CHAPTER V SURVEY RESEARCH FINDINGS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSISshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/40149/10/10_chapter 5.pdf · From table 5.1.4.1, brand awareness of Amway India

277

277

CHAPTER V

SURVEY RESEARCH FINDINGS AND STATISTICAL

ANALYSIS

In this chapter the results and findings of the study are presented. The chapter begins

with a presentation of primary data collected in the form of tables. It is followed by

the analysis of the data collected from our respondents with the use of a

questionnaire. At the end, statistical tools are used in order to test the hypotheses

proposed.

5.1 Survey Research Findings:

This part of the research is based on the survey conducted through a

structured undisguised questionnaire in order to elicit the opinion of the respondents

with regard to the brand management by the FMCG companies. The information

collected through the questionnaire and interview schedule are analysed below:

5.1.1 Identification of FMCG brand with little or no advertising:

From the table 5.1.1, it is seen that 90% of the respondents in India have

given the opinion that they can identify FMCG brand with little or no advertisement

278

278

and 10% of the respondents in India have opined that they cannot identify FMCG

brand without advertising. And in case of Thailand, 88.89% of the respondents have

given the opinion that they can identify FMCG brand with little or no advertisement

and 11.11% of the respondents have opined that they cannot identify FMCG brand

without advertising. This indicates that majority of customers in both India and

Thailand can easily identify FMCG brands with little or no advertising.

Table 5.1.1: Identification of FMCG brand with little or no advertising

Identification of FMCG brand with little or no

advertising

No. of respondents Percentage

India Thailand India Thailand

Yes 540 160 90 88.89

No. 60 20 10 11.11

Total 600 180 100 100

Source: Primary data

5.1.2 Ranking of factors that influenced respondents to purchase FMCG body

care products

In order to calculate the ranking of factors that influence respondents in purchase of

FMCG body care products, weighted average of the rankings of factors given by the

respondents are calculated (table 5.1.2.1 & table 5.1.2.2). For the calculation of

weighted average, rank 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 are assigned weight 5, 4, 3, 2 &1 respectively.

Then the rankings of factors provided by the respondents are multiplied by

279

279

respective weights assigned. Finally the score of each factor in 5 point scale is

calculated by dividing total weighted average value by total number of respondents.

Table 5.1.2.1: Ranking of factors that influenced respondents to purchase

FMCG body care products in India

Factors

Ranks

Score in 5 point scale 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Quality 220

(1100)

100

(400)

10

(30)

110

(220)

160

(160)

600

(1910)

3.18

Price 80

(400)

140

(560)

140

(420)

100

(200)

120

(120)

600

(1700)

2.83

Brand Image

10

(50)

160

(640)

160

(480)

140

(280)

60

(60)

600

(1510)

2.51

Product Range

50

(250)

140

(560)

150

(450)

160

(320)

100

(100)

600

(1680)

2.8

Advertisement

40

(200)

120

(480)

160

(480)

170

(340)

110

(110)

600

(1610)

2.68


Note: Figures within the brackets represent weighted average

From the table 5.1.2.1, it is seen that the score of factors in 5 points scale are

calculated. Among all the values, the value of the factor “Quality” is the highest

which indicates that “Quality” is the most important factor that influence in the

280

280

purchase of FMCG products in India. After “Quality”, it is followed by “Price”,

“Product Range”, “Advertisement” and “Brand Image”.


FMCG body care products in Thailand

Factors

Ranks Score in 5 point scale 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Quality 120

(600)

20

(80)

40

(120)

--- --- 180

(800)

4.44

Price 20

(100)

80

(320)

60

(180)

20

(40)

--- 180

(640)

3.55

Brand Image

40

(200)

20

(80)

80

(240)

40

(80)

--- 180

(600)

3.33

Product Range

--- --- 60

(180)

60

(120)

60

(60)

180

(360)

2.00

Advertisement

--- --- --- 60

(120)

120

(120)

180

(240)

1.33



From the table 5.1.2.2, it is seen that the total value of weighted averages of all the

factors are calculated. Among all the values, the value of the factor “Quality” is the

281

281

highest which indicates that “Quality” is the most important factor that influence in

the purchase of FMCG products in Thailand. After “Quality”, it is followed by

“Price”, “Brand Image”. “Product Range” and “Advertisement”.

5.1.3: Frequency of changing FMCG brand

From the table 5.1.3, it is seen that 13.33 % of the Indian respondents have

given their opinion that they change the FMCG brands very frequently, 85% changed

their FMCG brands sometimes and remaining 1.67% never changed the FMCG

brands. 33.33 % of Thailand respondents change their FMCG brand very frequently

and 66.67% respondents change their FMCG brands sometimes. This indicates that

brand loyalty is high in both countries but relatively higher for Indian customers than

Thailand customers.

Table 5.1.3: Frequency of changing FMCG brand

Frequency of FMCG brand change



Very frequently 80 60 13.33 33.33

Sometimes 510 120 85 66.67

Never 10 0 1.67 0

Total 600 180 100 100


282

282

5.1.4: Brand Awareness of Amway Ltd.

From table 5.1.4.1, brand awareness of Amway India can be seen. The

awareness level of brands of Amway India is very less except one or two brands

including Glister toothpaste and Persona soap. One interesting figure that can be seen

is that brand “Satinique Color and Heat Protector” is not aware to any of the

respondents in India. In order to determine the overall brand awareness level of

Amway India Ltd, Mean is calculated by adding all the individual brand awareness

level of each brand and divided by the total number of brands. The mean value is

13.97% which indicates the brand awareness level of Amway India Ltd. The value is

very less which indicates that majority of the respondents in India is very less aware

about the brands of Amway Company.

Table 5.1.4.1: Brand Awareness of Amway Ltd. in India

Brand No. of respondents Percentage (%)

Artistry Anti-Ageing

Lotion

70 11.66

Artistry Creamy

Massage

20 3.33

Artistry Lotion 60 10

Artistry Moisture Intense

Masque

50 8.33

283

283

Artistry Skin Care 80 13.33

Attitude Deodorant &

Foot Cream

130 21.66

Attitude Lips tick 140 23.33

Attitude Skin Lotion 110 18.33

Dynamite Hair Cream &

After Shave

40 6.66

G&H body Shampoo 90 15

G&H Lotion 80 13.33

Glister Toothpaste 260 43.33

Persona Soap 190 31.66

Persona Hair Oil 60 10

Satinique Color Care

Shampoo & Conditioner

80 13.33

Satinique Color and Heat

Protector

0 0

Satinique Dandruff

Control Hair

50 8.33

Total 251.61

Mean=251.61/18=13.97%


284

284

From table 5.1.4.2, brand awareness of Amway Thailand can be seen. The

awareness level of brands of Amway in Thailand is very less except one or two

brands including Artistry Skincare & Glister toothpaste. All the brands except the

above are aware to only less than 20% of the total respondents which indicates the

less visibility of Amway brands in Thailand. In order to determine the overall brand

awareness level of Amway in Thailand, mean is calculated by adding all the

individual brand awareness level of each brand and divided by the total number of

brands. The mean value is 20.56% which indicates the brand awareness level of

Amway in Thailand which is relatively better than in India. The value is very less

which indicates that majority of the respondents in Thailand is very less aware about

the brands of Amway Company.

Table 5.1.4.2: Brand Awareness of Amway Ltd. in Thailand

Brand No. of respondents Percentage (%)

Artistry Skin Care 140 77.78

Attitude Deodrant & Foot

Cream

40 22.22

Body Series G&H Body

Shampoo

20 11.11

Body Series Refreshing

Body Gel

10 5.56

285

285

Body Series G & H Body

Lotion

25 13.89

Body Series Concentrated

Liquid Hand Soap & Bar

Soap

10 5.56

Body Series Deodrant &

Anti-Perspirant Roll

20 11.11

Body Series G&H

Complexion Bar

30 16.67

Dynamite Hair Cream &

After Shave

30 16.67

Glister Toothpaste 100 55.56

Persona Soap 30 16.67

Persona Hair Oil 35 19.44

Satinique Color Care

Shampoo & Conditioner

20 11.11

Satinique Color Color and

Heat Protector

20 11.11

Satinique Dandruff

Control Hair

25 13.89

Total

308.35

Mean=308.35/15= 20.56%


286

286

5.1.5: Brand Awareness of Colgate-Palmolive

From table 5.1.5.1, brand awareness of Colgate Palmolive India can be seen.

The awareness level of brands of Colgate-Palmolive India is better as compared to

Amway India. Some of the popular brands of Colgate-Palmolive include Colgate

Active Salt, Colgate Dental Cream, Colgate Max Fresh, Colgate Total and Palmolive

Shaving cream which have awareness level of above 60% of the respondents. The

company has some brands which are not very visible among the respondents. These

include Colgate 360, Colgate 360 Acti-Flex, Palmolive Charmis and Palmolive

Natural Hand Wash Liquid. In order to determine the overall brand awareness level

of Colgate Palmolive India Ltd, Mean is calculated by adding all the individual

brand awareness level of each brand and divided by the total number of brands. The

mean value is 42.74% which indicates the brand awareness level of Colgate

Palmolive India Ltd. The value is comparatively better than Amway India which

indicates that around half of the respondents in India are very aware about the brands

of Colgate Palmolive Company.

