0.000 0.916

Brand loyalty LIKEING_MME15 49.786 80 0.622 0.889 0.694 0.515

MMEQ8 80.02 80 1 1.396 0.08 0.625

MMEQ7 93.16 80 1.164 1.086 0.365 0.565

MMEQ14 97.558 80 1.219 1.624 0.021 0.66

MMEQ1 141.298 80 1.766 1.352 0.102 0.617


MMEQ8 48 67 0.716

MMEQ7 71.833 67 1.072

MMEQ14 50.3 67 0.751

MMEQ1 87.533 67 1.306


MMEQ8 951 148

MMEQ7 1085 148

MMEQ14 1009 148

MMEQ1 1531 148

a. (Adjusted R Squared = -.064) b. (Adjusted R Squared = .177)

c. (Adjusted R Squared = .045) d. (Adjusted R Squared = .254)



marketing mix elements constructs on brand loyalty. The significance level as usually

5%, therefore it can be seen that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator is 1.396

with significance of 0.08. Since this value is > the significance level 0.05. The

proposed hypothesis (Ho) is accepted. Hence it is inferred thatthe variable, the

marketing mix element the number of stores deal with refrigerator more than its

competitive brand less influence on brand loyalty. Now look at last column and the


indicating it is a moderate influencer.

127

As table no shown below, dependent variables are purchase decisions and

brand loyalty is an independent variable

T able no. 3.44Tests of Between-Subjects Effects



Df Mean Square F Sig. Partial

Eta Squared

Corrected PBPQ4 30.510a 80 0.381 1.232 0.19 0.595

Model PBPQ5 57.780b 80 0.722 1.796 0.007 0.682

PBPQ6 44.814c 80 0.56 1.705 0.013 0.671

Brand loyalty PBPQ8 44.419d 80 0.555 1.086 0.365 0.565

PBPQ10 35.460e 80 0.443 1.715 0.012 0.672

PBPQ11 33.516f 80 0.419 1.174 0.251 0.584

PBPQ12 30.427g 80 0.38 1.611 0.023 0.658

PBPQ13 84.974h 80 1.062 1.393 0.082 0.624

PBPQ16 59.787i 80 0.747 0.923 0.636 0.524

PBPQ17 78.003j 80 0.975 1.37 0.093 0.621

PBPQ18 63.111k 80 0.789 1.114 0.326 0.571

a. Adjusted R Squared = .112) b. (Adjusted R Squared = .302)

c. (Adjusted R Squared = .277) d. (Adjusted R Squared = .045)

e. (Adjusted R Squared = .280) f. (Adjusted R Squared = .086) g. (Adjusted R Squared = .250) i. (Adjusted R Squared = .176)

j. (Adjusted R Squared = -.044) k. (Adjusted R Squared = .167) i. (Adjusted R Squared = .058)


purchase elements constructs on brand loyalty, the significance level at 5%. Therefore

it can be seen that the F value corresponding to the refrigerator is 1.796 with


hypothesis (Ho) is rejected. Hence it is inferred that the variable, the service of the

refrigerator to purchase decision does influence brand loyalty. Now look at last

column and the value of 0.682 indicates 68.2% influence on the observed variance of

the refrigerator indicating it is a strong influencer.

128

FACTOR ANALYSIS RERPORTS: Table no. 3.45.Brand Equity KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .724 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 552.569

Df 120 Sig. .000

Total Variance Explained

Component 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

%

1 3.610 22.565 22.565 3.610 22.565 22.565 3.114 19.461 19.461

2 2.512 15.697 38.263 2.512 15.697 38.263 2.542 15.890 35.351

3 1.221 7.629 45.891 1.221 7.629 45.891 1.444 9.027 44.378

4 1.084 6.778 52.669 1.084 6.778 52.669 1.228 7.673 52.051

5 1.004 6.276 58.945 1.004 6.276 58.945 1.103 6.893 58.945

6 .888 5.549 64.494

7 .869 5.433 69.927

8 .802 5.010 74.937

9 .764 4.776 79.714

10 .647 4.042 83.756

11 .597 3.730 87.486

12 .558 3.490 90.976

13 .443 2.770 93.745

14 .382 2.388 96.133

15 .334 2.088 98.222

16 .284 1.778 100.000

129

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotated Component Matrix (a)

Component

1 2 3 4 5

BAWQ6 .749 .042 .106 .043 .171 PQQ6 .693 .047 -.087 -.113 .104

BLQ3 .690 -.021 .246 .242 -.133

BAWQ5 .664 -.126 .221 -.111 .193 BASSOQ9 .617 .172 -.371 .251 -.273

BLQ2 .496 .336 .248 .126 .148 BLQ4 .466 .011 .253 -.287 -.228

PQQ1 -.065 .814 .072 .118 -.002

PQQ2 .154 .691 -.046 -.148 .122 BAWQ2 .003 .642 -.206 .109 -.139

BLQ1 .263 .631 .314 .079 .089 BAWQ1 -.196 .609 .103 .373 -.057

PQQ5 .090 -.011 .790 .196 -.019

PQQ4 .375 .129 .511 -.207 -.092 BAWQ3 .079 .200 .079 .840 .030

BASSOQ10 .150 .028 -.051 .033 .897


Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

Table no. 3.46.Brand Awareness

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .585

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 103.903

Df 15

Sig. .000

130


Component

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

%

1 1.788 29.800 29.800 1.788 29.800 29.800 1.773 29.552 29.552

2 1.554 25.900 55.700 1.554 25.900 55.700 1.569 26.149 55.700

3 .800 13.334 69.034

4 .740 12.335 81.369

5 .688 11.472 92.841

6 .430 7.159 100.000



Component

1 2

BAWQ1 .691 -.132

BAWQ3 .671 .068

BAWQ2 .661 -.129

BAWQ4 .607 .153

BAWQ5 -.152 .868

BAWQ6 .129 .868


Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

Table no. 3.47.Brand Association




df 15

Sig. .000

131


Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2

F_BASSN2 .701 -.083

F_BASSN4 .681 .024

F_BASSN3 .622 .208

F_BASSN1 .549 -.029

F_BASSN5 .461 -.350

F_BASSN6 .088 .926



Table no. 3.48.Perceived Quality




df 28

Sig. .000

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3

PQQ1 .811 -.132 -.042

PQQ2 .804 .114 -.034

PQQ3 .546 .060 .388

PQQ8 .485 .447 .197

PQQ6 .037 .790 .193

PQQ7 -.015 .775 -.133

PQQ5 .013 -.142 .771

PQQ4 .062 .285 .720

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

132

Table no. 3.49.Brand Loyalty




df 15

Sig. .000


Component

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

%

1 2.274 37.902 37.902 2.274 37.902 37.902 1.733 28.886 28.886

2 1.060 17.666 55.568 1.060 17.666 55.568 1.601 26.683 55.568

3 .861 14.355 69.923

4 .699 11.652 81.575

5 .646 10.766 92.341

6 .460 7.659 100.000



Component

1 2

BLQ4 .768 -.194

BLQ3 .672 .283

BLQ5 .573 .247

BLQ6 .526 .321

BLQ1 .030 .848

BLQ2 .292 .774



a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

133

Table no. 3.50 Marketing Activities



df 153 Sig. .000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Table no. 3.51.Purchase decision factors



Df 153 Sig. .000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. REGRESSION ANALYSIS REPORTS:

Table no. 3.52.Brand Awareness

Model Summaryb

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .817a .852 .866 .38747710

Table no. 3.53.Brand Association Model Summaryb

Model R R

Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .928a .861 .856 .37958620

a. Predictors: (Constant), BASQ6, BASQ2, BASQ1, BASQ3, BASQ4

b. Dependent Variable: BRAND EQUITY

ANOVA b

Model Sum of Squares

Df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 126.540 5 25.308 175.645 .000a

Residual 20.460 142 .144

Total 147.000 147

134

Model Summaryb

Model R R

Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .928a .861 .856 .37958620

a. Predictors: (Constant), BASQ6, BASQ2, BASQ1, BASQ3, BASQ4


Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) -1.915 .156 -12.252 .000

BASQ1 .935 .032 .949 28.833 .000

BASQ2 -.035 .048 -.025 -.722 .472

BASQ3 -.075 .042 -.059 -1.757 .081

BASQ4 -.063 .064 -.033 -.981 .328

BASQ6 .076 .036 .067 2.122 .036

a. Dependent Variable: BRAND EQUITY

Residuals Statisticsa

Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation N

Predicted Value -1.2492082 2.5653980 .0000000 .92780127 148

Residual -1.01548672 .95939338 .00000000 .37307481 148

Std. Predicted

Value

-1.346 2.765 .000 1.000 148

Std. Residual -2.675 2.527 .000 .983 148


135

Figure 3.3: Regression standardized residual for brand association

Table no. 3.54 Perceived Quality

Model Summaryb


Estimate

1 .670a .448 .425 .75838877

a. Predictors: (Constant), PQQ7, PQQ5, PQQ1, PQQ4, PQQ6, PQQ2


ANOVA b

Model Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

1 Regression 65.903 6 10.984 19.097 .000a

Residual 81.097 141 .575

Total 147.000 147

a. Predictors: (Constant), PQQ7, PQQ5, PQQ1, PQQ4, PQQ6, PQQ2


136

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) -1.759 .329 -5.343 .000

PQQ1 .649 .074 .631 8.747 .000

PQQ2 -.005 .100 -.004 -.052 .958

PQQ4 -.071 .074 -.065 -.963 .337

PQQ5 .257 .088 .187 2.907 .004

PQQ6 -.010 .062 -.011 -.157 .876

PQQ7 -.070 .072 -.066 -.968 .335



Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

Deviation N

Predicted Value -1.4613800 1.3910385 .0000000 .66956861 148

Residual -1.78712904 2.08335304 .00000000 .74275021 148

Std. Predicted

Value

-2.183 2.078 .000 1.000 148

Std. Residual -2.356 2.747 .000 .979 148


137

Figure 3.4 Regression standardized residual for perceived quality

Table no. 3.55 Brand Loyalty

Model Summaryb


Estimate

1 .572a .328 .309 .83140630

a. Predictors: (Constant), BLOYQ4, BLOYQ1, BLOYQ3, BLOYQ2


138

ANOVA b

Model Sum of Squares df

Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 48.153 4 12.038 17.416 .000a

Residual 98.847 143 .691

Total 147.000 147

a. Predictors: (Constant), BLOYQ4, BLOYQ1, BLOYQ3, BLOYQ2


Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig. B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) -.680 .279 -2.436 .016

BLOYQ1 .556 .078 .560 7.163 .000

BLOYQ2 .003 .090 .003 .033 .974

BLOYQ3 -.196 .071 -.214 -2.744 .007

BLOYQ4 -.117 .087 -.097 -1.348 .180



Minimum Maximum Mean

Std. Deviation N

Predicted Value -1.3699847 1.6783090 .0000000 .57233969 148

Residual -1.81071436 2.48541808 .00000000 .82001663 148

Std. Predicted Value

-2.394 2.932 .000 1.000 148

Std. Residual -2.178 2.989 .000 .986 148

139

Discussion on Hypotheses of Refrigerator:

From the hypotheses of the present study, the marketing mix elements advertising,

store, price and buying interest influence on brand equity dimensions as discussed

below.

From the table of multivariate analysis of brand equity dimensions and Hypothesis:

H2a H2b H2c H2d - Advertisement

Fig. 3.6



Fig.3.7

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

Advt_MME 12

0.345

0.440

0.180

0.070

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

Advt_MME 11

0.003

0.638

0.559

0.096

The figure suggests that the

model is significant. ie. over all

Advertisement is significant but

according to Roy’s gcr , advt12 is

not significant.

i.e., The advertisement

campaigns for this refrigerators

are seen frequently does

positively affect Brand loyalty

only but not Brand awareness,

Brand association and Perceived

quality from Fig.


model is significant .ie., over all

Advertisement is significant

but according to Roy’s gcr ,

advt11 is significant.

i.e., The advertisement

campaigns seem very expensive

does affect Brand awareness

but not Brand association,

Brand loyalty, Perceived quality

from Fig.

140



Fig. 3.8


H3a H3b H3c H3d - Store

Fig.3.9

Band

loyalty

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

Advt_MME 10

0.001

0.007

0.067

0.041

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Store_mmeq4

0.094

0.316

0.125

0.519



Advertisement is significant


advt10 is significant.

i.e., The refrigerator brand is

advertised intensively does

positively affect Brand

awareness, Grand association,

Perceived quality only but not

Brand loyalty from Fig.3



store is significant but

according to Roy’s gcr ,

store_mmeq4 is not significant.

i.e., The refrigerator brand is

advertised intensively effect

Brand loyalty only but not

Brand awareness , Brand

association and Perceived

quality from Fig.

