10 - Chapter 4 PDF

CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND

INTERPRETATION
CHAPTER -IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter an attempt has been made to identify the existing
consumption pattern and buying behaviour of milk consumers in Salem
District. For this purpose, the brand preferred by the consumers was taken
as the dependent variable. The independent variables chosen for the
analysis were occupation of the respondents, quantity, type of milk
purchase, mode of payment, monthly income and expenses. The primary
data were collected from 600 sample respondents and the data were
arranged in simple tabular form. The data thus collected were analysed
with the help of statistical tools like percentage, average, range, chi-square
test, discriminate analysis, multiple regression analysis and factor analysis.
The detailed results and discussions are shown in the following sections.
138
4.2 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS
4.2.1 Monthly Household Expenses
Though milk is an essential product to the consumer, the
consumption level depends on the income level of the consumer as well as
the amount he spends for the household expenses. The table no. 4.1 shows
the distribution of the sample respondents based on the total amount spent
per month on household expenses by the consumers.
TABLE NO 4.1
MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES
No. of
S.No. Expenses Percentage
Respondents
1. Below Rs.5000 408 68.0
2. Rs.5000-10000 165 27.5
3. Above Rs.10000 27 4.5
Total 600 100.0
Source: Primary Data
From the table no 4.1.1 it can be inferred that, out of 600
respondents, 68.0% of the respondents were spending below Rs.5000 for
household expenses per month, whereas only 27(4.5%) respondents were
spending above Rs.10000 per month for household expenses. It is
concluded that, majority of the respondents' monthly household expenses
is below Rs.5000.
139
CHARTNO. 4.1
MONTHLYHOUSEHOLD EXPENSES
140
4.2.2 Regularity in Buying Milk Everyday
It has become a common fact today that most people do not rise out
of their bed without their bed coffee or tea and do not go to bed without
their bed milk. The significance of taking milk as nutrition supplement has
grown drastically in these days. The marketer would like to know the
potential demand for the product so as to forecast the sales and to develop
the marketing programmes accordingly. The table no. 4.2 describes the
distribution of respondents based on the consumers' regularity in buying
milk everyday.
TABLE NO. 4.2

REGULARITY IN BUYING MILK EVERY DAY
No. of
S.No. Opinion Percentage
Respondents
1. Yes 567 94.5
2. Not daily 33 5.5
3. Never 0 0.0
Total 600 100.0
The above table shows that, out of 600 respondents, 94.5% of the
respondents were buying milk everyday. Only 5.5% respondents were not
buying milk everyday. From the analysis, it is concluded that majority of
the selected sample respondents are regularly buying milk. Only a few
buyers are not buying milk daily.
141
CHART NO. 4.2
REGULARITY INBUYING MILK EVERYDAY
142
4.2.3 Consumers' awareness about existence of milk brands
The battle in the market takes place not between companies, but
between brands. Consumer buy brands; and brands generate income for
the firm. Hence, the consumers should be aware of the existence of the
brands. There are a number of milk brands in the market of which only
major brands like Aavin, Arokya, and Komatha have been considered in
the present study to assess the awareness of consumers about the existence
of these brands. The table no. 4.3 describes the distribution of respondents
based on the consumers' awareness about existence of milk brands in the
market.
TABLE NO. 4.3

CONSUMERS' AWARENESS ABOUT EXISTENCE OF MILK
BRANDS
S.No Brand Yes No

600
1. Aavin 0
(100.0)
600
2. Arokya 0
(100.0)
518 82
3. Komatha (13.7)
(86.3)
143
CHART NO. 4.3
CONSUMERS AWARENESSABOUT EXISTENCE OF MILK BRANDS
144
It could be seen from the above table that the awareness of various
milk brands was studied and it shows that all 600(100%) respondents were
aware of Aavin and Arokya brands. While inquiring on Komatha brand of
milk, it is noted that 518(86.3%) respondents were aware of Komatha
brand. It is concluded that Aavin, Arokya and Komatha brands are
enjoying high brand popularity among the consumers in the study area.
4.2.4 Consumers' Brand Preference
In assessing the milk consumption pattern of households, knowing
the most preferred brand by the consumers in the market is important for a
marketer to modify or develop the marketing strategies. The table no 4.4
displays the distribution of respondents based on the leading brand that is
preferred and bought by most of the consumers in the study area.
TABLE NO. 4.4

CONSUMERS' BRAND PREFERENCE
No. of
S.No. Brand name Percentage
Respondents
1. Aavin 414 69.00
2. Arokya 136 22.67
3. Komatha 50 8.33
Total 600 100.0
145
_c
0
BRANDPREFERENCE
CHARTNO4.4
CONSUMERS'
0 0 0 0 0
N. (.13 Lflcztm r\J P-4
39V1N33113d
146
From the above table it can be inferred that, majority of the
respondents i.e. 414(69.0%) respondents were buying Aavin brand.
136(22.67%) respondents were buying Arokya brand. 50 (8.33%)
respondents were buying Komatha brand. It is inferred that, among the
packaged milk brands, Aavin is the most sought brand, followed by
Arokya brand and Komatha brand in the study area.
4.2.5 Decision Maker in Milk buying process
Decision making is a term used to describe the process of finalizing
a solution from various alternatives by which the decision makers make
choices, determine judgments, and come to conclusions. The buying
decision plays an important role in selecting a particular brand of milk. In
most of the cases the purchase decision maker, buyer and user differ. The
table no. 4.5 depicts the distribution of respondents based on the buyer's
decision maker in the milk buying process.
TABLE NO. 4.5

DECISION MAKER IN MILK BUYING PROCESS
No. of
S.No. Opinion Percentage
Respondents
1. Meal planner 561 93.5
2. Others 39 6.5
Total 600 100.0
Source.- Primary Data
147
CHART NO. 4.5
DECISION MAKER IN MILKBUYING PROCESS
4—
—C
148
II
The above table shows that, out of 600 respondents, 561(93.5%)
respondents opined that in their home milk buying decisions are made by
the meal planners. The remaining 39(6.5%) respondents expressed that
milk buying decision is made by others. It is concluded that majority of the
respondents opined that the brand of milk to be purchased is decided by
the meal planners.
4.2.6 Source of influence in brand preference
Consumers come in contact with others, especially friends, close
relatives and admired individuals. Such contacts develop attitudes which
influence their buying choice. Consumers consult each other for opinion of
new products and brands and the advice of other people can strongly
influence the consumers' preferences and actual buying behaviour. The
milk purchase decision also might have been affected by others. The table
no. 4.6 describes the distribution of respondents based on the source of
influence in preferring a particular brand of milk.
149
TABLE NO. 4.6
SOURCE OF INFLUENCE IN BRAND PREFERENCE
No. of
S.No. Source Percentage
Respondents
1. Friends 24 4.0
2. Neighbours 55 9.2
3. Doctors 20 3.3
4. Family members 60 10.0
5. Advertisements 45 7.5
6. Dealers/Sellers 28 4.7 -
7. Personal preference 368 61.3
Total 600 100.0
The above table shows that majority of the respondents 368(61.3%)
were influenced by their own personal preferences in preferring a milk
brand, whereas Neighbors 55 (9.2%), Family members 60 (10.0%) and
advertisement 45 (7.5%) sources are having direct influence to a certain
extent. But the influence levels of Doctors 20 (3.3%), Friends 24 (4.0%)
and dealers 28 (4.7%) are very insignificant in preferring a particular
brand of milk. It is concluded from the analysis that majority of the
respondents were influenced by their own personal preferences in
preferring and buying a milk brand.
150
CHARTNO. 4.6
SOURCEOF INFLUENCEINBRAND PREFERENCE
0
Cr.
(0
0
Lfl
0
s4"
151
0
ri)
39ViN3D113d
0 0
T-1
0
O
O
5
Adveltiseme Its
U-
<11
Neidibours Family members
4.2.7 Milk Consumption Pattern
Milk consumption pattern differs from family to family. Though the
number of family members determine the quantity of milk required by the
household, the habit of adding water with the raw milk to manage the
required quantity will affect the estimation of the milk consumption
quantity of the households by the marketer. The table no. 4.7 describes the
distribution of respondents based on the consumers' habit of adding water
to milk.
TABLE NO. 4.7

MILK CONSUMPTION PATTERN
Milk Consumption No. of
S.No. Percentage
Pattern Respondents
1. Use as such 298 49.7
2. Use after adding water 302 50.3
Total 600 100.0
It can be inferred from the above table that out of 600 respondents
302 (50.3%) respondents were using the milk after adding water to it,
whereas 298 (49.7%) respondents were using as such without adding water
to the milk. From the analysis, it is concluded that significant number of
consumers have the habit of adding water to milk and equal number of
consumers do not have such habit of adding water to the milk.
152
CHARTNO. 4.7
MILKCONSUMPTION PATTERN
153
4.2.8 End use of Milk by Consumers
Human beings continue to consume milk beyond infancy. Further,
the cow milk has been processed into dairy products such as Beverages,
Butter, Sweet, Butter Milk, Curd, Ice cream, and especially the more
durable and easily transportable product, ghee. The level of end uses of the
milk determines the consumption level of the milk and brand preference.
The table no. 4.8 describes the distribution of respondents based on the
end uses of the milk bought by the consumers.
TABLE NO. 4.8