Table 5.1.5.1: Brand Awareness of Colgate-Palmolive in India

Brands No. of respondents Percentage

Colgate Active Salt 380 63.33

Colgate Dental Cream 370 61.66

287

287

Colgate Max Fresh 370 61.66

Colgate 360 Toothbrush 310 51.66

Colgate Sensitive Pro

Relief Toothbrush

290 48.33

Colgate Kids Toothbrush 280 46.66

Colgate 360 160 26.66

Colgate 360 Acti-Flex 140 23.33

Colgate Total 460 76.66

Colgate Plax 340 56.66

Palmolive Aroma

Shower Gel

250 41.66

Palmolive Charmis 140 23.33

Palmolive Natural hand

Was h Liquid

170 28.33

Palmolive Shaving

Cream

380 63.33

Palmolive Moisturizing

Body Wash

220 36.66

Palmolive Thermal Spa 100 16.66

Total

726.58

Mean=726.58/17=42.74%


288

288

From table 5.1.5.2, brand awareness of Colgate Palmolive in Thailand can be

seen. The awareness level of brands of Colgate-Palmolive is better as compared to

Amway in Thailand. Some of the popular brands of Colgate-Palmolive include

Colgate Extra Clean toothbrush, Colgate Herbal Salt, Palmolive Soap, Protex Cream,

Protex Cold Poweder and Protex Liquid Hand Soap which have awareness level of

above 60% of the respondents. The company has some brands which are not very

visible among the respondents. These include Baby Care Shampoo, Care Makeup

Angel Soft, Flour Child Care, Girls in Tech Soap and Kids Care Shampoo in one. In

order to determine the overall brand awareness level of Colgate Palmolive in

Thailand, Mean is calculated by adding all the individual brand awareness level of

each brand and divided by the total number of brands. The mean value is 44.59%

which indicates the average brand awareness level of Colgate Palmolive in Thailand.

The value is comparatively better than Amway and Colgate Palmolive in Thailand

which indicates that around half of the respondents in Thailand are very aware about

the brands of Colgate Palmolive Company.

Table 5.1.5.2: Brand Awareness of Colgate-Palmolive in Thailand

Brands No. of respondents Percentage

Baby Care Soap 80 44.44

Baby Care Shampoo 40 22.22

Care Makeup Angel Soft 20 11.11

289

289

Colgate Motion

toothbrush

80 44.44

Colgate Extra Clean

Toothbrush

140 77.78

Colgate Kids Toothbrush 80 44.44

Colgate 360 80 44.44

Colgate Herbal Salt 120 66.67

Colgate Total Advance 80 44.44

Colgate Popular

Toothpaste

80 44.44

Colgate Sensitive

Software Toothpaste

100 55.56

Flour Child Care 20 11.11

Girls in Tech Soap 30 16.67

Kids Care Shampoo-in-

One

35 19.44

Palmolive Soap 120 66.67

Protex Cream 140 77.78

Protex Cold Powder 160 88.89

Protex Liquid Hand

Soap

120 66.67

Total Mean=847.21/19=44.59%


290

290

5.1.6: Brand Awareness of Unilever Ltd.

From table 5.1.6.1, brand awareness of Hindustan Unilever Ltd can be seen.

The awareness level of brands of Hindustan Unilever Ltd is quite high. Some of the

popular brands of Hindustan Unilever Ltd include Close-Up, Dove, Fair & Lovely,

Lakme, Lifebuoy, Lux, Pears, Pepsodent, Ponds, Sunsilk and Vaseline which have

awareness level of above 80% of the respondents. Inspite of such high awareness

level of various brands of Hindustan Unilever Ltd, some brands which have very less

visibility include Aviance, Ayush, Clear and Tresemme. In order to determine the

overall brand awareness level of Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mean is calculated by

adding all the individual brand awareness level of each brand and divided by the

total number of brands. The mean value is 71.10% which indicates the brand

awareness level of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The value is the best among all the four

companies and comparatively better than other three MNCs which indicates that

majority of the respondents in India are very aware about the brands of Hindustan

Unilever Ltd Company.

Table 5.1.6.1: Brand Awareness of Unilever Ltd. in India

Brand No. of respondents Percentage

Axe 410 68.33

Aviance 50 8.33

Ayush 230 38.33

291

291

Breeze 450 75

Clear 230 38.33

Close-Up 540 90

Clinic Plus 560 93.33

Dove 540 90

Fair & Lovely 510 85

Lakme 490 81.66

Lifebuoy 550 91.66

Liril 2000 410 68.33

Lux 510 85

Pears 530 88.33

Pepsodent 570 95

Pond’s 510 85

Rexona 440 73.33

Sunsilk 510 85

Sure 170 28.33

Tresemme 190 31.66

Vaseline 560 93.33

Total 1493.28

Mean=1493.28/21=71.10%


292

292

From table 5.1.6.2, brand awareness of Unilever Thailand can be seen. The

awareness level of brands of Unilever in Thailand is quite high. Three of the brands

are aware to all the respondents in Thailand which include Close-Up, Dove and

Rexona. Some of the popular brands other than the three of Unilever Thailand

include Clear, Citra, Lux, Sunsilk and Vaseline which have awareness level of above

70% of the respondents. Inspite of such high awareness level of various brands of

Unilever Ltd, two brands which have very less visibility include Aviance and Breese.

In order to determine the overall brand awareness level of Unilever Thailand, Mean

is calculated by adding all the individual brand awareness level of each brand and

divided by the total number of brands. The mean value is 63.33% which indicates the

brand awareness level of Unilever Thailand. The value is the second best among all

four companies in Thailand but comparatively lesser than Hindustan Unilever in

India.

Table 5.1.6.2: Brand Awareness of Unilever Ltd. in Thailand


Axe 120 66.67

Aviance 20 11.11

Breese 30 16.67

Clear 140 77.78

Close-Up 180 100

293

293

Citra 160 88.89

Dove 180 100

Lux 140 77.78

Pond’s 100 55.56

Rexona 180 100

Sunsilk 140 77.78

Tony & Guy 80 44.44

Tresemme 100 55.56

Vaseline 140 77.78

Total 950.02

Mean=950.02/15=63.33%


5.1.7: Brand Awareness of P&G Ltd.

From table 5.1.7.1, brand awareness of P&G India Ltd can be seen. The

awareness level of brands of P&G India Ltd is quite high except few brands. Some

of the popular brands of P&G India Ltd include Gillette Shaving Cream & Razor,

Head & Shoulder, Oral-B and Pantene which have awareness level of above 80% of

the respondents in India. The brand “Olay” has also got high awareness level with

75% awareness among the Indian respondents. Inspite of such high awareness level

of various brands of P&G India Ltd, some brands which have very less visibility

include Gillette Skincare Moisturer, Gillete Scrub, Gillete Skin Care Lotion, Rejoice

294

294

and Wella. In order to determine the overall brand awareness level of P&G India

Ltd, Mean is calculated by adding all the individual brand awareness level of each

brand and divided by the total number of brands. The mean value is 51.80% which

indicates the brand awareness level of P&G India Ltd. The value is the second best

after Hindustan Unilever Ltd. among all the four companies and comparatively better

than other two MNCs which indicates that more than half of the respondents in India

are aware about the brands of P&G India Ltd Company.

Table 5.1.7.1: Brand Awareness of P&G India Ltd.


Gillette Shaving Cream &

Razor

550 91.66

Gillette Skincare

Moisturer

180 30

Gillette Scrub 100 16.66

Gillette Skin Care Lotion 130 21.66

Gillette After Shave 380 63.33

Head & Shoulder 550 91.66

Olay 450 75

Oral-B 520 86.66

Pantene 510 85

Rejoice 230 38.33

295

295

Wella 130 21.66

Total 621.62

Mean=621.62/12=51.80%


From table 5.1.7.2, brand awareness of P&G Thailand can be seen. The

awareness level of brands of P&G Thailand is quite high with 100% brand awareness

of five brands to all the respondents. The five brands include Gillette, Head &

Shoulder, Olay, Oral-B and Pantene. Other than the five brands, some of the popular

brands of P&G Thailand include Clairol, Rejoice and Essence which have awareness

level of above 70% of the respondents. All the brands of P&G Thailand have

awareness level of above 50% of the respondents except one brand which is Wella

with 44.44% awareness level of the respondents. In order to determine the overall

brand awareness level of P&G Thailand, Mean is calculated by adding all the

individual brand awareness level of each brand and divided by the total number of

brands. The mean value is 66.67% which indicates the brand awareness level of

P&G Thailand. The value is the best among all the four MNCs in Thailand and

comparatively better than P&G India also.

296

296

Table 5.1.7.2: Brand Awareness of P&G Ltd in Thailand


Clairol 140 77.78

Crest 60 33.33

Gillete 180 100

Head & Shoulder 180 100

Herbal Essence 120 66.67

Olay 180 100

Oral-B 180 100

Pantene 180 100

Rejoice 140 77.78

Safeguard 140 77.78

Sk-II 100 55.56

Wella 80 44.44

Total 933.34

Mean=933.34/14=66.67%


5.1.8: Purchase experience of FMCG brands of the particular company

In order to calculate the purchase experience of FMCG brands of the particular

company, weighted average of the purchase experience of FMCG brands of the

particular company given by the respondents are calculated (table 5.1.8). For the

297

297

calculation of weighted average, satisfaction level of purchase experience i.e. Very

Good, Good, Moderate & Very Bad are assigned weight 4, 3, 2 & 1. Then the

purchase experience of FMCG brands of the particular company provided by the

respondents are multiplied by respective weights assigned. Finally the score of each

level of satisfaction in purchase experience in 4 point scale is calculated by dividing

total weighted average value by total number of respondents.

298

298

Table 5.1.8: Purchase experience of FMCG brands of the particular company

Company Very Good Good Moderate Very Bad Total

India Thailand India Thailand India Thailand India Thailand India Thailand

Amway --- 60

(240)

13

(39)

80

(240)

52

(104)

40

(80)

535

(535)

--- 600

(678)

[1.13]

180

(560)

[3.11]

Colgate --- --- 67

(201)

120

(360)

533

(1066)

60

(120)

--- --- 600

(1267)

[2.11]

180

(480)

[2.66]

Unilever 590

(2360)

--- 10

(30)

140

(420)

--- 40

(80)

--- --- 600

(2390)

[3.98]

180

(500)

[2.77]

P&G 27

(108)

--- 573

(1719)

140

(420)

--- 40

(80)

--- --- 600

(1827)

[3.04]

180

(500)

[2.77]


Note: Figures within the (…..) represent weighted average & Figures within the […..]

represents 4 points scale

From the table 5.1.8, it is seen that respondents in India considered the

purchase experience of FMCG brands of Unilever, the best with weighted average

value of 3.98. Unilever is followed by P&G, Colgate-Palmolive and Amway in terms

of purchase experience of FMCG brands in India with weighted average values of

3.05, 2.11 and 1.13 respectively. Contrary to the Indian respondents, Thai

299

299

respondents consider the purchase experiences of FMCG brands of Amway the best

among all the four with weighted average value of 3.11. After Amway, Thai

respondents consider the purchase experiences of FMCG brands of both Unilever

and P&G better with weighted average value of 2.77 each. The purchase experience

of FMCG brands of Colgate-Palmolive in Thailand is the least among all the four

companies with weighted average value of 2.66.

