105
Chapter 4
Consumer buying behavior of
Durable goods
(Analysis and Interpretation of Data)
4. Introduction.
In this chapter, an attempt has been made by the researcher to examine
the data relating to consumer buying behavior of durable goods. This
chapter provides data analysis and interpretation. It covers demographic
analysis with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing,
Brand awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty. It also covers the
Usage of Consumer durable products and Brand shifting, Factors influenced
Consumer’s Purchase decision and Expectations of consumer’s after sales
service. Factors are confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis. Assessing
the influence of interest in branded consumer durable goods and assessing the
influence of awareness towards branded consumer durable goods. Assessing
the relationship between Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and
Marketing and Brand awareness with Brand performance of durable goods.
Assessing the relationships between Purchase behavior, Perception,
Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness and Brand performance with
Brand loyalty of durable goods. Predictor variables of Performance of
branded durable goods and Brand loyalty of branded durable goods are
106
assessed. A Model has been proposed to enrich the Brand loyalty through
Performance of branded consumer durable goods. This chapter proceeds
as follows:
4.1 Descriptive analysis
4.2 Usage of Consumer durable products and Brand shifting.
4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
4.4
Analysis of demographic profile with Purchase behavior,
Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness, Brand
performance and Brand loyalty.
4.5 Influence of Interest in Consumer durable goods.
4.6 Influence of Awareness towards Consumer durable goods.
4.7
Relationships between Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion
and Marketing, Brand awareness and Brand performance of
consumer durable goods.
4.8
Relationships between Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion
and Marketing, Brand awareness, performance and Brand loyalty
of consumer durable goods.
4.9 Assessing the predictor variables of Performance of branded
Consumer durable goods.
4.10 Assessing the predictor variables of Brand loyalty in branded
Consumer durable goods.
4.11 Model for Brand loyalty of Consumers using durable goods in
Chennai city.
107
4.1. Descriptive Analysis.
Table 4.1. Purchase Behavior105
S.
No Statements Mean SD
1 I am knowledgeable to choose the products for my house. 3.92 .597
2 While buying new products, I consider other’s opinion also. 3.16 1.219
3 I prefer domestic products than imported ones. 3.46 .799
4 I feel branded products are more reliable. 3.51 .914
5 My household products are sleek and utility based. 3.85 .904
6 I consider branded products for the benefit of guarantee. 3.38 .708
7 My household products are mostly purchased on auspicious
days. 3.60 .661
8 I think rationally before I purchase any products. 3.92 .597
9 Advertisements present a true picture of the products. 3.16 1.219
10 Buying products during off season is cheaper. 3.88 .744
11 I don’t mind spending for products for more comfort. 3.51 1.259
12 Highly priced products are of better quality. 3.75 1.123
13 I am attracted by exchange schemes for products. 3.83 .996
14 I am on transferable job and hence change my products at
least once in 5 years. 3.92 1.025
Table 4.1 shows the mean responses given by the consumers of durable
goods towards purchase behavior. The mean response given by the
consumers for “I am knowledgeable to choose the products for my house” is
3.92. The mean response given by the consumers for “While buying new
products, I consider other’s opinion also” is 3.16. The mean response given
by the consumers for “I prefer domestic products than imported ones” is 3.46.
105
primary data
108
The mean response given by the consumers for “I feel branded products are
more reliable” is 3.51. The mean response given by the consumers for “My
household products are sleek and utility based” is 3.85. The mean response
given by the consumers for “I consider branded products for the benefit of
guarantee” is 3.38. The mean response given by the consumers for “My
household products are mostly purchased on auspicious days” is 3.60. The
mean response given by the consumers for “I think rationally before I
purchase any products” is 3.92. The mean response given by the consumers
for “Advertisements present a true picture of the products” is 3.16. The mean
response given by the consumers for “Buying products during off season” is
cheaper” is 3.88. The mean response given by the consumers for “I don’t
mind spending for products for more comfort” is 3.51. The mean response
given by the consumers for “Highly priced products are of better quality” is
3.75. The mean response given by the consumers for “I am attracted by
exchange schemes for products” is 3.83. The mean response given by the
consumers for “I am on transferable job and hence change my products at
least once in 5 years” is 3.92. The mean responses given towards purchase
behavior of durable goods are all above the average level; this shows that
the consumer’s purchase behavior is good towards the durable goods.
109
Table 4.2-Perception towards brand106
S.
No Statements Mean SD
1 I estimate the quality of the product before the decision of
purchase. 3.95 .997
2 Price must be proportion to the quality. 3.78 1.186
3 Particular brands should serve the purpose. 2.86 1.329
4 Manufacturer’s name and reputation are important to me. 3.19 1.177
5 I need innovation in every product of selected brands. 3.63 1.189
6 Service of the providers of the brand is an important factor
for purchase decision. 3.94 1.108
7 Selected brands of consumer durable products should be
medically fit for use. 3.92 .597
8 Availability is very important in my purchase decision. 3.16 1.219
Table 4.2 shows the mean responses given by the consumers of durable
goods towards perception about brand of durable goods. The mean
response given by the consumers for “I estimate the quality of the product
before the decision of purchase” is 3.95. The mean response given by the
consumers for “Price must be proportion to the quality” is 3.78. The mean
response given by the consumers for “Particular brands should serve the
purpose” is 2.86. The mean response given by the consumers for
“Manufacturer’s name and reputation are important to me” is 3.19. The mean
response given by the consumers for “I need innovation in every product of
selected brands” is 3.63. The mean response given by the consumers for
“Service of the providers of the brand” is an important factor for purchase
106
primary data
110
decision” is 3.94. The mean response given by the consumers for “Selected
brands of consumer durable products should be medically fit for use” is 3.92.
The mean response given by the consumers for “Availability is very
important in my purchase decision” is 3.16. The mean responses given
towards purchase behavior of durable goods are all above the average
level; this shows that the consumer’s perception about brand is good
towards the durable goods.
Table 4.3. Post- purchase behavior of branded durable products107
107
primary data
S.
No Statements Mean SD
1 I am always in favour of buying the brand 3.46 .799
2 In my view the brand I buy, tops among all the consumer
durable products 3.51 .914
3 I like to use the brand often and so I buy frequently 3.85 .904
4 I don’t want to switch over to some other brand if the
particular brand I use is not available 3.38 .708
5 I have profound bond of affection for the brand I use 3.60 .661
6 I won’t miss this brand at any cost 3.92 .597
7 I love this brand for various reasons 3.16 1.219
8 I love this brand for possessing the special features which I
expect 3.88 .744
9 I have deep attachment for the brand and the manufacturers 3.92 .597
10 I am delighted with the people who generally use my
favourite brand 3.06 .987
11 I believe this brand has no alternative 3.51 1.018
12 I like to have discussion on the brand I use 3.52 1.124
111
Table 4.3 shows the mean responses given by the consumers of durable
towards the post purchase behavior of selected consumer products. The
mean response given by the consumers for “I am always in favour of buying
the brand” is 3.46. The mean response given by the consumers for “In my
view the brand I buy, tops among all the consumer durable products” is 3.51.
The mean response given by the consumers for “I like to use the brand often
and so I buy frequently” is 3.85. The mean response given by the consumers
for “I don’t want to switch over to some other brand if the particular brand I
use is not available” is 3.38. The mean response given by the consumers for “I
have profound bond of affection for the brand I use” is 3.60. The mean
13 The selected brands of each consumer durable products are
meant for people like me 3.61 .985
14 I want others to realize the name of the brand. 3.55 1.009
15 I feel satisfied to use the consumer durable products. 3.46 .960
16 I always have a close observation on the performance of the
brand. 3.48 1.450
17 I remember that on several occasions I have enjoyed using
the selected brands. 3.52 1.018
18 I feel addiction towards the selected brands of each type of
consumer durable products. 3.93 1.051
19 If I had to buy other brands of each type of consumer durable
products I would feel disloyal to the selected brands. 4.17 .676
20 I can trust the selected brands of each type of consumer
durable products. 3.88 .788
21 I have strong positive feeling about the selected brands
consumer durable products. 3.93 .813
22 I have favorable image of the selected brands of each type of
consumer durable products. 3.68 .874
112
response given by the consumers for “I won’t miss this brand at any cost” is
3.92. The mean response given by the consumers for “I love this brand for
various reasons” is 3.16. The mean response given by the consumers for “I
love this brand for possessing the special features which I expect” is 3.88. The
mean response given by the consumers for “I have deep attachment for the
brand and the manufacturers” is 3.92. The mean response given by the
consumers for “I am delighted with the people who generally use my favorite
brand” is 3.06. The mean response given by the consumers for “I believe this
brand has no alternative” is 3.51. The mean response given by the consumers
for “I like to have discussion on the brand I use” is 3.52. The mean response
given by the consumers for “The selected brands of each consumer durable
products are meant for people like me” is 3.61. The mean response given by
the consumers for “I want others to realize the name of the brand” is 3.55.
The mean response given by the consumers for “I feel satisfied to use the
consumer durable products” is 3.46. The mean response given by the
consumers for “I always have a close observation on the performance of the
brand” is 3.48. The mean response given by the consumers for “I remember
that on several occasions I have enjoyed using the selected brands” is 3.52.
The mean response given by the consumers for “I feel addiction towards the
selected brands of each type of consumer durable products” is 3.93. The mean
response given by the consumers for “If I had to buy other brands of each
type of consumer durable products I would feel disloyal to the selected
brands” is 4.17. The mean response given by the consumers for “I can trust
113
the selected brands of each type of consumer durable products” is 3.88. The
mean response given by the consumers for “I have strong positive feeling
about the selected brands consumer durable products” is 3.93. The mean response
given by the consumers for “I have favorable image of the selected brands of each
type of consumer durable products” is 3.68. The mean responses given towards
post purchase behavior of durable goods are all above the average level; this
shows that the consumer’s post purchase behavior is good towards the durable
goods.
Table 4.4. Promotion and marketing108
S.