141



Fig 3.10



Fig. 3.11

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

Store_MMEQ5

0.001

0.286

0.040

0.228

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

Store_MMEQ6

0.007

0.019

0.001

0.236


model is significant. i.e., the

store we buy refrigerator would

be high quality is significant



i.e., the store we buy

refrigerator are high quality

store effect on brand

awareness and perceived

quality but not Brand

association and brand loyalty

Fig.


model is significant. ie., over all

store is significant but



i.e., The store we buy this

refrigerator have well known

brands effect on brand

awareness, brand association,

perceived quality but not Brand

loyalty from Fig.

142


H4a H4b H4c H4d – Price, buying interest

Fig. 3.12


H4a H4b H4c H4d – Price

Fig. 3.13

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

Price_MMEQ3

0.222

0.124

0.006

0.386

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

Price_MMEQ2

0.134

0.078

0.223

0.196


model is significant. ie., overall

price is significant but



i.e., the price promotions of the

refrigerator presented too many

times effect on perceived

quality but not brand

awareness, brand association

and Brand loyalty from Fig.

The figure suggests that the model

is significant. ie., overall price is

significant but according to Roy’s

gcr , store_mmeq2 is not

significant.

i.e., The price deals of the

refrigerator are frequently offered

effect on brand association but

not Brand awareness, perceived

quality, and brand loyalty from Fig.

143

From the table of multivariate analysis of brand equity dimensions andHypothesis:

H4a H4b H4c H4d – Price buying interest

Fig. 3.14


H5a H5b H5c H5d – Same brand household appliance liking.

Fig. 3.15

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

Buy_interest_mmeq 16

0.210

0.003

0.010

0.173

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

same_MME 1

0.045

0.021

0.556

0.102

The figur suggests that the

model is significant. ie., over

all buying interest is

significant but according to

Roy’s gcr , store_mmeq16 is

not significant.

i.e., The refrigerator decided

to sell other than household

appliances effect on brand

association but not on brand

awareness, perceived

quality, and brand loyalty

from Fig.



buying interest is significant


store_mmeq16 is not

significant.

i.e., the price of the refrigerator

is expensive effect on brand


but not on perceived quality

and brand loyalty from Fig.

144



Fig. 3.16



Fig. 3.17

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

same_MME 14

0.144

0.525

0.243

0.021

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

same_MME 7

0.587

0.207

0.542

0.365






not significant.

i.e., it’s willing to pay higher

price for the refrigerator than

other competitive product

effect on brand loyalty but not

on brand awareness, brand

association, and perceived

quality from Fig.



all buying interest is significant


store_mmeq16 is not

significant.

i.e., more store sell this

refrigerator compared to other

brands do not effect on brand

loyalty, brand awareness,

brand association, and

perceived quality from Fig.

145



Fig. 3.18



Fig. 3.19

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

same_MME 8

0.144

0.10

0.240

0.080

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

same_MME 15

0.998

0.189

0.028

0.694






not significant.

i.e., the number of stores that

deal with refrigerator more

than competitive brands not

effect on brand awareness,

brand association, perceived

quality and brand loyalty

from Fig.



all buying interest is significant


store_mmeq15 is not

significant.

i.e., the brand decided to sell

other than household

appliances effect on perceived

quality but not on brand



146


H6a H6b H6c H6d –Quality:

Fig. 3.20


H7a H7b H7c H7d – Service of the product:

Fig. 3.21

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

cooling_PBPQ

4

0.004

0.1304

0.008

0.19

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

PBPQ5

0.000

0.062

0.003

0.007



purchase decision is significant


cooling_PBPQ4 is not

significant.

i.e., the quality of the

refrigerator is effect on brand

awareness, perceived quality

but not on brand association







significant.

i.e., the service of the


awareness, perceived quality

and brand loyalty but not on

brand association from Fig.

147


H8a H8b H8c H8d – Dealers of the product:

Fig. 3.22


H9a H9b H9c H9d – Less noise level

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

PBPQ6

0.182

0.48

0.149

0.013

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

PBPQ 8

0.669

0.422

0.426

0.365






significant.

i.e., the dealers brand loyalty of

the refrigerator is effect on

brand loyalty but not on brand


and perceived quality from Fig.






significant.

i.e., the less noise level is not

effect on brand awareness,

brand association, perceived

quality and brand loyalty from

Fig.

148


H10a H10b H10c H10d – cooling performance:

Fig. 3.24


H11a H11b H11c H11d – Durability:

Fig. 3.25

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

PBPQ10

0.001

0.202

0.000

0.012

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

PBPQ11

0.962

0.063

0.113

0.251






significant.

i.e., the cooling performance of

the refrigerator is effect on brand

awareness, perceived quality and

brand loyalty but not on brand

association from Fig.

The figure suggests that the model

is significant. ie., over all purchase

decision is significant but


cooling_PBPQ11 is not significant.

i.e., the durability of the

refrigerator is not effect on brand


perceived quality and brand

loyalty from Fig.

149


H12a H12b H12c H12d – performance:

Fig. 3.26


H13a H13b H13c H13d – Available in retail outlet :

Fig. 3.27

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

PBPQ12

0.906

0.783

0.995

0.023

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

PBPQ13

0.164

0.906

0.313

0.082






significant.

i.e., the performance of the


loyalty but not on brand


and perceived quality from Fig.






significant.

i.e., the available in retail outlet

of the refrigerator is not effect

on brand awareness, brand

association, perceived quality


150


H14a H14b H14c H14d – Environmental free:

Fig. 3.28


H15a H15b H15c H15d – Made in stereotype:

Fig. 3.29

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

PBPQ16

0.272

0.602

0.796

0.636

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

PBPQ17

0.490

0.477

0.717

0.093






significant.

i.e., the environmental safety of

the refrigerator is not effect on

brand awareness, brand

association, perceived quality and

brand loyalty from Fig.






significant.

i.e., made in stereotype of the

refrigerator is not effect on

brand awareness, brand

association, perceived quality


151


H16a H16b H16c H16d –Warranty:

Fig. 3.30

Brand

awareness

Brand

associatio

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

PBPQ18

0.009

0.066

0.344

0.326






significant.

i.e., Warranty of the refrigerator

is effect on brand awareness but

not brand association, perceived

quality and brand loyalty from

Fig.

152

Table 3.56 Summary of Hypotheses:

Hypothesis Sig. Conclusion

H1a. Brand awareness Brand equity 0.000 Supported

H2b. Brand association Brand equity 0.000 Supported

H3c. Perceived qualilty Brand equity 0.000 Supported

H4d. Brand loyalty Brand equity 0.000 Supported

Advertising:

H2a: Advertisement - MME12 Brand awareness 0.345 Not supported

H2b: Advertisement - MME12 Brand association 0.440 Not supported

H2c: Advertisement - MME12 Perceived quality 0.180 Not supported

H2d: Advertisement - MME12 Brand loyalty 0.070 Not supported

H2a: Advertisement - MME11 Brand awareness 0.003 Supported

H2b: Advertisement - MME11 Brand association 0.638 Not supported


H2d: Advertisement - MME11 Brand loyalty 0.096 Not supported

H2a: Advertisement - MME10 Brand awareness 0.001 Supported

H2b: Advertisement - MME10 Brand association 0.007 Supported


H2d: Advertisement - MME10 Brand loyalty 0.041 Supported

Store

H3a: Store - MME4 Brand awareness 0.094 Not supported

H3b: Store - MME4 Brand association 0.316 Not supported

H3c: Store - MME4 Perceived quality 0.125 Not supported

H3d: Store - MME4 Brand loyalty 0.159 Not supported

H3a: Store - MME5 Brand awareness 0.001 Supported

H3b: Store - MME5 Brand association 0.286 Not supported

H3c: Store - MME5 Perceived quality 0.040 Supported


H3a: Store - MME6 Brand awareness 0.007 Supported

H3b: Store - MME6 Brand association 0.019 Supported

H3c: Store - MME6 Perceived quality 0.001 Supported


153

Price

H4a: Price - MME3 Brand awareness 0.222 Not supported

H4a: Price - MME3 Brand association 0.124 Not supported

H4a: Price - MME3 Perceived quality 0.006 Supported

H4a: Price - MME3 Brand loyalty 0.385 Not supported

H4a: Price - MME2 Brand awareness 0.134 Not supported

H4a: Price - MME2 Brand association 0.078 Not supported

H4a: Price - MME2 Perceived quality 0.223 Not supported

H4a: Price - MME2 Brand loyalty 0.196 Not supported

H4a: Price - Buy_MME16 Brand awareness 0.210 Not supported

H4a: Price - Buy_MME16 Brand association 0.003 Supported

H4a: Price - Buy_MME16 Perceived quality 0.010 Supported

H4a: Price - Buy_MME16 Brand loyalty 0.173 Not supported

Household applicess linking

H5a: Same brand household appliences liking - MME15 Brand awareness 0.998 Not supported

H5a: Same brand household appliences liking - MME15 Brand association 0.189 Not supported

H5a: Same brand household appliences liking - MME15 Perceived quality 0.028 Supported

H5a: Same brand household appliences liking - MME15 Brand loyalty 0.694 Not supported



H5a: Same brand household appliences liking - MME8 Perceived quality 0.24 Not supported



H5a: Same brand household appliences liking - MME7

Brand association 0.207 Not supported

154


H5a: Same brand household appliences liking - MME7 Brand loyalty 0.021 Supported





H5a: Same brand household appliences liking - MME1 Brand awareness 0.045 Supported

H5a: Same brand household appliences liking - MME1 Brand association 0.021 Supported



H9a: Performance -PBPQ8 Brand awareness 0.669 Not supported

H9a: Performance -PBPQ8 Brand association 0.422 Not supported

H9a: Performance -PBPQ8 Perceived quality 0.426 Not supported

H9a: Performance -PBPQ8 Brand loyalty 0.365 Not supported

H10a: Durability - PBPQ10 Brand awareness 0.001 Supported

H10a: Durability - PBPQ10 Brand association 0.202 Not supported

H10a: Durability - PBPQ10 Perceived quality 0 Supported

H10a: Durability - PBPQ10 Brand loyalty 0.012 Supported

H11a: Available in retail outlet - PBPQ11 Brand awareness 0.962 Not supported

H11a: Available in retail outlet - PBPQ11 Brand association 0.063 Not supported

H11a: Available in retail outlet - PBPQ11 Perceived quality 0.113 Not supported

H11a: Available in retail outlet - PBPQ11 Brand loyalty 0.251 Not supported

155

H12: Dealers brand loyalty - PBPQ12 Brand awareness 0.906 Not supported

H12: Dealers brand loyalty - PBPQ12 Brand association 0.783 Not supported

H12: Dealers brand loyalty - PBPQ12 Perceived quality 0.995 Not supported

H12: Dealers brand loyalty - PBPQ12 Brand loyalty 0.023 Supported

H13a: Less naise level - PBPQ13 Brand awareness 0.164 Not supported

H13a: Less naise level - PBPQ13 Brand association 0.906 Not supported

H13a: Less naise level - PBPQ13 Perceived quality 0.313 Not supported

H13a: Less naise level - PBPQ13 Brand loyalty 0.082 Not supported

H14a: Environmental free - PBPQ16 Brand awareness 0.272 Not supported

H14a: Environmental free - PBPQ16 Brand association 0.602 Not supported

H14a: Environmental free - PBPQ16 Perceived quality 0.796 Not supported

H14a: Environmental free - PBPQ16 Brand loyalty 0.636 Not supported

H15a. Warranty - PBPQ17 Brand awareness 0.490 Not supported

H15a. Warranty - PBPQ17 Brand association 0.477 Not supported

H15a. Warranty - PBPQ17 Perceived quality 0.717 Not supported

H15a. Warranty - PBPQ17 Brand loyalty 0.093 Not supported

H16a: Made in stereotype - PBPQ18 Brand awareness 0.009 Supported

H16a: Made in stereotype - PBPQ18 Brand association 0.066 Not supported

H16a: Made in stereotype - PBPQ18 Perceived quality 0.344 Not supported

H16a: Made in stereotype - PBPQ18 Brand loyalty 0.326 Not supported

156

Figure 3.31 The analysis of the effect of market mix elements and purchase

decision factors on refrigerator

3.3 Analysis and Interpretation of Air Conditioners:

Demographic Characteristics:

The demographic variable gender, occupation, monthly income, age,

educational attainment, and marital status, number of members in the family and air

conditioner using of the respondents of household were analyzed below.