END USE OF MILK BY CONSUMERS
No. of Total
S.No. End use Rank
Respondents Score
1. Curd 420 2100 II
2. Beverages (Coffee, Tea) 369 1107 III
3. Butter milk 230 690 IV
4. Sweets 57 114 V
5. Ghee 78 78 VI
6. Milk as drink only 433 2598 I
Source. Primary Data
154
Mi lk as drin k
0
C.)
00
N, I
END USE OF MILK BY CONSUMERS
C.)
C.)
V1.
CHART NO. 4.8
Bu tter m i lk
0
UD
EMI
0
0
1111111111M1 7
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Lr) 0 in o Ln
ty (..i
(siupd Li!) amas a2eltp!am
155
The above table shows that 420 respondents were using milk for
preparing curd with total score of 2100 points, 369 respondents were using
milk for preparing beverages like coffee, tea etc. with total score of 1107
points, 230 respondents were using milk for preparing butter milk with
weighted score of 690 points, 57 respondents were using milk for
preparing sweets with weighted score of 114 points, 78 respondents were
using milk for preparing ghee with weighted score of 78 points, 433
respondents were using milk for drinking purpose only with weighted
score of 2598 points. It is concluded that the consumers are using the milk
mostly for drinking as milk itself, preparing curd and preparing beverages
like Coffee, Tea etc..
4.2.9 Consumers' Perception on Goodness of Fluid Milk brand
Every customer is highly unique and a complex human, yet there are
many things customers have in common when it comes to buying.
Consumer preference for a particular brand is based on a general
perception that particular brand have more desirable characteristics than
other brand alternatives. Apart from health, food safety and environmental
considerations, several other product characteristics such as nutritive
value, taste, freshness, appearance of the package, color and other sensory
156
characteristics influence consumer preferences in choosing a particular
brand of milk. The table no. 4.9 describes the distribution of respondents
based on the level of importance that consumers attach with various
factors that are related to milk.
TABLE NO. 4.9

CONSUMERS' PERCEPTION ON GOODNESS OF FLUID
MILK BRAND
S.No Milk Traits MI I NI/UI UI MUI

1 Freshness 355 156 66 19 4
(59.0) (26.0) (11.0) (3.2) (0.7)
2 Color 160 272 126 27 15
(26.7) (45.3) (21.0) (4.5) (2.5)
3 Nutritive value 326 191 56 23 4
(54.3) (31.8) (9.3) (3.8) (0.7)
4 Thickness of 205 235 97 47 16
Milk (34.2) (39.2) (16.2) (7.8) (2.7)
5 Appearance 158 230 140 52 20
(26.3) (38.3) (23.3) (8.7) (3.3)
6 Full Quantity 181 241 125 36 17
(30.2) (40.2) (20.8) (6.0) (2.8)
7 Available soon 221 167 135 41 36
after milking (36.8) (27.8) (22.5) (6.8) (6.0)
MI Most Important
• Important
NI/UI : Neither Important nor Unimportant
UI : Unimportant
MUI : Most Unimportant
157
CHARTNO. 4.9
CONSUMERS' IMPORTANCEOF MILK TRAITS
158
It is evident from the above table that 59.0 percent of the total
respondents felt that freshness is a very important trait of milk that
influences the brand preference. A majority of the sample respondents
(54.3%) had the opinion that 'Nutritive Value' is a most important trait in
the milk. Some of the respondents also felt that the factors like available
soon after milking, thickness and full quantity of milk are the other factors
which play important roles in brand preference by a consumer. Color
(26.7%) and Appearance (26.3%) of the milk were placed as the least
important traits to the respondents. It is concluded that, 'Freshness',
'Thickness' and 'Nutritive value' are the very important traits of milk that
influence the brand preference of the consumers.
4.2.10 Level of Consumers' Satisfaction
As consumers use a brand of milk, they evaluate its performance in
light of their own expectations with each attribute of the milk. The
performance of the brand may match or exceed or be below the
expectations of the consumers. Such post-purchase dissonance factor has
its own impact on the buyer behaviour. The table no. 4.10 shows the
distribution of respondents based on the level of satisfaction that
consumers are deriving in various factors that are related to the brand of
milk they buy.
159
TABLE NO. 4.10
LEVEL OF CONSUMERS' SATISFACTION
NS
S.
Factors HS S Nor DS HDS
No
DS
279 170 148 3 0
1 Freshness
(46.5) (28.3) (24.7) (0.5)
148 257 173 16 6
2 Odor
(24.7) (42.8) (28.8) (2.7) (1.0)
273 199 110 17 1
3 Hygiene
(45.5) (33.2) (18.3) (2.8) (0.2)
210 221 132 30 7
4 Nutritive value
(35.0) (38.8) (22.0) (5.0) (1.2)
212 169 167 32 20
5 Low fat content
(35.3) (28.2) (27.8) (5.3) (3.3)
167 192 182 36 23
6 Rich fat content
(27.8) (32.0) (30.3) (6.0) (3.8)
211 184 152 34 19
7 Reasonable price
(35.2) (30.7) (25.3) (5.7) (3.2)
150 198 197 33 22
8 Credit terms
(25.0) (33.0) (32.8) (5.7) (3.7)
174 157 196 47 26
9 Discounts
(29.0) (26.2) (32.7) (7.8) (4.3)
181 174 208 26 11
10 Brand popularity
(30.2) (29.0) (34.7) (4.3) (1.8)
173 199 178 41 9
11 Advertisements
(28.8) (33.2) (29.7) (6.8) (1.5)
Good processing and 226 191 153 17 13
12
preservation (37.7) (31.8) (25.5) (2.8) (2.2)
Usage in milk products 200 205 157 19 19
13
Preparation (33.3) (34.2) (26.2) (3.2) (3.2)
180 214 172 19 15
14 Rapport of the supplier
(30.0) (35.7) (28.7) (3.2) (2.5)
249 192 126 20 13
15 Correct measurement
(41.5) (32.0) (21.0) (3.3) (2.2)
209 202 154 18 17
16 Door step supply
(34.8) (33.7) (25.7) (3.0) (2.8)
160
NS
S. Factors HS S Nor DS HDS
No DS
Continuous supply 222 192 157 19 10
17
throughout the year (37.0) (32.0) (26.2) (3.2) (1.7)
Stopping supply when not 198 206 158 28 10
18
needed (33.0) (34.3) (26.3) (4.7) (1.7)
Children's health 257 177 144 11 11
19
and preferences (42.8) (29.5) (24.0) (1.8) (1.8)
257 170 132 26 15
20 Nearness to Home
(42.8) (28.3) (22.0) (4.3) (2.5)
HS : Highly Satisfied Satisfied
NS/DS : Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied DS Dissatisfied
HDS : Highly Dissatisfied
The above table shows that out of 600 respondents, 46.5%
respondents are highly satisfied with the freshness of the brand of milk
they buy, 45.5% respondents were highly satisfied with the Hygiene factor
of the milk, 42.8% respondents were highly satisfied with the ability of the
brand to meet out the children's health requirements and Tastes, same
level of respondents i.e., 42.8% respondents were highly satisfied with the
nearness of the supply point to home, 42.8% respondents are satisfied with
the odor factor of the milk, 41.5% respondents were highly satisfied with
the correct measurement of the milk, 38.8% respondents were satisfied
with the nutritive value of the milk. It is concluded from the analysis that,
consumers are highly satisfied with the freshness and hygiene factors of
the brands that they are using.
161
4.2.11 Awareness about the Milk Facts
Awareness means knowledge of the facts. Milk consumers' level of

awareness has been studied with regard to various facts of milk such as
presence of bacteria in milk, pasteurization, homogenization processes of
milk, level of fat content in milk, terminologies related to milk. Health
wise selection of milk and suitability of milk types for different
preparations. The table no. 4.11 describes the distribution of respondents
based on the consumers' awareness about various facts of milk.
TABLE NO. 4.11

AWARENESS ABOUT THE MILK FACTS
No. of Respondents
S.No Facts
Aware Unaware
442 158
I Presence of bacteria in milk
(73.7) (26.3)
Pasteurization process kills 360 240
2
bacteria in milk (60.0) (40.0)
Homogenization process prevents 333 267
3
sedimentation of fat in milk (55.5) (44.5)
421 179
4 Toned milk contains 3% fat, 8.5% SNF
(70.2) (29.8)
Standardized milk contains 469 131
5
4.5% fat, 8.5% SNF . (78.2) (21.8)
408 192
6 Full cream milk 6% fat 9% SNF
(68.0) (32.0)
342 258
7 SNF stands for solids not fat
(57.0) (43.0)
331 269
8 "Pathogenic" Type of Milk Processing
(55.2) (44.8)
Suitability of milk types for 492 108
9
different preparations (82) (18.0)
554 46
10 Health wise selection of milk
(92.3) (7.7)
162
in „mmilimmillimila N
•
00
00
Ln il
et
1°1
. 1111111M
AWARENESSABOUTTHE MILK FACTS
Ln Illii11111111111
III Unawa re
CHARTNO. 4.10
00
CD
Standardize d m ilk
00 1111.11111 °Q 11111111
00
(NI CI
Homogenizat ion
process prevents
Lri
Ln u1
.11.1111=111
Presence of bac teria
cr) 111.11.1.Mill41111111
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 CTI CO N 10 LJCt- m N
r-1
39V1N3)M3d
163
It is evident from the above table that out of 600 respondents, 442
respondents were aware of the fact that bacteria is present in the milk, 360
respondents were aware on pasteurization process which kills bacteria in
milk,333 respondents were aware that Homogenization process prevents
sedimentation of fat in milk, 421 respondents were aware that toned milk
contains 3% fat, 8.5% SNF, 469 respondents were aware that Standardized
milk contains 4.5% fat, 8.5% SNF, 408 respondents were aware that Full
cream milk contains 6% fat and 9% SNF,342 respondents were aware that
SNF stands for Solids Not Fat, 331 respondents were aware of
"Pathogenic" Type of Milk Processing, 492 respondents were aware of
Suitability of milk types for different preparations, 554 respondents were
aware of method of health wise selection of Milk. It is concluded from the
analysis that suitability of milk types for different preparations,
standardized milk contains 4.5% fat, 8.5% SNF and presence of bacteria in
milk are the facts that majority of the consumers are aware of.
4.2.12 Sources of Awareness about the Milk
Many consumers who were aware of various information about milk
and process of milk at the awareness level through various sources of
information such as newspapers and magazines, TV advertisements, dealer
promotions and awareness campaigns. Since communication medium is
164
important in creating awareness among the consumers, marketer would
like to know the appropriate medium of communication. The table no.4.12
describes the distribution of respondents based on the medium of
communication that helped the consumers to know about various facts of
Milk.
TABLE NO. 4.12