No Statements Mean SD
1 Advertisements of the consumer durable products made me
remember the brand ever. 3.71 .838
2 Door selling is convenient for me to maintain proximity with
the brand. 3.76 .954
3 Free offers are timely useful for satisfaction. 3.86 .841
4 Dealers’ display of the Brand makes me recall the brand
often. 3.97 .684
5 Advertisements are application oriented and useful to know
about the brand. 3.59 1.064
6 In the brand I use, there is no disparity between
advertisement and actual experience. 3.19 1.280
7 Manufacturers are showing enthusiasm to attract new
consumers. 2.94 1.232
Table 4.4 shows the mean responses given by the consumers of durable
goods towards promotion and marketing. The mean response given by the
consumers for “Advertisements of the consumer durable products made me
108
primary data
114
remember the brand ever” is 3.71. The mean response given by the consumers
for “Door selling is convenient for me to maintain proximity with the brand”
is 3.76. The mean response given by the consumers for “Free offers are timely
useful for satisfaction” is 3.86. The mean response given by the consumers for
“Dealers’ display of the Brand makes me recall the brand often” is 3.97. The
mean response given by the consumers for “Advertisements are application
oriented and useful to know about the brand” is 3.59. The mean response
given by the consumers for “In the brand I use, there is no disparity between
advertisement and actual experience ” is 3.19. The mean response given by
the consumers for “Manufacturers are showing enthusiasm to attract new
consumers” is 2.94. The mean responses given towards promotion and
marketing of durable goods are all above the average level, this shows
that the consumers are satisfied with promotion and marketing of
durable goods.
Table 4.5. Awareness about the brand109
S.
No Statements Mean SD
1 Brand of consumer durable products I use stand fast fixed in my
mind. 3.86 .841
2 I am able to distinguish one brand from the other to its
performance. 3.85 .751
3 Brand recognition of the consumer durable products depends on
its performance. 3.93 1.051
4 I am aware of the free gifts and sales offer of the consumer
durable products. 3.62 .681
109
primary data
115
5 I am able to discriminate the brand as I have previous
knowledge about consumer durable products. 3.20 .833
6 Good exposure to the brand plays an important role for
remembrance/ or memory. 3.96 .742
7 Retrieval of brand from memory in the midst of same category
of consumer durable products is not difficult. 2.91 1.135
8 Appearance of the product creates impact on consumer’s
awareness. 3.20 .833
9 Physical significance of brands of consumer durable products I
use, create more awareness. 3.80 .769
10 I take special interest to know the reputation of the
manufacturers of the brands of consumer durable products I use. 3.89 .689
11 I have the knowledge of other brands produced by the
manufacturer of consumer durable products. 3.62 .681
Table 4.5 shows the mean responses given by the consumers of durable
goods towards awareness about the brand. The mean response given by
the consumers for “Brand of consumer durable products I use stand fast fixed
in my mind” is 3.86. The mean response given by the consumers for “I am
able to distinguish one brand from the other to its performance” is 3.85. The
mean response given by the consumers for “Brand recognition of the
consumer durable products depends on its performance” is 3.93. The mean
response given by the consumers for “I am aware of the free gifts and sales
offer of the consumer durable products” is 3.62. The mean response given by
the consumers for “I am able to discriminate the brand as I have previous
knowledge about consumer durable products” is 3.20. The mean response
given by the consumers for “Good exposure to the brand plays an important
role for remembrance/ or memory” is 3.96. The mean response given by the
116
consumers for “Retrieval of brand from memory in the midst of same
category of consumer durable products” is not difficult” is 2.91. The mean
response given by the consumers for “Appearance of the product creates
impact on consumer’s awareness” is 3.20. The mean response given by the
consumers for “Physical significance of brands of consumer durable products
I use, create more awareness” is 3.80. The mean response given by the
consumers for “I take special interest to know the reputation of the
manufacturers of the brands of consumer durable products I use” is 3.89. The
mean response given by the consumers for “I have the knowledge of other
brands produced by the manufacturer of consumer durable products” is 3.62.
The mean responses given towards awareness about the brand of durable
goods are all above the average level; this shows that the consumer’s
awareness about the brand is good towards the durable goods.
Table 4.6. Performance of durable goods110
S.
No Statements Mean SD
1 The products serve their purpose perfectly. 4.05 1.032
2 They have special features in their performance. 3.80 1.092
3 Reliability is more. 3.64 1.151
4 It is easily distinguished from other brand in terms of
performance. 3.44 1.258
5 The effectiveness of usage is highly significant. 3.65 1.247
6 Effect is speedy and gives satisfaction. 3.52 1.166
110
primary data
117
7 The manufacturers\ providers respond very well to the
complaint. 4.13 .987
8 The status is raised due to the performance of the brand. 4.07 1.157
9 The brand gives a feeling of good satisfaction. 3.80 1.174
10 The performance ignores fluctuation in the price of the
product. 3.62 1.244
11 Fluctuation of price is considered to be an important factor
for the image of the brand. 3.79 .631
Table 4.6 shows the mean responses given by the consumers of durable
goods towards performance of durable goods. The mean response given by
the consumers for “the products serve their purpose perfectly” is 4.05. The
mean response given by the consumers for “they have special features in their
performance” is 3.80. The mean response given by the consumers for
“Reliability is more” is 3.64. The mean response given by the consumers for
“it is easily distinguished from other brand in terms of performance” is 3.44.
The mean response given by the consumers for “the effectiveness of usage is
highly significant” is 3.65. The mean response given by the consumers for
“Effect is speedy and gives satisfaction” is 3.52. The mean response given by
the consumers for “the manufacturers\ providers respond very well to the
complaint” is 4.13. The mean response given by the consumers for “The
status is raised due to the performance of the brand” is 4.07. The mean
response given by the consumers for “The brand gives a feeling of good
satisfaction” is 3.80. The mean response given by the consumers for “The
performance ignores fluctuation in the price of the product” is 3.62. The mean
response given by the consumers for “Fluctuation of price is considered to be
118
an important factor for the image of the brand” is 3.79. The mean responses
given towards performance of durable goods are all above the average
level; this shows that the performance of durable goods is good.
Table 4.7. Brand loyalty of durable goods111
S.
No Statements Mean SD
1 Product performance develops brand loyalty. 3.42 .786
2 Attitude of consumers. 3.54 .601
3 Frequency of purchase. 3.41 .718
4 Comparing many brand with brand used. 3.57 .709
5 Requirements from the product. 3.02 1.102
6 Family member’s co-operation in selecting the brands. 3.55 1.104
7 Cost of the product. 3.42 .870
8 Reputation of the product. 4.01 .854
9 Way of marketing by manufacturer. 3.95 .762
10 New schemes and offers. 3.20 1.380
11 Social status in acquiring the brand. 3.74 .802
12 Personality characteristics. 3.79 .631
Table 4.7 shows the mean responses given by the consumers of durable
goods towards brand loyalty of durable goods. The mean response given
by the consumers for “Product performance develops brand loyalty” is 3.42.
The mean response given by the consumers for “Attitude of consumers” is
3.54. The mean response given by the consumers for “Frequency of purchase”
is 3.41. The mean response given by the consumers for “Comparing many
brand with brand used” is 3.57. The mean response given by the consumers
111
primary data
119
for “Requirements from the product” is 3.02. The mean response given by the
consumers for “Family member’s co-operation in selecting the brands” is
3.55. The mean response given by the consumers for “Cost of the product” is
3.42. The mean response given by the consumers for “Reputation of the
product” is 4.01. The mean response given by the consumers for “Way of
marketing by manufacturer” is 3.95. The mean response given by the
consumers for “New schemes and offers” is 3.20. The mean response given
by the consumers for “Social status in acquiring the brand” is 3.74. The mean
response given by the consumers for “Personality characteristics” is 3.79. The
mean responses given towards brand loyalty of durable goods are all
above the average level; this shows that the consumer’s brand loyalty of
durable goods.
4.2.1. Usage of branded Color Televisions.
Consumers using branded durable products are selected for the study.
Consumers expressed their usage of Colour Televisions over the years.
120
Table 4.8. Usage of branded Colour Televisions112
No. of
consumers Percentage
Less than 3 years 85 17.00
3-5 years 92 18.40
5-7 years 40 8.00
Above 7 years 283 56.60
Total 500 100
Table 4.8 reveals the usage of branded Colour Televisions over the
years by the consumers. Out of 500 consumers, 56.60 % of the
consumers expressed that they are using colour Televisions for more
than 7 years, 18.40 % of the consumers expressed that they are using
colour Televisions for 3-5 years, 17.00 % of the consumers expressed
that they are using colour Televisions for less than 3 years and 8.00 % of
the consumers expressed that they are using colour Televisions for 5- 7
years.
112
primary data
121
Chart 4.1: Usage of branded Colour Televisions
4.2.2. Usage of branded Refrigerators.
Consumers expressed their usage of Refrigerators over the years. Table 4.9
gives the details of usage of Refrigerators.
Table 4.9. Usage of branded Refrigerators113
No. of consumers Percentage
Less than 3 years 135 27.00
3-5 years 136 27.20
5-7 years 73 14.60
Above 7 years 156 31.20
Total 500 100
113
primary data
122
Out of 500 consumers, 31.20 % of the consumers expressed that they are
using refrigerators for more than 7 years, 27.20 % of the consumers expressed
that they are using refrigerators for 3-5 years, 27.00 % of the consumers
expressed that they are using refrigerators for less than 3 years and 14.60 % of
the consumers expressed that they are using refrigerators for 5- 7 years.
Chart 4.2: Usage of branded Refrigerators
123
4.2.3. Usage of branded Air-conditioners.
Consumers expressed their usage of air-conditioners over the years.
Table 4.10. Usage of branded Air-conditioners114
No. of consumers Percentage
Less than 3 years 151 30.20
3-5 years 137 27.40
5-7 years 79 15.80
Above 7 years 133 26.60
Total 500 100
Out of 500 consumers, 30.20 % of the consumers expressed that they are
using air-conditioners for less than 3 years, 27.40 % of the consumers
expressed that they are using air-conditioners for 3-5 years, 26.60 % of the
consumers expressed that they are using air-conditioners for more than 7
years and 15.80 % of the consumers expressed that they are using air-
conditioners for 5- 7 years.