157

Table 3.57 Respondents usage of air conditioners at Mysore and Bangalore city

Usage of air conditioner at Mysore and Bangalore City

City Air Conditioner Users

Total Blue star Videocon Godrej Hitachi K Star Kenstar LG Samsung Usha V Guard Voltas

Bangalore No. of people

City % % of brand

Usage

16 20.78 61.54

1 1.30

100.00

4 5.19 66.67

3 3.90 42.86

1 1.30

100.00

0 0.00 0.00

20 25.97 52.63

21 27.27 58.33

0 0.00 0.00

1 1.30

100.00

10 12.99 62.50

77

Mysore No. of people

City % % of brand

Usage

10 17.54 38.46

0 0.00 0.00

2 3.51 33.33

4 7.02 57.14

0 0.00 0.00

1 1.75

100.00

18 31.58 47.37

15 26.32 41.67

1 1.75

100.00

0 0.00 0.00

6 10.53 37.50

57

Total 26 1 6 7 1 1 38 36 1 1 16 134

From the table, it is clear that there is stiff competition between LG and Samsung and 25.97% of the Bangalore people use 52.63% of LG and

31.58% of the Mysore people use 47.37 % LG from total 38 LG users. Overall brand usage of Samsung (58.33%) in Bangalore is higher than the

usage of Samsung (41.67%) in Mysore from total 36 Samsung users. The 3rd place is occupied by Blue star (61.54%) in Bangalore than that of

(38.46%) in Mysore. Kenstar, Usha, KStar, Videocon and V Guard are not in mind’sof the respondents of either Bangalore or Mysore. If we

look at the irrespective of brand usage, Bangalore respondents have been showing much interest in purchasing of air conditioner products than

Mysore respondents.

158

Table 3.58 Gender of the respondents:

Table 3.58 Gender of the respondents:

Gender

Air Conditioner Users

Total Blue star Videocon Godrej Hitachi K Star Kenstar LG Samsung Usha V Guard Voltas

No. of people Percent

female % Brand %

4 2.99

10.53 15.38

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 0.75 2.63

16.67

1 0.75 2.63

14.29

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 0.75 2.63

100.00

15 11.19 39.47 39.47

12 8.96

31.58 33.33

1 0.75 2.63

100.00

1 0.75 2.63

100.00

2 1.49 5.26

12.50

38 28.36

No. of people Percent male %

Brand %

22 16.42 22.92 84.62

1 0.75 1.04

100.00

5 3.73 5.21

83.33

6 4.48 6.25

85.71

1 0.75 1.04

100.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 17.16 23.96 60.53

24 17.91 25.00 66.67

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

14 10.45 14.58 87.50

96 71.64

Tot. no.of people

Tot. brand %

26 19.40

1 0.75

6 4.48

7 5.22

1 0.75

1 0.75

38 28.36

36 26.87

1 0.75

1 0.75

16 11.94

134 100.00

From the table 3.58 it is evident that male people are eager to purchase of air conditioners. But if we look at the brand wise female people like

LG (39.47%) from LG users and male people like both Samsung (33.33%) from Samsung users and Blue Star (15.38 %) from Blue Star users in

Bangalore. i.e., Male people focus on the product movement in the market but not the brand image. It is conclude that, there is a differentiation

in minds of the female in selecting either LG or Samsung but male feels both brands are almost same.

159

Table 3.59 Education of the respondents:

Table 3.59 Education of the respondents

EDUCATION Air Conditioner Users

Total Blue star Videocon Godrej Hitachi K Star Kenstar LG Samsung Usha V Guard Voltas Post Graduate

No. of people P.G. %

Brand %

3 27.27 11.54

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

2 18.18 28.57

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

2 18.18 5.26

2 18.18 5.56

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

2 18.18 12.50

11

Graduate No. of people

Degree % Brand %

3 18.75 11.54

1 6.25

100.00

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

5 31.25 13.16

4 25.00 11.11

0 0.00 0.00

1 6.25

100.00

2 12.50 12.50

16

PUC No. of people

P.U.C.. % Brand %

13 16.05 50.00

0 0.00 0.00

5 6.17 83.33

4 4.94 57.14

1 1.23

100.00

0 0.00 0.00

25 30.86 65.79

21 25.93 58.33

1 1.23

100.00

0 0.00 0.00

11 13.58 68.75

81

SSLC and above No. of people

> S.S.L.C. . % Brand %

7 26.92 26.92

0 0.00 0.00

1 3.85 16.67

1 3.85 14.29

0 0.00 0.00

1 3.85

100.00

6 23.08 15.79

9 34.62 25.00

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1 3.85 6.25

26

Total 26 1 6 7 1 1 38 36 1 1 16 134

From the table, it appears that PUC and SSLC people have much more interest in buying air conditioners than Graduates and PG. Even LG and

Samsung are leading first and second positions in the minds of educated people. It is concluded that respondents have SSLC and PUC education

more interested to purchase air conditioner.

160

Table 3.60: Age of the Respondents:

From the table, it indicates the teenage to middle aged people do have more interest in possession of air conditioners. 20-30 age people prefer to LG (34.21%) from 38 LG users and Samsung (28.95%). Interestingly 40-50 age people do not like LG (0) and like Samsung (27.27%). But very interestingly 50 and above like more LG and 30 to 40 age group also like LG and Samsung but at all other brands.

Table 3.60: Age of the Respondents

Age Air Conditioner Users

Row Total Blue star Videocon Godrej Hitachi K Star Kenstar LG Samsung Usha V Guard Voltas

20 - 30 No. of people

% of Age group % of Brand

14 18.42 53.85

1 1.32

100.00

1 1.32 16.67

2 2.63 28.57

1 1.32

100.00

0 0.00 0.00

26 34.21 68.42

22 28.95 61.11

1 1.32

100.00

1 1.32

100.00

7 9.21 43.75

76

30 – 40 No. of people


8 22.22 30.77

0 0.00 0.00

4 11.11 66.67

4 11.11 57.14

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

7 19.44 18.42

8 22.22 22.22

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

5 13.89 31.25

36

30-40 No. of people


0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1 50.00 2.63

1 50.00 2.78

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

2

40 – 50 No. of people


2 18.18 7.69

0 0.00 0.00

1 9.09 16.67

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1 9.09

100.00

0 0.00 0.00

3 27.27 8.33

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

4 36.36 25.00

11

50 - above No. of people


2 22.22 7.69

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1 11.11 14.29

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

4 44.44 10.53

2 22.22 5.56

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

9

Column Total 26 1 6 7 1 1 38 36 1 1 16 134

161

Table 3.61 Family member living together in the respondents

Table of AC use by familymembers

AC Users Family members

Total 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 8 9 and above

Blue star Row % Col %

2 7.69

13.33

16 61.54 18.82

8 30.77 25.00

0 0.00 0.00

26

Videocon

0 0.00 0.00

1 100.00 1.18

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

Godrej

1 16.67 6.67

5 83.33 5.88

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

6

Hitachi

2 28.57 13.33

4 57.14 4.71

1 14.29 3.13

0 0.00 0.00

7

K Star 0

0.00 0.00

1 100.00 1.18

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

Kenstar 0

0.00 0.00

1 100.00 1.18

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

LG 8

21.05 53.33

21 55.26 24.71

8 21.05 25.00

1 2.63

50.00

38

Samsung 1

2.78 6.67

26 72.22 30.59

8 22.22 25.00

1 2.78

50.00

36

Usha 0

0.00 0.00

1 100.00 1.18

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

V Guard 1

100.00 6.67

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

Voltas 0

0.00 0.00

9 56.25 10.59

7 43.75 21.88

0 0.00 0.00

16

Total 15 85 32 2 134

From the table 4.61 indicates family which has 3 or 4 members have interest

to buy Samsung (72.22 %) as their first preference within Samsung users and LG

(55.26%) is the second choice within LG users and third Blue star(61.54%). Family

162

with 1 to 2 persons do not have interest to buy AC, if at all they want to purchase they

do prefer to LG or Blue star. 5 or 8 members in a family have interest equally likely in

LG, Samsung, Blue star and Voltas. 9 and above members in a family may not be able

to purchase air conditioners, may be, because of less income with less education.

Table 3.62 indicates marital status of the respondents:

Table 3.62 indicates marital status of the respondents

Air conuse maritalstatus

Total married single

Blue star 16 11.94 61.54 20.78

10 7.46

38.46 17.54

26 19.40

Videocon 1 0.75

100.00 1.30

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 0.75

Godrej 5 3.73

83.33 6.49

1 0.75

16.67 1.75

6 4.48

Hitachi 6 4.48

85.71 7.79

1 0.75

14.29 1.75

7 5.22

K Star 1 0.75

100.00 1.30

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 0.75

Kenstar 1 0.75

100.00 1.30

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 0.75

LG 18 13.43 47.37 23.38

20 14.93 52.63 35.09

38 28.36

Samsung 18 13.43 50.00 23.38

18 13.43 50.00 31.58

36 26.87

163

Usha 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 0.75

100.00 1.75

1 0.75

V Guard 1 0.75

100.00 1.30

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 0.75

Voltas 10 7.46

62.50 12.99

6 4.48

37.50 10.53

16 11.94

Total 77 57.46

57 42.54

134 100.0

Table 3.63 Effect of marital status versus air conditioner brand:


Chi-Square 10 10.9877 0.3585





Cramer's V 0.2864

Sample Size = 134

From the table, it indicates the marital status of the respondents. Out of 134

respondents 38 (28.36%) respondents using LG, 36 (26.87%) respondents using

Samsung brands, followed by 26 (19.40%) respondents using Blue Star and 16

(11.94%) respondents using Voltas. The table 3.63 suggests that the last three

statistics have shown very least relationship between AC brands and family members

at 95% confidence level of significance. Also it can be inferred that if the sample size

is increased considerably large, there may be influence of marital status on AC

brands.

164

Table 3.64 Respondents awareness of air conditioner brand:

Respondents awareness of Air conditioner brand

Brands

No. of respondents answered

Total Yes No No Opinion

Blue star 20 2 4 26

Videocon 1 0 0 1

Godrej 5 0 1 6

Hitachi 5 1 1 7

K Star 0 0 1 1

Kenstar 1 0 0 1

LG 27 5 6 38

Samsung 23 6 7 36

Usha 1 0 0 1

V Guard 1 0 0 1

Voltas 12 1 3 16

Total 96 15 23 134

From the table 3.64 it indicates that, Ninety six (96) respondents have awareness of

Air conditioner brand in Bangalore and Mysore and 15 respondents were unaware of

AC brand but 23 respondents were not committed to disclose their opinion on brand

awareness. Out of 96 respondents aware of air conditioner, 27 respondents aware of

LG, 23 respondents aware of Samsung and 12 respondents aware of Blue star. It

shows that LG and Samsung air conditioners have more awareness than other air

conditioner brand.

165

Table 3.65 Respondents awareness towards leading brands in air conditioner:

Table 3.65 Respondents awareness towards leading brands in air conditioner

AC Users Brand leader

Total Yes No Can ‘t say

Percent Blue star %

Yes no can’t say %

14.93 76.92 22.22

2.24 11.54 18.75

2.24 11.54 10.71

19.40

Percent Videocon%


0.75 100.00

1.11

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.75

Percent Godrej %


2.99 66.67 4.44

0.75 16.67 6.25

0.75 16.67 3.57

4.48

Percent Hitachi %


2.24 42.86 3.33

2.24 42.86 18.75

0.75 14.29 3.57

5.22

Percent K Star %


0.75 100.00

1.11

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.75

Percent Kenstar %


0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.75 100.00

3.57

0.75

Percent LG %


18.66 65.79 27.78

4.48 15.79 37.50

5.22 18.42 25.00

28.36

Percent Samsung %


19.40 72.22 28.89

0.00 0.00 0.00

7.46 27.78 35.71

26.87

Percent Usha %t


0.75 100.00

1.11

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.75

Percent V Guard %


0.00 0.00 0.00

0.75 100.00

6.25

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.75

Percent Voltas %


6.72 56.25 10.00

1.49 12.50 12.50

3.73 31.25 17.86

11.94

Total 90 67.16

16 11.94

28 20.90

134 100.00

From the table 3.65 it is observed that, LG (18.66%) and Samsung (19.40%)

are the leading air conditioner brands than others competitive brands followed by

166

Voltas (6.72%), Hitachi (5.22%) and Godrej (4.48%) air conditioners. It is concluded

from the respondents LG is the leading air conditioner brand than other brand.