SOURCES OF AWARENESS ABOUT THE MILK
News TV
Dealer Awareness
Factors papers & Adver-
Promotion campaigns
magazines tisement
Presence of bacteria in 167 206 30 39
milk (27.8) (34.3) (5.0) (6.5)
Pasteurization process 110 162 43 45
kills bacteria in milk (18.3) (27.0) (7.2) (7.5)
Homogenization process 96 150 31 56
prevents sedimentation of (16.0) (25.0) (5.3) (9.3)
fat in milk
Toned milk contains 3% 106 204 48 63 '
fat, 8.5% SNF (17.7) (34.4) (8.0) (10.5)
Standardized milk 107 233 63 66
contains 4.5% fat, 8.5% (17.8) (38.8) (10.5) (11.0)
SNF
Full cream milk 6% fat, 108 184 47 69
9% SNF (18.0) (30.7) * (7.8) (11.5)
SNF stands for solids not 102 130 56 54
fat (17.0) (21.7) (9.3) (9.0)
"Pathogenic" Type of 109 109 55 58
Milk Processing (18.2) (18.2) (9.2) (9.7)
Suitability of milk types 292 80 68 52
for different preparations (48.7) (13.3) (11.3) (8.7)
Health wise selection of 368 94 25 67
milk (61.3) (15.7) (4.2) (11.2)
165
Out of 442 respondents who were aware of presence of bacteria in
milk, only 206 (34.3%) respondents revealed that they have learned it
through T.V Advertisements and 167 (27.8%) respondents learned it
through Newspapers & magazines,
Out of 360 respondents who were aware of the fact that
pasteurization process kills bacteria in milk, 162 (27.0%) respondents
opined that they have learned it through T.V Advertisements and
110(18.3%) respondents learned it through Newspapers & magazines.
Homogenization process prevents sedimentation of fat in milk, only
150 (25.0%) respondents said that they learned it through T.V
Advertisements and 96 (16.0%) respondents learned it through
Newspapers & magazines.
Out of 421 respondents who were aware of the fact that Toned milk
contains 3% fat, 8.5% SNF, 204 (34.4%) respondents lime lighted that
they have learned it through T.V Advertisements, 106 (17.7%)
respondents learned it through Newspapers & magazines and 63 (10.5%)
respondents learned it through awareness campaigns.
166
Standardized milk contains 4.5% fat, 8.5% SNF, only 233 (38.8%)
respondents witnessed that they have learned it through T.V
Advertisements, 107 (17.8%) respondents learned it through Newspapers
& magazines, 66 (11.0%) respondents learned it through Awareness
campaigns and 63 (10.5%) respondents learned it through Dealer
promotions.
Out of 408 respondents who were aware of the fact that Full cream
milk contains 6% fat, 9% SNF, only 184 (30.7%) respondents learned it
through T.V Advertisements, 108 (18.0%) respondents learned it through
Newspapers and magazines and 69 (11.5%) respondents learned it through
Awareness campaigns.
Out of 342 respondents who were aware that SNF stands for solids
not fat 130 (21.7%) respondents reported that they have learned it through
T.V Advertisements, and 102 (17.0%) respondents learned it through
Newspapers & magazines.
Out of 331 respondents who were aware of "Pathogenic" Type of
milk processing, 109 (18.2%) respondents opined that they have learned it
167
through Newspapers & magazines and 109 (18.2%) respondents learned it
through T.V Advertisements,
Out of 492 respondents who were aware about suitability of milk
types for different preparations, 292 (48.7%) respondents revealed that
they have learned it through Newspapers & magazines, 80 (13.3%)
respondents learned' it through T.V Advertisements and 68 (11.3%)
respondents learned it through dealer promotions.
Out of 554 respondents who were aware of Healthwise selection of
milk, 368 (61.3%) respondents learned it through Newspapers &
magazines, 94 (15.7%) respondents learned it through T.V Advertisements
and 67 (11.2%) respondents learned it through awareness campaigns.
From the analysis, it is concluded that Television, Newspapers &
magazines are the most effective media in communicating to target
consumers.
4.2.13 Consumers' Satisfaction with Milk Suppliers
Marketers reap far greater economic rewards from highly satisfied
customers than they do from merely satisfied ones. One of the elements
which affect the customer satisfaction is the efficient milk supply. Milk
168
suppliers, generally the shop keepers, company outlets, agents, Door
delivery vendors ensure the time utility and place utility to the consumers.
The level of satisfaction perceived by the consumers depends upon the
level of the service rendered by the suppliers to the customers. The table
no. 4.13 describes the distribution of respondents based on the quality of
the service rendered by the Milk suppliers to the milk consumers.
TABLE NO. 4.13

CONSUMERS' SATISFACTION WITH MILK SUPPLIERS
S.No Statement Yes No
1 The Milk supplier replaces the milk which you 444 156
bought is found to be spoiled. (74.0) (26.0)
2 The Milk supplier replaces the milk which you 480 120
bought is found to be leaking from the packet (80.0) (20.0)
3 Milk supplier pay sincere attention to your 391 209
complaints (65.2) (34.8)
4 Milk supplier tries to solve your problems 399 201
(66.5) (33.5)
5 Milk supplier behaves cordially with you 487 113
(81.2) (18.8)
6 Milk supplier gives the balance money 83 517
promptly (18.8) (86.2)
7 The milk supplier provides an overall 491 109
satisfactory service (81.8) (18.2)
From the above table, it is evident that out of 600 respondents, 444
respondents said that the milk supplier replaces the spoiled milk, 480
respondents said that the milk supplier replaces the leaking milk packet,
169
391 respondents say that they get sincere attention from the milk suppliers
when they make any complaint to them, 399 respondents said that if any
complaint is made, the milk supplier tries to solve the problem. 487
respondents said that milk vendors behave very cordially with them. 517
respondents said that the milk supplier doesn't gives the balance money
properly, 491 respondents said that the milk supplier is rendering an
overall satisfactory service to them. From the analysis, it is concluded that,
majority of the consumers felt that the milk suppliers are rendering an
overall satisfactory service, but the consumers are facing problem in
tendering and getting balance money while buying.
4.2.14 Awareness of Contents on Package
Packaging involves designing cover of the brand/product. It is a
form of advertising in that way that the packaging has to perform many
sales tasks from attracting the consumer, describing the product to making
the sale. The milk sachet contains the printed information like fat level,
preservation method, and address of the manufacturer, quantity, expiry
date and Maximum Retail Price. The table no. 4.14 shows the distribution
of respondents based on the awareness level of the consumers regarding
the information printed on the milk sachet.
170
TABLE NO. 4.14
AWARENESS OF CONTENTS ON PACKAGE
No. of Total Rank

S.No. Content
Respondents Score
1. Fat level 337 1011 V
2. Preservation method 240 480 VI
3. SNF level 214 214 VII
4. Name and address of the
403 2015 III
manufacturer
5. Quantity 580 3480 II
6. Best before date 351 1404 IV
7. Max. Retail Price 582 4074 I
Out of 600 respondents, 337 respondents said that they are aware of
information about 'fat level' mentioned in the package of the milk with
weighted score of 1011 points, 240 respondents said that they are aware of
information about 'Preservation method' mentioned in the package of the
milk with weighted score of 480 points, 214 respondents said that they are
aware of information about `SNF level ' mentioned in the package of the
milk with weighted score of 214 points, 403 respondents said that they are
aware of information about 'Name & address of the milk manufacturer'
mentioned in the package of the milk with weighted score of 2015 points,
580 respondents said that they are aware of information about 'Quantity'
171
mentioned in the package of the milk with weighted score of 3480 points,
351 respondents said that they are aware of information about 'Best Before
Date' mentioned in the package of the milk with weighted score of 1404
points, 582 respondents said that they are aware of information about
'Maximum Retail Price' mentioned in the package of the milk with
weighted score of 4074 points. From the analysis, it is concluded that
majority of the respondents are aware of the information about 'Maximum
Retail Price' and 'Quantity' printed on the milk sachet.
172
Best. before
71-
r-I
AWARENESS OF CONTENTS ON PACKAGE
CHART NO. 4.11
Preserva t ion
U-
00 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0
LJ 0 Lr) 0 Lfl 0 C Lt-)
rY) (NI
(slupod u!) aion pa142!am
173
4.2.15 Consumer's perception about Public, Private and Unorganized
Milk Vendors
Brand attitudes are summary evaluations that reflect preferences for
various products and services. Consumer beliefs represent the knowledge
and feelings a person has accumulated about an object or issue. Consumers
have many beliefs about various features and attributes of milk brands.
The table no. 4.15 describes the distribution of respondents based on the
customer's perception about Public, Private and Unorganized milk
vendors.
TABLE NO 4.15
CONSUMER'S PERCEPTION ABOUT PUBLIC PRIVATE AND
UNORGANIZED MILK VENDORS
Neither
Very
Milk Factors Excellent Good Good Nor Bad
Bad
Bad
Appearance of 185 134 241 31 9
Milk Kiosk (30.8) (22.3) (40.2) (5.2) (1.5)
Appearance of 136 175 241 34 14
Milk Cane (22.7) (29.2) (40.2) (5.7) (2.3)
A
Personnel (19.8) (30.7) (42.2) (5.8) (1.5)
A
V
Milk Booth (23.7) (26.7) (40.5) (7.8) (1.3)
I
N
Milk cover (21.8) (36.5) (38.2) (2.7) (0.8)
Dress of Personnel 107 151 290 27 25
(17.8) (25.2) (48.3) (4.5) (4.2)
Behaviour of 130 189 246 26 9
Personnel (21.7) (31.5) (41.0) (4.3) (1.6)
174
Neither
Very
Milk Factors Excellent Good Good Nor Bad
Bad
Bad
Company Service 162 195 205 26 12
(27.0) (32.5) (34.2) (4.3) (2.0)
Milk Kiosk (27.0) (31.3) (34.2) (6.7) (0.8)
P Appearance of 137 189 252 17 5
R Milk Cane (22.8) (31.5) (42.0) (2.8) (0.8)
I Appearance of 144 201 237 12 6
V Personnel (24.0) (33.5) (39.5) (2.0) (1.0)
A Appearance of 146 194 245 12 3
T Milk Booth (24.3) (32.3) (40.8) (2.0) (0.5)
E Appearance of 171 217 145 52 15
Milk cover (28.5) (36.2) (24.2) (8.7) (2.5)
M Dress of Personnel 118 193 215 59 15
I (19.7) (32.2) (35.8) (9.8) (2.5)
L Behaviour of 127 195 214 43 21
K Personnel (21.2) (32.5) (35.7) (7.2) (3.5)
Company Service 131 194 216 41 18
(21.8) (32.3) (36.0) (6.8) (3.0)
Appearance of 127 163 254 36 20
Milk Kiosk (21.2) (27.2) (42.3) (6.0) (3.3)
Un Appearance of 107 192 250 27 24
Organised Milk Cane (17.8) (32.0) (41.7) (4.5) (4.0)
Appearance of 125 176 243 39 17
V (20.8) (29.3) (40.5) (6.5) (2.8)
Vendor
E
Dress of Vendor 149 158 244 35 14
N
(24.8) (26.3) (40.7) (5.8) (2.3)
D
Behavior of 168 202 204 23 3
0
Vendor (28.0) (33.7) (34.0) (3.8) (0.5)
R
Vendor Service 151 170 253 16 10
(25.2) (28.3) (42.2) (2.7) (1.7)
175
The Table no 4.15 reveals that 27.0% of the respondents opined that
the appearance of private milk kiosk was excellent, 40.2% respondents felt
that the appearance of the Aavin milk kiosk was neither good nor bad and
42.3% respondents opined that the appearance of the cycle vendor's milk
kiosk was neither good nor bad.
The table reveals that 31.5% of the respondents opined that the
appearance of private milk cane was excellent, 29.2% respondents felt that
the appearance of the Aavin milk cane was good and 32.0% respondents
opined that the appearance of the cycle vendor milk can was good.
The table reveals that 42.2% respondents felt that the appearance of
the Aavin personnel was neither good nor bad, 33.5% of the respondents
appreciated that the appearance of the private personnel was good and
40.5% respondents felt that the appearance of the cycle vendor was neither
good nor bad.
appearance of Aavin milk booth was good whereas 32.3% of the
respondents felt that the appearance of the private milk booth was good.
176
appearance of Aavin milk cover was good, 36.2% of the respondents felt
that the appearance of private milk cover was good.
The table reveals that 32.2% of the respondents opined that the dress
appearance of private milk personnel was good, 25.2% of the respondents
felt that the dress appearance of Aavin milk personnel was good, 26.3%
respondents felt that the dress appearance of cycle vendor was good.
The table reveals that 33.7% of the respondents complemented that
cycle vendor personnel behaviour was good, 32.5% of the respondents felt
that the private milk personnel behaviour was good and 31.5% respondents
felt that the Aavin milk personnel behaviour was good.
The table reveals that 32.5% of the respondents appreciated that the
service of Aavin was good, 32.3% of the respondents felt that the service
of the private milk company was good and 28.3% respondents felt that the
service rendered by the cycle vendor was good.
177
4.2.16 Suitable Advertisement Media for Branded Milk
The purpose of advertising by the marketers is to positively affect
the consumer's beliefs and brand attitudes and make the consumers to
purchase their brands. It is one of the best ways to communicate and can
reach a large number of small-volume consumers through media like
television, radio, cinema, magazines and billboards. The table no. 4.16
describes the distribution of respondents based on the suitable
advertisement media for branded milk.
TABLE NO. 4.16