5.1.9: Satisfaction level on advertising and promotional efforts of the particular

company

In order to calculate the satisfaction level on advertising and promotional efforts of

the particular company, weighted average of the satisfaction level on advertising and

promotional efforts of the particular company given by the respondents are

calculated (table 5.1.9.1 & table 5.1.9.2). For the calculation of weighted average,

rank 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 are assigned weight 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1 respectively. Then the

satisfaction level on advertising and promotional efforts of the particular company

provided by the respondents are multiplied by respective weights assigned. Finally

the score of satisfaction level in 5 point scale is calculated by dividing total weighted

average value by total number of respondents.

300

300

Table 5.1.9.1: Satisfaction level on the advertising and promotional efforts of

the particular company in India

Company

Satisfaction Level Ranking

Score in 5 point scale 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Amway 20

(100)

120

(480)

160

(480)

130

(260)

170

(170)

600

(1490)

2.48

Colgate-

Palmolive

90

(450)

210

(840)

230

(690)

50

(100)

20

(20)

600 (2100)

3.5

Unilever 260

(1300)

180

(720)

80

(240)

30

(60)

50

(50)

600

(2370)

3.95

P&G 190

(950)

220

(880)

80

(240)

100

(200)

10

(10)

600

(2280)

3.8


*1-indicate highly satisfied and 5-highly dissatisfied


From the table 5.1.9.1, it is seen that Unilever has the highest satisfaction

level with 3.95 value on the advertising and promotional efforts in India. Unilever is

followed by P&G, Colgate-Palmolive and Amway in terms of satisfaction level on

advertising and promotional efforts in India.

From the table 5.1.9.2, it is seen that Unilever has the highest satisfaction

level with 4.58 values on the advertising and promotional efforts in Thailand.

301

301

Unilever is followed by P&G, Colgate-Palmolive and Amway in terms of

satisfaction level on advertising and promotional efforts in Thailand.

Table 5.1.9.2: Satisfaction level on the following attributes of advertising and

promotional efforts of the particular company in Thailand

Company

Satisfaction Level Ranking Score in 5

point scale

1 2 3 4 5 Total

Amway 20

(100)

45

(180)

65

(195)

30

(60)

20

(20)

180

(555)

3.08

Colgate-

Palmolive

80

(400)

30

(120)

35

(105)

15

(30)

20

(20)

180

(675)

3.75

Unilever 120

(600)

45

(180)

15

(45)

--- --- 180

(825)

4.58

P&G 100

(500)

40

(160)

25

(75)

15

(30)

--- 180

(765)

4.25


*1-indicate highly satisfied and 5-highly dissatisfied


5.1.10: Satisfaction level in meeting need of respondents

In order to calculate the satisfaction level in meeting need of respondents by the

brands of particular company, weighted average of the satisfaction level on in

meeting need of respondents given by the respondents are calculated (table 5.1.10.1

302

302

& table 5.1.10.2). For the calculation of weighted average, Fullest Extent (upto

100%) is assigned weight 4, More than 80% with 3, Between 50-80%with 2, and

Less than 50% with 1. Then the satisfaction level in meeting need of respondents of

the particular company provided by the respondents is multiplied by respective

weights assigned. Finally the score of satisfaction level in 4 point scale is calculated

by dividing total weighted average value by total number of respondents.

Table 5.1.10.1: Satisfaction level in meeting need of respondents in India

Company Fullest Extent (upto

100%)

More than 80%

Between 50-80%

Less than 50%

Total Score in 4 point scale

Amway 50

(200)

70

(210)

90

(180)

390

(390)

600

(980)

1.63

Colgate-

Palmolive

100

(400)

270

(810)

170

(340)

60

(60)

600

(1610)

2.68

Unilever 200

(800)

280

(840)

100

(200)

20

(20)

600

(1860)

3.1

P&G 110

(440)

310

(930)

150

(300)

30

(30)

600

(1700)

2.83



From the table 5.1.10.1, weighted average value, 3.1 of Unilever is the

highest indicating the respondents in India feel that the brands of Unilever meet the

303

303

need of respondents to fullest. After Unilever, it is followed by P&G, Colgate-

Palmolive and Amway in meeting needs of respondents with weighted average

values of 2.83, 2.68 and 1.63 respectively.

Table 5.1.10.2: Satisfaction level in meeting need of respondents in Thailand

Company Fullest Extent (upto

100%)

More than 80%

Between 50-80%

Less than 50%

Total Score in 4 point scale

Amway 40

(160)

60

(180)

40

(80)

40

(40)

180

(460)

2.55

Colgate-

Palmolive

--- 160

(480)

20

(40)

--- 180

(520)

2.88

Unilever --- 180

(540)

--- --- 180

(540)

3.00

P&G --- 180

(540)

--- --- 180

(540)

3.00



From the table 5.1.10.2, it is seen that brands of Unilever and P&G in Thailand are

able to satisfy the needs of respondents to fullest with same weighted average value

of 3.00. It is then followed by Colgate-Palmolive and Amway with weighted average

values of 2.88 and 2.55 respectively in meeting the needs of respondents in Thailand.

304

304

5.1.11: Ranking of the following companies on the attribute “Quality”

In order to calculate the ranking of companies in the attribute “Quality”, weighted

average value of ranking of companies in the attribute “Quality of respondents given

by the respondents are calculated (table 5.1.11.1 & table 5.1.11.2). For the

calculation of weighted average, rank 1, 2, 3 & 4 are assigned weights 4, 3, 2 &1

respectively. Then the ranking of companies in the attribute “Quality” of respondents

of the particular company provided by the respondents is multiplied by respective



Table 5.1.11.1: Ranking of the following companies on the attribute “Quality”

in India

Company

Ranking

4 points scale

1 2 3 4 Total

Amway 180

(720)

80

(240)

130

(260)

210

(210)

600

(1430)

2.38

Colgate-

Palmolive

140

(560)

180

(540)

220

(440)

60

(60)

600

(1600)

2.66

Unilever 240

(960)

120

(360)

150

(300)

90

(90)

600

(1710)

2.85

P&G 130 290 100 80 600 2.78

305

305

(520) (870) (200) (80) (1670)



From the table 5.1.11.1, the respondents in India consider the brands of

Unilever as the best in terms of the attribute “Quality’ with weighted average value

of 2.85. With the weighted average values of 2.78, 2.66 and 2.38, the respondents in

India rank the brands of P&G, Colgate-Palmolive and Amway in terms of attribute

“Quality”.

Table 5.1.11.2: Ranking of the following companies on the attribute “Quality”

in Thailand

Company

Ranking 4 points

scale

1 2 3 4 Total

Amway 80

(320)

60

(180)

--- 40

(40)

180

(540)

3.00

Colgate-

Palmolive

--- 20

(60)

100

(200)

60

(60)

180

(320)

1.77

Unilever --- 60

(180)

80

(160)

40

(40)

180

(380)

2.11

P&G 100 40 --- 40 180 3.11

306

306

(400) (120) (40) (560)



From the table 5.1.11.2, the respondents in Thailand consider the brands of

P&G as the best in terms of the attribute “Quality’ with weighted average value of

3.11. With the weighted average values of 3.00, 2.11 and 1.77, the respondents in

Thailand rank the brands of Amway, Unilever and Colgate-Palmolive and in terms of

attribute “Quality”.

5.1.12: Ranking the following companies on the attribute “Brand Image”

In order to calculate the ranking of companies in the attribute “Brand Image”,

weighted average value of ranking of companies in the attribute “Brand Image” of

respondents given by the respondents are calculated (table 5.1.12.1 & table 5.1.12.2).

For the calculation of weighted average, rank 1, 2, 3 & 4 are assigned weight 4, 3, 2

& 1 respectively. Then the ranking of companies in the attribute “Brand Image” of

respondents of the particular company provided by the respondents is multiplied by

respective weights assigned. Finally the score of satisfaction level in 4 point scale is


307

307

Table 5.1.12.1: Ranking the following companies on the attribute “Brand

Image” in India

Company

Ranks 4 points scale

1 2 3 4 Total

Amway 100

(400)

150

(450)

130

(260)

220

(220)

600

(1330)

2.21

Colgate-

Palmolive

130

(520)

160

(480)

190

(380)

120

(120)

600

(1500)

2.5

Unilever 270

(1080)

120

(360)

90

(180)

120

(120)

600

(1740)

2.9

P&G 180

(720)

200

(600)

110

(220)

110

(110)

600

(1650)

2.75



From the table 5.1.12.1, the respondents in India consider the brands of

Unilever as the best in terms of the attribute “Brand Image’ with weighted average

value of 2.90. With the weighted average values of 2.75, 2.50 and 2.05, the

respondents in India rank the brands of P&G, Colgate-Palmolive and Amway in

terms of attribute “Brand Image”.

308

308

Table 5.1.12.2: Ranking of the following companies on the attribute “Brand

Image” in Thailand

Company

Ranks Score in 4 point scale 1 2 3 4 Total

Amway --- 20

(60)

60

(120)

100

(100)

180

(280)

1.55

Colgate-

Palmolive

60

(240)

40

(120)

80

(160)

--- 180

(520)

2.88

Unilever 60

(240)

60

(180)

40

(80)

20

(20)

180

(520)

2.88

P&G 60

(240)

60

(180)

40

(80)

20

(20)

180

(520)

2.88



From the table 5.1.12.2, the respondents in Thailand rank the brands of

Unilever, P&G and Colgate-Palmolive equally the best in terms of the attribute

“Brand Image’ with weighted average value of 2.88 each. With the weighted average

values of 1.55, the respondents in Thailand rank the brands of Amway, the lowest in

terms of attribute “Brand Image”.