Table 3.66 Respondents response towards loyalty of air conditioner:

Table 3.66 Respondents loyalty towards air conditioner

Air Conditioner Users Perceived quality (Trust worthy) Total no. of people

No. of respondents AC usage %

% of Yes No Can’t say Yes No Can’t say

Blue star 18 69.23 21.18

6 23.08 24.00

2 7.69 8.33

26

Videocon 1 100.00

1.18

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

Godrej 5 83.33 5.88

0 0.00 0.00

1 16.67 4.17

6

Hitachi 3 42.86 3.53

0 0.00 0.00

4 57.14 16.67

7

K Star 1 100.00

1.18

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

Kenstar 1 100.00

1.18

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

LG 23 60.53 27.06

9 23.68 36.00

6 15.79 25.00

38

Samsung 20 55.56 23.53

7 19.44 28.00

9 25.00 37.50

36

Usha 1 100.00

1.18

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

V Guard 0 0.00 0.00

1 100.00

4.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

Voltas 12 75.00 14.12

2 12.50 8.00

2 12.50 8.33

16

Total 85 25 24 134

From the table 3.66 it reveals that, the respondents using LG and Samsung have more

trust about refrigerator followed by Blue star, Voltas, Hitachi and Godrej. Out of 134

167

respondents 23 LG respondents and 20 Samsung respondents were more trust about

air conditioner brand.

Table no 3.67Respondents responses towards value for money of air conditioner:

Table no 3.67Respondents responses towards value for money of air conditioner AC Users Perceived Quality

Total No. of respondents AC brand %

Yes No Can’t say % Yes No Can’t say

Blue star 19 73.08 19.19

3 11.54 23.08

4 15.38 18.18

26

Videocon 1 100.00

1.01

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

Godrej 5 83.33 5.05

0 0.00 0.00

1 16.67 4.55

6

Hitachi 7 100.00

7.07

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

7

K Star 0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1 100.00

4.55

1

Kenstar 1 100.00

1.01

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

LG 29 76.32 29.29

3 7.89

23.08

6 15.79 27.27

38

Samsung 24 66.67 24.24

5 13.89 38.46

7 19.44 31.82

36

Usha 1 100.00

1.01

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

V Guard 0 0.00 0.00

1 100.00

7.69

0 0.00 0.00

1

Voltas 12 75.00 12.12

1 6.25 7.69

3 18.75 13.64

16

Total 99 13 22 134

Table no. 3.67 highlights that, out of 134 respondents, air conditioners using LG

(29.29%) and Samsung (24.24%) perceived value for money among others

competitive brands followed by blue star (19.19%),Voltas (12.12%), and Hitachi

(7.07%), It is concluded that respondents LG and Samsung consumers are perceived

that monetary value against benefits is satisfactory.

168

Table no.3.68Respondents response towards air conditioner recommended by

famous people:

Table no.3.68Respondents response towards air conditioner recommended by famous people

Air Conditioner Users Recommended by famous people

Total Yes No Can’t say Blue star 19

73.08 20.88

2 7.69

11.11

5 19.23 20.00

26

Videocon 0 0.00 0.00

1 100.00

5.56

0 0.00 0.00

1

Godrej 4 66.67 4.40

0 0.00 0.00

2 33.33 8.00

6

Hitachi 3 42.86 3.30

2 28.57 11.11

2 28.57 8.00

7

K Star 1 100.00

1.10

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

Kenstar 1 100.00

1.10

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

LG 23 60.53 25.27

5 13.16 27.78

10 26.32 40.00

38

Samsung 26 72.22 28.57

5 13.89 27.78

5 13.89 20.00

36

Usha 1 100.00

1.10

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

V Guard 1 100.00

1.10

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

Voltas 12 75.00 13.19

3 18.75 16.67

1 6.25 4.00

16

Total 91 18 25 134

From the table 3.68, it is observed that, out of 134 respondents 26 respondents were using Samsung and 23 respondents using LG were more recommended brands from the famous people followed by Blue star, Voltas, Godrej and Hitachi. It is concluded that respondents of Samsung is the more recommended brand from the famous people.

169

Table 3.69 indicates respondents’ dependence of air conditioner:

Table 3.69 indicates respondents’ dependence of air conditioner

Air conditioner Users Dependable brands Total No. of respondents

%of brand dependency% of Yes NO no_opinion Yes No No opinion

Blue star 21 80.77 20.00

0 0.00 0.00

5 19.23 20.83

26

Videocon 1 100.00

0.95

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

Godrej 5 83.33 4.76

0 0.00 0.00

1 16.67 4.17

6

Hitachi 6 85.71 5.71

1 14.29 20.00

0 0.00 0.00

7

K Star 0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1 100.00

4.17

1

Kenstar 1 100.00

0.95

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

LG 32 84.21 30.48

1 2.63

20.00

5 13.16 20.83

38

Samsung 27 75.00 25.71

1 2.78

20.00

8 22.22 33.33

36

Usha 0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1 100.00

4.17

1

V Guard 1 100.00

0.95

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

Voltas 11 68.75 10.48

2 12.50 40.00

3 18.75 12.50

16

Total 105 5 24 134

From the table 3.69 it is observed that, the respondents that LG (32), Samsung

(27) and Blue star (21) appear to dependable than other air conditioners followed by

Voltas (11), Hitachi (6) and Godrej (5) air conditioner. It is concluded that

respondents LG and Samsung consumers are more depending in nature.

170

Table 3.70 indicates respondents’ personal loyalty of air conditioner

Table 3.70 indicates respondents’ personal loyalty of air conditioner

Air Conditioner Users Brand Loyalty

Total

No. of respondents Row % Col % Yes No Can’t say

Blue star 14 53.85 16.67

8 30.77 29.63

4 15.38 17.39

26

Girihas 1 100.00

1.19

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

Godrej 4 66.67 4.76

0 0.00 0.00

2 33.33 8.70

6

Hitachi 4 57.14 4.76

1 14.29 3.70

2 28.57 8.70

7

K Star 1 100.00

1.19

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

Kenstar 1 100.00

1.19

0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1

LG 25 65.79 29.76

6 15.79 22.22

7 18.42 30.43

38

Samsung 21 58.33 25.00

10 27.78 37.04

5 13.89 21.74

36

Usha 0 0.00 0.00

0 0.00 0.00

1 100.00

4.35

1

V Guard 0 0.00 0.00

1 100.00

3.70

0 0.00 0.00

1

Voltas 13 81.25 15.48

1 6.25 3.70

2 12.50 8.70

16

Total 84 27 23 134

From the table 3.70 it is reveals that, 25 respondents using LG and 21 respondents

using Samsung were loyal to the air conditioner brand followed by 14 using Blue star,

13 using Voltas, 4 respondents using Godrej and Hitachi. It is concluded that only a

small number of respondents are loyal to the brand. Out of 134 respondents 84

171

respondents were loyal to air conditioner, 27 respondents were not loyal to the brand

and 23 respondents were not responded about loyalty of the air conditioner.

Factor analysis:

Factor analysis is a statistical method that mostly used for data reduction and

summarization. Consequently factor can be explained as an underlying dimension that

describes the correlations among a serve of variables. In order to obtain measures the

relationship between brand equity, marketing mix elements and purchase decision

factors using the dimensions of brand equity, we factor analyzed the factors

underlying 65 items. As a result 20 items were retained for a total of 6 new constructs

i.e., overall brand equity, brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality, brand

loyalty and marketing mix elements such as advertising, store, price & buying

behavior, and other liking, purchase decision factors cooling performance, advanced

technologies, environmental free, and guaranty.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of

shpericity can be used to test whether the factor analysis is appropriate or not. A high

value of KMO measure implies a factor analysis as a useful data in research which the

value close 1.0 whereas low value (less than 0.5) of KMO indicates the result of

factor analysis is not very useful (Marinova et al., 2011). Otherwise, if the Bartlett’s

test of sphericity is less than 0.05, the result is considered as acceptable. In this study,

the KMO measures of sampling adequacy are close 1.0 (overall brand equity is 0.814,

brand awareness is 0.661, brand association is 0.652 and perceived quality is 0.727,

brand loyalty is 0.765,Market mix elements is 0.754, purchased decisions is 0.676)

and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicates that all of factors are 0.000. Based on

these result this factor analysis is confirmed as applicable data and all of the factors

are valuable data. (Shown in below table)

172

Table no: 3.71The result of Factor Analysis of Air Conditioner

S.No. Item Factor Loading

1 Over all Brand Equity (KMO = 0.814), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Sig. 0.000

This home air conditioner brand products are very trustworthy. 0.755

This home air conditioner brand gives the best value-for-money. 0.755

I am aware of this home air conditioner brand. 0.708

I like and trust this company 0.690


I consider myself to be loyal to this home air conditioner brand 0.650

2. Brand Awareness (KMO = 0.661), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Sig. 0.000

I can recognize this home air conditioner brand among other competitive brands.

0.818

I am aware of this home air conditioner brand. 0.732

The functions of this home air conditioner product are improved continuously.

0.691

This home air conditioner brand provides excellent quality. 0.661

3. Brand Association (KMO = 0.652), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Sig. 0.000

I like and trust this company 0.798

I like this brand image 0.642


4. Brand Loyalty (KMO = 0.765 ), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Sig. 0.000

I consider myself to be loyal to this home air conditioner brand 0.729

This home air conditioner brand would be my first choice. 0.721

I will not buy other brands if this home air conditioner brand is available at the store.

0.685

5. Perceived Quality (KMO = 0.727), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Sig. 0.000

This home air conditioner brand gives the best value-for-money. 0.812

This home air conditioner brand products are very trustworthy. 0.795

You particularly like the home air conditioner brand. 0.756

173

6. Market Mix Elements (KMO = 0.754), Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Sig. 0.000

The stores where I can buy this home air conditioner brand products have well-known brands

0.727

This home air conditioner brand is distributed through as many stores as possible.

0.689

If someone consults me, I would advise the person to buy this 0.668

7. Purchase Decisions (KMO = 0.676) Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Sig. 0.000

Guaranty 0.704

Advance technologies 0.635

Environmental free 0.589

Cooling performance 0.588

Multiple Regression Analysis (Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing)

Regression analysis in this study is used to determine whether the independent

variables explain will be significant variations in the dependent variable and whether

a relationship exists (Malhotra and Birks, 2005). If p≤0.05the hypothesis is supported

and can be used to make predictions, However ifp≥0.05 then the hypothesis is

rejected.

More over the explanatory power (R2) is used to determine the value of explaining for

the research. The value of R2 below 0.2 is considered weak explaining, if between 0.2

and 0.4 is moderate explaining and above 0.4 is considered strong power for

explaining.

H1a: Brand awareness has a significant positive effect on brand equity (customer

based brand equity)

H2b: Brand association has a significant positive effect on brand equity (customer

based brand equity)

H3c: Perceived quality has a significant positive effect on brand equity (customer

based brand equity)

H4d: Brand loyalty has a significant positive effect on brand equity (customer based

brand equity)

174

Table no.3.72Analysis of the Relationship between Brand Equity and Dimensions

of Brand Equity:

In this section multiple regressions to measures effectiveness of brand equity

dimensions affect overall brand equity.

Dependent variable: Brand equity

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean

Square F Value Pr > F

Model 4 7688.21977 1922.05494 229.60 <.0001

Error 129 1079.87724 8.37114

Corrected Total 133 8768.09701

Predictors: (Constant), Brand awareness, Brand association, Perceived quality, Brand

loyalty

Look at the Model summary (table 3.72), the four independent variables which

constitute the brand equity of coefficient of determination R2 is 0.877 which implies a

strong explanatory power.

Root MSE 2.89329 R-Square 0.8768

Dependent Mean 31.91791 Adj R-Sq 0.8730

Coeff. Var. 9.06479

175

Table no. 3.73: The coefficients of brand equity and its four dimensions

Parameter Estimates

Variable DF Parameter

Estimate Standard

Error t Value Pr > |t|

Constant 1 7.62278 0.86035 8.86 <.0001

Brand awareness 1 2.17603 0.24556 8.86 <.0001

Brand association 1 1.99074 0.37699 5.28 <.0001

Brand loyalty 1 2.52984 0.32175 7.86 <.0001

Perceived quality 1 3.61717 0.39241 9.22 <.0001

As hypothesized in literature review, brand awareness (H1a), Brand association

(H1B), Perceived quality (H1c) and brand loyalty (H1d) have positive effect on

consumer based brand equity. As it can be seen from the above table brand awareness

(0.0001), brand association (0.0001), perceived quality (0.0001) and brand loyalty

(0.0001). Hence these four hypotheses were all supported, this finding is consistent

with the previous conceptualizations as Marinoba et al. (2011), Yoo et al. (2000) ,

Tong and Hawley(2009) and Erenkol and Duygun(2010).To sum up all of dimensions

of brand equity have significant positive effect on customer based brand equity in the

present study.