SUITABLE ADVERTISEMENT MEDIA FOR BRANDED MILK
No. of
S.No. Media Percentage
Respondents
1. POP Display 189 31.5
2. Newspapers 209 34.8
3. Television 446 74.3
4. Magazines 54 9.0
5. Radio 149 24.8
6. Hoardings 152 25.3
7. Pamphlets 92 15.3
178
CHARTNO. 4.12
SUITABLEADVERTISEMENT MEDIAFOR BRANDEDMILK
179
From the above table, it is evident that out of 600 respondents, 189
respondents opined that the point of purchase display is the effective
medium for promoting the branded milk. 209 respondents said that news
paper is the effective promotion medium, 446 respondents felt that
television is the best medium for promoting the milk, 149 respondents said
that radio is the effective promotion medium, 152 respondents felt that
hoarding is the best medium for promoting the milk. It is concluded from
the above analysis that Television is the most effective medium for the
branded milk advertisements.
4.2.17 Level of Consumers' Brand Loyalty
Brand loyalty is a part of brand equity. Brand loyalty is based on
highly favorable attitude towards the brand and a conscious commitment
to find the brand each time the consumer purchases from that product
category. Brand loyalty affects the consumers' choice of brand of milk to a
high extent. When consumers are loyal to a brand of milk, they buy the
milk product of this specific brand on a regular basis. Through this
behaviour, they can be sure to get what they pay for. Further, by being this
loyal, the consumers close their eyes for other milk brands, which may be
even better brands than the chosen one. The table no. 4.17 describes the
180
distribution of respondents based on the level of brand loyalty that the
consumers having towards their preferred milk brand.
TABLE NO. 4.17

LEVEL OF CONSUMERS' BRAND LOYALTY
S.
Factors S.A A N D.A S.D.A
No.
1 My selection of brand 206 166 180 35 13
is based on fat (34.3) (27.7) (30.0) (5.8) (2.2)
content.
2 I buy a particular 297 172 98 25 8
brand without giving (49.5) (28.7) (16.3) (4.2) (1.3)
importance to its
varieties
3 I will continue to use 209 225 135 23 8
the same brand of (34.8) (37.5) (22.5) (3.8) (1.3)
milk that I have been
using
4 I enjoy sampling 115 168 163 106 48
different brands of (19.2) (28.0) (27.2) (17.7) (8.0)
milk for the mere
sake of comparison
5 Brands and company 82 104 147 156 111
names do not matter (13.7) (17.3) (24.5) (26.0) (18.5)
much to me.
6 In urgent need for 65 172 145 112 106
milk I buy whatever (10.8) (28.7) (24.2) (18.7) (17.7)
brand or variety
available
7 Less price of milk 61 158 214 93 74
implies less fat (10.2) (26.3) (35.7) (15.5) (12.3)
content and high price
implies high fat
content
181
S.
Factors S.A A N D.A S.D.A
No.
8 My purchase 38 135 182 143 102
decisions are purely (6.3) (22.5) (30.3) (23.8) (17.0)
based on credit terms.
9 I am likely to shift my 58 140 143 137 122
brand if the price of (9.7) (23.3) (23.8) (22.8) (20.3)
my favorite brand is
slightly raised
10 I shift to other brands 83 137 197 114 69
if the taste of the (13.8) (22.8) (32.8) (19.0) (11.5)
preferred brand has
changed
11 I recommend the 148 162 166 80 44
brand I buy to others (24.7) (27.0) (27.7) (13.3) (7.3)
12 My purchase decision 97 160 144 124 75
of the brand is based (16.2) (26.7) (24.0) (20.7) (12.5)
on others opinion.
13 I decide the brand 88 161 178 112 61
after using all the (14.7) (26.8) (29.7) (18.7) (10.2)
brands of milk on
trail
14 I always test the new 93 158 176 122 51
brand of milk as soon (15.5) (26.3) (29.3) (20.3) (8.5)
as introduced in the
market.
15 Buying a particular 209 158 98 87 48
brand of milk (34.8) (26.3) (16.3) (14.5) (8.0)
continuously depends
on the level of
organisation's service
quality
16 I tend to skip over the 46 88 151 158 157
advertisements of (7.7) (14.7) (25.2) (26.3) (26.2)
brands which I don't
buy
182
S. Factors S.A N D.A S.D.A
A
No.
17 After viewing 79 147 183 88 103
commercial ads of (13.2) (24.5) (30.5) (14.7) (17.2)
other brands I
compare with the
brand I purchase
18 I feel like buying 85 165 195 86 69
other brands also if (14.2) (27.5) (32.5) (14.3) (11.5)
the ads are impressive
19 My brand preference 77 111 138 138 136
will keep on changing (12.8) (18.5) (23.0) (23.0) (22.7)
in par with the
advertisements.
20 I have a great amount 132 173 144 92 59
of Brand Loyalty. (22.0) (28.8) (24.0) (15.3) (9.8)
SA: Strongly Agree; A: Agree; NA/DA: Neither Agree nor Disagree;
DA: Disagree SDA: Strongly Disagree
The table no. 4.17 reveals that out of 600 respondents, 49.5%
respondents strongly agreed that they buy a particular brand without
giving importance to its varieties, 37.5% respondents agreed that they will
continue to use the same brand of milk that they are using, 37.5%
respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that less price of milk implies
less fat content and high price implies high fat content, 34.8% respondents
strongly agreed that buying a particular brand of milk continuously
depends on the level of company's service quality, 34.3% respondents
strongly agreed that their selection of brand is based on fat content, 32.8%
183
respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they shift to other brands if
the taste of the preferred brand has changed, 32.5% respondents neither
agreed nor disagreed that they feel like buying other brands also if the
advertisements are impressive, 30.5% respondents neither agreed nor
disagreed that after viewing commercial advertisements of other brands
they compare with the brand they purchase, 30.3% respondents neither
agreed nor disagreed that their purchase decisions are purely based on
credit terms. It is concluded that consumers buy a particular brand without
giving importance to its varieties and normally continue to use the same
brand of milk that they are using.
184
4.3 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS
4.3.1 Introduction
In this section an attempt was made to find out the influence of
demographic factors and socio-economic factors like Educational
Qualification, Occupation, Family Size, Monthly Income, Amount spent
on Milk per Month, Type of Milk, Quantity of Milk Purchase, Place of
Purchase and Mode of Payment against the purchasing decision of milk.
The relationship between the selected independent variables chosen
for the study and the dependent variable preference level of the milk brand
was studied and tested with the help of Chi-square test.
4.3.2 Educational background and level of preference to the

milk brand
Education develops a rational mind and creates awareness among
consumers. Education is one of the vital inputs for the buyer behaviour.
Hence, the researcher tried to explore the educational qualifications of the
buyer of fluid milk. Educational qualification is categorized into five types
viz. Primary School level, Middle School level, Higher Secondary level,
Graduate level and Post Graduate level. Out of 600 sample respondents,
185
82 belonged to Primary School level, 128 belonged to Middle School
level, 188 belonged to Higher Secondary level, 150 were Graduate level
and 52 were Post Graduate level. The distribution of sample respondents
according to their educational qualification and their level of preference on
selecting the milk brand is presented in the below table.
TABLE NO. 4.18
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND LEVEL OF PREFERENCE