309

309

5.1.13: Ranking the following companies on the attribute “Price”

In order to calculate the ranking of companies in the attribute “Price”, weighted

average value of ranking of companies in the attribute “Price” of respondents given

by the respondents are calculated (table 5.1.13.1 & table 5.1.13.2). For the

calculation of weighted average, rank 1, 2, 3 & 4 are assigned weight 4, 3, 2 & 1

respectively. Then the ranking of companies in the attribute “Price” of respondents

of the particular company provided by the respondents is multiplied by respective



Table 5.1.13.1: Ranking the following companies on the attribute “Price” in

India

Company

Ranks Score in

4 point

scale 1 2 3 4 Total

Amway 90

(360)

110

(330)

140

(280)

260

(260)

600

(1230)

2.05

Colgate-

Palmolive

60

(240)

270

(810)

240

(480)

30

(30)

600

(1560)

2.60

Unilever 230

(920)

210

(630)

80

(160)

80

(80)

600

(1790)

2.98

P&G 70 280 210 40 600 2.63

310

310

(280) (840) (420) (40) (1580)



From the table 5.1.13.1, the respondents in India rank the brands of Unilever,

the best in terms of the attribute “Price” with weighted average value of 2.98. With

the weighted average values of 2.63, 2.60 and 2.05, the respondents in India rank the

brands of P&G, Colgate-Palmolive and Amway respectively in terms of attribute

“Price”.

Table 5.1.13.2: Ranking the following companies on the attribute “Price” in

Thailand

Company


Amway --- --- 40

(80)

140

(140)

180

(220)

1.22

Colgate-

Palmolive

40

(160)

20

(60)

80

(160)

40

(40)

180

(420)

2.33

Unilever 140

(560)

20

(60)

20

(40)

--- 180

(660)

3.66

P&G --- 120

(360)

40

(80)

20

(20)

180

(460)

2.55



311

311


Unilever, the best in terms of the attribute “Price” with weighted average value of


Thailand rank the brands of P&G, Colgate-Palmolive and Amway respectively in

terms of attribute “Price”.

5.1.14: Ranking the following companies on the attribute “Product Range”

In order to calculate the ranking of companies in the attribute “Product Range”,

weighted average value of ranking of companies in the attribute “Product Range” of

respondents given by the respondents are calculated (table 5.1.14.1 & table 5.1.14.2).

For the calculation of weighted average, rank 1, 2, 3& 4 are assigned weight 4, 3, 2

& 1 respectively. Then the ranking of companies in the attribute “Product Range” of

respondents of the particular company provided by the respondents is multiplied by

respective weights assigned. Finally the score of satisfaction level in 4 point scale is


312

312

Table 5.1.14.1: Ranking the following companies on the attribute “Product

Range” in India

Company


Amway 140

(560)

90

(270)

120

(240)

250

(250)

600

(1320)

2.20

Colgate-

Palmolive

70

(280)

240

(720)

220

(440)

70

(70)

600

(1510)

2.51

Unilever 280

(1120)

130

(390)

70

(140)

120

(120)

600

(1770)

2.95

P&G 70

(280)

340

(1020)

100

(200)

90

(90)

600

(1590)

2.65



From the table 5.1.14.1, the respondents in India rank the brands of Unilever,

the best in terms of the attribute “Product Range” with weighted average value of


India rank the brands of P&G, Colgate-Palmolive and Amway respectively in terms

of attribute “Product Range”.

313

313

Table 5.1.14.2: Ranking the following companies on the attribute “Product

Range” in Thailand

Company


Amway --- --- 60

(120)

120

(120)

180

(240)

1.33

Colgate-

Palmolive

40

(160)

20

(60)

60

(120)

60

(60)

180

(400)

2.22

Unilever 100

(400)

80

(240)

--- --- 180

(640)

3.55

P&G 40

(160)

80

(240)

60

(120)

--- 180

(520)

2.88




Unilever, the best in terms of the attribute “Product Range” with weighted average

value of 3.55. With the weighted average values of 2.88, 2.22 and 1.33, the

respondents in Thailand rank the brands of P&G, Colgate-Palmolive and Amway

respectively in terms of attribute “Product Range”.

314

314

5.1.15: Preference place of buying FMCG products

From table 5.1.15, it is seen that 78.33% of Indian respondents preferred

buying FMCG products from local soaps. Similarly in Thailand, majority of

respondents (77.78%) also preferred purchasing of FMCG products from local

shops. And the remaining 22.22% Thai respondents prefer company stores as

purchase place. None of the Thai respondents prefer purchase of FMCG products

from salesperson, online or other means. 33.33% of Indian respondents preferred

purchase of FMCG products from company stores. Unlike Thai people, a small

fraction of Indian still prefers purchase of FMCG products through online,

salespersons and other ways.

Table 5.1.15: Preference place of buying FMCG products

Place of buying No. of respondents Percentage


Company stores 200 40 33.33 22.22

Local shops 470 140 78.33 77.78

Sales persons 30 --- 5 ---

Online 80 --- 13.33 ---

315

315

Other 10 --- 1.66 ---


Note: People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to

more than 100%.

5.1.16: Willingness to spend premium price for products of FMCG brands

Majority of respondents both in India (61.67%) and Thailand (66.67%)

respondents is willing to spend even premium price for products of FMCG brands

(table 5.1.16). This indicates that there are quite a good number of people who are

interested to buy good FMCG products even if it costs more in both countries. Even

though majority of respondents in India and Thailand are willing to spend premium

price for FMCG products, there are sections of people who are not willing to pay

premium prices for FMCG products.

Table 5.1.16: Willingness to spend premium price for products of FMCG

brands

Willingness for

premium price for

FMCG brands



Yes 370 120 61.67 66.67

No 230 60 38.33 33.33

316

316

Total 600 180 100 100


5.1.17: Association of FMCG products with

From table 5.1.17, it is evident that majority (70%) of Indian respondents

associate FMCG products with attributes. But majority of Thai respondents associate

FMCG products with advertisement which indicate the importance and impact of

advertisement in the selection of FMCG products for Thai people.38.33% and

31.67% of Indian respondents associate FMCG products with advertisements and

parent group of companies. Similarly 22.22% and 11.11% of Thai respondents

associate FMCG products with attributes and parent group of companies.

Table 5.1.17: Association of FMCG products with

Association of FMCG

products with



Advertisements 230 120 38.33 66.67

Attributes 420 40 70 22.22

Parent group of

companies

190 20 31.67 11.11

317

317

Other 20 --- 3.33 ---


Note: People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than

100%.

5.1.18: Sources of FMCG brand information

In both India and Thailand, majority of respondents 88.83% & 88.89% get

their FMCG brand information from TV ads. Other than TV ads, Indian and Thai

people also get FMCG brand information from peers as well as family members.

36.67% Indian respondents and 22.22% Thai respondents get FMCG brand

information from point of sales. A good numbers of Indian and Thai respondent also

get FMCG brand information from websites.

Table 5.1.18: Sources of FMCG brand information

Sources of FMCG

brand information



Family members 250 60 41.67 33.33

Peers 250 80 41.67 44.44

TV ads 530 160 88.33 88.89

318

318

Point of Sales 220 40 36.67 22.22

Websites 120 40 20 22.22

Others 40 --- 6.67 ---


Note: People may select more than one checkbox (due to multiple actions), so percentages

may add up to more than 100%.

5.1.19: Age group of the respondents

Out of the 600 respondents in India, 8.33% are in the age group of less than

25 years, 45% are in the age group of 25 to 35 years, 30% are in the age group 36 to

45 years, 15% are in the age group of 46 to 55 years and remaining 1.67% are in age

group above 55 years as shown in the table 5.1.19. Out of the 180 respondents in

Thailand, 38.89% are in the age group of less than 25 years, 11..11%% are in the age

group of 25 to 35 years, 22.22% are in the age group 36 to 45 years, 22.22% are in

the age group of 46 to 55 years and remaining 5.56% are in age group above 55

years as shown in the table 5.1.19.

319

319

Table 5.1.19: Classification of respondents on the basis of age group

Age group No. of respondents Percentage


Less than 25 years 50 70 8.33 38.89

25-35 years 270 20 45 11.11

36-45 years 180 40 30 22.22

46-55 years 90 40 15 22.22

Above 55 years 10 10 1.67 5.56

Total 600 180 100 100


5.1.20: Classification of respondents on the basis of gender

Table 5.1.20 shows the gender combination of the India respondents wherein

60% and 40% are male and female respectively. In case of Thai respondents, 44.44%

consists of male and 55.56% consists of female.

320

320

Table 5.1.20: Classification of respondents on the basis of gender

Gender No. of respondents Percentage


Male 360 80 60 44.44

Female 240 100 40 55.56

Total 600 180 100 100


5.1.21: Classifications of respondents according to Occupation

Table 5.1.21 exhibits the occupation of the respondents. It shows that 53.33%

of Indian respondents are in private service, 16.67% of the Indian respondents are in

Business, 18.33% of the Indian respondents are in government service and remaining

11.67% of the Indian respondents are engaged in other occupations. In case of Thai

respondents, 44.45% respondents are in private service, 22.22% respondents are in

Business, 22.22% of the Indian respondents are in government service and remaining

11.11% respondents are engaged in other occupations (table 5.1.21).