Moreover, according to regression coefficient (beta), perceived quality is at the first

place of importance for dimensions of brand equity on brand equity, brand awareness

has the second place; brand loyalty and brand association are at third and fourth place.

According to t-test result that explains the significant of coefficients; perceived

quality has most positive effect on brand equity whereas brand association has lowest

impact on brand equity.

176

Analysis of the relationship between brand equity and marketing mix elements:

REGRESSION ANALYSIS REPORTS:

Table 3.74.Eighteen marketing activities effect on brand awareness:

Modal Summary


Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 6 14981 2496.86604 67.06 <.0001

Error 127 4728.2960 37.23068

Corrected Total 133 19709



Coeff Var 17.58188

According to modal summary (table 3.74) the explanatory power of 18 independent

variables that represent the marketing activities on brand awareness dependent

variable is R2 =0.564 which indicates a moderate explanatory power Again as the

marketing activities such as price, store , advertisement , liking of same brand

appliances etc.,

177

Dependent variable: Brand awareness

Parameter Estimates

Variable Label DF Parameter

Estimate Standard


Intercept Intercept 1 4.25046 1.21629 3.49 0.0007

MMEQ1 MMEQ1 1 0.70866 0.23811 2.98 0.0036

MMEQ2 MMEQ2 1 0.23363 0.30364 0.77 0.4432

MMEQ3 MMEQ3 1 -0.01289 0.28148 -0.05 0.9636

MMEQ4 MMEQ4 1 -0.09949 0.33612 -0.30 0.7678

MMEQ5 MMEQ5 1 0.05433 0.32328 0.17 0.8668

MMEQ6 MMEQ6 1 1.05273 0.25314 4.16 <.0001

MMEQ7 MMEQ7 1 0.29830 0.34405 0.87 0.3877

MMEQ8 MMEQ8 1 0.41097 0.31857 1.29 0.1996

MMEQ9 MMEQ9 1 0.10956 0.31201 0.35 0.7261

MMEQ10 MMEQ10 1 0.01364 0.32052 0.04 0.9661

MMEQ11 MMEQ11 1 0.17937 0.25708 0.70 0.4868

MMEQ12 MMEQ12 1 0.02103 0.33364 0.06 0.9498

MMEQ13 MMEQ13 1 0.55004 0.31326 1.76 0.0818

MMEQ14 MMEQ14 1 -0.01811 0.21341 -0.08 0.9325

MMEQ15 MMEQ15 1 -0.18105 0.29666 -0.61 0.5429

MMEQ16 MMEQ16 1 -0.22641 0.23796 -0.95 0.3434

MMEQ17 MMEQ17 1 0.15613 0.28581 0.55 0.5859

MMEQ18 MMEQ18 1 0.81252 0.34537 2.35 0.0203

From the table 3.74 MMEQ1, MMEQ6 AND MMEQ18 which have significant

positive effect on brand awareness. As it can be seen from the modal is significant at

p-value is (<0.0001). From the above table Price expensive (MMEQ1=0.0036) , store

has well known brands (MMEQ6=<.0001) and advise to buy air condition brands

(MMEQ18 =0.0203) were significant at p-value <0.05. Therefore hypothesis of H3a,

H4a are supported else it is not supported.

178

Table 3.75.Eighteen marketing activities effect on brand association:

Modal Summary


Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 18 538.71316 29.92851 8.80 <.0001

Error 115 391.10774 3.40094




Coeff Var 13.77468

According to modal summary (table 3.75) the explanatory power of 18 independent

variables that represent the marketing activities on brand awareness dependent

variable is R2 =0.579 which indicates a moderate explanatory power Again as the

marketing activities such as price, store , advertisement , liking of same brand

appliances etc.,

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard


Intercept Intercept 1 6.79506 0.92808 7.32 <.0001

MMEQ1 MMEQ1 1 0.56294 0.18169 3.10 0.0024

MMEQ2 MMEQ2 1 0.36283 0.23169 1.57 0.1201

MMEQ3 MMEQ3 1 -0.54504 0.21478 -2.54 0.0125

MMEQ4 MMEQ4 1 0.07787 0.25648 0.30 0.7620

MMEQ5 MMEQ5 1 0.43309 0.24668 1.76 0.0818

MMEQ6 MMEQ6 1 0.56268 0.19315 2.91 0.0043

MMEQ7 MMEQ7 1 0.26599 0.26253 1.01 0.3131

MMEQ8 MMEQ8 1 0.36041 0.24308 1.48 0.1409

MMEQ9 MMEQ9 1 0.15945 0.23808 0.67 0.5044

MMEQ10 MMEQ10 1 0.02271 0.24457 0.09 0.9262

MMEQ11 MMEQ11 1 -0.11210 0.19616 -0.57 0.5688

MMEQ12 MMEQ12 1 0.00634 0.25458 0.02 0.9802

179

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard


MMEQ13 MMEQ13 1 0.87131 0.23903 3.65 0.0004

MMEQ14 MMEQ14 1 -0.33337 0.16284 -2.05 0.0429

MMEQ15 MMEQ15 1 -0.02818 0.22637 -0.12 0.9011

MMEQ16 MMEQ16 1 -0.36385 0.18157 -2.00 0.0474

MMEQ17 MMEQ17 1 0.06488 0.21808 0.30 0.7666

MMEQ18 MMEQ18 1 0.60141 0.26353 2.28 0.0243

From the table no. 3.75, MMEQ1, MMEQ3, MMEQ6, MMEQ13 MMEQ14,

MMEQ16 and MMEQ18 which have significant positive effect on brand awareness.

As it can be seen from the modal is significant at p-value is (<0.0001) . From table

no.2.3 Price expensive(MMEQ1=0.0024) , price promotion (mmeq3=0.0125 ) store

has well known brands (MMEQ6=<.0043) ,MMEQ13 =0.0004 ,willing to pay a

higher price(MMEQ14= 0.043) , household appliances(MMEQ16=0.047) and buying

air conditioner brands(MMEQ18=0.0243). Advise to buy air conditioner brands

(MMEQ18 =0.0203) were significant at p-value <0.05.

Figure 3.32The effect of price and advice to buy over brand equity:

Brand

awareness

Brand

association

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

Price

Advice to buy

0.004

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.01

180

From the above fig 3.32 indicates price of the air conditioner positively

influencing on the dimensions of brand equity at 95 % level of significance. Hence

prices of air conditioners are expensive. Therefore there may be price is the main

factor for buying air conditioner brand, if prices are little lower then it can be

expected that 95% customers would advise a new customer to buy this air conditioner

brand. In the below table the shaded color suggests it is significant and the rest are

insignificance.

Table 3.76.Effect of Marketing mix elements over brand equity:

Market mix elements BAW BASN PQQ BLOY

MMEQ1_Price 0.0036 0.0024 0.0023 0.0015

MMEQ2_Price 0.4432 0.1201 0.0327 0.4154

MMEQ3_price 0.9636 0.0125 0.6829 0.1050

MMEQ4_Store 0.7678 0.7620 0.9202 0.4136

MMEQ5_Store 0.8668 0.0818 0.9025 0.3794

MMEQ6_Store 0.0001 0.0043 0.0054 0.1034

MMEQ7_Store 0.3877 0.3131 0.0754 0.9978

MMEQ8_Store 0.1996 0.1409 0.0174 0.5914

MMEQ9_Store 0.7261 0.5044 0.2114 0.5599

MMEQ10_Avertisement 0.9661 0.9262 0.1467 0.1377



MMEQ13_Price 0.0818 0.0004 0.0027 0.0384

MMEQ14_home_appliances 0.9325 0.0429 0.9088 0.0675




MMEQ18_advice_to buy 0.0203 0.0243 0.0290 0.0120

181

Figure 3.3 The effect of purchase decisions on dimensions of brand equity:

From the above fig. 3.33 Media advertisement and Services of the air conditioner

positively effecting the dimensions of brand equity at the 98 % level of significance.

Hence advertisement effect created brand awareness and perceived quality that there

is a positive influence between media advertisement and brand association and also

customers are more loyal to the air conditioner brand. Therefore with this

advertisement and service of the product effect along with a lower price of air

conditioner increases sales in the market.

It can be expected that 95% parents, relatives and friends and also it is evident from

the above fig. and below table 3.77, the customer know that this air conditioner

product is available in retail outlet , environmental free and has advanced

technologies and finally warranty the users would advise a new customer to buy this

air conditioner (LG , Samsung) as they are the competitive brands in the market

according the data collection.

In the below table the shaded color suggests it is significant and the rest are

insignificance.

Brand

awareness

Brand

association

Perceived

quality

Brand

loyalty

Media

advertisemen

Service of the

product

0.0001

0.006

0.018

0.02

0.001

0.000

0.008

0.019

182

Table 3.77 Effect of purchase decisions over brand equity:

Purchase decision BAW BASN PQQ BLOY

Intercept 0.013 <.0001 0.015 0.017

PBPQ1 0.000 0.006 0.018 0.020

PBPQ2 0.274 0.013 0.024 0.084

PBPQ3 0.942 0.252 0.002 0.506

PBPQ4 0.710 0.173 0.328 0.499

PBPQ5 0.001 0.000 0.008 0.019

PBPQ6 0.943 0.355 0.328 0.299

PBPQ7 0.783 0.166 0.410 0.789

PBPQ8 0.625 0.974 0.382 0.921

PBPQ9 0.599 0.098 0.818 0.628

PBPQ10 0.163 0.052 0.143 0.084

PBPQ11 0.471 0.407 0.350 0.961

PBPQ12 0.040 0.192 0.034 0.148

PBPQ13 0.116 0.496 0.022 0.017

PBPQ14 0.859 0.268 0.131 0.865

PBPQ15 0.008 0.964 0.539 0.001

PBPQ16 0.250 0.666 0.454 0.477

PBPQ17 0.018 0.677 0.722 0.557

PBPQ18 0.757 0.735 0.627 0.134

PBPQ19 0.218 0.743 0.475 0.966

183

FACTOR ANALYSIS REPORTS:

Table 3.78 Factor Analysis for Brand Equity:

Kaiser's Measure of Sampling Adequacy: Overall MSA = 0.77969957

AC_BAW1 AC_BAW2 AC_BAW3 AC_BAW5 AC_BAW6 AC_BLOY1 AC_BLOY2 AC_BLOY3

0.73611288 0.69241927 0.65952165 0.77701525 0.82818230 0.91357072 0.83892369 0.72040798


AC_BLOY4 AC_BLOY5 AC_BLOY6 PQQ1 PQQ2 PQQ3 PQQ8 PQQ5

0.74509433 0.86001919 0.86576123 0.82960996 0.87730584 0.88554552 0.78887032 0.78198930


PQQ6 PQQ7 BASNQ1 BASNQ2 BASNQ3 BASNQ4 BASNQ9

0.65579446 0.74833459 0.60947321 0.70941890 0.68017308 0.88660102 0.79967070

Prior Communality Estimates: ONE

Initial Factor Method: Principal Components

Eigenvalues of the Correlation Matrix: Total = 23 Average = 1

Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative

1 6.60477528 3.94999084 0.2872 0.2872

2 2.65478444 1.16979962 0.1154 0.4026

3 1.48498482 0.08626329 0.0646 0.4672

4 1.39872154 0.21474422 0.0608 0.5280

5 1.18397732 0.09930326 0.0515 0.5794

6 1.08467406 0.09615058 0.0472 0.6266

7 0.98852348 0.11036875 0.0430 0.6696

8 0.87815473 0.03316981 0.0382 0.7078

9 0.84498492 0.08384128 0.0367 0.7445

10 0.76114364 0.03360141 0.0331 0.7776

11 0.72754223 0.10924964 0.0316 0.8092

184

12 0.61829259 0.03251216 0.0269 0.8361

13 0.58578043 0.04296364 0.0255 0.8616

14 0.54281679 0.05744776 0.0236 0.8852

15 0.48536902 0.04398220 0.0211 0.9063

16 0.44138682 0.04041589 0.0192 0.9255

17 0.40097093 0.01001732 0.0174 0.9429

18 0.39095361 0.08746516 0.0170 0.9599

19 0.30348845 0.03443585 0.0132 0.9731

20 0.26905261 0.07958555 0.0117 0.9848

21 0.18946706 0.08680414 0.0082 0.9930

22 0.10266291 0.04517059 0.0045 0.9975

23 0.05749232 0.0025 1.0000

6 factors will be retained by the MINEIGEN criterion.