Chart 4.3: Usage of branded Air-conditioners
114
primary data
124
4.2.4. Usage of branded Washing machines.
Consumers expressed their usage of washing machines over the years.
Table 4.11. Usage of branded Washing machines115
No. of consumers Percentage
Less than 3 years 192 38.40
3-5 years 114 22.80
5-7 years 69 13.80
Above 7 years 125 25.00
Total 500 100
Out of 500 consumers, 38.40 % of the consumers expressed that they are
using washing machines for less than 3 years, 25.00 % of the consumers
expressed that they are using washing machines for more than 7 years, 22.80
% of the consumers expressed that they are using washing machines for 3-5
years and 13.80 % of the consumers expressed that they are using washing
machines for 5- 7 years.
115
primary data
125
Chart 4.4: Usage of branded Washing machines
4.2.5. Usage of branded Micro-oven.
Consumers expressed their usage of Micro oven over the years.
Table 4.12. Usage of branded Micro Oven116
No. of consumers Percentage
Less than 3 years 86 17.20
3-5 years 131 26.20
5-7 years 61 12.20
Above 7 years 222 44.40
Total 500 100
Out of 500 consumers, 44.40 % of the consumers expressed that they are
using micro-oven for more than 7 years, 26.20 % of the consumers expressed
that they are using micro-oven for 3-5 years, 17.20 % of the consumers
116
primary data
126
expressed that they are using micro-oven for less than 3 years and 12.20 % of
the consumers expressed that they are using micro-oven for 5- 7 years.
Chart 4.5: Usage of branded Micro-oven
4.2.6. Usage of branded Audio-Video systems.
Consumers expressed their usage of Audio-video systems over the years.
Table 4.13. Usage of branded Audio -Video Systems117
No. of consumers Percentage
Less than 3 years 130 26.00
3-5 years 131 26.20
5-7 years 71 14.20
Above 7 years 168 33.60
Total 500 100
117
primary data
127
Out of 500 consumers, 33.60 % of the consumers expressed that they are
using Audio-Video Systems for more than 7 years, 26.20 % of the consumers
expressed that they are using Audio-Video Systems for 3-5 years, 26.00 % of
the consumers expressed that they are using Audio-Video Systems for less
than 3 years and 14.20 % of the consumers expressed that they are using
Audio-Video Systems for 5- 7 years.
Chart 4.6: Usage of branded Audio -Video Systems
128
4.2.7. Usage of branded Mixies Consumers expressed their usage of
mixies over the years.
Table 4.14. Usage of branded Mixies118
No. of consumers Percentage
Less than 3 years 120 24.00
3-5 years 122 24.40
5-7 years 62 12.40
Above 7 years 196 39.20
Total 500 100
Out of 500 consumers, 39.20 % of the consumers expressed that they are
using Mixies for more than 7 years, 24.40 % of the consumers expressed that
they are using Mixies for 3-5 years, 24.00 % of the consumers expressed that
they are using Mixies for less than 3 years and 12.40 % of the consumers
expressed that they are using mixies for 5-7 years.
Chart 4.7: Usage of branded Mixies
118
primary data
129
4.2.8. Usage of branded Grinders.
Consumers expressed their usage of grinders over the years.
Table 4.15. Usage of branded Grinders119
No. of consumers Percentage
Less than 3 years 118 23.60
3-5 years 124 24.80
5-7 years 67 13.40
Above 7 years 191 38.20
Total 500 100
Out of 500 consumers, 38.20 % of the consumers expressed that they are
using Grinders for more than 7 years, 24.80 % of the consumers expressed
that they are using Grinders for 3-5 years, 23.60 % of the consumers
expressed that they are using Grinders for less than 3 years and 13.40 % of the
consumers expressed that they are using Grinders for 5- 7 years.
Chart 4.8: Usage of branded Grinders
119
primary data
130
4.2.9. Usage of branded Induction Stoves.
Consumers expressed their usage of Induction stoves over the years.
Table 4.16. Usage of branded Induction Stoves120
No. of consumers Percentage
Less than 3 years 131 26.20
3-5 years 139 27.80
5-7 years 82 16.40
Above 7 years 148 29.60
Total 500 100
Table 4.16 displays the details of usage of branded Induction stoves by
consumers in Chennai city. Out of 500 consumers, 29.60 % of the consumers
expressed that they are using Induction stove for more than 7 years, 27.80 %
of the consumers expressed that they are using Induction stove for 3-5 years,
26.20 % of the consumers expressed that they are using Induction stove for
less than 3 years and 16.40 % of the consumers expressed that they are using
Induction stove for 5- 7 years.
Chart 4.9. Usage of branded Induction Stoves
120
primary data
131
4.2.10. Usage of branded Mobiles.
Consumers expressed their usage of mobiles over the years.
Table 4.17. Usage of branded Mobiles121
No. of consumers Percentage
Less than 3 years 145 29.00
3-5 years 115 23.00
5-7 years 62 12.40
Above 7 years 178 35.60
Total 500 100
Out of 500 consumers, 35.60 % of the consumers expressed that they are
using mobiles for more than 7 years, 29.00 % of the consumers expressed that
they are using mobiles for less than 3 years, 23.00 % of the consumers
expressed that they are using mobiles for 3-5 years and 12.40 % of the
consumers expressed that they are using mobiles for 5 - 7 years.
Chart 4.10: Usage of branded Mobiles
121
primary data
132
4.2.11. Place of buying consumer durable products.
Consumers expressed their views regarding the place of buying consumer
durable products.
Table 4.18. Place of buying consumer durable products122
No. of consumers Percentage
From a particular shop 349 69.80
From an authourised dealer 98 19.60
From any where it is available 53 10.60
Total 500 100
Table 4.18 depicts the place of buying consumer durable products. Out of 500
consumers, 69.80 % of the consumers expressed that they are buying durable
products from a particular shop, 19.60 % of the consumers expressed that they
are buying durable products from an authorized dealer and 10.60 % of the
consumers expressed that they are buying durable products from any where it
is available. This shows that most of the consumers are buying the durable
goods from particular shop
Chart 4.11: Place of buying consumer durable products
122
primary data
133
4.2.12. Reasons for buying consumer goods in particular shop.
Consumers has given the reasons for buying consumer durable products in
particular shops.
Table 4.19. Reasons for buying Consumer goods in a particular
shop123
No. of
Consumers Percentage
Nearness 52 14.90
Availability of credit facilities 92 26.40
Standard price and quality 102 29.20
Courteous treatment 25 7.20
Relative or friend's shop 33 9.50
Sufficient stock 31 8.90
Sales service in time 14 4.00
Total 349 100
Out of 500 consumers, 29.20 % of the consumers expressed that the reason
for buying consumer goods in particular shop is standard price and quality,
26.40 % of the consumers expressed that the reason for buying consumer
goods in particular shop is availability of credit facilities, 14.90 % of the
consumers expressed that the reason for buying consumer goods in particular
shop is nearness, 9.50 % of the consumers expressed that the reason for
buying consumer goods in particular shop is relative or friend's shop, 8.90 %
of the consumers expressed that the reason for buying consumer goods in
particular shop is sufficient stock, 7.20 % of the consumers expressed that the
123
primary data
134
reason for buying consumer goods in particular shop is courteous treatment
and 4.00 % of the consumers expressed that the reason for buying consumer
goods in particular shop is sales service in time.
Chart 4.12: Reasons for buying Consumer goods in a particular
shop
4.2.13. Recently changed the brand of durable products.
Consumers expressed their acceptance for recent change in the brand of
durable products.
Table 4.20. Recently changed the brand of durable products124
No. of consumers Percentage
Yes 98 19.60
No 402 80.40
Total 500 100
Out of 500 consumers, 80.40 % of the consumers expressed that they have not
recently changed the brand of consumer durable products and 19.60 % of the
124
primary data
135
consumers expressed that they have recently changed the brand of Consumer
durable products.
Chart 4.13: Recently changed the brand of durable products
4.2.14. Reasons for shifting the brand.
Consumers expressed the reasons for recent change in the brand of durable
products.
Table 4.21. Reasons for shifting the brand125
No. of consumers Percentage
Quality 16 16.30
Price 35 35.70
Quantity 25 25.50
Way of advertisement approach 6 6.10
Influence of friends\relatives 5 5.10
To have a change in the brand 5 5.10
Sales offers 6 6.10
Total 98 100
125
primary data
136
Out of 500 consumers, 35.70 % of the consumers expressed that the reason
for shifting the brand is price, 25.50 % of the consumers expressed that the
reason for shifting the brand is quantity, 16.30 % of the consumers expressed
that the reason for shifting the brand is quality, 6.10 % of the consumers
expressed that the reason for shifting the brand is way of advertisement
approach, 6.10 % of the consumers expressed that the reason for shifting the
brand is sales offers, 5.10 % of the consumers expressed that the reason for
shifting the brand is influence of friends\relatives and 4.00 % of the
consumers expressed that the reason for shifting the brand is to have a change
in the brand.
4.2.15. Marketing strategies adopted for selling the consumer durable
goods. Testing the significance of marketing strategies adopted for selling the
consumer durable goods, Friedman’s test for k-related samples was applied to
study the relationships between marketing strategies adopted for selling the
consumer durable goods.
Null hypothesis H03: All the marketing strategies adopted for selling the
consumer durable goods will produce equal output.
137
Table 4.22-Marketing strategies adopted for selling the consumer
durable goods.
Mean Rank
Chi square
value
Product design, color, etc., 2.21
38.89**
(p<.001)
Discounts 2.44
Technology changes 2.67
Hire purchase or installment 3.23
Free delivery 3.56
Combo offer 3.98
Gifts 4.02
Package 5.38
Free installation 5.67
Dealer financing 6.78
** significant at 1% level
The result in the table 4.22 shows that the null hypothesis H03 is rejected at
1% level. This shows that all the marketing strategies adopted for selling the
consumer durable goods will not produce equal output. Further, the mean
ranks in the table 4.54 shows clearly that Product design, color, etc., and
Discounts are the top two marketing strategies ranked by the consumers
which will produce good sales. Package and Free installation are the
marketing strategies ranked by the consumers which will produce fewer sales.