321

321

Table 5.1.21: Classifications of respondents according to Occupation

Occupation No. of respondents Percentage


Private service 320 80 53.33 44.45

Business 100 40 16.67 22.22

Govt. Service 110 40 18.33 22.22

Other 70 20 11.67 11.11

Total 600 180 100 100


5.1.22: Classifications of respondents according to Income group

Table 5.1.22 exhibits the income group of the respondents. It shows that

11.67% of Indian respondents are in income group of less than Rs 2,00,000, 50% of

Indian respondents are in income group of Rs 2,00,000 to Rs 5,00,000, 21.66% of

Indian respondents are in income group of Rs 5,00,000 to Rs 8,00,000 and remaining

16.67% of Indian respondents are in income group of above Rs 8,00,000. In case of

Thai respondents, 22.22% respondents are in income group of less than THB

2,00,000, 33.33% respondents are in income group of THB 2,00,000 to THB

5,00,000, 33.33% respondents are in income group of THB 5,00,001 to THB

322

322

8,00,000 and remaining 11.11% of respondents are in income group of above THB

8,00,000.

Table 5.1.22: Classifications of respondents according to Income group

Income group (Rs/THB) No. of respondents Percentage


Less than 2,00,000 70 40 11.67 22.22

2,00,000-5,00,000 300 60 50 33.33

5,00,000-8,00,000 130 60 21.66 33.33

Above 8,00,000 100 20 16.67 11.11

Total 600 180 100 100


5.1.23: Ranking of factors that influenced respondents to purchase FMCG body

care products on the basis of gender


FMCG body care products on the basis of gender, weighted average of the rankings

of factors given by the respondents are calculated (table 5.1.23.1 & table 5.1.23.2).

For the calculation of weighted average, rank 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 are assigned weight 5, 4,

323

323

3, 2 &1 respectively. Then the rankings of factors provided by the respondents are

multiplied by respective weights assigned.


FMCG body care products on the basis of gender in India

Factors Gender Ranks Total

1 2 3 4 5

Quality Male 120

(600)

60

(240)

6

(18)

66

(132)

96

(96)

348

(1086)

Female 100

(500)

40

(160)

4

(12)

44

(88)

64

(64)

252

(824)

Price Male 48

(240)

84

(336)

96

(288)

60

(120)

72

(72)

360

(1056)

Female 32

(160)

56

(224)

64

(192)

40

(80)

48

(48)

240

(704)

Brand Image Male 60

(300)

84

(336)

96

(288)

84

(168)

36

(36)

360

(1128)

Female 40

(200)

56

(224)

64

(192)

56

(112)

24

(24)

240

(752)

Product Range

Male 30

(150)

84

(336)

90

(270)

60

(120)

96

(192)

360

(1068)

Female 20

(100)

56

(224)

60

(180)

40

(80)

64

(128)

240

(712)

Advertisement Male 24 72 96 102 66 360

324

324

(120) (288) (288) (204) (66) (966)

Female 16

(80)

48

(192)

64

(192)

68

(136)

44

(44)

240

(644)



From table 5.1.23.1, it is seen that majority of female respondent in India

consider quality as the most influential factor in purchase of FMCG body care

products followed by brand image. Whereas, majority of male respondents in India

consider brand image as the most influential factor in purchase of FMCG body care

products followed by quality.


FMCG body care products on the basis of gender in Thailand

Factors Gender Ranks Total

1 2 3 4 5

Quality Male 50

(250)

10

(40)

20

(60)

--- --- 80

(350)

Female 70

(350)

10

(40)

20

(60)

--- --- 100

(450)

Price Male 10

(50)

35

(140)

25

(75)

10

(20)

--- 80

(285)

Female 10 45 35 10 --- 100

325

325

(50) (180) (105) (20) (355)

Brand Image Male 15

(75)

10

(40)

35

(105)

20

(40)

--- 80

(260)

Female 25

(125)

10

(40)

45

(135)

20

(40)

--- 100

(340)

Product Range

Male --- --- 25

(75)

20

(40)

35

(35)

80

(150)

Female --- --- 35

(105)

40

(80)

25

(25)

100

(210)

Advertisement Male --- --- --- 35

(70)

45

(45)

80

(115)

Female --- --- --- 25

(50)

75

(75)

100

(125)



From table 5.1.23.2, it is evident that majority of female as well as male

respondents in Thailand consider quality as the most influential factor in purchase of

FMCG body care products followed by price


care products on the basis of Age group


FMCG body care products on the basis of age group, weighted average of the

326

326

rankings of factors given by the respondents are calculated (table 5.1.24.1 & table

5.1.24.2). For the calculation of weighted average, rank 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 are assigned

weight 5, 4, 3, 2 &1 respectively. Then the rankings of factors provided by the

respondents are multiplied by respective weights assigned.

From table 5.1.24.1, it is seen that majority of respondent with the age group

(Less than 25 years) in India consider “Brand Image” as the most influential factor

in purchase of FMCG body care products. Whereas, majority of respondents in the

remaining age group in India consider quality as the most influential factor in

purchase of FMCG body care products.


FMCG body care products on the basis of Age group in India

Factors

Age Group

Ranks

Total 1 2 3 4 5

Quality

Less than 25 years

18

(90)

8

(32)

1

(3)

9

(18)

13

(13)

49

(144)

25-35 years 99

(495)

45

(180)

4

(12)

50

(100)

72

(72)

270

(859)

35-45 years 66

(330)

30

(120)

3

(9)

33

(66)

48

(48)

180

(573)

45-55 years 33

(165)

15

(60)

1

(3)

16

(32)

24

(24)

89

(284)

Above 55 yrs 4 2 1 2 3 12

327

327

(20) (8) (3) (4) (3) (38)

Price

Less than 25 years

7

(35)

12

(48)

13

(39)

8

(16)

10

(10)

50

(148)

25-35 years 36

(180)

63

(252)

72

(216)

45

(90)

54

(54)

270

(792)

35-45 years 24

(120)

42

(168)

48

(144)

30

(60)

36

(36)

180

(528)

45-55 years 12

(60)

21

(84)

24

(72)

15

(30)

18

(18)

90

(264)

Above 55 yrs 1

(5)

2

(8)

3

(9)

2

(4)

2

(2)

10

(28)

Brand Image

Less than 25 years

8

(40)

12

(48)

13

(39)

12

(24)

5

(5)

50

(156)

25-35 years 45

(225)

63

(252)

72

(216)

63

(126)

27

(27)

270

(846)

35-45 years 30

(150)

43

(172)

48

(144)

42

(84)

18

(18)

181

(568)

45-55 years 15

(75)

21

(84)

24

(72)

21

(42)

9

(9)

90

(282)

Above 55 yrs 2

(10)

2

(8)

3

(9)

2

(4)

1

(1)

10

(32)

Product

Less than 25 years

4

(20)

12

(48)

12

(36)

13

(26)

8

(8)

49

(138)

25-35 years 23 63 69 72 45 272

328

328

Range (115) (252) (207) (144) (45) (763)

35-45 years 15

(75)

42

(168)

45

(135)

48

(96))

30

(30)

180

(504)

45-55 years 7

(35)

21

(84)

21

(63)

24

(48)

15

(15)

88

(245)

Above 55 yrs 1

(5)

2

(8)

3

(9)

3

(6)

2

(2)

11

(30)

Advertisement

Less than 25 years

3

(15)

10

(40)

13

(39)

14

(28)

9

(9)

49

(131)

25-35 years 18

(90)

54

(216)

72

(216)

77

(154)

50

(50)

271

(726)

35-45 years 12

(60)

36

(144)

48

(144)

51

(102)

33

(33)

180

(483)

45-55 years 6

(30)

18

(72)

24

(72)

25

(50)

16

(16)

89

(240)

Above 55 yrs 1

(5)

2

(8)

3

(9)

3

(6)

2

(2)

11

(30)



From table 5.1.24.2, it is evident that all respondents in any age group in

Thailand consider quality as the most influential factor in purchase of FMCG body

care products followed by brand image.

329

329


FMCG body care products on the basis of Age group in Thailand

Factors

Age Group

Ranks

Total 1 2 3 4 5

Quality

Less than 25 years

48

(240)

9

(36)

18

(54)

--- --- 75

(330)

25-35 years 13

(65)

2

(8)

4

(12)

--- --- 19

(85)

35-45 years 26

(130)

4

(16)

8

(24)

--- --- 38

(170)

45-55 years 26

(130)

4

(16)

8

(24)

--- --- 38

(170)

Above 55 yrs 7

(35)

1

(4)

2

(6)

--- --- 10

(45)

Price

Less than 25 years

9

(45)

36

(144)

27

(81)

9

(18)

--- 81

(288)

25-35 years 2

(10)

8

(32)

6

(18)

2

(4)

--- 18

(64)

35-45 years 4

(20)

16

(64)

12

(36)

4

(8)

--- 36

(128)

45-55 years 4

(20)

16

(64)

12

(36)

4

(8)

--- 36

(128)

330

330

Above 55 yrs 1

(5)

4

(16)

3

(9)

1

(2)

--- 9

(32)

Brand Image

Less than 25 years

18

(90)

9

(36)

36

(108)

18

(36)

--- 81

(270)

25-35 years 4

(20)

2

(8)

8

(24)

4

(8)

--- 18

(60)

35-45 years 8

(40)

4

(16)

16

(48)

8

(16)

--- 36

(120)

45-55 years 8

(40)

4

(16)

16

(48)

8

(16)

--- 36

(120)

Above 55 yrs 2

(10)

1

(4)

4

(12)

2

(4)

--- 9

(30)

Product Range

Less than 25 years

--- --- 27

(81)

27

(54)

27

(27)

81

(162)

25-35 years --- --- 6

(18)

6

(12)

6

(6)

18

(36)

35-45 years --- --- 12

(36)

12

(24)

12

(12)

36

(72)

45-55 years --- --- 12

(36)

12

(24)

12

(12)

36

(72)

Above 55 yrs --- --- 3

(9)

3

(6)

3

(3)

9

(18)

Less than 25 years

--- --- --- 27 54 81

331

331

Advertisement

(54) (54) (108)

25-35 years --- --- --- 6

(12)

12

(12)

18

(24)

35-45 years --- --- --- 12

(24)

24

(24)

36

(48)

45-55 years --- --- --- 12

(24)

24

(24)

36

(48)

Above 55 yrs --- --- --- 3

(6)

6

(6)

9

(12)




care products on the basis of Occupation


FMCG body care products on the basis of occupation, weighted average of the





From table 5.1.25.1, it is seen that all the respondents working in any

occupation in India consider quality as the most influential factor in purchase of

FMCG body care products.