Rotated Factor Pattern

Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Factor5 Factor6

AC_BAW1 AC_BAW1 0.38876 0.01930 0.30201 0.07749 0.69231 0.04072

AC_BAW2 AC_BAW2 0.70818 -0.18007 0.16233 -0.09581 0.33479 -0.19765

AC_BAW3 AC_BAW3 0.22787 0.09230 0.91438 0.01685 0.10169 0.03441

AC_BAW5 AC_BAW5 0.02168 0.68284 0.03623 0.20676 -0.02835 0.04118

AC_BAW6 AC_BAW6 0.00791 0.74424 0.09119 -0.01361 0.07317 0.13641

AC_BLOY1 AC_BLOY1 0.65034 0.29468 0.22759 0.21345 0.07874 0.18011

AC_BLOY2 AC_BLOY2 0.54739 0.49367 -0.02816 0.03356 -0.08381 0.15117

AC_BLOY3 AC_BLOY3 0.38641 0.48546 -0.10600 0.19206 -0.02066 0.17498

AC_BLOY4 AC_BLOY4 0.18622 0.62926 0.05832 0.15195 -0.13061 -0.37761

AC_BLOY5 AC_BLOY5 0.27779 0.42946 0.26514 0.05275 0.28673 -0.08446

AC_BLOY6 AC_BLOY6 -0.01492 0.54218 0.23718 0.28068 0.34998 0.01903

PQQ1 PQQ1 0.75524 0.13739 0.22038 0.21118 0.14170 0.06446

PQQ2 PQQ2 0.75483 0.12471 0.18690 0.19601 0.06034 0.22811

PQQ3 PQQ3 0.46159 0.13202 0.11186 0.31374 0.12241 0.40548

PQQ8 PQQ8 0.28058 0.15333 0.20336 0.11799 -0.09173 0.67705

PQQ5 PQQ5 0.22024 0.04983 0.34237 0.50671 0.01109 0.19754

PQQ6 PQQ6 -0.09598 0.28325 -0.10617 0.65764 0.00482 0.17254

PQQ7 PQQ7 0.11868 0.10213 -0.06345 0.78521 0.06827 -0.12853

BASNQ1 BASNQ1 0.17090 0.05550 -0.05028 0.01016 0.86588 -0.01339

185

BASNQ2 BASNQ2 0.69048 -0.16619 0.27771 -0.02701 0.31132 -0.24230

BASNQ3 BASNQ3 0.21720 0.12254 0.89671 -0.02829 0.06942 0.07317

BASNQ4 BASNQ4 0.65306 0.13823 0.04342 -0.06395 0.10089 0.02812

BASNQ9 BASNQ9 0.26329 0.19146 0.23561 0.42781 -0.05481 -0.45389

Variance Explained by Each Factor

Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Factor5 Factor6

4.2417696 2.7720536 2.3680941 1.9365511 1.7598839 1.3335652

Final Communality Estimates: Total = 14.411917

AC_BAW1 AC_BAW2 AC_BAW3 AC_BAW5 AC_BAW6 AC_BLOY1 AC_BLOY2 AC_BLOY3

0.72967099 0.72062277 0.90835446 0.51330752 0.58641437 0.64576720 0.57515195 0.46415421

AC_BLOY4 AC_BLOY5 AC_BLOY6 PQQ1 PQQ2 PQQ3 PQQ8 PQQ5

0.61678449 0.42403086 0.55206554 0.70666090 0.71433983 0.5208339 0.6243207 0.4641105

PQQ6 PQQ7 BASNQ1 BASNQ2 BASNQ3 BASNQ4 BASNQ9

0.56300059 0.66628415 0.78485051 0.73786426 0.87725250 0.46253842 0.55353677

Table 3.79 Factor Analysis for Brand Awareness: .


AC_BAW1 AC_BAW2 AC_BAW3 AC_BAW4 AC_BAW5 AC_BAW6

0.66903132 0.72001130 0.73551185 0.78104842 0.51327635 0.51849717




1 2.15435623 0.68699687 0.3591 0.3591

2 1.46735936 0.72237263 0.2446 0.6036

3 0.74498673 0.10946133 0.1242 0.7278

4 0.63552540 0.08643600 0.1059 0.8337

5 0.54908940 0.10040651 0.0915 0.9252

6 0.44868289 0.0748 1.0000

186



Factor1 Factor2

2.1543562 1.4673594



0.66966610 0.56436027 0.50295558 0.44444054 0.71337823 0.72691487


Factor1 Factor2

AC_BAW1 AC_BAW1 0.81753 0.03613

AC_BAW2 AC_BAW2 0.73195 -0.16914

AC_BAW3 AC_BAW3 0.69071 0.16087

AC_BAW4 AC_BAW4 0.66061 0.08966

AC_BAW5 AC_BAW5 0.01039 0.84455

AC_BAW6 AC_BAW6 0.06993 0.84972

Factor Pattern

Factor1 Factor2

AC_BAW1 AC_BAW1 0.80618 -0.14051

AC_BAW2 AC_BAW2 0.67846 -0.32258

AC_BAW3 AC_BAW3 0.70914 0.00858

AC_BAW4 AC_BAW4 0.66443 -0.05449

AC_BAW5 AC_BAW5 0.19176 0.82256

AC_BAW6 AC_BAW6 0.25101 0.81481

187


Factor1 Factor2

2.122590 1.499125



0.66966610 0.56436027 0.50295558 0.44444054 0.71337823 0.72691487

Table 3.80 Factor Analysis for Brand Association:


BASNQ1 BASNQ2 BASNQ3 BASNQ4 BASNQ9 BASNQ10

0.67017587 0.63707501 0.68521673 0.70301263 0.62560323 0.38694637




1 1.93522168 0.85431211 0.3225 0.3225

2 1.08090956 0.10704064 0.1802 0.5027

3 0.97386892 0.16555580 0.1623 0.6650

4 0.80831312 0.14176510 0.1347 0.7997

5 0.66654802 0.13140933 0.1111 0.9108

6 0.53513869 0.0892 1.0000


Factor Pattern

Factor1 Factor2

BASNQ1 BASNQ1 0.54372 0.18252

BASNQ2 BASNQ2 0.79756 -0.02861

BASNQ3 BASNQ3 0.63256 -0.33179

BASNQ4 BASNQ4 0.61170 -0.03530

BASNQ9 BASNQ9 0.47872 0.31662

BASNQ10 BASNQ10 0.00381 0.91389

188


Factor1 Factor2

1.9352217 1.0809096



0.32894021 0.63692211 0.51021092 0.37542518 0.32941684 0.83521598


Factor1 Factor2

BASNQ1 BASNQ1 0.53789 0.19903

BASNQ2 BASNQ2 0.79806 -0.00426

BASNQ3 BASNQ3 0.64239 -0.31233

BASNQ4 BASNQ4 0.61249 -0.01661

BASNQ9 BASNQ9 0.46883 0.33108

BASNQ10 BASNQ10 -0.02408 0.91358


Factor1 Factor2

1.9344260 1.0817053



0.32894021 0.63692211 0.51021092 0.37542518 0.32941684 0.83521598

Table 3.81 Factor Analysis for Perceived Quality:


PQQ1 PQQ2 PQQ3 PQQ4 PQQ5 PQQ6 PQQ7 PQQ8

0.70897293

0.72159046

0.85046797

0.47598778

0.84545247

0.53820164

0.61170646

0.75864090

189




1 2.84925331 1.56088930 0.3562 0.3562

2 1.28836402 0.12676364 0.1610 0.5172

3 1.16160037 0.43237525 0.1452 0.6624

4 0.72922513 0.02118011 0.0912 0.7536

5 0.70804501 0.19214139 0.0885 0.8421

6 0.51590362 0.03756943 0.0645 0.9065

7 0.47833419 0.20905984 0.0598 0.9663

8 0.26927435 0.0337 1.0000


Factor Pattern

Factor1 Factor2 Factor3

PQQ1 PQQ1 0.79528 -0.20960 -0.23089

PQQ2 PQQ2 0.81222 -0.24061 -0.20957

PQQ3 PQQ3 0.75564 -0.19123 0.05256

PQQ4 PQQ4 0.03250 -0.25832 0.81662

PQQ5 PQQ5 0.60954 0.15268 -0.13670

PQQ6 PQQ6 0.30387 0.72184 0.37135

PQQ7 PQQ7 0.44904 0.70569 -0.03776

PQQ8 PQQ8 0.56527 -0.20216 0.48655


Factor1 Factor2 Factor3

2.8492533 1.2883640 1.1616004


PQQ1 PQQ2 PQQ3 PQQ4 PQQ5 PQQ6 PQQ7 PQQ8

0.72971752

0.76151201

0.61031672

0.73464850

0.41353511

0.75129356

0.70106291

0.59713137

190

Table 3.82 Factor Analysis for Brand Loyalty:


AC_BLOY1 AC_BLOY2 AC_BLOY3 AC_BLOY4 AC_BLOY5 AC_BLOY6

0.75435348 0.77750515 0.74432473 0.75872111 0.74842206 0.81453767




1 2.62176738 1.69316047 0.4370 0.4370

2 0.92860690 0.10909047 0.1548 0.5917

3 0.81951644 0.15152930 0.1366 0.7283

4 0.66798714 0.16667061 0.1113 0.8396

5 0.50131653 0.04051091 0.0836 0.9232

6 0.46080562 0.0768 1.0000

1 factor will be retained by the MINEIGEN criterion.

Factor Pattern

Factor1

AC_BLOY1 AC_BLOY1 0.72914







AC_BLOY1 AC_BLOY2 AC_BLOY3 AC_BLOY4 AC_BLOY5 AC_BLOY6

0.53164208 0.52036812 0.46943595 0.35643781 0.36717172 0.37671170

191

Table 3.83 Factor Analysis Marketing Mix Elements:


MMEQ1 MMEQ2 MMEQ3 MMEQ4 MMEQ5 MMEQ6 MMEQ7 MMEQ8 MMEQ9

0.68277507 0.80296912 0.79571932 0.65489019 0.89392940 0.79041480 0.86372323 0.86654046 0.81450842



0.74987642 0.43487968 0.75430764 0.77805535 0.72420938 0.64684852 0.75221596 0.64118810 0.64316272




1 4.73289803 2.92775036 0.2629 0.2629

2 1.80514767 0.44773993 0.1003 0.3632

3 1.35740774 0.23660461 0.0754 0.4386

4 1.12080313 0.09175514 0.0623 0.5009

5 1.02904799 0.03943513 0.0572 0.5581

6 0.98961286 0.04710081 0.0550 0.6131

7 0.94251205 0.05451878 0.0524 0.6654

8 0.88799327 0.07178927 0.0493 0.7147

9 0.81620400 0.05040945 0.0453 0.7601

10 0.76579455 0.16895952 0.0425 0.8026

11 0.59683503 0.00532910 0.0332 0.8358

12 0.59150592 0.08661393 0.0329 0.8687

13 0.50489200 0.03086872 0.0280 0.8967

14 0.47402327 0.03638031 0.0263 0.9230

15 0.43764297 0.05342018 0.0243 0.9474

16 0.38422278 0.07357776 0.0213 0.9687

17 0.31064503 0.05783330 0.0173 0.9860

18 0.25281172 0.0140 1.0000

192

1 factor will be retained by the NFACTOR criterion.