138
4.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Confirmatory factor analysis was performed for Purchase behavior,
Perception towards the brands, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness
about branded durable goods, Performance of durable goods and Brand
loyalty by using Analysis of moment structure (AMOS 16.1) to verify
factor structure of the variables. The Goodness of fit index ranges between
0 to 1 and closer to one point to a perfect fit model (Joreskog & Sorbom,
1984). Root-Mean square error approximation (RMSEA) ranges from 0 to 1
with a smaller value indicating a better model (Browne & Cudeek 1993).
Expected Cross Validation Index (ECVI) is an estimate of how well the result
obtained from one sample can be generalized to other samples. This measure
always remains positive and closer to zero indicating a better model (Browne
& Cudeek 1993). Chi square is sensitive to larger sample size and power of
the test. Therefore it is suggested the use of ratio of Chi square to degree of
freedom. Carmines & Mclver(1981) suggest that 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 is indicative
of acceptable model between hypothetical model and sample data. Ratio
approximately five or less is considered to be reasonable (Wheaton, Muthen,
Alwin & Summers 1977). The results of Confirmatory factor analysis
carried out for above said factors are displayed in the table 4.23.
139
Table 4.23
Confirmatory factor analysis
Factors GFI AGFI RMSEA ECVI χ 2 d.f
Purchase behavior .932 .911 .098 .432 2.234
Perception towards
the brands .962 .932 .085 .097 3.234
Promotion and
Marketing .951 .934 .323 .782 3.278
Awareness about
branded durable
goods
.949 .921 .086 .347 3.452
Performance of
durable goods .927 .902 .089 .178 2.567
Brand loyalty .924 .901 .236 .987 2.134
The GFI for Purchase behaviour is .932 and the AGFI value is .911,
indicating a reasonably good fit, the RMSEA value is .098 which is within the
range, indicating a better model fit, the ECVI value is .432, which is positive
and within the limit, the Chi-square ratio value of this model is 2.234
indicating reasonably good fit. (Refer Appendix I Figure 1)
The GFI for Perception towards the brands is .962 and the AGFI value is
.932, indicating a reasonably good fit, the RMSEA value is .085 which is
within the range, indicating a better model fit, the ECVI value is .097, which
is positive and within the limit, the Chi-square ratio value of this model is
3.234 indicating reasonably good fit. (Refer Appendix I Figure 2)
140
The GFI for Promotion and Marketing is .951 and the AGFI value is .934,
indicating a reasonably good fit, the RMSEA value is .323 which is within the
range, indicating a better model fit, the ECVI value is .782, which is positive
and within the limit, the Chi-square ratio value of this model is 3.278
indicating reasonably good fit. (Refer Appendix I Figure 3)
The GFI for Awareness about branded durable goods is .949 and the AGFI
value is .921, indicating a reasonably good fit, the RMSEA value is .086
which is within the range, indicating a better model fit, the ECVI value is
.347, which is positive and within the limit, the Chi-square ratio value of this
model is 3.452 indicating reasonably good fit. (Refer Appendix I Figure 4)
The GFI for Performance of durable goodsis .927 and the AGFI value is .902,
indicating a reasonably good fit, the RMSEA value is .089 which is within the
range, indicating a better model fit, the ECVI value is .178, which is positive
and within the limit, the Chi-square ratio value of this model is 2.567
indicating reasonably good fit. (Refer Appendix I Figure 5)
The GFI for Brand Loyalty is .924 and the AGFI value is .901, indicating a
reasonably good fit, the RMSEA value is .236 which is within the range,
indicating a better model fit, the ECVI value is .987, which is positive and
within the limit, the Chi-square ratio value of this model is 2.134 indicating
reasonably good fit. (Refer Appendix I Figure 6)
141
4.4.1. Testing for significant difference between Consumer’s age with
Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand
awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.
To test the significant difference between consumer’s age with respect to
Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods, Promotion and
Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products, Performance of branded
durable goods and Brand loyalty. One way ANOVA was applied to ascertain
if there were any significant differences between Consumer’s age with respect
to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods, Promotion
and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products, Performance of
branded durable goods and Brand loyalty. The following null hypotheses
were framed:
H0 4(a): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s age
with respect to purchase behavior.
H0 4(b): There is no significant difference between the “Consumer’s age
with respect to perception towards branded durable goods.
H0 4(c): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s age
with respect to promotion and marketing.
H0 4(d): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s age
with respect to awareness of branded durable products.
142
H0 4(e): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s age
with respect to performance of branded durable goods.
H0 4(f): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s age
with respect to brand loyalty.
Table 4.24 shows the significance of mean difference between Consumer’s
age with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable
goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products,
Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty.
Table 4.24. Difference between Consumer’s age with Purchase behavior,
Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness, Brand
performance and Brand loyalty.
Age N Mean S D F-value
Purchase behavior
Below 35 years 280 50.67 5.748
1.052
(p=.350)
36-50 years 128 51.45 5.398
Above 50 years 92 50.66 3.142
Perception towards
branded durable
goods
Below 35 years 280 26.90 4.217
53.175**
(p<.001)
36-50 years 128 29.93 3.392
Above 50 years 92 31.00 3.009
Promotion and
marketing
Below 35 years 280 24.26 3.921
15.993**
(p<.001) 36-50 years 128 24.96 6.489
Above 50 years 92 27.42 3.533
143
Awareness of
branded durable
products
Below 35 years 280 41.88 3.340
44.396**
(p<.001) 36-50 years 128 41.45 4.850
Above 50 years 92 38.45 3.151
Performance of
branded durable
goods
Below 35 years 280 40.50 10.174
5.289**
(p=.005) 36-50 years 128 42.28 5.886
Above 50 years 92 43.48 2.814
Brand loyalty
Below 35 years 280 42.35 6.306
1.433
(p=.240) 36-50 years 128 42.54 4.508
Above 50 years 92 43.48 4.714
** significant at 1% level
Purchase behavior
The obtained 'F' value is 1.052 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s age with respect to purchase behavior.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 4(a) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s age with respect to Purchase
behavior” is accepted.
144
Perception towards branded durable goods.
The obtained 'F' value is 53.175 and it is significant at 1% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s age
with respect to perception towards branded durable goods.
Further, the mean table 4.24 indicates that consumers having age above 50
years have scored higher mean value of 31.00 and the lowest mean was
scored by the consumers who have age below 35 years ( 26.90 ). This shows
that the consumers with age above 50 years are having more perception
towards branded durable goods and the consumers having age below 35 years
are having less perception towards branded durable goods.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 4(b) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s age with respect to perception
towards branded durable goods” is rejected.
Promotion and marketing.
The obtained 'F' value is 15.993 and it is significant at 1% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s age
with respect to promotion and marketing.
Further, the mean table 4.24 indicates that consumers having age above 50
years have scored higher mean value of 27.42 and the lowest mean was
scored by the consumers having age below 35 years ( 24.26 ). This shows that
145
the consumers with age above 50 years are more covered by promotion and
marketing and the consumers with age below 35 years are having less interest
in promotion and marketing.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 4(c) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s age with respect to promotion and
marketing” is rejected.
Awareness of branded durable products.
The obtained 'F' value is 44.396 and it is significant at 1% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s age
with respect to awareness of branded durable products.
Further, the mean table 4.24 indicates that consumers having age less than 35
years have scored higher mean value of 41.88 and the lowest mean was
scored by the consumers having age above 50 years (38.45). This shows that
the consumers with age below 35 years are more aware about branded durable
products and the consumers with age above 50 years are less aware about
branded durable goods.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 4(d) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s age with respect to awareness of
branded durable products” is rejected.
146
Performance of branded durable goods.
The obtained 'F' value is 5.289 and it is significant at 1% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between consumer’s age
with respect to performance of branded durable goods.
Further, the mean table 4.24 indicates that consumers having age above 50
years have scored higher mean value of 43.48 and the lowest mean was
scored by the consumers having age below 35 years ( 40.50 ). This shows that
the consumers with age above 50 years are having more satisfaction towards
the performance of branded durable products and the consumers with age
below 35 years are having less satisfaction towards the performance of
branded durable goods.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 4(e) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s age with respect to performance of
branded durable goods” is rejected.
Brand loyalty.
The obtained 'F' value is 1.433 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s age with respect to brand loyalty.
147
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 4(f) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s age with respect to brand loyalty” is
accepted.
4.4.2. Testing for significant difference between Consumer’s educational
qualifications with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and
Marketing, Brand awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.
To test the significant difference between consumer’s educational
qualifications with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded
durable goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable
products, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty. One way
ANOVA was applied to ascertain if there were any significant differences
between Consumer’s educational qualifications with respect to Purchase
behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods, Promotion and
Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products, Performance of branded
durable goods and Brand loyalty. The following null hypotheses were
framed:
H0 5(a): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
educational qualifications with respect to purchase behavior.
H0 5(b): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
educational qualifications with respect to perception towards branded
durable goods.
148
H0 5(c): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
educational qualifications with respect to promotion and marketing.
H0 5(d): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
educational qualifications with respect to awareness of branded durable
products.
H0 5(e): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
educational qualifications with respect to performance of branded
durable goods.
H0 5(f): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
educational qualifications with respect to brand loyalty.
Table 4.25 shows the significance of mean difference between Consumer’s
educational qualifications with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception
towards branded durable goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of
branded durable products, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand
loyalty.
149
Table 4.25- Difference between Consumer’s educational
qualifications with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and
Marketing, Brand awareness, Brand performance and Brand
loyalty.