332

332


FMCG body care products on the basis of Occupation

Factors

Occupation

Ranks

Total 1 2 3 4 5

Quality

Private Sector 117

(585)

53

(212)

5

(15)

59

(118)

85

(85)

319

(1015)

Business 37

(185)

17

(68)

2

(6)

18

(36)

27

(27)

101

(322)

Govt. Service 40

(200)

18

(72)

2

(6)

20

(40)

29

(29)

109

(347)

Others 26

(130)

12

(48)

1

(3)

13

(26)

19

(19)

71

(226)

Price

Private Sector 43

(215)

75

(300)

85

(255)

53

(106)

64

(64)

320

(940)

Business 13

(65)

23

(92)

27

(81)

17

(34)

20

(20)

100

(292)

Govt. Service 15

(75)

26

(104)

29

(87)

18

(36)

22

(22)

110

(324)

Others 9

(45)

16

(64)

19

(57)

12

(24)

14

(14)

70

(204)

Private Sector 53

(265)

75

(300)

85

(255)

75

(150)

32

(32)

320

(1002)

333

333

Brand Image

Business 17

(85)

23

(92)

27

(81)

23

(46)

10

(10)

100

(314)

Govt. Service 18

(90)

26

(104)

29

(87)

26

(52)

11

(11)

110

(344)

Others 12

(60)

16

(64)

19

(57)

16

(32)

7

(7)

70

(220)

Product Range

Private Sector 27

(135)

75

(300)

81

(243)

85

(170)

53

(53)

321

(901)

Business 8

(40)

23

(92)

24

(72)

27

(54)

17

(17)

99

(275)

Govt. Service 9

(45)

26

(104)

27

(81)

29

(58)

18

(18)

109

(306)

Others 6

(30)

16

(64)

18

(54)

19

(38)

12

(12)

71

(198)

Advertisement

Private Sector 21

(105)

64

(256)

85

(255)

91

(182)

59

(59)

320

(857)

Business 7

(35)

20

(80)

27

(81)

28

(56)

18

(18)

100

(270)

Govt. Service 7

(35)

22

(88)

29

(87)

31

(62)

20

(20)

109

(292)

Others 5

(25)

14

(56)

19

(57)

20

(40)

13

(13)

71

(191)



334

334

From table 5.1.25.2, it is evident that majority of respondent working in

private, business and govt. services in Thailand consider quality as the most

influential factor in purchase of FMCG body care products. Whereas, majority of

respondents working in any other occupation other than above three in Thailand

consider price as the most influential factor in purchase of FMCG body care

products.


FMCG body care products on the basis of Occupation in Thailand

Factors

Occupation

Ranks

Total 1 2 3 4 5

Quality

Private Sector 53

(265)

9

(36)

18

(54)

--- --- 80

(355)

Business 27

(135)

4

(16)

8

(24)

--- --- 39

(175)

Govt. Service 27

(135)

4

(16)

8

(24)

--- --- 39

(175)

Others 13

(65)

3

(12)

6

(18)

--- --- 22

(95)

Price

Private Sector 9

(45)

36

(144)

26

(78)

9

(18)

--- 80

(285)

Business 4

(20)

16

(64)

12

(36)

4

(8)

--- 36

(128)

335

335

Govt. Service 4

(20)

16

(64)

12

(36)

4

(8)

--- 36

(128)

Others 3

(15)

12

(48)

9

(27)

3

(6)

--- 27

(96)

Brand Image

Private Sector 18

(90)

9

(36)

36

(108)

18

(36)

--- 81

(270)

Business 8

(40)

4

(16)

16

(48)

8

(16)

--- 36

(120)

Govt. Service 8

(40)

4

(16)

16

(48)

8

(16)

--- 36

(120)

Others 6

(30)

3

(12)

12

(36)

6

(12)

--- 27

(90)

Product Range

Private Sector --- --- 27

(81)

27

(54)

27

(27)

81

(162)

Business --- --- 12

(36)

12

(24)

12

(12)

36

(72)

Govt. Service --- --- 12

(36)

12

(24)

12

(12)

36

(72)

Others --- --- 9

(27)

9

(18)

9

(9)

27

(54)

Advertisement

Private Sector --- --- --- 27

(54)

54

(54)

81

(108)

Business --- --- --- 12

(24)

24

(24)

36

(48)

336

336

Govt. Service --- --- --- 12

(24)

24

(24)

36

(48)

Others --- --- --- 9

(18)

18

(18)

27

(36)




care products on the basis of Income level


FMCG body care products on the basis of income level, weighted average of the





From table 5.1.26.1, it is seen that majority of respondent with income level

of (Less than Rs. 2,00,000) in India consider “advertisement” as the most influential

factor in purchase of FMCG body care products. Whereas, majority of respondents

with any other income level in India consider quality as the most influential factor in


337

337


FMCG body care products on the basis of Income level in India

Factors

Income Group

Ranks

Total 1 2 3 4 5

Quality

Less than 2,00,000

26

(130)

12

(48)

1

(3)

13

(26)

19

(19)

71

(226)

2,00,000-5,00,000

110

(550)

50

(200)

5

(15)

55

(110)

80

(80)

300

(955)

5,00,000-8,00,000

48

(240)

22

(88)

2

(6)

24

(48)

35

(35)

131

(417)

Above 8,00,000

36

(180)

16

(64)

2

(6)

18

(36)

26

(26)

98

(312)

Price

Less than 2,00,000

9

(45)

16

(64)

19

(57)

12

(24)

14

(14)

70

(204)

2,00,000-5,00,000

41

(205)

70

(280)

80

(240)

50

(100)

60

(60)

301

(885)

5,00,000-8,00,000

17

(85)

30

(120)

35

(105)

22

(44)

26

(26)

130

(380)

Above 8,00,000

13

(65)

24

(96)

26

(78)

16

(32)

20

(20)

99

(291)

Brand Image

Less than 2,00,000

12

(60)

16

(64)

19

(57)

12

(24)

14

(14)

73

(219)

2,00,000-5,00,000

50

(250)

70

(280)

80

(240)

50

(100)

60

(60)

310

(930)

338

338

5,00,000-8,00,000

22

(110)

30

(120)

35

(105)

22

(44)

26

(26)

135

(405)

Above 8,00,000

16

(80)

24

(96)

26

(78)

16

(32)

20

(20)

102

(306)

Product Range

Less than 2,00,000

6

(30)

16

(64)

18

(54)

19

(38)

15

(15)

74

(201)

2,00,000-5,00,000

25

(125)

70

(280)

75

(225)

80

(160)

50

(50)

300

(840)

5,00,000-8,00,000

11

(55)

30

(120)

33

(99)

35

(70)

22

(22)

131

(366)

Above 8,00,000

8

(40)

24

(96)

24

(72)

26

(52)

16

(16)

98

(276)

Advertisement

Less than 2,00,000

5

(25)

40

(160)

19

(57)

20

(40)

13

(13)

97

(295)

2,00,000-5,00,000

20

(100)

60

(240)

80

(240)

85

(170)

55

(55)

300

(805)

5,00,000-8,00,000

9

(45)

26

(96)

35

(105)

37

(74)

24

(24)

131

(344)

Above 8,00,000

6

(30)

20

(80)

26

(78)

28

(56)

18

(18)

98

(262)



339

339

From table 5.1.26.2, it is evident that all respondents in Thailand in any

income level consider quality as the most influential factor in purchase of FMCG

body care products.


FMCG body care products on the basis of Income group in Thailand

Factors

Income Group

Ranks

Total 1 2 3 4 5

Quality

Less than 2,00,000

27

(135)

4

(16)

8

(24)

--- --- 39

(175)

2,00,000-5,00,000

40

(200)

7

(28)

14

(42)

--- --- 61

(270)

5,00,000-8,00,000

40

(200)

7

(28)

14

(42)

--- --- 61

(270)

Above 8,00,000

13

(65)

2

(8)

4

(12)

--- --- 19

(85)

Price

Less than 2,00,000

4

(20)

16

(64)

12

(36)

4

(8)

--- 36

(128)

2,00,000-5,00,000

7

(35)

28

(112)

21

(63)

7

(14)

--- 63

(224)

5,00,000-8,00,000

7

(35)

28

(112)

21

(63)

7

(14)

--- 63

(112)

Above 8,00,000

2 8 6 2 --- 18

340

340

(10) (32) (18) (4) (64)

Brand Image

Less than 2,00,000

8

(40)

4

(16)

16

(48)

8

(16)

--- 36

(120)

2,00,000-5,00,000

14

(70)

7

(28)

28

(84)

14

(28)

--- 63

(210)

5,00,000-8,00,000

14

(70)

7

(28)

28

(84)

14

(28)

--- 63

(210)

Above 8,00,000

4

(20)

2

(8)

8

(24)

4

(8)

--- 18

(60)

Product Range

Less than 2,00,000

--- --- 12

(36)

12

(24)

12

(12)

36

(72)

2,00,000-5,00,000

--- --- 21

(63)

21

(42)

21

(21)

63

(126)

5,00,000-8,00,000

--- --- 21

(63)

21

(41)

21

(21)

63

(125)

Above 8,00,000

--- --- 6

(18)

6

(12)

6

(6)

18

(36)

Advertisement

Less than 2,00,000

--- --- --- 12

(24)

24

(24)

36

(48)

2,00,000-5,00,000

--- --- --- 21

(42)

42

(42)

63

(84)

5,00,000-8,00,000

--- --- --- 21

(42)

42

(42)

63

(84)

Above 8,00,000

--- --- --- 6 12 18

341

341

(12) (12) (24)



342

342

5.2 Statistical Analysis of Data:

The researcher has applied statistical tools such as ANOVA, Chi square test,

Multiple Regression analysis and correlation to test the validity of data.