Factor Pattern

Factor1

MMEQ1 MMEQ1 0.47393

MMEQ2 MMEQ2 0.50094

MMEQ3 MMEQ3 0.54026

MMEQ4 MMEQ4 0.44146

MMEQ5 MMEQ5 0.64536

MMEQ6 MMEQ6 0.68054

MMEQ7 MMEQ7 0.65934

MMEQ8 MMEQ8 0.64625

MMEQ9 MMEQ9 0.57981

MMEQ10 MMEQ10 0.49903

MMEQ11 MMEQ11 0.21318

MMEQ12 MMEQ12 0.64407

MMEQ13 MMEQ13 0.45551

MMEQ14 MMEQ14 0.44353

MMEQ15 MMEQ15 0.39653

MMEQ16 MMEQ16 0.28439

MMEQ17 MMEQ17 0.40421

MMEQ18 MMEQ18 0.43289


MMEQ1

MMEQ2

MMEQ3

MMEQ4

MMEQ5

MMEQ6

MMEQ7

MMEQ8

MMEQ9

0.22460859

0.25094206

0.29188294

0.19489123

0.41648344

0.46313825

0.43472834

0.41763287

0.33618003


0.24902698

0.04544474

0.41483048

0.20749173

0.19671987

0.15723993

0.08087804

0.16338500

0.18739351

193

Table 3.84 Factor Analysis for Purchase Decisions:


PBPQ1 PBPQ2 PBPQ3 PBPQ4 PBPQ5 PBPQ6 PBPQ7 PBPQ8

0.59856309

0.58961075

0.75495387

0.77230023

0.82592980

0.76749696

0.71340565

0.67279730



0.60774552

0.72437586

0.76542302

0.67280859

0.60243489

0.73174605

0.66309631

0.62652660


PBPQ17 PBPQ18 PBPQ19 PBPQ20 PBPQ21

0.70444587 0.55743111 0.57072611 0.61336223 0.69914725




1 3.93554300 1.51420245 0.1874 0.1874

2 2.42134055 0.64425655 0.1153 0.3027

3 1.77708400 0.26444199 0.0846 0.3873

4 1.51264201 0.28729471 0.0720 0.4594

5 1.22534730 0.12282479 0.0583 0.5177

6 1.10252251 0.05117810 0.0525 0.5702

7 1.05134441 0.12041134 0.0501 0.6203

8 0.93093307 0.01420679 0.0443 0.6646

9 0.91672628 0.11699217 0.0437 0.7083

10 0.79973411 0.04142114 0.0381 0.7463

11 0.75831298 0.05308255 0.0361 0.7825

12 0.70523043 0.03127554 0.0336 0.8160

13 0.67395489 0.10692039 0.0321 0.8481

14 0.56703450 0.06435667 0.0270 0.8751

15 0.50267783 0.05817594 0.0239 0.8991

16 0.44450188 0.03022079 0.0212 0.9202

194

17 0.41428109 0.02488167 0.0197 0.9400

18 0.38939943 0.05627446 0.0185 0.9585

19 0.33312497 0.01962567 0.0159 0.9744

20 0.31349930 0.08873383 0.0149 0.9893

21 0.22476547 0.0107 1.0000


Factor1 Factor2

PBPQ1 PBPQ1 0.21522 0.41997

PBPQ2 PBPQ2 0.20197 -0.06345

PBPQ3 PBPQ3 -0.03019 -0.09371

PBPQ4 PBPQ4 0.09878 -0.14220

PBPQ5 PBPQ5 0.09749 0.02451

PBPQ6 PBPQ6 0.07392 0.26364

PBPQ7 PBPQ7 -0.08143 0.50818

PBPQ8 PBPQ8 -0.03670 0.08843

PBPQ9 PBPQ9 0.19730 0.06285

PBPQ10 PBPQ10 0.58804 0.00307

PBPQ11 PBPQ11 0.63482 0.17209

PBPQ12 PBPQ12 0.13427 -0.00698

PBPQ13 PBPQ13 0.38333 -0.14136

PBPQ14 PBPQ14 0.58909 -0.03064

PBPQ15 PBPQ15 -0.14252 0.21985

PBPQ16 PBPQ16 0.22094 0.09886

PBPQ17 PBPQ17 0.70407 -0.09339

PBPQ18 PBPQ18 -0.07841 0.73499

PBPQ19 PBPQ19 0.16953 0.83499

PBPQ20 PBPQ20 -0.17962 0.37928

PBPQ21 PBPQ21 0.36087 0.09909

195


Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Factor5 Factor6 Factor7

2.182657 2.058041 1.964363 1.871093 1.786366 1.648005 1.515295



0.6358726

0.7006326

0.5285936

0.6593896

0.5783250

0.5711474

0.3315778

0.6854889


0.5734142

0.6908364

0.5002694

0.6759855

0.6522472

0.4844112

0.7111138

0.6663365

PBPQ17 PBPQ18 PBPQ19 PBPQ20 PBPQ21

0.5685762 0.7623199 0.7465370 0.6044083 0.6983397

Table 3.85 Relationship between brand equity and brand awareness:

Dependent Variable: Brand equity


Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 6 14981 2496.86604 67.06 <.0001

Error 127 4728.29630 37.23068


Predictors: constant, brand awareness



Coeff Var 9.92025

196

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard



AC_BAW1 AC_BAW1 1 2.51053 0.55948 4.49 <.0001

AC_BAW2 AC_BAW2 1 3.19594 0.65296 4.89 <.0001

AC_BAW3 AC_BAW3 1 2.87780 0.64797 4.44 <.0001

AC_BAW4 AC_BAW4 1 4.34871 0.72037 6.04 <.0001

AC_BAW5 AC_BAW5 1 3.57011 0.62796 5.69 <.0001

AC_BAW6 AC_BAW6 1 2.66907 0.64513 4.14 <.0001

Table 3.86 Relationship between brand equity and brand association: Dependent Variable: Brand equity


Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 6 12987 2164.42732 40.89 <.0001

Error 127 6722.92864 52.93645


Predictors: constant, brand association



Coeff Var 11.82904

197

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard



BASNQ1 BASNQ1 1 1.97267 0.95807 2.06 0.0415

BASNQ2 BASNQ2 1 3.01341 0.93066 3.24 0.0015

BASNQ3 BASNQ3 1 4.41695 0.78775 5.61 <.0001

BASNQ4 BASNQ4 1 5.64814 0.83372 6.77 <.0001

BASNQ9 BASNQ9 1 3.16759 0.70131 4.52 <.0001

BASNQ10 BASNQ10 1 2.98780 1.02152 2.92 0.0041

Table 3.87 Relationship between brand equity and brand loyalty:



Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 6 14785 2464.09357 63.54 <.0001

Error 127 4924.93110 38.77899


Predictors: constant, brand loyalty



Coeff Var 10.12443

198

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard



AC_BLOY1 AC_BLOY1 1 6.06546 0.65424 9.27 <.0001

AC_BLOY2 AC_BLOY2 1 2.24445 0.83238 2.70 0.0080

AC_BLOY3 AC_BLOY3 1 1.60498 0.65578 2.45 0.0158

AC_BLOY4 AC_BLOY4 1 1.33852 0.82944 1.61 0.1091

AC_BLOY5 AC_BLOY5 1 3.65566 0.84862 4.31 <.0001

AC_BLOY6 AC_BLOY6 1 2.51023 1.00415 2.50 0.0137

Table 3.88 Relationship between brand equity and perceived quality:



Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 8 15875 1984.34995 64.68 <.0001

Error 125 3834.69294 30.67754


Predictor : constant , Perceived quality



Coeff Var 9.00497

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard



PQQ1 PQQ1 1 5.10377 0.62389 8.18 <.0001

PQQ2 PQQ2 1 3.21312 0.87835 3.66 0.0004

PQQ3 PQQ3 1 1.37034 0.71599 1.91 0.0579

PQQ4 PQQ4 1 0.06604 0.53477 0.12 0.9019

PQQ5 PQQ5 1 1.76284 0.63937 2.76 0.0067

PQQ6 PQQ6 1 1.74268 0.59343 2.94 0.0040

199

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard


PQQ7 PQQ7 1 1.45458 0.61476 2.37 0.0195

PQQ8 PQQ8 1 1.66080 0.59101 2.81 0.0058

Table 3.89 Relationship between brand equity and market mix elements:



Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 18 14303 794.59579 16.90 <.0001

Error 115 5406.76836 47.01538


Predictors: constant, market mix elements



Coeff Var 11.14788

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard



MMEQ1 MMEQ1 1 3.11647 0.67555 4.61 <.0001

MMEQ2 MMEQ2 1 1.80247 0.86144 2.09 0.0386

MMEQ3 MMEQ3 1 0.05959 0.79857 0.07 0.9406

MMEQ4 MMEQ4 1 -0.24082 0.95360 -0.25 0.8011

MMEQ5 MMEQ5 1 0.70705 0.91717 0.77 0.4423

MMEQ6 MMEQ6 1 3.07515 0.71816 4.28 <.0001

MMEQ7 MMEQ7 1 1.47032 0.97610 1.51 0.1347

MMEQ8 MMEQ8 1 2.06780 0.90381 2.29 0.0240

MMEQ9 MMEQ9 1 -0.48478 0.88520 -0.55 0.5850

MMEQ10 MMEQ10 1 -0.18478 0.90933 -0.20 0.8393

200

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard


MMEQ11 MMEQ11 1 -0.05979 0.72934 -0.08 0.9348

MMEQ12 MMEQ12 1 -0.57962 0.94656 -0.61 0.5415

MMEQ13 MMEQ13 1 3.47179 0.88873 3.91 0.0002

MMEQ14 MMEQ14 1 0.06838 0.60546 0.11 0.9103

MMEQ15 MMEQ15 1 -0.23636 0.84165 -0.28 0.7793

MMEQ16 MMEQ16 1 -0.46764 0.67510 -0.69 0.4899

MMEQ17 MMEQ17 1 1.09057 0.81086 1.34 0.1813

MMEQ18 MMEQ18 1 3.39499 0.97983 3.46 0.0007

Table 3.90 Relationship between brand equity and purchase decisions: Dependent Variable: Brand equity


Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 21 11838 563.73374 8.02 <.0001

Error 112 7871.08399 70.27754


Predictors: Constant, purchased decision products



Coeff Var 13.62952

201

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard



PBPQ1 PBPQ1 1 2.73859 0.73054 3.75 0.0003

PBPQ2 PBPQ2 1 3.08555 1.21428 2.54 0.0124

PBPQ3 PBPQ3 1 1.52697 1.08962 1.40 0.1639

PBPQ4 PBPQ4 1 0.29058 1.30995 0.22 0.8249

PBPQ5 PBPQ5 1 3.88925 0.96205 4.04 <.0001

PBPQ6 PBPQ6 1 -0.65289 1.13117 -0.58 0.5650

PBPQ7 PBPQ7 1 -0.72739 0.82541 -0.88 0.3801

PBPQ8 PBPQ8 1 -0.21705 1.01035 -0.21 0.8303

PBPQ9 PBPQ9 1 0.84096 1.02992 0.82 0.4159

PBPQ10 PBPQ10 1 2.76814 1.30470 2.12 0.0361

PBPQ11 PBPQ11 1 -0.02599 1.00289 -0.03 0.9794

PBPQ12 PBPQ12 1 2.22402 0.92779 2.40 0.0182

PBPQ13 PBPQ13 1 -3.03998 1.41230 -2.15 0.0335

PBPQ14 PBPQ14 1 1.21522 1.13220 1.07 0.2854

PBPQ15 PBPQ15 1 2.31284 1.08556 2.13 0.0353

PBPQ16 PBPQ16 1 -0.37934 1.13476 -0.33 0.7388

PBPQ17 PBPQ17 1 1.22675 1.03007 1.19 0.2362

PBPQ18 PBPQ18 1 0.75924 1.12108 0.68 0.4996

PBPQ19 PBPQ19 1 -0.14098 1.20642 -0.12 0.9072

PBPQ20 PBPQ20 1 1.55356 1.01892 1.52 0.1302

PBPQ21 PBPQ21 1 0.88538 1.33040 0.67 0.5071

202

Table 3.91The effect of market mix elements on brand association:

Dependent Variable: Brand association


Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 18 538.71316 29.92851 8.80 <.0001

Error 115 391.10774 3.40094





Coeff Var 13.77468

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard



MMEQ1 MMEQ1 1 0.56294 0.18169 3.10 0.0024

MMEQ2 MMEQ2 1 0.36283 0.23169 1.57 0.1201

MMEQ3 MMEQ3 1 -0.54504 0.21478 -2.54 0.0125

MMEQ4 MMEQ4 1 0.07787 0.25648 0.30 0.7620

MMEQ5 MMEQ5 1 0.43309 0.24668 1.76 0.0818

MMEQ6 MMEQ6 1 0.56268 0.19315 2.91 0.0043

MMEQ7 MMEQ7 1 0.26599 0.26253 1.01 0.3131

MMEQ8 MMEQ8 1 0.36041 0.24308 1.48 0.1409

MMEQ9 MMEQ9 1 0.15945 0.23808 0.67 0.5044

MMEQ10 MMEQ10 1 0.02271 0.24457 0.09 0.9262

MMEQ11 MMEQ11 1 -0.11210 0.19616 -0.57 0.5688

MMEQ12 MMEQ12 1 0.00634 0.25458 0.02 0.9802

MMEQ13 MMEQ13 1 0.87131 0.23903 3.65 0.0004

MMEQ14 MMEQ14 1 -0.33337 0.16284 -2.05 0.0429

MMEQ15 MMEQ15 1 -0.02818 0.22637 -0.12 0.9011

MMEQ16 MMEQ16 1 -0.36385 0.18157 -2.00 0.0474

203

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard


MMEQ17 MMEQ17 1 0.06488 0.21808 0.30 0.7666

MMEQ18 MMEQ18 1 0.60141 0.26353 2.28 0.0243

Table 3.92The effect of market mix elements on perceived quality:

Dependent Variable: Perceived quality


Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 18 1971.22681 109.51260 8.69 <.0001