Qualification N Mean S D F-value
Purchase behavior
Non-graduates 225 50.96 5.210 .284
(p=.753)
Graduates 156 50.60 6.426
Professionals 119 51.03 3.419
Perception towards
branded durable goods
Non-graduates 225 28.77 4.473
1.729
(p=.179) Graduates 156 27.96 4.117
Professionals 119 28.41 3.713
Promotion and
marketing
Non-graduates 225 25.60 4.916
3.073*
(p=.047) Graduates 156 24.62 3.847
Professionals 119 24.44 5.538
Awareness of branded
durable products
Non-graduates 225 38.32 4.623
33.494**
(p<.001) Graduates 156 39.72 2.990
Professionals 119 42.11 3.053
Performance of
branded durable goods
Non-graduates 225 38.17 6.849
21.775**
(p<.001) Graduates 156 42.36 11.391
Professionals 119 44.25 3.327
Brand loyalty
Non-graduates 225 39.77 5.548
32.822**
(p<.001) Graduates 156 43.71 5.574
Professionals 119 44.23 4.354
** significant at 1% level
150
Purchase behavior.
The obtained 'F' value is .284 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s educational qualifications with respect to purchase behaviour.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 5(a) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s educational qualifications with
respect to purchase behaviour” is accepted.
Perception towards branded durable goods.
The obtained 'F' value is 1.729 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s educational qualifications with respect to perception towards
branded durable goods.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 5(b) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s educational qualification with respect
to perception towards branded durable goods” is accepted.
Promotion and marketing.
The obtained 'F' value is 3.073 and it is significant at 5% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s
educational qualifications with respect to promotion and marketing.
151
Further, the mean table 4.25 indicates that, non-graduate consumers have
scored higher mean value of 25.60 than the consumers with professional
education (24.44). This shows that the non-graduate consumers have more
interest in the brand promotion and marketing and the consumers with
professional educational qualification are having less interest in brand
promotion and marketing.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 5(c) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s educational qualifications with
respect to promotion and marketing” is rejected.
Awareness of branded durable products.
The obtained 'F' value is 33.494 and it is significant at 1% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s
educational qualifications with respect to awareness of branded durable
products.
Further, the mean table 4.25 indicates that the consumers with professional
education have scored higher mean value of 42.11 and the lowest mean was
scored by the non-graduate consumers (38.32). This shows that the consumers
with professional education are having more awareness towards branded
durable goods and the non graduate consumers are having less awareness
towards the branded durable goods.
152
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 5(d) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s educational qualifications with
respect to awareness of branded durable products” is rejected.
Performance of branded durable goods.
The obtained 'F' value is 21.775 and it is significant at 1% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between consumer’s
educational qualifications with respect to performance of branded durable
goods.
Further, the mean table 4.25 indicates that the consumers with professional
education have scored higher mean value of 44.25 and the lowest mean was
scored by the non-graduates (38.17). This shows that the consumers with
professional education are more satisfied with the performance of branded
durable goods and the non graduate consumers are less satisfied with the
performance of branded durable goods.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 5(e) that “there is no significant
difference between the consumer’s educational qualifications with
respect to performance of branded durable goods” is rejected.
153
Brand loyalty.
The obtained 'F' value is 32.822 and it is significant at 1% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between consumer’s
educational qualifications with respect to Brand loyalty.
Further, the mean table 4.25 indicates that professionals have scored higher
mean value of 44.23 and the least mean score was scored by the non
graduates (39.77). This shows that the non-graduate consumers are having
more brand loyalty towards durable goods and the consumers with
professional education are having less brand loyalty towards durable goods
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 5(f) that “there is no significant
difference between the consumer’s educational qualifications with
respect to brand loyalty” is rejected.
4.4.3. Testing for significant difference between Consumer’s gender with
Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand
awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.
To test the significant difference between consumer’s gender with respect to
Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods, Promotion and
Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products, Performance of branded
durable goods and Brand loyalty. Independent sample t-test was applied to
ascertain if there were any significant differences between Consumer’s gender
with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods,
154
Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products,
Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty.
The following null hypotheses were framed:
H0 6(a): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
gender with respect to purchase behavior.
H0 6(b): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
gender with respect to perception towards branded durable goods.
H0 6(c): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
gender with respect to promotion and marketing.
H0 6(d): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
gender with respect to awareness of branded durable products.
H0 6(e): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
gender with respect to performance of branded durable goods.
H0 6(f): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
gender with respect to brand loyalty.
Table 4.26 shows the significance of mean difference between Consumer’s
gender with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable
goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products,
Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty.
155
Table 4.26-Difference between Consumer’s gender with Purchase
behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness,
Brand performance and Brand loyalty.
Gender N Mean S D t-value
Purchase behavior Male 232 50.18 4.180 2.718**
(p=.007) Female 268 51.46 6.008
Perception towards
branded durable goods
Male 232 29.20 3.460 3.861**
(p<.001) Female 268 27.76 4.651
Promotion and marketing Male 232 23.21 5.480 8.352**
(p<.001) Female 268 26.58 3.418
Awareness of branded
durable products
Male 232 39.77 3.100 .421
(p=.674) Female 268 39.92 4.753
Performance of branded
durable goods
Male 232 41.68 5.680 .453
(p=.651) Female 268 41.35 10.104
Brand loyalty Male 232 42.70 4.190 .358
(p=.720) Female 268 42.52 6.628
** significant at 1% level
Purchase behaviour.
The obtained 'F' value is 2.718 and it is significant at 1% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s gender
with respect to purchase behaviour.
Further, the mean table 4.26 indicates that the female consumers have scored
higher mean value of 51.46 than the male consumers (50.18). This shows that
the female consumers are good with purchase behaviour than the male
consumers in durable goods.
156
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 6(a) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s gender with respect to purchase
behaviour” is rejected.
Perception towards branded durable goods.
The obtained 'F' value is 3.861 and it is significant at 1% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between consumer’s gender
with respect to perception towards branded durable goods.
Further, the mean table 4.26 indicates that the male consumers have scored
higher mean value of 29.20 than the female consumers (27.76). This shows
that the male consumers are having more perception than female consumers
towards branded durable goods.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 6(b) that “there is no significant
difference between the consumer’s gender with respect to perception
towards branded durable goods” is rejected.
Promotion and marketing.
The obtained 'F' value is 8.352 and it is significant at 1% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s gender
with respect to promotion and marketing.
Further, the mean table 4.26 indicates that female consumers have scored
higher mean value of 26.58 than the male consumers (23.21). This shows that
157
the female consumers are more covered by promotion and marketing than
male consumers towards branded durable goods.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 6(c) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s gender with respect to promotion and
marketing” is rejected.
Awareness of branded durable products
The obtained 'F' value is .421 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s gender with respect to awareness of branded durable products.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 6(d) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s gender with respect to awareness of
branded durable products” is accepted.
Performance of branded durable goods.
The obtained 'F' value is .453 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s gender with respect to performance of branded durable goods.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 6(e) that “there is no significant
difference between the consumer’s gender with respect to performance of
branded durable goods” is accepted.
158
Brand loyalty.
The obtained 'F' value is .358 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s gender with respect to brand loyalty.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 6(f) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s gender with respect to brand loyalty”
is accepted.
4.4.4. Testing for significant difference between Consumer’s marital
status with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing,
Brand awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.
To test the significant difference between Consumer’s marital status with
respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods,
Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products,
Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty. Independent
samples t-test was applied to ascertain if there were any significant
differences between Consumer’s marital status with respect to Purchase
behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods, Promotion and
Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products, Performance of branded
durable goods and Brand loyalty.
159
The following null hypotheses were framed:
H0 7(a): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
marital status with respect to purchase behaviour.
H0 7(b): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
marital status with respect to perception towards branded durable goods.
H0 7(c): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
marital status with respect to promotion and marketing.
H0 7(d): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
marital status with respect to awareness of branded durable products.
H0 7(e): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
marital status with respect to performance of branded durable goods.
H0 7(f): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
marital status with respect to brand loyalty.
Table 4.27 shows the significance of mean difference between Consumer’s
marital status with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded
durable goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable
products, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty.
160
Table 4.27-Difference between Consumer’s marital status with
Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand
awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.
Marital Status N Mean S D t-value
Purchase behaviour Married 380 50.96 5.007 .683
(p=.495) Unmarried 120 50.58 6.053
Perception towards
branded durable goods
Married 380 28.56 4.254 1.225
(p=.221) Unmarried 120 28.02 4.007
Promotion and
marketing
Married 380 25.23 4.635 1.748
(p=.081) Unmarried 120 24.35 5.230
Awareness of branded
durable products
Married 380 40.05 4.015 1.923
(p=.055) Unmarried 120 39.23 4.186
Performance of
branded durable goods
Married 380 42.11 7.667 2.921**
(p=.004) Unmarried 120 39.58 9.984
Brand loyalty Married 380 42.93 5.596 2.303*
(p=.022) Unmarried 120 41.58 5.617
** significant at 1% level
Purchase behaviour.
The obtained 'F' value is .683 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s marital status with respect to purchase behaviour. Therefore, the
formulated hypothesis H0 7(a) that “there is no significant difference
between the Consumer’s marital status with respect to purchase
behaviour” is accepted.
161
Perception towards branded durable goods.
The obtained 'F' value is 1.225 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s marital status with respect to perception towards branded durable
goods.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 7(b) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s marital status with respect to
perception towards branded durable goods” is accepted.
Promotion and marketing.
The obtained 'F' value is 1.748 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s marital status with respect to promotion and marketing.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 7(c) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s marital status with respect to
promotion and marketing” is accepted.
Awareness of branded durable products.
The obtained 'F' value is 1.923 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s marital status with respect to awareness of branded durable
products. Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 7(d) that “there is no
162
significant difference between the Consumer’s marital status with respect
to awareness of branded durable products” is accepted.
Performance of branded durable goods.
The obtained 'F' value is 2.921 and it is significant at 1% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s
marital status with respect to performance of branded durable goods.