5.2.1 Testing of Hypothesis I:

To test the null hypothesis H0, it is assumed there is no association between

gender and the ranking of factors that influence the purchase of FMCG body care

products and H1, that there is association between gender and the ranking of factors

that influence the purchase of FMCG body care products.

India

GENDER QUALITY PRICE BRAND IMAGE

PRODUCT

RANGE

ADVERTISEMENT

Chi-Square 24.000a 320.000

b 108.333

b 235.000

b 25.000

b 103.333

b

df 1 4 4 4 4 4

Asymp. Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Thailand

GENDER

FACTOR

QUALITY FACTOR PRICE

FACTOR

BRAND IMAGE

FACTOR

PRODUCT

RANGE

FACTOR

ADVERTISEMENT

Chi-Square 2.222a 93.333

b 60.000

c 42.222

c .000

b 20.000

a

df 1 2 3 3 2 1

Asymp. Sig. .136 .000 .000 .000 1.000 .000

343

343

Null Hypothesis H0: There is no association between gender and the ranking of factors that

influence the purchase of FMCG body care products.

Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is association between gender and the ranking of factors that

influence the purchase of FMCG body care products.

Inference: In case of India, since P value is less than 0.01, the null hypothesis is

rejected at 1% level of significance. There is association between gender and the

ranking of factors i.e. Quality, Price, Brand Image and Advertisement that influence

the purchase of FMCG body care products. Hence there is association between

gender and the ranking of factors that influence the purchase of FMCG body care

products. But in case of Thailand, since p value is more than 0.01 & 0.05, the null

hypothesis is accepted at 1% and 5% level of significance. There is no association

between gender and the ranking of factors i.e. Quality, Price, Brand Image and

Advertisement that influence the purchase of FMCG body care products. Hence

there is no association between gender and the ranking of factors that influence the


5.2.2 Testing of Hypothesis II:


age group and the ranking of factors that influence the purchase of FMCG body care

344

344

products and H1, that there is association between age group and the ranking of

factors that influence the purchase of FMCG body care products.

Null Hypothesis H0: There is no association between age group and the ranking of


Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is association between age group and the ranking

of factors that influence the purchase of FMCG body care products.

India

AGE QUALITY PRICE

BRAND

IMAGE

PRODUCT

RANGE ADVERTISEMENT

Chi-Square 366.667a 320.000

a 108.333

a 235.000

a 25.000

a 103.333

a

df 4 4 4 4 4 4

Asymp.

Sig.

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

345

345

Thailand

AGE

FACTOR

QUALITY FACTOR PRICE

FACTOR

BRAND IMAGE

FACTOR

PRODUCT

RANGE

FACTOR

ADVERTISEME

NT


a 60.000

b 42.222

b .000

a 20.000

c

df 2 2 3 3 2 1

Asymp. Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000 .000

Inference: In cases of both India and Thailand, since P value is less than 0.01, the null

hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance. There is association between age group and the

ranking of factors i.e. Quality, Price, Brand Image and Advertisement that influence the purchase

of FMCG body care products. Hence there is association between age group and the ranking of

factors that influences the purchase of FMCG body care products.

5.2.3 Testing of Hypothesis III:


income level and the ranking of factors that influence the purchase of FMCG body

care products and H1, that there is association between income level and the ranking


346

346

Null Hypothesis H0: There is no association between income level and the ranking


Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is association between income level and the

ranking of factors that influence the purchase of FMCG body care products.

India

INCOME QUALITY PRICE BRAND IMAGE

PRODUCT

RANGE

ADVERTISEME

NT

Chi-Square 212.000a 320.000

b 108.333

b 235.000

b 25.000

b 103.333

b

df 3 4 4 4 4 4

Asymp. Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Thailand

INCOME QUALITY FACTOR PRICE BRAND IMAGE

PRODUCT

RANGE

ADVERTISEME

NT

Chi-Square 160.000a 93.333

a 60.000

b 42.222

b .000

a 20.000

c

df 2 2 3 3 2 1

Asymp. Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000 .000

Inference: In both cases of India and Thailand, since p value is less than 0.01, the

null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance. There is association between

income level and the ranking of factors i.e. Quality, Price, Brand Image and

347

347


there is association between income level and the ranking of factor that influences

the purchase of FMCG body care products.

5.2.4 Testing of Hypothesis IV:


occupation and the ranking of factors that influence the purchase of FMCG body

care products and H1, that there is association between occupation and the ranking of


Null Hypothesis H0: There is no association between occupation and the ranking of


Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is association between occupation and the

ranking of factors that influence the purchase of FMCG body care products.

348

348

India

OCCUPATION QUALITY PRICE BRAND IMAGE PRODUCT RANGE ADVERTISEMENT

Chi-Square 262.667a 320.000

b 108.333

b 235.000

b 25.000

b 103.333

b

df 3 4 4 4 4 4

Asymp. Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Thailand

OCCUPATION QUALITY PRICE

BRAND

IMAGE

PRODUCT

RANGE ADVERTISEMENT


a 60.000

b 42.222

b .000

a 20.000

c

df 2 2 3 3 2 1

Asymp. Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 1.000 .000

Inference: In both cases of India and Thailand, since P value is less than 0.01, the

null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance. There is association between

occupation and the ranking of factors i.e. Quality, Price, Brand Image and


there is association between occupation and the ranking of factor that influences the


349

349

5.2.5 Testing of Hypothesis V:

To test the null hypothesis H0, it is assumed that there is no relationship

between gender, age group, occupation, income group and frequency of change of

FMCG brand and H1 that there is a relationship between gender, age group,

occupation, income group and frequency of change of FMCG brand.

India

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 2.285 4 .571 4.273 .002a

Residual 79.548 595 .134

Total 81.833 599

a. Predictors: (Constant) : ADVERTISEMENT, BRAND IMAGE, PRODUCT RANGE, PRICE

b. Dependent Variable: FREQUNECY OF CHANGE OF FMCG BRAND

Thailand

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 22.486 4 5.622 56.172 .000a

Residual 17.514 175 .100

Total 40.000 179

a. Predictors: (Constant): INCOME, GENDER, AGE, OCCUPATION

b. Dependent Variable: FREQUNECY OF CHANGE OF FMCG BRAND

350

350

Null Hypothesis H0: There is no relationship between gender, age group,


Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is a relationship between gender, age group,


Inference: In both cases of India and Thailand, since the P values (.002 & .000) are

less than .01, the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance. Hence there

is a relationship between gender, age group, occupation, income group and

frequency of change of FMCG brand. The frequency of changes of FMCG brand

changes with gender, age group, occupation and income group.

5.2.6 Testing of Hypothesis VI:

To test the null hypothesis H0, it is assumed that there is no relationship

between purchase experiences of brands of MNCs and frequency of change of

FMCG brand and H1 that there is relationship between purchase experiences of

brands of MNCs and frequency of change of FMCG brand.

351

351

Table 5.2.6 (a): Correlation Matrix of frequency of change of FMCG brands

and purchase experience of MNCs of India

FREQUNECY

OF CHANGE

OF FMCG

BRAND

AMWAY

PUR EXP

COLGATE

PALMOLIVE

PUR EXP

UL

PUR

EXP

PNG

PUR

EXP

Spearman's

rho

FREQUNECY

OF CHANGE

Correlation

Coefficient

1.000 .006 -.012 -.031 -.016

Sig. (2-

tailed)

. .874 .769 .442 .700

N 600 600 600 600 600

AMWAY PUR

EXP

Correlation

Coefficient

.006 1.000 .165** -.328

** -.247

**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.874 . .000 .000 .000

N 600 600 600 600 600

COLGATE

PALMOLIVE

PUR EXP

Correlation

Coefficient

-.012 .165** 1.000 .427

** .416

**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.769 .000 . .000 .000

N 600 600 600 600 600

UL PUR EXP Correlation

Coefficient

-.031 -.328** .427

** 1.000 .672

**

352

352

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.442 .000 .000 . .000

N 600 600 600 600 600

PNG PUR EXP Correlation

Coefficient

-.016 -.247** .416

** .672

** 1.000

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.700 .000 .000 .000 .

N 600 600 600 600 600

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 5.2.6 (b): Correlation Matrix of frequency of change of FMCG brands

and purchase experience of MNCs of Thailand

FREQUNECY

OF CHANGE

OF FMCG

BRAND

AMWAY

PUR

EXP

COLGATE

PALMOLIVE

PUR EXP

UL

PUR

EXP

PNG

PUR

EXP

Spearman's

rho

FREQUNECY

OF CHANGE

OF FMCG

BRAND

Correlation

Coefficient

1.000 -.146* -.500

** -.756

** -.756

**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

. .050 .000 .000 .000

N 180 180 180 180 180

AMWAY PUR

EXP

Correlation

Coefficient

-.146* 1.000 .439

** .111 .111

353

353

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.050 . .000 .139 .139

N 180 180 180 180 180

COLGATE

PALMOLIVE

PUR EXP

Correlation

Coefficient

-.500** .439

** 1.000 .756

** .756

**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000 .000 . .000 .000

N 180 180 180 180 180

UL PUR EXP Correlation

Coefficient

-.756** .111 .756

** 1.000 1.000

**

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000 .139 .000 . .

N 180 180 180 180 180

PNG PUR EXP Correlation

Coefficient

-.756** .111 .756

** 1.000

** 1.000

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000 .139 .000 . .

N 180 180 180 180 180

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

Null Hypothesis H0: There is no relationship between purchase experiences of

brands of MNCs and frequency of change of FMCG brand.

354

354

Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is no relationship between purchase experiences

of brands of MNCs and frequency of change of FMCG brand.