TO THE MILK BRAND
S. Educational No. of Ave Range

% S.D
No. background Respondents rage Min Max
1 Primary school level 82 13.7 78.8 58 100 12.2
2 Middle school level 128 21.3 77.9 44 100 10.9
3 Higher Secondary!
188 31.3 79.0 58 100 9.8
SSC/SSLC level
4 Graduate level 150 25.0 78.6 52 100 9.6
5 Post Graduate Level 52 8.7 82.3 45 100 7.3
Total 600 100.0
It could he observed from the above table that the respondents with
the maximum level of preference of milk brand were among the
Postgraduate level which ranged between 45 and 100 with an average of
82.3. The respondents with Higher Secondary level of education having
the preference ranged between 58 and 100 with an average of 79.0. The
186
Graduate respondents have the preference level ranged between 52 and
100 with an average of 78.6. The respondents with Middle School level
education have the preference level ranged between 44 and 100 with an
average of 77.9. On the other hand, the level of preference of Primary
School level respondents ranged between 58 and 100 with an average of
78.8. From the analysis, it is noted that the respondents with Postgraduate
level of education have more awareness level of brand preference to the
milk.
4.3.3 Educational background and level of preference to the

milk brand (Two-way table)
With a view to find the degree of association between educational
qualification of the respondents and their level of preference in the milk
brand, a two-way table was prepared and result is shown in the following
table.
187
TABLE NO. 4.19
TO THE MILK BRAND (TWO-WAY TABLE)
S. Educational Level of Preference
Total
No. background Low Medium High
Primary school level 23 37 22
1 82
(28.0) (45.1) (26.8)
Middle school level 34 56 38
2 128
(26.6) (43.8) (29.7)
Higher Secondary! 45 74 69
3 188
SSC/SSLC level (23.9) (39.4) (36.7)
Graduate level 31 58 61
4 150
(20.7) (38.7) (40.7)
Post Graduate Level 13 28 11
5 52
(25.0) (53.8) (21.2)
Total 146 253 201 600
The above table shows that the percentage of preference level based
on the high level of preference of milk brand was the highest (40.7) among
the Graduate respondents and the same was the lowest (21.2) among the
Post Graduate respondents. The percentage of medium level of preference
to the milk brand measure was the highest (53.8) among the Post Graduate
level respondents and the lowest (38.7) among the Graduates. On the
other hand, the percentage of preference level based on the low level of
preference of milk brand measures was the highest (28.0) among the
Primary level respondents and the lowest (20.7) among the Graduates.
188
4.3.4 Educational background and level of preference to the milk
brand (Chi-square test)
In order to find the relationship between educational qualification of
the respondents and the level of preference to the milk brand, a Chi-square
test was used and the result of the test is shown in the following table.
TABLE NO. 4.20

TO THE MILK BRAND (CHI-SQUARE TEST)
Calculated Table
Factor D.F Remarks
x2 Value Value
Educational
11.178 15.507 8 Not Significant
background
It is found from the above table that the calculated Chi-square value
is less than the table value and the result is not significant at 5% level and
1% level. Hence, the null hypothesis, "education of the respondents and
their level of preference with the milk brand are not associated" does hold
good. From the analysis, it is concluded that there is no close relationship
between education of the respondents and their level of preference in the
milk brand.
189
4.3.5 Occupation and level of preference to the milk brand
Occupation plays an important role to assess the person's status.
The individuals are respected in the society based on the position occupied
in the industry. Moreover, occupation certainly influences the
consumption habits, choices and purchasing power of consumers. For the
purpose of the study occupation has been classified into 4 categories viz.,
Government Service, Private Service, Running Own Business and Labour/
Daily Worker. The sample consist of 79 Government Service, 172 Private
Service, 289 Running Own Business and 60 Labour / Daily Worker. The
distribution of sample respondents according to occupation and level of
preference to the milk brands is shown in the following table.
TABLE NO. 4.21

OCCUPATION AND LEVEL OF PREFERENCE TO THE MILK
BRANDS
S. No. of Ave Range
Occupation % S.D
No. Respondents rage min Max
1. Government service 79 13.2 76.3 45 100 10.6
2. Private service 172 28.6 79.5 58 100 9.1
3. Running Own
289 48.2 81.7 43 100 8.1
Business
4. Labor / daily paid
60 10.0 79.2 60 99 9.0
worker
Total 600 100.0
190
It is found from the Table 4.21 that maximum level of preference to
the milk brand was among the sample respondents who were running own
business which ranged between 43 and 100 with an average (81.7). The
respondents working in private service have expressed the level of
preference to the milk brand ranged between 58 and 100 with an average
of (79.5). The respondents working in government services have expressed
the level of preference to the milk brand ranged between 45 and 100 with
an average of (76.3). On the other hand the respondents who are in labour /
daily worker category have expressed the level of preference to the milk
brand ranged between 60 and 99 with an average of (79.2). From the
analysis, it is found that the respondents in the category of running own
business are having more level of preference to the milk brand than the
sample respondents who are in private service, government service and
daily labour categories.

(Two-way table)
With a view to find the degree of association between occupation
and level of preference to the milk brand, a two- way table was prepared
and the result is shown in the following table.
191
TABLE NO. 4.22
BRAND (TWO-WAY TABLE)
S. Level of Preference
Occupation Total
No. Low Medium High
1 24 34 21
Government service 79
(30.4) (43.0) (26.6)
2. 7 71 64
Private
vate service 172
(21.5) (41.3) (37.2)
3. 62 136 91
Running Own Business 289
(21.5) (47.1) (31.5)
4. Labor / daily paid 23 12 25
60
worker (38.3) (20.0) (41.7)
Total 146 253 201 600
It is noted from the above table that the percentage of high level of
preference to the milk brand measures was the highest (41.7) among the
Labor / daily paid worker and the lowest (26.6) among the Government
Service. The percentage of medium level of preference to the milk brand
was the highest (47.1) among Running Own Business and the lowest
(20.0) among the Labor / Daily paid worker.
On the other hand the percentage of low level of preference to the
brand was the highest (38.3) among Labor / Daily paid worker and the
lowest (21.5) among the Private service and Running own business.
192
(Chi-square test)
In order to find the relationship between the occupation and the
level of preference to the milk brand, a Chi-square test was used and the
result of the test is shown in the following table.
TABLE NO. 4.23

BRAND (CHI-SQUARE TEST)
Calculated
Factor 2 Table Value D.F Remarks
X, Value
Occupation 19.625 12.592 6 Significant at 5%
level
It is limelighted from the above table that the calculated Chi-square
value is greater than the table value and result is significant at 5% level.
Hence, the hypothesis "occupation and level of preference to the brand of
milk are associated" holds good. From the analysis, it is concluded that
there is close relationship between the occupation and the level of
preference to the milk brands.
193
4.3.8 Family Size and level of preference to the milk brand
The size of the family is a major influence on the buyer behaviour
of Milk. The three types of families are Nuclear families, Extended
families and the large families, on the basis of which the members in the
family are grouped under three categories viz. Up to 3 members, 4
members to 5 members and above 5 members. The sample consist of 105
respondents having up to 3 members in the family, 404 respondents having
4 members to 5 members in the family and 91 respondents having above 5
members in the family. The distribution of sample respondents according
to number of dependents and level of preference to the milk brand is
shown in the following table.
TABLE NO. 4.24

FAMILY SIZE AND LEVEL OF PREFERENCE TO THE MILK
BRAND
S. No. of Ave Range

Family Size % S.D
No. Respondents rage Min Max
1. Upto 3 members 105 84.8 78.7 44 100 10.0
2. 4 to 5 members 404 13.8 79.1 50 99 10.4
3. Above 5 members 91 1.3 88.9 43 79 8.8
Total 600 100.0
It is found from the above table that maximum level of preference to
the milk brand was among the respondents having above 5 members which
194
ranged between 43 and 79 with an average of 88.9 The respondents having
4 members to 5 members preferred milk brand ranged between 50 and 99
with an average of 79.1. On the other hand, the respondents having up to 3
members have expressed the level of preference to the milk brand ranged
between 44 and 100 with an average of 78.7. From the analysis, it is found
that the respondents having above 5 members in the family preferred more
to the milk brands than their counterparts.

(Two-way table)
With a view to find the degree of association between family size
and level of preference to the milk brand, a two-way table was prepared
and illustrated as below.
TABLE NO. 4.25

BRAND (TWO-WAY TABLE)
Family Size Total
No. Low Medium High
20 33 52
1. Upto 3 members 105
(19.0) (31.4) (49.5)
100 190 114
2. 4 to 5 members 404
(24.8) (47.0) (28.2)
26 30 35
3. Above 5 members 91
(28.6) (33.0) (38.5)
Total 146 253 201 600
195
It is noted from the above table that the high percentage of brand
preference on the milk was highest (49.5) among the respondents having
up to 3 members in the family and the lowest (28.2) among the
respondents having above 4 to 5 members. The percentage of medium
level of preference to the milk brand was the highest (47.0) among the
respondents having 4 to 5 members in the family and the lowest (31.4)
among the respondents having upto 3 members in the family. On the other
hand, the percentage of low level of brand preference in milk was the
highest (28.6) among the respondents having above 5 members in the
family and the lowest (19.0) among the respondents having up to 3
members in their family.