Further, the mean table 4.27 indicates that the Consumers who were married
have scored higher mean value of 42.11 than the consumer’s who are still
unmarried (39.58). This shows that the married consumers are more satisfied
than the unmarried consumers towards the performance of branded durable
goods.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 7(e) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s marital status with respect to
performance of branded durable goods” is rejected.
Brand loyalty.
The obtained 'F' value is 2.303 and it is significant at 5% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s
marital status with respect to brand loyalty.
Further, the mean table 4.27 indicates that the married consumers have scored
higher mean value of 42.93 than the consumers who are still unmarried
163
(41.58). This shows that the consumers got married are more loyal to their
brands of durable goods than the consumers who are still unmarried.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 7(f) that “there is no significant
difference between the consumer’s marital status with respect to brand
loyalty” is rejected.
4.4.5. Testing for significant difference between Consumer’s occupations
with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand
awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.
To test the significant difference between consumers’ occupations with
respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods,
Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products,
Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty. One way ANOVA
was applied to ascertain if there were any significant differences between
Consumer’s occupations with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception
towards branded durable goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of
branded durable products, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand
loyalty. The following null hypotheses were framed:
H0 8(a): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
occupations with respect to purchase behaviour.
H0 8(b): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
occupations with respect to perception towards branded durable goods.
164
H0 8(c): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
occupations with respect to promotion and marketing.
H0 8(d): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
occupations with respect to awareness of branded durable products.
H0 8(e): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
occupations with respect to performance of branded durable goods.
H0 8(f): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
occupations with respect to brand loyalty.
Table 4.28 shows the significance of mean difference between Consumer’s
occupation with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded
durable goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable
products, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty.
Table 4.28-Difference between Consumer’s occupations with
Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand
awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.
Occupation N Mean S D F-value
Purchase behaviour
Government 76 49.78 3.656
1.894
(p=.152) Non-government 154 51.02 5.325
Self Employment 270 51.08 5.598
Perception towards
branded durable goods
Government 76 28.86 2.848
.483
(p=.617) Non-government 154 28.33 4.642
Self Employment 270 28.37 4.257
Promotion and
marketing
Government 76 24.46 4.346 1.815
(p=.164) Non-government 154 24.64 5.070
165
Self Employment 270 25.39 4.736
Awareness of branded
durable products
Government 76 40.00 4.033
.613
(p=.542) Non-government 154 39.55 3.856
Self Employment 270 39.98 4.197
Performance of branded
durable goods
Government 76 43.13 4.616
1.974
(p=.140) Non-government 154 41.61 7.774
Self Employment 270 40.99 9.368
Brand loyalty
Government 76 41.94 4.928
1.198
(p=.303) Non-government 154 43.11 5.443
Self Employment 270 42.50 5.899
Purchase behaviour.
The obtained 'F' value is 1.894 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s occupations with respect to purchase behaviour.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 8(a) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s occupations with respect to purchase
behaviour” is accepted.
Perception towards branded durable goods.
The obtained 'F' value is .483 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s occupations with respect to perception towards branded durable
goods.
166
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 8(b) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s occupations with respect to
perception towards branded durable goods” is accepted.
Promotion and marketing.
The obtained 'F' value is 1.815 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s occupations with respect to promotion and marketing.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 8(c) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s occupations with respect to
promotion and marketing” is accepted.
Awareness of branded durable products.
The obtained 'F' value is .613 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s occupations with respect to awareness of branded durable
products.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 8(d) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s occupations with respect to
awareness of branded durable products” is accepted.
167
Performance of branded durable goods.
The obtained 'F' value is 1.974 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s occupations with respect to performance of branded durable
goods.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 8(e) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s occupations with respect to
performance of branded durable goods” is accepted.
Brand loyalty.
The obtained 'F' value is 1.198 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s occupations with respect to brand loyalty.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 8(f) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s occupations with respect to brand
loyalty” is accepted.
4.4.6. Testing for significant difference between Consumer’s family
income with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing,
Brand awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.
To test the significant difference between consumer’s family income with
respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods,
168
Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products,
Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty. One way ANOVA
was applied to ascertain if there were any significant differences between
Consumer’s family income with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception
towards branded durable goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of
branded durable products, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand
loyalty. The following null hypotheses were framed:
H0 9(a): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
family income with respect to purchase behaviour.
H0 9(b): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
family income with respect to perception towards branded durable
goods.
H0 9(c): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
family income with respect to promotion and marketing.
H0 9(d): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
family income with respect to awareness of branded durable products.
H0 9(e): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
family income with respect to performance of branded durable goods.
H0 9(f): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s family
income with respect to brand loyalty.
169
Table 4.29 shows the significance of mean difference between Consumer’s
family income with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded
durable goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable
products, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty.
Table 4.29-Difference between consumer’s family income with
Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand
awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.
Income N Mean S D F-value
Purchase behaviour
Below Rs.5 lakhs 269 51.42 5.121
4.002*
(p=.019) Rs. 5-10 Lakhs 174 49.98 5.203
Above 10 lakhs 57 50.96 5.891
Perception towards
branded durable
goods
Below Rs.5 lakhs 269 28.67 4.148
.945
(p=.389) Rs. 5-10 Lakhs 174 28.14 4.285
Above 10 lakhs 57 28.19 4.176
Promotion and
marketing
Below Rs.5 lakhs 269 25.31 4.794
1.575
(p=.208) Rs. 5-10 Lakhs 174 24.50 4.655
Above 10 lakhs 57 25.21 5.150
Awareness of
branded durable
products
Below Rs.5 lakhs 269 39.61 4.270
1.343
(p=.262) Rs. 5-10 Lakhs 174 40.25 3.555
Above 10 lakhs 57 39.73 4.506
Performance of
branded durable
goods
Below Rs.5 lakhs 269 41.27 8.865
1.168
(p=.312) Rs. 5-10 Lakhs 174 42.21 6.782
Above 10 lakhs 57 40.47 9.948
Brand loyalty
Below Rs.5 lakhs 269 42.65 5.136
.062
(p=.940) Rs. 5-10 Lakhs 174 42.61 6.133
Above 10 lakhs 57 42.36 6.283
*significant at 5% level
170
Purchase behaviour.
The obtained 'F' value is 4.002 and it is significant at 5% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between consumer’s family
income with respect to purchase behaviour.
Further, the mean table 4.29 indicates that the consumer’s family income is
less than Rs.5 lakhs have scored higher mean value of 51.42 and the lowest
mean was scored by the consumers with family income of Rs. 5-10 Lakhs
(49.98 ). This shows that the consumers with family income less than Rs.5
lakhs are having more purchase behavior and the consumers with family
income Rs.5-10 lakhs are having less purchase behavior.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 9(a) that “there is no significant
difference between the consumer’s family income with respect to
purchase behaviour” is rejected.
Perception towards branded durable goods.
The obtained 'F' value is .945 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s family income with respect to perception towards branded
durable goods.
171
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 9(b) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s family income with respect to
perception towards branded durable goods” is accepted.
Promotion and marketing.
The obtained 'F' value is 1.575 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s family income with respect to promotion and marketing.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 9(c) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s family income with respect to
promotion and marketing” is accepted.
Awareness of branded durable products.
The obtained 'F' value is 1.343 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s family income with respect to awareness of branded durable
products.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 9(d) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s family income with respect to
awareness of branded durable products” is accepted.
172
Performance of branded durable goods.
The obtained 'F' value is 1.168 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s family income with respect to performance of branded durable
goods.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 9(e) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s family income with respect to
performance of branded durable goods” is accepted.
Brand loyalty.
The obtained 'F' value is .062 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s family income with respect to brand loyalty.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 9(f) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s family income with respect to brand
loyalty” is accepted.
4.4.7. Testing for significant difference between consumer’s Nature of
family with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing,
Brand awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.
To test the significant difference between consumers’ nature of family with
respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods,
173
Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products,
Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty. Independent
samples t-test was applied to ascertain if there were any significant
differences between consumer’s nature of family with respect to Purchase
behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods, Promotion and
Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products, Performance of branded
durable goods and Brand loyalty. The following null hypotheses were
framed:
H0 10(a): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
nature of family with respect to purchase behavior.
H0 10 (b): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
nature of family with respect to perception towards branded durable
goods.
H0 10 (c): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
nature of family with respect to promotion and marketing.
H0 10 (d): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
nature of family with respect to awareness of branded durable products.
H0 10 (e): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
nature of family with respect to performance of branded durable goods.
174
H0 10 (f): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s
nature of family with respect to brand loyalty.
Table 4.30 shows the significance of mean difference between Consumer’s
nature of family with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards
branded durable goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded
durable products, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty.
Table 4.30-Difference between Consumer’s nature of family with
Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand
awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.
Nature of
family N Mean S D t-value
Purchase behaviour Joint 192 49.95 5.514 3.078**
(p=.002) Nuclear 308 51.43 5.044
Perception towards
branded durable goods
Joint 192 27.53 4.233 3.848**
(p<.001) Nuclear 308 28.99 4.084
Promotion and
marketing
Joint 192 24.77 4.624 .932
(p=.352) Nuclear 308 25.18 4.897
Awareness of branded
durable products
Joint 192 39.72 3.988 .564
(p=.573) Nuclear 308 39.93 4.120
Performance of
branded durable goods
Joint 192 41.03 8.160 .998
(p=.319) Nuclear 308 41.80 8.453
Brand loyalty Joint 192 42.08 5.891 1.656
(p=.098) Nuclear 308 42.93 5.437
**significant at 1% level
175
Purchase behaviour.
The obtained 'F' value is 3.078 and it is significant at 1% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s nature
of family with respect to purchase behaviour.
Further, the mean table 4.30 indicates that consumers from nuclear family
have scored higher mean value of 51.43 than the consumers in joint family
(49.95 ). This shows that the consumers from nuclear family are better than
the consumers from joint family towards purchase behaviour.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 10(a) that “there is no
significant difference between the Consumer’s nature of family with
respect to purchase behaviour” is rejected.
Perception towards branded durable goods.
The obtained 'F' value is 3.848 and it is significant at 1% level. The value
indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s nature
of family with respect perception towards branded durable goods.