Error 115 1449.49707 12.60432





Coeff Var 17.08202

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard



MMEQ1 MMEQ1 1 1.09171 0.34978 3.12 0.0023

MMEQ2 MMEQ2 1 0.96414 0.44603 2.16 0.0327

MMEQ3 MMEQ3 1 0.16934 0.41348 0.41 0.6829

MMEQ4 MMEQ4 1 0.04959 0.49375 0.10 0.9202

MMEQ5 MMEQ5 1 -0.05833 0.47489 -0.12 0.9025

MMEQ6 MMEQ6 1 1.05477 0.37185 2.84 0.0054

MMEQ7 MMEQ7 1 0.90697 0.50540 1.79 0.0754

MMEQ8 MMEQ8 1 1.12929 0.46797 2.41 0.0174

MMEQ9 MMEQ9 1 -0.57604 0.45833 -1.26 0.2114

MMEQ10 MMEQ10 1 -0.68798 0.47083 -1.46 0.1467

MMEQ11 MMEQ11 1 0.07188 0.37763 0.19 0.8494

204

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard


MMEQ12 MMEQ12 1 -0.07681 0.49011 -0.16 0.8757

MMEQ13 MMEQ13 1 1.41091 0.46016 3.07 0.0027

MMEQ14 MMEQ14 1 0.03598 0.31349 0.11 0.9088

MMEQ15 MMEQ15 1 -0.25795 0.43578 -0.59 0.5551

MMEQ16 MMEQ16 1 -0.02432 0.34955 -0.07 0.9447

MMEQ17 MMEQ17 1 0.21588 0.41984 0.51 0.6081

MMEQ18 MMEQ18 1 1.12192 0.50733 2.21 0.0290

Table 3.93The effect of market mix elements on brand loyalty:

Dependent Variable: brand loyalty


Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 18 774.56581 43.03143 7.76 <.0001

Error 115 637.85956 5.54660





Coeff Var 17.33040

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard



MMEQ1 MMEQ1 1 0.75315 0.23203 3.25 0.0015

MMEQ2 MMEQ2 1 0.24187 0.29588 0.82 0.4154

MMEQ3 MMEQ3 1 0.44818 0.27429 1.63 0.1050

MMEQ4 MMEQ4 1 -0.26878 0.32754 -0.82 0.4136

MMEQ5 MMEQ5 1 0.27795 0.31502 0.88 0.3794

MMEQ6 MMEQ6 1 0.40497 0.24667 1.64 0.1034

MMEQ7 MMEQ7 1 -0.00091 0.33527 -0.00 0.9978

205

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard


MMEQ8 MMEQ8 1 0.16713 0.31044 0.54 0.5914

MMEQ9 MMEQ9 1 -0.17776 0.30404 -0.58 0.5599

MMEQ10 MMEQ10 1 0.46684 0.31233 1.49 0.1377

MMEQ11 MMEQ11 1 -0.19894 0.25051 -0.79 0.4288

MMEQ12 MMEQ12 1 -0.53019 0.32512 -1.63 0.1057

MMEQ13 MMEQ13 1 0.63953 0.30526 2.10 0.0384

MMEQ14 MMEQ14 1 0.38388 0.20796 1.85 0.0675

MMEQ15 MMEQ15 1 0.23082 0.28908 0.80 0.4263

MMEQ16 MMEQ16 1 0.14695 0.23188 0.63 0.5275

MMEQ17 MMEQ17 1 0.65368 0.27851 2.35 0.0206

MMEQ18 MMEQ18 1 0.85914 0.33655 2.55 0.0120

Table 3.94The effect of purchase decisions on brand awareness:

Dependent Variable: brand awareness


Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 21 787.91474 37.51975 5.59 <.0001

Error 112 751.45839 6.70945


Predictors: constant, purchase decision brand product



Coeff Var 18.84337

206

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard



PBPQ1 PBPQ1 1 0.90503 0.22572 4.01 0.0001

PBPQ2 PBPQ2 1 0.41276 0.37519 1.10 0.2736

PBPQ3 PBPQ3 1 0.02460 0.33667 0.07 0.9419

PBPQ4 PBPQ4 1 -0.15085 0.40475 -0.37 0.7101

PBPQ5 PBPQ5 1 0.98462 0.29726 3.31 0.0012

PBPQ6 PBPQ6 1 -0.02516 0.34951 -0.07 0.9427

PBPQ7 PBPQ7 1 -0.07049 0.25504 -0.28 0.7828

PBPQ8 PBPQ8 1 0.15297 0.31218 0.49 0.6251

PBPQ9 PBPQ9 1 0.16784 0.31823 0.53 0.5990

PBPQ10 PBPQ10 1 0.56596 0.40313 1.40 0.1631

PBPQ11 PBPQ11 1 0.22419 0.30988 0.72 0.4709

PBPQ12 PBPQ12 1 0.59682 0.28667 2.08 0.0396

PBPQ13 PBPQ13 1 -0.69208 0.43638 -1.59 0.1156

PBPQ14 PBPQ14 1 0.06226 0.34983 0.18 0.8591

PBPQ15 PBPQ15 1 0.90515 0.33542 2.70 0.0080

PBPQ16 PBPQ16 1 -0.40565 0.35062 -1.16 0.2498

PBPQ17 PBPQ17 1 0.76691 0.31827 2.41 0.0176

PBPQ18 PBPQ18 1 -0.10766 0.34639 -0.31 0.7565

PBPQ19 PBPQ19 1 -0.46134 0.37276 -1.24 0.2184

PBPQ20 PBPQ20 1 0.31318 0.31483 0.99 0.3220

PBPQ21 PBPQ21 1 0.53530 0.41107 1.30 0.1955

207

Table 3.95The effect of purchase decisions on brand association:

Dependent Variable: brand association


Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 21 485.43697 23.11605 5.83 <.0001

Error 112 444.38393 3.96771





Coeff Var 14.87827

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard



PBPQ1 PBPQ1 1 0.49169 0.17358 2.83 0.0055

PBPQ2 PBPQ2 1 0.73147 0.28852 2.54 0.0126

PBPQ3 PBPQ3 1 -0.29791 0.25890 -1.15 0.2523

PBPQ4 PBPQ4 1 -0.42731 0.31125 -1.37 0.1725

PBPQ5 PBPQ5 1 0.98997 0.22859 4.33 <.0001

PBPQ6 PBPQ6 1 0.24973 0.26878 0.93 0.3548

PBPQ7 PBPQ7 1 -0.27355 0.19612 -1.39 0.1658

PBPQ8 PBPQ8 1 0.00785 0.24007 0.03 0.9740

PBPQ9 PBPQ9 1 0.40868 0.24472 1.67 0.0977

PBPQ10 PBPQ10 1 0.61022 0.31001 1.97 0.0515

PBPQ11 PBPQ11 1 0.19844 0.23830 0.83 0.4068

PBPQ12 PBPQ12 1 0.28972 0.22045 1.31 0.1915

PBPQ13 PBPQ13 1 0.22917 0.33557 0.68 0.4961

PBPQ14 PBPQ14 1 0.29972 0.26902 1.11 0.2676

PBPQ15 PBPQ15 1 -0.01179 0.25794 -0.05 0.9636

PBPQ16 PBPQ16 1 -0.11661 0.26963 -0.43 0.6662

PBPQ17 PBPQ17 1 0.10229 0.24475 0.42 0.6768

208

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard


PBPQ18 PBPQ18 1 0.09030 0.26638 0.34 0.7353

PBPQ19 PBPQ19 1 -0.09435 0.28665 -0.33 0.7427

PBPQ20 PBPQ20 1 0.20732 0.24211 0.86 0.3937

PBPQ21 PBPQ21 1 0.03627 0.31611 0.11 0.9089

Table 3.96The effect of purchase decisions on perceived quality:

Dependent Variable: perceived quality


Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 21 1747.88889 83.23280 5.57 <.0001

Error 112 1672.83499 14.93603





Coeff Var 18.59504

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard



PBPQ1 PBPQ1 1 0.80905 0.33679 2.40 0.0179

PBPQ2 PBPQ2 1 1.28426 0.55979 2.29 0.0236

PBPQ3 PBPQ3 1 1.57500 0.50232 3.14 0.0022

PBPQ4 PBPQ4 1 0.59332 0.60390 0.98 0.3280

PBPQ5 PBPQ5 1 1.20254 0.44351 2.71 0.0078

PBPQ6 PBPQ6 1 -0.51192 0.52148 -0.98 0.3284

PBPQ7 PBPQ7 1 -0.31469 0.38052 -0.83 0.4100

PBPQ8 PBPQ8 1 -0.40901 0.46578 -0.88 0.3818

209

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard


PBPQ9 PBPQ9 1 0.10951 0.47480 0.23 0.8180

PBPQ10 PBPQ10 1 0.88626 0.60148 1.47 0.1434

PBPQ11 PBPQ11 1 -0.43356 0.46234 -0.94 0.3504

PBPQ12 PBPQ12 1 0.91890 0.42772 2.15 0.0338

PBPQ13 PBPQ13 1 -1.51558 0.65108 -2.33 0.0217

PBPQ14 PBPQ14 1 0.79345 0.52195 1.52 0.1313

PBPQ15 PBPQ15 1 0.30829 0.50045 0.62 0.5391

PBPQ16 PBPQ16 1 0.39355 0.52313 0.75 0.4535

PBPQ17 PBPQ17 1 0.16958 0.47487 0.36 0.7217

PBPQ18 PBPQ18 1 0.25189 0.51683 0.49 0.6269

PBPQ19 PBPQ19 1 0.39869 0.55617 0.72 0.4750

PBPQ20 PBPQ20 1 0.48025 0.46973 1.02 0.3088

PBPQ21 PBPQ21 1 0.12729 0.61332 0.21 0.8360

Table 3.97The effect of purchase decisions on brand loyalty:

Dependent Variable: brand loyalty


Source DF Sum of

Squares Mean


Model 21 656.65202 31.26914 4.63 <.0001

Error 112 755.77335 6.74798





Coeff Var 19.11532

210

Parameter Estimates


Estimate Standard



PBPQ1 PBPQ1 1 0.53282 0.22637 2.35 0.0203

PBPQ2 PBPQ2 1 0.65706 0.37627 1.75 0.0835

PBPQ3 PBPQ3 1 0.22528 0.33764 0.67 0.5060

PBPQ4 PBPQ4 1 0.27542 0.40591 0.68 0.4988

PBPQ5 PBPQ5 1 0.71212 0.29811 2.39 0.0186

PBPQ6 PBPQ6 1 -0.36554 0.35051 -1.04 0.2993

PBPQ7 PBPQ7 1 -0.06866 0.25577 -0.27 0.7889

PBPQ8 PBPQ8 1 0.03113 0.31308 0.10 0.9210

PBPQ9 PBPQ9 1 0.15493 0.31914 0.49 0.6283

PBPQ10 PBPQ10 1 0.70569 0.40429 1.75 0.0836

PBPQ11 PBPQ11 1 -0.01507 0.31077 -0.05 0.9614

PBPQ12 PBPQ12 1 0.41857 0.28749 1.46 0.1482

PBPQ13 PBPQ13 1 -1.06149 0.43763 -2.43 0.0169

PBPQ14 PBPQ14 1 0.05980 0.35083 0.17 0.8650

PBPQ15 PBPQ15 1 1.11118 0.33638 3.30 0.0013

PBPQ16 PBPQ16 1 -0.25064 0.35163 -0.71 0.4774

PBPQ17 PBPQ17 1 0.18796 0.31919 0.59 0.5571

PBPQ18 PBPQ18 1 0.52471 0.34739 1.51 0.1337

PBPQ19 PBPQ19 1 0.01602 0.37383 0.04 0.9659

PBPQ20 PBPQ20 1 0.55281 0.31573 1.75 0.0827

PBPQ21 PBPQ21 1 0.18651 0.41225 0.45 0.6518

211

Figure 3.34 The analysis of the effect of market mix elements and purchase

decision factors on Air conditioner brand equity

BRAND

AWARENESS

19%

BRAND

ASSOCIATION

18%

PERCEIVED

QUALLITY

38%

BRAND

LOYALTY

25%

Influence of market elements on dimensions

of brand equity (AC)

BRAND

AWARENESS

28%

BRAND

ASSOCIATIO

N

17%

PERCEIVED

QUALITY

33%

BRAND

LOYALTY

22%

Positive effect of purchased decisions on

dimensions of brand equity (AC)

Date post:	15-Jan-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	11 times
Download:	0 times

CHAPTER - 3 DATA ANALYSIS AND...

Documents