(Chi-square test)
In order to find the relationship between family size of the
respondents and their level of preference to the milk brand, a Chi-square
196
TABLE NO. 4.26
BRAND (CHI-SQUARE TEST)
Calculated Table
Factor D.F Remarks
X2 Value Value
Family Significant at
20.951 9.488 4
Size 5% level
It is noted from the Table no. 4.26 that the calculated Chi-square
value is greater than the table value and the result is significant at 5%
level. Hence, the null hypothesis, "family size of the respondents and their
level of preference to the milk brand are not associated" does not hold
good. From the analysis, it is concluded that there is close relationship
between family size of the respondents and their level of preference to the
milk brand.
4.3.11 Monthly income and level of preference to the milk brand
Income is the main factor which determines purchasing power,
consumption levels and taste of the consumers. Higher the income level,
higher the purchasing power and vice versa. Monthly income is a powerful
determinant of preference to the milk brands. For the purpose of this study
the monthly income has been classified into four categories namely below
Rs.5000, Rs.5000 to Rs.10000, Rs. 10001 to Rs.20000 and above
Rs.20000. Out of 600 sample respondents, 218 respondents are getting
197
monthly income below Rs.5,000, 257 respondents are getting monthly
income of Rs.5000-10000, 99 respondents are getting monthly income of
Rs.10001 to 20000 and 26 respondents are getting monthly income of
above Rs.20000.
The distribution of sample respondents according to their monthly
income and preference level of milk brand is shown in the following table.
TABLE NO. 4.27

MONTHLY INCOME AND LEVEL OF PREFERENCE
TO THE MILK BRAND
S. No. of 04 Ave Range
M onthly income S.D
1. Below Rs.5000 218 36.3 79.6 57 100 10.5
2. Rs.5000-10000 257 42.9 80.2 43 100 8.6
3. Rs.10001-20000 99 16.5 78.5 50 100 9.8
4. Above Rs.20000 26 4.3 75.9 45 100 13.8
Total 600 100.0
It is obvious from the above table that the maximum level of
preference to the milk brand was among the Rs.5000 to Rs.10000 monthly
income people preference ranged between 43 and 100 with an average of
80.2. It is followed by below Rs.5000 monthly income people level of
preference ranged between 57 and 100 with an average of 79.6. The
respondents with Rs.10001 to 20000 monthly income level of preference is
198
between 50 and 100 with an average 78.5, whereas respondents with above
i
Rs.20000 monthly income level of preference to the milk brand ranged
between 45 and 100 with an average of 75.9. Thus it is concluded that
Rs.5000 to Rs. 10000 monthly income respondents have perceived the
maximum level of preference to the milk brand.

(Two-way table)
With a view to find the degree of association between monthly
income of the respondents and their level of preference to the milk brand,
a two-way table was prepared and illustrated as below.
TABLE NO. 4.28

MONTHLY INCOME AND LEVEL OF PREFERENCE TO THE
MILK BRAND (TWO-WAY TABLE)
Level of Preference
S. No. Monthly income Total
Low Medium High
43 93 82
1• Below Rs.5000 218
(29.5) (36.8) (40.8)
2. 66 118 73
Rs.5000-10000 257
(45.2) (46.6) (36.3)
3. 27 37 35
Rs.10001-20000 99
(18.5) (14.6) (17.4)
4 10 5 11
' Above Rs.20000 26
(6.8) (2.0) (5.5)
Total 146 253 201 600
199
It is shown in the above table that the percentage of preference level
based on the high level of preference to the milk brand was the highest
(40.8) in below Rs.5000 monthly income category respondents and the
same was the lowest (5.5) among the above Rs.20000 monthly income
respondents. The percentage of preference level based on medium level of
preference to the milk brand was the highest (46.6) among the Rs.5000 to
Rs. 10000 respondents and the lowest (2.0) among the above Rs.20000
monthly income respondents. On the other hand, the percentage of
preference level based on the low level of preference to the milk brand was
the highest (45.2) among the Rs.5000 to Rs. 10000 monthly income
respondents and the lowest (6.8) among the above Rs.20000 income
category respondents.

(Chi-square test)
In order to find the relationship between monthly income of the
respondents and the level of preference to the milk brand, a Chi-square test
was used and the result of the test is shown in the following table.
200
TABLE NO. 4.29
MONTHLY INCOME AND LEVEL OF PREFERENCE TO THE
MILK BRAND (CHI-SQUARE TEST)
Calculated Table
Factor D.F Remarks
x2 Value Value
Monthly Significant at 5%
13.028 12.592 6
income level
It is clear from the above table that the calculated Chi-square value
is greater than the table value and the result is significant at 5% level.
Hence, the null hypothesis, "monthly income of the respondents and their
level of preference to the milk brand are not associated" does not hold
good. From the analysis, it is concluded that there is close relationship
between monthly income of the respondents and their level of preference
to the milk brand.
4.3.14 Amount spent on milk per month and level of preference to

the milk brand
Milk has become the part and parcel of everyone's daily life. The
milk occupies a significant place in the monthly family budgets. During
preparation of the family budget, a certain amount is kept aside for the
purchase of milk. Consumers spend for the purchase of milk depends on
their income level, usage pattern and price.
201
For the purpose of the study, the monthly milk expense has been
classified into three categories namely below Rs.500, Rs.500 to Rs.1000,
and above Rs.1000. Out of 600 sample respondents, 375 respondents are
spending below Rs.500 per month, 182 respondents are spending of
Rs.500-1000 per month and 43 respondents are spending above Rs.1000
per month.
The distribution of sample respondents according to their amount
spent on milk per month and preference level of milk brand is shown in
the following table.
TABLE NO. 4.30

AMOUNT SPENT ON MILK PER MONTH AND LEVEL OF
PREFERENCE TO THE MILK BRAND
S. No. of Ave Range
Amount Spent °A) S.D
1. Below Rs.500 375 62.5 78.0 44 100 9.4
2. Rs.500-1000 182 30.3 83.7 43 100 7.2
3. Above Rs.1000 43 7.2 79.4 69 100 8.5
Total 600 100.0
It obvious from the above table that the maximum level of
preference to the milk brand was among the sample respondents who are
spending Rs.500 to Rs.1000 per month for milk and their level of
preference ranged between 43 and 100 with an average of 83.7. It is
followed by respondents spending above Rs.1000 per month whose level
202
of preference ranged between 69 and 100 with an average of 79.4, whereas
the respondents who are spending below Rs.500 per month for milk have
the level of preference to the milk brand ranged between 44 and 100 with
an average of 78.0. Thus it is concluded that the respondents, who are
spending Rs.500-Rs.1000 per month for milk, have perceived the
maximum level of preference to the milk brand.

the milk brand (Two-Way Table)
With a view to find the degree of association between amount spent
on milk and the level of preference to the milk brand, a two-way table was
prepared and illustrated as below.
TABLE NO. 4.31

PREFERENCE TO THE MILK BRAND (TWO-WAY TABLE)
Level of Preference
S. No. Amount Spent Total
Low Medium High
87 174 114
1. Below Rs.500 375
(23.2) (46.4) (30.4)
41 67 74
2. Rs.500-1000 182
(22.5) (36.8) (40.7)
3. 18 12 13
Above Rs.1000 43
(41.9) (27.9) (30.2)
Total 146 253 201 600
203
It is learned from the above table that the percentage of preference
level based on the high level of preference to the milk brand was the
highest (40.7) in among the respondents spending Rs. 500 to Rs.1000 per
month for milk and the same was the lowest (30.2) among the respondents
spending below Rs.500 per month. The percentage of preference level
based on medium level of preference to the milk brand was the highest
(46.4) among the respondents spending below Rs.500 per month and the
lowest (27.9) among the respondents spending above Rs.1000 per month.
On the other hand, the percentage of preference level based on the low
level of preference to the milk brand was the highest (41.9) among the
respondents spending above Rs.1000 per month and the lowest (22.5)
among the respondents spending Rs.500 to 1000 per month.

the milk brand (Chi-square test)
In order to find the relationship between amount spent on milk by
the respondents and the level of preference to the milk brand, a Chi-square
204
TABLE NO. 4.32
PREFERENCE TO THE MILK BRAND (CHI-SQUARE TEST)
Calculated Table
Factor D.F Remarks
x2 Value Value
Amount Spent Significant at 5%
14.772 9.488 4
level
It is clear from the above table that the calculated Chi-square value
Hence, the null hypothesis, "amount spent on milk per month by the
respondents and their levels of preference to the milk brand are not
associated" does not hold good. From the analysis, it is concluded that
there is close relationship between amount spent on milk per month by the
respondents and their level of preference to the milk brand.
4.3.17 Type of milk and level of brand preference
All the consumers' preferences are not same in case of the level of
fat content in the milk they consume. The choice of preference between
Toned, Full Cream or Standardized milk is made by the consumers so as to
satisfy their own requirements. An attempt was made to study the
relationship between the type of milk and brand preference. For the
purpose of the study, the type of milk are categorized into four types, viz.,
Toned Milk, Full Cream Milk, Standardized Milk and Not Specific. Out
205
of 600 respondents, 210 respondents preferred toned milk, 136
respondents preferred full cream milk, 125 respondents preferred
standardized milk and 129 respondents preferences were not specific. The
distribution of sample respondents according to their type of milk and their
level of preference to the milk product is presented in the below table.
TABLE NO. 4.33

TYPE OF MILK AND LEVEL OF BRAND PREFERENCE
S. No. of % Ave Range

Type of Milk S.D
1. Toned Milk 210 35.0 78.7 44 100 10.3
2. Full Cream Milk 136 22.6 78.0 43 100 10.5
3. Standardized Milk 125 20.2 80.4 58 100 9.4
4. Not Specific 129 22.2 77.5 45 99 10.3
Total 600 100.0
It is noted from the above table that the maximum level of
preference to the milk brand was on the 'Standardized milk' type and the
preference level ranged between 58 and 100 with an average of 80.4. It is
followed by Toned milk type and the level of preference ranged between
44 and 100 with an average of 78.7 and Full Cream milk level of
preference ranged between 43 and 100 with an average of 78.0, whereas,
the level of preference of respondents who were not specific about the type
of milk ranged between 45 and 99 with an average of 77.5. From the
206
analysis it is concluded that standardized milk has preference in the
maximum level.
4.3.18 Type of milk and level of brand preference (Two-way table)
With a view to find the degree of association between type of milk
purchased by respondents and their level of preference to the milk brand, a
two-way table was prepared and illustrated as below.
TABLE NO. 4.34