Further, the mean table 4.30 indicates that consumers in nuclear family have
scored higher mean value of 28.99 than the consumers from joint family
(27.53). This shows that the consumers from nuclear family are better than the
consumers from joint family towards perception towards branded durable
goods.
176
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 10(b) that “there is no
significant difference between the Consumer’s nature of family with
respect to perception towards branded durable goods” is rejected.
Promotion and marketing.
The obtained 'F' value is .932 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s nature of family with respect to promotion and marketing.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 10(c) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s nature of family with respect to
promotion and marketing” is accepted.
Awareness of branded durable products.
The obtained 'F' value is .564 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s nature of family with respect to awareness of branded durable
products.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 10(d) that “there is no
significant difference between the Consumer’s nature of family with
respect to awareness of branded durable products” is accepted.
Performance of branded durable goods.
177
The obtained 'F' value is .998 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s nature of family with respect to performance of branded durable
goods.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 10(e) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s nature of family with respect to
performance of branded durable goods” is accepted.
Brand loyalty.
The obtained 'F' value is 1.656 and it is not significant at 5% level. The
value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between
Consumer’s nature of family with respect to brand loyalty.
Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 10(f) that “there is no significant
difference between the Consumer’s nature of family with respect to
brand loyalty” is accepted.
4.5.1. Assessing the association between age and awareness about
consumer products.
Null hypothesis H0 12(a): There is no significant relationship between age
and awareness about consumer products.
178
To assess the relationship between age and awareness about consumer
products, Chi-square test was performed to identify the relationship between
age and awareness about consumer products.
Table 4.31- Association between age and awareness about consumer
products
Age
Total
Chi-
square
value
Below 35
years
36-50
years
Above 50
years
Awareness about
consumer
products
Yes 192 120 61 373
33.48**
(p<.001) No 88 8 31 127
Total 280 128 92 500
** Significant at 1% level
From the table 4.31, it is observed that there is significant association between
age and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square value (33.48)
shows that the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level. It is found from the
analysis that there is a close association between age and awareness about
consumer products. It is observed that awareness about consumer
products is more with the consumers with age less than 35 years.
4.5.2 Assessing the association between educational qualification and
awareness about consumer products.
Null hypothesis H0 12(b): There is no significant relationship between
educational qualification and awareness about consumer products.
179
To assess the relationship between educational qualification and awareness
about consumer products, Chi-square test was performed to identify the
relationship between educational qualification and awareness about consumer
products. The results are shown in table 4.32.
Table 4.32-Association between educational qualification and
awareness about consumer products
Educational Qualification
Total
Chi-
square
value
Non-
graduates Graduates Professionals
Awareness
about
consumer
products
Yes 200 82 91 373
64.44**
(p<.001) No 25 74 28 127
Total 225 156 119 500
** Significant at 1% level
From the table 4.32, it is observed that there is significant association between
educational qualification and awareness about consumer products. Chi-
square value (64.44) shows that the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level. It
is found from the analysis that there is a close association between
educational qualification and awareness about consumer products. It is
observed that most of the non-graduates are having awareness about
consumer products.
180
4.5.3 Assessing the association between gender and awareness about
consumer products.
Null hypothesis H0 12(c): There is no significant relationship between
gender and awareness about consumer products.
To assess the relationship between gender and awareness about consumer
products, Chi-square test was performed to identify the relationship between
gender and awareness about consumer products. The results are shown in
table 4.33.
Table 4.33. Association between gender and awareness about
consumer products
Gender
Total Chi-square
value Male Female
Awareness about
consumer products
Yes 191 182 373
13.64**
(p<.001) No 41 86 127
Total 232 268 500
** Significant at 1% level
From the table 4.33, it is observed that there is significant association between
gender and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square value (13.64)
shows that the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level. It is found from the
analysis that there is a close association between gender and awareness about
consumer products. It is observed that awareness about consumer
products is more with males.
181
4.5.4. Assessing the association between marital status and awareness
about consumer products.
Null hypothesis H0 12(d): There is no significant relationship between
marital status and awareness about consumer products.
To assess the relationship between marital status and awareness about
consumer products, Chi-square test was performed to identify the relationship
between marital status and awareness about consumer products. The results
are shown in table 4.34.
Table 4.34. Association between marital status and awareness about
consumer products
Marital status
Total
Chi-
square
value Married Unmarried
Awareness about
consumer products
Yes 290 83 373
2.46
(p=.117) No 90 37 127
Total 380 120 500
From the table 4.34, it is observed that there is no significant association
between marital status and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square
value (2.46) shows that the null hypothesis is accepted at 5% level. It is
found from the analysis that there is no relationship between marital
status and awareness about consumer products.
182
4.5.5. Assessing the association between occupation and awareness about
consumer products.
Null hypothesis H0 12(e): There is no significant relationship between
occupation and awareness about consumer products.
To assess the relationship between occupation and awareness about consumer
products, Chi-square test was performed to identify the relationship between
occupation and awareness about consumer products. The results are shown
in table 4.35.
Table 4.35. Association between occupation and awareness about
consumer products.
Occupation
Total
Chi-
square
value Government
Non-
government
Self
Employment
Awareness
about
consumer
products
Yes 59 120 194 373
2.34
(p=.310) No 17 34 76 127
Total 76 154 270 500
From the table 4.35, it is observed that there is no significant association
between occupation and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square
value (2.34) shows that the null hypothesis is accepted at 5% level. It is
found from the analysis that there is no relationship between occupation
and awareness about consumer products.
183
4.5.6. Assessing the association between family income and awareness
about consumer products.
Null hypothesis H0 12(f): There is no significant relationship between
family income and awareness about consumer products.
To assess the relationship between family income and awareness about
consumer products, Chi-square test was performed to identify the relationship
between family income and awareness about consumer products. The results
are shown in table 4.36.
Table 4.36. Association between family income and awareness about
consumer products.
Family Income
Total
Chi-
square
value
Below
Rs.5 lakhs
Rs. 5-10
Lakhs
Above 10
lakhs
Awareness
about consumer
products
Yes 193 137 43 373
2.75
(p =.253) No 76 37 14 127
Total 269 174 57 500
From the table 4.36, it is observed that there is no significant association
between family income and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square
value (2.75) shows that the null hypothesis is accepted at 5% level. It is
found from the analysis that there is no relationship between family
income and awareness about consumer products.
184
4.5.7. Assessing the association between nature of family and awareness
about consumer products.
Null hypothesis H0 12(g): There is no significant relationship between
nature of family and awareness about consumer products.
To assess the relationship between nature of family and awareness about
consumer products, Chi-square test was performed to identify the relationship
between nature of family and awareness about consumer products. The
results are shown in table 4.37.
Table 4.37
Association between Nature of family and awareness about
consumer products
Nature of Family
Total
Chi-
square
value Joint Nuclear
Awareness about
consumer products
Yes 138 235 373
1.22
(p =.269) No 54 73 127
Total 192 308 500
From the table 4.37, it is observed that there is no significant association
between nature of family and awareness about consumer products. Chi-
square value (1.22) shows that the null hypothesis is accepted at 5% level. It
is found from the analysis that there is no relationship between nature of
family and awareness about consumer products.
185
4.5.8. Assessing the association between interest in consumer products
and awareness about consumer products.
Null hypothesis H0 12(h): There is no significant relationship between
interest in consumer products and awareness about consumer products.
To assess the relationship between interest in consumer products and
awareness about consumer products, Chi-square test was performed to
identify the relationship between interest in consumer products and awareness
about consumer products. The results are shown in table 4.38.
Table 4.38. Association between interest in consumer products and
awareness about consumer products
Awareness about
consumer products Total
Chi-
square
value Yes No
Interest in consumer
products
Yes 354 67 421
12.65**
(p<.001) No 19 60 79
Total 373 127 500
** Significant at 1% level
From the table 4.38, it is observed that there is significant association between
interest in consumer products and awareness about consumer products. Chi-
square value (12.65) shows that the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level. It
is found from the analysis that there is a close association between interest in
consumer products and awareness about consumer products. It is observed
186
that consumers having awareness about consumer products are having
interest in consumer products.
4.5.9. Assessing the association between place of buying and awareness
about consumer products.
Null hypothesis H0 12(i): There is no significant relationship between
place of buying and awareness about consumer products.
To assess the relationship between place of buying and awareness about
consumer products, Chi-square test was performed to identify the relationship
between place of buying and awareness about consumer products. The
results are shown in table 4.39.
Table 4.39
Association between place of buying and awareness about consumer
products
Place of buying consumer
durable products
Total
Chi-
square
value
Particular
shop
Authorize
d dealer
Any
where
Awareness
about
consumer
products
Yes 332 30 11 373
25.88**
(p<.001) No 17 68 42 127
** Significant at 1% level
Total 349 98 53 500
187
From the table 4.39, it is observed that there is significant association between
place of buying and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square value
(25.88) shows that the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level. It is found from
the analysis that there is a close association between place of buying and
awareness about consumer products. It is observed that consumers having
awareness about consumer products are buying the products in
particular shops.
4.5.10. Assessing the association between recent change in brand and
awareness about consumer products.
Null hypothesis H0 12(j): There is no significant relationship between
recent change in brand and awareness about consumer products.
To assess the relationship between recent change in brand and awareness
about consumer products, Chi-square test was performed to identify the
relationship between recent change in brand and awareness about consumer
products. The results are shown in table 4.40.
Table 4.40. Association between recent change in brand and
awareness about consumer products
Recently changed the
brand Total
Chi-
square
value Yes No
Awareness about
consumer products
Yes 38 335 373 82.55**
(p<.001) No 60 67 127
Total 98 402 500
** Significant at 1% level
188
From the table 4.40, it is observed that there is significant association between
recent change in brand and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square
value (82.55) shows that the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level. It is
found from the analysis that there is a close association between recent
change in brand and awareness about consumer products. It is observed that
consumers having awareness have not changed the brand recently.