Inference: The correlation matrix in the Table 5.2.6 (a) shows that the correlation

between frequencies of change of FMCG brand and purchase experience of brands

of MNCs for India is significant at 0.01 level of significance. Hence there is a

significant relationship between frequency of change of FMCG brand and purchase

experience of brands of MNCs for India. The correlation matrix in the Table 5.2.6

(b) shows that the correlation between frequencies of change of FMCG brand and

purchase experience of brands of MNCs for Thailand is significant at .01 and 0.05

level of significance. Hence there is also a significant relationship between frequency

of change of FMCG brand and purchase experience of brands of MNCs for Thailand.

5.2.7 Testing of Hypothesis VII: Testing for significant difference between male

and female with respect to preference place for the purchase of FMCG product using

ANOVA.

Null Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference between male and female

respondents with respect to preference place for the purchase of FMCG product.

355

355

Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is a significant difference between male and

female respondents with respect to preference place for the purchase of FMCG

product.

India

Place preference for buying FMCG product

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F value P Value

Between Groups 1.361 1 1.361 1.466 .226

Within Groups 555.139 598 .928

Total 556.500 599

Thailand


Sum of Squares df Mean Square

F

value

P

Value

Between Groups .111 1 .111 .638 .426


Total 31.111 179

Inference: In cases of both India and Thailand, since P values (0.226 & 0.426) are

more than 0.01, the null hypothesis is accepted at 1% level of significance. Hence

356

356

there is no significant difference between male and female respondents with respect

to preference place for the purchase of FMCG product in both the countries.

5.2.8 Testing of Hypothesis VIII: Testing for significant difference between

respondents of different income levels with respect to preference place for the

purchase of FMCG product using ANOVA.

Null Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference between respondents of

different income levels with respect to preference place for the purchase of FMCG

product.

Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is a significant difference between respondents of

different income levels with respect to preference place for the purchase of FMCG

product.

India



Between Groups 76.984 3 25.661 31.895 .000


Total 556.500 599

357

357

Thailand



Between Groups 2.540 2 1.270 7.867 .001


Total 31.111 179

Inference: In both cases of India and Thailand, since P values (.000 & .001) are less

than 0.01, the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance. Hence there is a

significant difference between respondents of different income levels with respect to

preference place for the purchase of FMCG product. This indicates that respondents

belonging to different income levels have different preference place for the purchase

of FMCG product.

5.2.9. Testing of Hypothesis IX: Test for the difference between respondents of

different occupations with respect to preference place for the purchase of FMCG

product using ANOVA.

Null Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference between respondents of


product.

358

358

Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is a significant difference between respondents of


product.

India



Between Groups 133.724 3 44.575 62.838 .000


Total 556.500 599

Thailand



Between Groups 7.111 2 3.556 26.222 .000


Total 31.111 179


null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance. Hence there is a significant

difference between respondents of different occupations with respect to preference

359

359

place for the purchase of FMCG product. This indicates that respondents belonging

to different occupations have different preference place for the purchase of FMCG

product.

5.2.10. Testing of Hypothesis X: Testing for significant difference between male

and female with respect to the willingness to spend premium price for the purchase

of FMCG brands using ANOVA.

Null Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference between male and female

respondents with respect to the willingness to spend premium price for the purchase

of FMCG brands.

Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is a significant difference between male and

female respondents with respect to the willingness to spend premium price for the

purchase of FMCG brands.

India

Willingness to pay premium price for FMCG product


Between Groups 1.000 1 1.000 4.246 .040


Total 141.833 599

360

360

Thailand



Between Groups .444 1 .444 1.798 .182


Total 44.444 179

Inference: In case of India, since P value is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is

rejected at 5% level of significance. Hence there is a significant difference between

male and female respondents with respect to the willingness to spend premium price

for the purchase of FMCG brands. This indicates that majority of the Indian

respondents who are willing to spend premium price for the purchase of FMCG

brands are relative of whether the respondent is a male or a female. But in case of

Thailand, since P value is more than 0.01 and 0.05, the null hypothesis is accepted at

both 1% and 5% level of significance. Hence there is no significant difference

between male and female respondents with respect to the willingness to spend

premium price for the purchase of FMCG brands. This indicates that majority of the

Thai respondents who are willing to spend premium price for the purchase of FMCG

brands are irrespective of whether the respondent is a male or a female.

361

361

5.2.11. Testing of Hypothesis XI: Testing for significant difference between

respondents belonging to different age group with respect to the willingness to spend

premium price for the purchase of FMCG brands using ANOVA.

Null Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference between respondents

belonging to different age group with respect to the willingness to spend premium

price for the purchase of FMCG brands.

Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is a significant difference between respondents

belonging to different age group with respect to the willingness to spend premium


India



Between Groups 18.167 4 4.542 21.851 .000


Total 141.833 599

362

362

Thailand



Between Groups 10.444 2 5.222 27.186 .000


Total 44.444 179



difference between respondents belonging to different age group with respect to the

willingness to spend premium price for the purchase of FMCG brands. This indicates

that respondents belonging to different age group have difference in willingness to

spend premium price for the purchase of FMCG brands

5.2.12. Testing of Hypothesis XII: Testing for significant difference between

respondents belonging to different occupations with respect to the willingness to

spend premium price for the purchase of FMCG brands using ANOVA.

Null Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference between respondents

belonging to different occupations with respect to the willingness to spend premium


363

363

Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is no significant difference between respondents

belonging to different occupations with respect to the willingness to spend premium


India



Between Groups 23.577 3 7.859 39.608 .000


Total 141.833 599

Thailand



Between Groups 10.444 2 5.222 27.186 .000


Total 44.444 179



difference between respondents belonging to different occupations with respect to

364

364

the willingness to spend premium price for the purchase of FMCG brands. This

indicates that respondents belonging to different occupations have differences in

willingness to spend premium price for the purchase of FMCG brands.

5.2.13. Testing of Hypothesis XIII: To test the relationship between willingness to

pay premium price for FMCG brand and frequency of change of FMCG brand.’

Null Hypothesis H0: There is no significant relationship between willingness to pay

premium price for FMCG brand and frequency of change of FMCG brand.

Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is significant relationship between willingness to

pay premium price for FMCG brand and frequency of change of FMCG brand.

365

365

5.2.13 (a): Correlation matrix of frequency of change of FMCG brand and

willingness to pay premium price for FMCG product for India

FREQUNECY OF

CHANGE OF

FMCG BRAND

Willingness to

pay premium

price for FMCG

product

FREQUNECY OF CHANGE OF

FMCG BRAND

Pearson Correlation 1 .063

N 600 600

Are u willing 2 pay premium

price for FMCG product

Pearson Correlation .063 1

N 600 600

5.2.13 (b): Correlation matrix of frequency of change of FMCG brand and

willingness to pay premium price for FMCG product for Thailand

FREQUNECY OF

CHANGE OF FMCG

BRAND

Willingness to pay

premium price for FMCG

product

FREQUNECY OF CHANGE

OF FMCG BRAND

Pearson

Correlation

1 -.316**

N 180 180

Are u willing 2 pay premium

price for FMCG product

Pearson

Correlation

-.316** 1

N 180 180

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

366

366

Inference: The correlation matrix in the table 5.2.13 (a) shows that the correlation

between frequencies of change of FMCG brand and willingness to pay premium

price for FMCG product for India is not significant. Hence there is no relationship

between frequency of change of FMCG brand and willingness to pay premium price

for FMCG product for India. The correlation matrix in the table 5.2.13 (b) shows that

the correlation between frequency of change of FMCG brand and willingness to pay

premium price for FMCG product for Thailand is significant (r=.316) at 0.01 level of

significance. Hence there is a significant relationship between frequency of change

of FMCG brand and willingness to pay premium price for FMCG product for

Thailand.

367

367

5.3 Major Findings from the survey research:

1. Majority of the respondents can easily identify and differentiate FMCG

brands without advertisement also.

2. Quality emerged as the most influential factor that influence in the purchase

of FMCG products in both India and Thailand.

3. The brand loyalty is high in both countries but relatively higher for Indian

customers than Thailand customers.

4. The brand awareness level of Amway is very less in both India and Thailand.

5. The brand awareness level of Colgate Palmolive in India is comparatively

better than Amway and Colgate Palmolive in Thailand.

6. The brand awareness level of Unilever is the highest among all the four

companies and comparatively better than other three MNCs indicating that

majority of the respondents in India are very aware about the brands of

Hindustan Unilever Ltd Company. The value is the second best among all

four companies in Thailand but comparatively lesser than Hindustan Unilever

in India.

7. The brand awareness level of P&G, India is the second best after Hindustan

Unilever Ltd. among all the four companies and comparatively better than

other two MNCs indicating that more than half of the respondents in India are

aware about the brands of P&G India. The value is the best among all the

four MNCs in Thailand and comparatively better than P&G India also.

368

368

8. The purchase experience of FMCG brands of Unilever is the best in India. In

case of Thailand, the purchase experience of FMCG brands of Amway is the

best.

9. The satisfaction level on the attributes of advertising and promotional efforts

of the Unilever is the highest in both India and Thailand.

10. The satisfaction level in meeting need of respondents is highest for Unilever

brands in India. But it is more for Unilever and P&G in case of Thailand.

11. The quality of brands of Unilever is considered to be the highest in India and

the quality of brands of P&G is considered to be the highest in Thailand.

12. The brand image of the Unilever brands is considered to be the highest in

India but in case of Thailand, it is considered to be the highest for Unilever,

Colgate-Palmolive and P&G equally.

13. The satisfaction level on pricing of the Unilever brands is considered to be

the highest both in India and Thailand.

14. The satisfaction level on the product range of the Unilever brands is

considered to be the highest both in India and Thailand.

15. Preference place of buying FMCG products in both India and Thailand is the

local shops.

16. Majority of people in India and Thailand are willing to spend premium price

for products of FMCG brands.

17. Majority of people in India associates FMCG products with attributes while it

is advertisements in case of Thailand.

369

369

18. The main source of information for FMCG brands is the TV Ads in both

India and Thailand.

Documents

CHAPTER V SURVEY RESEARCH FINDINGS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSISshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/40149/10/10_chapter 5.pdf · From table 5.1.4.1, brand awareness of Amway India