(TWO-WAY TABLE)
Type of Milk Total
No. Low Medium High
1. Toned Milk 50 91 69
210
(23.8) (43.3) (32.9)
2. Full Cream Milk 39 57 40
(29.4) 136
(28.7) (41.9)
3. Standardized Milk 19 47 55
121
(15.7) (38.8) (45.5)
4. Not Specific 38 58 37
133
(28.6) (43.6) (27.8)
Total 146 253 201 600
It is identified from the above table that the percentage of preference
level based on the high level of preference to the different type of milk
was the highest (45.5) in standardized milk and the same was the lowest
(27.8) among the respondents who are not specific. The percentage of
207
preference level based on medium level of preference to the different type
of milk was the highest (43.6) among the respondents who are not specific
and the lowest (41.9) among the full cream milk respondents. On the other
hand, the percentage of preference level based on the low level of
preference to the different type of milk was the highest (28.7) among the
full cream milk respondents and the lowest (15.7) among the standardized
milk respondents.
4.3.19 Type of milk and level of brand preference (Chi-square test)
In order to find the relationship between the type of milk and the
level of brand preference of the respondents, a Chi-square test was used
and the result of the test is shown in the following table.
TABLE NO. 4.35

(CHI-SQUARE TEST)
Calculated Table
Factor D.F Remarks
x2 Value Value
Type of Milk 13.364 Significant at 5%
12.592 6
level
Hence, the null hypothesis, "type of milk and respondents' level of milk
208
brand preference are not associated" does not hold good. From the
analysis, it is concluded that there is close relationship between type of
milk and the brand preference of the respondents.
4.3.20 Quantity of milk purchase and the level of brand preference
Availability of milk in required assortments is an important factor
which influences the preference of a particular brand of milk. An attempt
has been made to study the relationship between the quantity of milk
purchase and preference level to the milk brand. For the purpose of the
study, the respondents have been classified on the basis of purchasing
quantity. Out of 600 samples respondents 251 are purchasing below 'A litre
per day, 248 are buying 'A litre to 1 litre of milk per day and 101
respondents are buying above 1 litre of milk per day. The distribution of
sample respondents according to the quantity of milk purchase and the
level of brand preference is presented in the following table.
209
TABLE NO. 4.36
QUANTITY OF MILK PURCHASE AND LEVEL OF BRAND
PREFERENCE
S. Quantity of No. of Ave Range
% S.D
No. Milk Respondents rage min Max
1. Below 1/2 Lr. 251 41.8 78.9 44 100 9.7
2. 1/2 Lr. to 1 Lr. 248 41.3 86.5 45 100 8.1
3. Above 1 Lr. 101 16.8 81.3 43 100 11.8
Total 600 100.0
It is clear from the above table that the maximum level of preference
to the milk brand was among the respondents who buy 1/2 litre to 1 litre of
milk per day which ranged between 45 and 100 with an average of 86.5.
The respondents buying above 1 litre preference level ranged between 43
and 100 with an average of 81.3, whereas, the respondents buying below
1/2 litre preference level ranged between 44 and 100 with an average of
78.9. From the analysis it is concluded that the 1/2 litre to 1 litre purchasing
respondents have perceived the maximum level of brand preference.
4.3.21 Quantity of milk purchase and level of brand preference

(Two-Way Table)
With a view to find the degree of association between quantity of
milk purchase and level of preference to the milk brand, a two-way table
was prepared and illustrated as below.
210
TABLE NO. 4.37
PREFERENCE (TWO-WAY TABLE)
Level of Preference
S. No. Quantity of Milk Total
' Low Medium High
1. Below 1/2 Lr. 53 99 99
251
(36.3) (39.1) (49.3)
2. 1/2 Lr. to 1 Lr. 60 114 74
248
(41.1) (45.1) (36.8)
3. Above 1 Lr. 33 40 28
101
(22.6) (15.8) (13.9)
Total 146 253 201 600
level based on the high level of preference to the quantity of milk purchase
was the highest (49.3) in respondents purchasing below 1/2 litre and the
same was the lowest (13.9) among the respondents buying above 1 litre.
The percentage of preference level based on medium level of preference to
the quantity of milk purchase was the highest (45.1) among the
respondents purchasing 1/2 litre to 1 litre and the lowest (15.8) among the
respondents purchasing above 1 litre quantity of milk. On the other hand,
the percentage of preference level based on the low level of preference to
the quantity of milk purchase was the highest (41.1) among the
respondents purchasing IA litre to 1 litre quantity of milk and the lowest
(22.6) among the respondents purchasing above 1 litre quantity of milk.
211
4.3.22 Quantity of milk purchase and level of brand preference
(Chi-square test)
In order to find the relationship between quantity of milk purchase
of respondents and the level of preference to the milk brand, a Chi-square
TABLE NO. 4.38

PREFERENCE (CHI-SQUARE TEST)
Calculated Table
Factor 2 D.F Remarks
x Value Value
Quantity Significant at
10.050 9.488 4
of Milk 5% level
It is noted from the above table that the calculated Chi-square value
Hence, the null hypothesis, "quantity of milk purchase of the respondents
and their level of preference to the milk brand are not associated" does not
hold good. From the analysis, it is concluded that there is close
relationship between quantity of milk purchase of the respondents and
their level of preference to the milk brand.
212
4.3.23 Place of Purchase and level of brand preference
The buying convenience of the product has significant influence on
the brand preference. This means that the access of the product is
important when purchasing low involvement products like milk.
Moreover, Consumers will not go to another place to find the brand that
they want; instead, they choose another brand in the same outlet. An
attempt has been made to study the relationship between the place of
purchase of milk and preference level to the milk brand. For the purpose of
the study, the respondents have been classified on the basis of milk
purchasing outlet. Out of 600 samples respondents 188 are getting through
Door to Door milk vendors, 232 are getting through Milk booths, 136 are
getting through shops and 44 respondents are getting through
Supermarkets. The distribution of sample respondents according to the
place of purchase and the level of preference to the milk brand is presented
in the following table.
213
TABLE NO. 4.39
PLACE OF PURCHASE AND LEVEL OF BRAND PREFERENCE
S. No. of Ave Range

Purchase Place % S.D
No. Respondents rage min Max
1. Door Delivery 188 31.3 78.6 45 100 9.8
2. Milk Booth 232 38.7 81.9 43 100 7.1
3. Shop 136 22.7 73.6 44 96 9.3
4. Super Market 44 7.3 77.4 60 99 8.3
Total 600 100.0
to the place of milk purchase is among the respondents who buy milk in
milk booths, which ranged between 43 and 100 with an average of 81.9.
Preference level of respondents buying from door delivery vendors ranged
between 45 and 100 with an average of 78.6. Super market respondents'
level of preference to place of purchase was ranged between 60 and 99
with an average of 77.4, whereas the preference level of Shop purchasing
respondents ranged between 44 and 96 with an average of 73.6. From the
analysis, it is concluded that the respondents who buy milk from the milk
booths have perceived the maximum level of brand preference.
214
4.3.24 Place of purchase and level of brand preference
(Two-way table)
With a view to find the degree of association between place of milk
purchase and the level of brand preference, a two-way table was prepared
and illustrated as below.
TABLE NO. 4.40

(TWO-WAY TABLE)
Level of Preference
S. No. Purchase of place Total
Low Medium High
Door Delivery 50 68 70
1. 188
(34.2) (26.9) (34.8)
Milk Booth 31 105 96
2. 232
(21.2) (41.5) (47.8)
Shop 55 58 23
3. 136
(37.7) (22.9) (11.4)
Super Market 10 22 12
4. 44
(6.8) (8.7) (6.0)
Total 146 253 201 600
level based on the high level of preference to the milk purchase place was
the highest (47.8) among respondents purchasing in shops and the same
was the lowest (6.0) among the respondents purchasing in super market.
The percentage of preference level based on medium level of preference to
215
the milk purchase place was the highest (41.5) among the respondents
buying milk in Milk booths and the lowest (8.7) among the respondents
buying milk in super markets. On the other hand, the percentage of
preference level based on the low level of preference to the milk purchase
place was the highest (37.7) among the respondents buying milk in shops
and the lowest (6.8) among the respondents buying milk in super market.
4.3.25 Place of purchase and level of brand preference

(Chi-square test)
In order to find the relationship between respondents' place of milk
purchase the level of milk brand preference, a Chi-square test was used
and the result of the test is shown in the following table.
TABLE NO. 4.41

(CHI-SQUARE TEST)
Calculated Table
Factor 2 D.,F Remarks
x Value Value
Purchase Significant at
45.959 12.592 6
Place 5% level
It is noted from the above table that the calculated Chi-square value
216
Hence, the null hypothesis, "place of milk purchase of the respondents and
their level of preference to the milk brand are not associated" does not
hold good. From the analysis, it is concluded that there is close
relationship between place of milk purchase of the respondents and their
level of preference to the milk brand.
4.3.26 Mode of payment and level of brand preference
Payment method is one of the factors that influence the brand
preference of the milk consumers. An attempt has been made to study the
relationship between the mode of payment and preference level to the milk
brand. For the purpose of the study, the respondents have been classified
on the basis of categories into cash buyers and credit buyers. Out of 600
samples respondents 514 are buying milk after paying cash, whereas 86
respondents buying milk for credit. The distribution of sample respondents
according to the mode of payment and level of preference to the milk
brand is presented in the following table.
217
TABLE NO. 4.42
MODE OF PAYMENT AND LEVEL OF BRAND PREFERENCE
S. Mode of No. of Ave Range
% S.D
No. payment Respondents rage Min Max
1. Cash 514 85.7 88.9 44 100 10.3
2. Credit 86 14.3 78.8 43 100 11.4
Total 600 100.0
to the milk brand was among the cash respondents which ranged between
44 and 100 with an average of 88.9, whereas, the credit respondents' level
of preference to the milk brand was ranged between 43 and 100 with an
average of 78.8. It is concluded that the respondents who make immediate
cash payment have perceived the maximum level of preference to the milk
brand.