4.6. Relationships between purchase behavior, Perception,
Promotion and marketing, Brand awareness and Brand
performance of Consumer durable goods.
To test the significant relationship between Purchase behavior, Perception,
Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness with Brand performance of
consumer durable goods. Bi-variate correlation was applied to ascertain if
there were any significant relationship between Purchase behavior,
Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness with Brand
performance. The following null hypotheses were framed:
H0 13: There is no significant association between (a) Purchase behavior,
(b) Perception, (c) Promotion and Marketing, (d) Brand awareness with
Brand performance of consumer durable goods.
189
Table 4.41
Correlation analysis of Brand performance
Performance of
branded durable
goods
Purchase behaviour r = .528**
p < .001
Perception towards branded
durable goods
r =.506**
p < .001
Promotion and marketing r =.349**
p < .001
Awareness of branded durable
products
r =.525**
p < .001
**significant at 1% level
Positive significant correlation is observed between Purchase behavior and
Performance of branded durable goods (r = .528). Hence, the null hypothesis
“There is no significant relationship between Purchase behavior and
Performance of branded durable goods” is rejected at 1% level. This
shows that good Purchase behavior leads to good satisfaction in the
Performance of branded durable goods.
There is positive significant correlation observed between Perception towards
branded durable goods and Performance of branded durable goods (r = .506).
Hence, the null hypothesis “There is no significant relationship between
Perception towards branded durable goods and Performance of branded
durable goods” is rejected at 1% level. This shows that good Perception
190
leads to good satisfaction about the Performance of branded durable
goods.
Positive significant correlation is observed between Promotion and Marketing
and Performance of branded durable goods (r = .549). Hence, the null
hypothesis “There is no significant relationship between Promotion and
Marketing and Performance of branded durable goods” is rejected at 1%
level. This shows that Promotion and Marketing will help the consumers
to get good Performance of branded durable goods.
There is positive significant correlation observed between Awareness about
branded durable products and Performance of branded durable goods
(r = .525). Hence, the null hypothesis “There is no significant relationship
between Awareness about branded durable products and Performance of
branded durable goods” is rejected at 1% level. This shows that
Awareness about branded durable products will help consumers to
improve the Performance of branded durable goods.
4.7. Relationships between purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion
and marketing, Brand awareness, Performance and Brand loyalty of
Consumer durable goods.
To test the significant relationship between Performance, Purchase behavior,
Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness with Brand loyalty
of consumer durable goods. Bi-variate correlation was applied to ascertain if
191
there were any significant relationships between Performances, Purchase
behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness with Brand
loyalty. The following null hypotheses were framed:
H0 14: There is no significant association between (a) Performance,
(b)Purchase behavior, (c) Perception, (d) Promotion and Marketing, (e)
Brand awareness with Brand Loyalty.
Table 4.42-Correlation analysis of Brand loyalty
Brand loyalty
Performance of branded
durable goods
r =.615**
p < .001
Purchase behaviour r =.598
**
p < .001
Perception towards branded
durable goods
r =.558**
p < .001
Promotion and marketing r =.335
**
p < .001
Awareness of branded durable
products
r =.249**
p < .001
**significant at 1% level
Positive significant correlation is observed between Performance of branded
durable goods and Brand loyalty (r = .615). Hence, the null hypothesis
“There is no significant relationship between Performance of branded
durable goods and Brand loyalty” is rejected at 1% level. This shows
that good Performance leads to Brand loyalty.
192
There is positive significant correlation observed between Purchase behaviour
and Brand loyalty (r = .598). Hence, the null hypothesis “There is no
significant relationship between Purchase behaviour and Brand loyalty”
is rejected at 1% level. This shows that good purchase behavior leads to
Brand loyalty.
Positive significant correlation is observed between Perception towards brand
and Brand loyalty (r = .558). Hence, the null hypothesis “There is no
significant relationship between Perception towards brand and Brand
loyalty” is rejected at 1% level. This shows that good brand perception
will bring good Brand loyalty.
There is positive significant correlation observed between Promotion and
Marketing and Brand loyalty (r = .335). Hence, the null hypothesis “There
is no significant relationship between Promotion and Marketing and
Brand loyalty” is rejected at 1% level. This shows that Promotion and
marketing is essential to bring Brand loyalty in consumers.
Positive significant correlation is observed between Awareness about brand
and Brand loyalty (r = .249). Hence, the null hypothesis “There is no
significant relationship between Awareness about brand and Brand
loyalty” is rejected at 1% level. This shows that good brand awareness
will bring good Brand loyalty.
193
4.8. Assessing the predictor variables of Performance of Branded
consumer durable goods.
Multiple regression analysis was conducted by taking Performance of
consumer durable goods as dependent variable and Purchase behavior,
Perception, Promotion and Marketing and Brand awareness are taken as
independent variables (shown in the table 4.43)
Table 4.43. Regression analysis of performance of branded durable
goods
Variables
R2
Standard
Beta
F-value
t-
value
Purchase behavior
Perception
Promotion and Marketing
Brand awareness
0.439 .924
.854
.063
1.021
19.51**
2.272*
2.355*
1.767
3.467*
*
Adjusted R2
0.411
** Significant at 1% level * significant at 5% level
It is observed from the table 4.43, the regression model’s F value is 19.51 and
it is significant at 1% level. The regression model’s coefficient of
determination (R2) is 0.439 and adjusted R
2 is .411 which is a healthy
coefficient. From the Beta coefficients it is observed that, a unit increase in
Purchase behavior leads to an increase of .924 units in the satisfaction
towards the performance of durable goods. This shows that Purchase
194
behavior seem to be one of the main reason for the satisfaction towards the
performance of durable goods. A unit increase in Perception leads to an
increase of .854 units in the satisfaction towards performance of branded
durable goods. This shows that perception predicts Performance of durable
goods. Brand awareness predicts the performance and it increases
performance by 1.021 times. Promotion and Marketing is not serving as
predictor variable for the performance of durable goods. Hence, Purchase
behaviour, Perception towards branded durable goods and Brand
awareness serves as significant predictor variables for the performance
of branded consumer durable goods.
4.9. Assessing the predictor variables of Brand loyalty in Branded
consumer durable goods.
Multiple regression analysis was conducted by taking Brand loyalty as
dependent variable and Performance of consumer durable goods, Purchase
behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing and Brand awareness are
taken as independent variables (shown in the table 4.44)
Table 4.44. Regression analysis of Brand loyalty of branded durable
goods
Variables
R2
Standard
Beta
F-value
t- value
Performance
Purchase behavior
0.542
1.024
.845
5.214**
4.355**
195
Perception
Promotion and Marketing
Brand awareness
Adjusted R2 .663
.145
.041
19.51** 3.171**
2.007*
.184
0.512
** Significant at 1% level *significant at 5% level
It is observed from the table 4.44, the regression model’s F value is 19.51 and
it is significant at 1% level. The regression model’s coefficient of
determination (R2) is .542 and adjusted R
2 is .512 which is a healthy
coefficient. From the Beta coefficients it is observed that, a unit increase in
satisfaction in the performance of durable goods leads to an increase of 1.024
units in Brand loyalty. This shows that performance seems to be one of the
main reasons for Brand loyalty towards branded consumer durable goods.
Purchase behavior increases Brand loyalty significantly by .845 units.
Perception serves as a significant predictor for Brand loyalty and increasing
Brand loyalty by .663 units. Promotion and Marketing serves as a significant
predictor for Brand loyalty. Brand awareness is not serving as significant
predictor for Brand loyalty in durable goods. Hence, Performance, Purchase
behavior, Perception and Promotion and Marketing serve as significant
predictor variables of Brand loyalty in consumer durable goods.
4.10. Model for Brand loyalty of consumers using durable goods in
Chennai city.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a statistical technique for testing
and estimating causal relations using a combination of statistical data
196
and qualitative causal assumptions. This definition of SEM was articulated
by the geneticist Sewall Wright (1921), the economist Trygve Haavelmo
(1943) and the cognitive scientist Herbert Simon (1953), and formally defined
by Judea Pearl (2000) using a calculus of counterfactuals.
SEM allows both confirmatory and exploratory modeling, meaning they are
suited to both theory testing and theory development. Confirmatory modeling
usually starts out with a hypothesis that gets represented in a causal model.
The concepts used in the model must then be operationalized to allow testing
of the relationships between the concepts in the model. The model is tested
against the obtained measurement data to determine how well the model fits
the data. The causal assumptions embedded in the model often have
falsifiable implications which can be tested against the data.
With an initial theory SEM can be used inductively by specifying a
corresponding model and using data to estimate the values of free parameters.
Often the initial hypothesis requires adjustment in light of model evidence.
When SEM is used purely for exploration, this is usually in the context of
exploratory factor analysis as in psychometric design.
A model was developed by using analysis of moment structure (AMOS 16.1).
A model is fit to ensure the Brand loyalty of consumer durable goods. In the
model factors such as Perception, Purchase behavior, Promotion and
Marketing, Awareness, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand
197
loyalty are taken as observed variables. e1 and e2 are error terms (residuals)
for Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty.
Null Hypothesis H0 15: The model fitted for Brand loyalty in branded
durable goods used by consumers in Chennai city is good.
Figure 4.14 Model for Brand loyalty in branded consumer durable
goods in Chennai city
Model fit Summary.
The model fit Chi-square 2 = 2.546 and the model’s p-value is .280 which is
insignificant at 5% level, which shows that the null hypothesis “The model
fitted for Brand loyalty in branded durable goods used by consumers in
198
Chennai city is good” is accepted. The goodness of fit index (GFI) is .998 of
the model, shows reasonably good fit, and its adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI)
is .982. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is .023, a
smaller value indicates better model, and Expected Cross Validation Index
(ECVI) is .081, which are within the acceptable range indicating a better
model fit.
To conclude, in this chapter, the researcher has made an attempt to
examine the consumer behavior and the hypotheses framed were tested
in this regard by interpreting the data collected. The decision making
styles of the consumers with regard to the selection of the durable goods
have been examined in the next chapter.