(Two-way table)
With a view to find the degree of association between mode of
payment and level of preference to the milk brand, a two-way table was
prepared and illustrated as below.
218
TABLE NO. 4.43
(TWO-WAY TABLE)
Level of Preference
S. No. Mode of payment Total
Low Medium High
1. Cash 125 221 168
514
(24.3) (43.0) (32.7)
2. Credit 21 32 33
86
(24.4) (37.2) (38.4)
Total 146 253 201 600
level based on the high level of preference to the mode of milk payment
measures was the highest (32.7) in cash respondents and the same was the
lowest (38.4) among the credit respondents. The percentage of preference
level based on medium level of preference to the mode of milk payment
measures was the highest (43.0) among the cash respondents and the
lowest (37.2) among the credit respondents. On the other hand, the
percentage of preference level based on the low level of preference to the
mode of payment to the milk product measures was the highest (24.4)
among the credit respondents and the lowest (24.3) among the cash
respondents.
219
(Chi-square test)
In order to find the relationship between mode of payment of
respondents and the level of preference to the milk brand, a Chi-square test
was used and the result of the test is shown in the following table.
TABLE NO. 4.44

(CHI-SQUARE TEST)
Calculated Table
Factor D.F Remarks
X2 Value Value
Mode of
1.297 5.991 2 Not Significant
payment
is less than the table value and the result is not significant at 5% level and
1% level. Hence, the null hypothesis, "mode of payment of the
respondents and their level of preference with the mode of payment are not
associated" does hold good. From the analysis, it is concluded that there is
no close relationship between mode of payment of the respondents and
their level of brand preference.
220
4.4 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
In the following analysis, the relationship between the respondents'
level of brand preference perceived in purchase of milk and nine
independent factors were studied. It is found that out of nine variables only
seven variables were closely associated with the level of preference
perceived in purchase of a brand of milk among the selected sample
respondents. The nine independent variables used in multiple regression
analysis are shown below. They are,
1 Educational Qualification
2. Occupation
3. Family size
4. Monthly Income
5 Amount Spent on Milk per Month
6. Type of Milk
7. Quantity of Milk Purchase
8. Place of Purchase
9. Mode of Payment
221
4.4.1 Multiple Regression analysis of respondents level of brand
preference in milk purchase
In order to measure the interdependence of independent factors and
the respondents' level of brand preference in milk purchase, the results
were subjected to multiple regression analysis. The results of multiple
regression analysis are shown in the following table.
TABLE NO. 4.45

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF RESPONDENTS'
LEVEL OF BRAND PREFERENCE IN MILK PURCHASE
Unstandardized Standardized
SI. coefficients coefficients
Variables
V t Sig.
No. Std.
B Beta
Error
(Constant) 2.849 0.561 5.078
1 Educational
0.052 0.066 0.031 0.783 NS
Qualification
2 Occupation 0.232 0.037 0.237 6.243 1%
3 Family Size 0.169 0.027 0.251 6.356 1%
4
Monthly Income -0.105 0.029 -0.139 1%
3.564
5 Amount Spent on -
-0.050 0.024 -0.081 5%
Milk per month 2.083
6 Type of milk 0.070 0.021 0.127 3.275 1%
Quantity of Milk
-0.092 0.017 -0.212 1%
purchase 5.476
8. Place of purchase 0.051 0.026 0.076 1.991 5%
9 Mode of payment 0.058 0.062 0.037 0.936 NS
Degree of Degree of
R- R2 -
freedom - freedom - F Value Significance
Value Value
Vt V2
0.940 0.884 9 590 500.981 1% Level
222
The multiple linear regression co-efficient (dependent variable) is
found to be statistically a good fit since r2 is 0.884. It shows that the
independent variables contribute 88% of the variations in the level of
preference in milk purchase and this is statistically significant at 1% and
5% level respectively.
The table indicates that the co-efficient of educational qualification,
occupation, family size, type of milk, place of purchase, and mode of
payment factors in selecting the particular brand of milk are positively
associated with the level of brand preference perceived in milk purchase.
On the other hand, the co-efficient of monthly income, amount spent
on milk per month and quantity of milk purchase are negatively
associated. Further, it indicates that the factors like occupation, family size
and type of milk are statistically significant at 1% level and similarly the
factors like educational qualification, place of purchase, amount spent on
milk and mode of payment in selecting the particular brand are statistically
significant at 5% level. Both of these imply that their influence on the
level of brand preference is stronger than other variables.
223
4.5 DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS - LEVEL OF
BRAND PREFERENCE OF THE MILK BUYERS
In the study area, the 600 sample respondents were divided into two
groups, one is low level of preference and the other is high level of
preference. How do the respondents in one group differ from the other is
studied with the help of discriminant function analysis. For the purpose of
the study, 9 variables were selected.
1. Educational Qualification
2. Occupation
3. Family Size
4. Monthly Income
5. Amount Spent on Milk per month
6. Type of milk
7. Quantity of Milk purchase
8. Place of purchase
9. Mode of payment
The D.F.A. attempts to construct a function with these and other
variables so that the respondents belonging to these two groups are
differentiated at the maximum. The linear combination of variables is
known as Discriminant Function and its parameters are called
224
Discriminant Function coefficients. In constructing this D.F. all the
variables which contribute more to differentiate these two groups are
examined.
Mahalanobis minimum D2 method is based on the generalized
squared Euclidean distance that adjusts for unequal variances in the

,
variables. The major advantage of this procedure is that it is computed in
the original space of the predictor (independent) variables rather than as a
collapsed version which is used in the other method.
Generally, all the variables selected will not contribute to explain
the maximum discriminatory power of the function. Hence, a selection
rule is applied based on certain criteria to include those variables which
best discriminate. Stepwise selection method was applied in constructing
D.F. which selects one variable at a time to include in the function. Before
entering into the function the variables are examined for inclusion in the
function.
The variables which could have maximum D2 value, if entered into
the function are selected for inclusion in the function. Once entered any
variable already in the equation is again considered for removal based on
certain removal criteria. Likewise, at each step the next best
225
discriminating variable is selected and included in the function and any
variable already included in the function is considered for removal based
on the selection and removal criteria respectively.
4.5.1 Discriminant analysis for the problem under study
Since DFA involved in ascertaining the efficiency of the DFA, all
the variables which satisfy the entry and removal criteria were entered into
the function. Normally the criteria used to select the variables for
inclusion in the function is minimum F to enter into the equation (i.e)
F statistic calculated for the qualified variable to enter into the function is
fixed as 1.
Similarly any variable entered in the equation will be removed from
the function if F statistic for the variable calculated is <1. The 2 groups
are defined as
Group 1 Low level
Group 2 High level
The mean and standard deviation for these groups and for the entire
samples are given for each variable considered in the analysis.
226
TABLE NO. 4.46
GROUP MEANS (BETWEEN LOW & HIGH GROUPS)
S. LOW HIGH TOTAL
Factor
No. Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
1 Educational
3.249 1.536 3.226 1.463 3.238 1.501
Qualification
2 Occupation 3.057 1.832 3.322 1.996 3.182 1.914
3 Family Size 1.994 0.563 1.958 0.582 1.977 0.572
4 Monthly Income 4.167 1.261 4.177 1.213 4.172 1.238
5 Amount Spent on
1.909 0.808 1.866 0.857 1.888 0.831
Milk per month
6 Type of milk 1.347 0.515 1.481 0.597 1.410 0.559
7 Quantity of Milk
2.290 1.176 2.286 1.136 2.288 1.156
purchase
8 Place of purchase 2.167 0.952 1.940 0.850 2.060 0.912
9 Mode of payment 1.584 0.782 1.452 0.690 1.522 0.742
The overall stepwise D.F.A. results after all significant
discriminators have been included in the estimation of discriminated
function are given in the following table.
TABLE NO. 4.47

SUMMARY TABLE BETWEEN LOW AND HIGH GROUPS
Wilk's Minimum .
Step Variable entered Significance
lambda D2
1. 0.984 0.063 *
Place of purchase
2. Amount Spent on 0.108 *
0.974
Milk per month
3. 0.967 0.135 *
Occupation
Significant at I% level
Significant at 5% level
227
The summary table indicates that the variable place of purchase
entered in step 1, the variable amount spent on milk entered in the step 2
and variable occupation entered in the step 3. All the variables are
significant at 1% level. No variable is significant at 5% level. All the
variables are significantly discriminating based on their Wilk's Lambda
and D2 value. The multivariate aspect of the model is given in the
following table.
TABLE NO. 4.48

CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION
(BETWEEN LOW AND HIGH PREFERENCE GROUPS)
Canonical Wilks Chi-square D.F. Sig

correlation Lambda
Significant at
0.181 0.967 19.804 3
1% level
The canonical correlation is 0.181 when squared is 0.318 that is
32% of the variance in the discriminant group can be accounted for by this
model. Wilk's Lambda and Chi-square value suggest that D.F. is
significant at 1% level.
The variables given above are identified finally by the D.F.A. as the
eligible discriminating variables. Based on the selected variables the
corresponding D.F. coefficients are calculated. They are given in
following table.
228
TABLE NO. 4.49
DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION COEFFICIENTS
Place of purchase -0.739
Amount Spent on Milk per
month 1.024
Occupation 0.236
Constant -0.673
Z = - 0.673
+ 0.739 (Occupation)
+ 1.024 (Amount spent on Milk per month)
+ 0.236 (Place of Purchase)
Low user (Z1 ) it is — 0.173

High user (Z2) it is + 0.194
(317 x Z1 ) + (283 X Z2)
317 + 283
if it is represented diagrammatically it will be

z, Z2
0
-0.173 +0.194
Low level High level
Thus to classify any respondent as low or high user the Z score for
the respondent is found out by using the equation.
229
If the score found out for any respondent is Zo and if the value is >Z
(i.e. Zo> Z) then it is classified into high user and if Zo<Z then it is
classified into low user.
Now the questions remain to be answered are
1. How efficient are the discriminating variables in the D.F.A.?

2. How efficient the D.F. itself is?
The first question cannot be answered directly. However, the
discriminating power or the contribution of each variable to the function
can sufficiently answer the question. For this purpose the following table
can be considered.
TABLE NO. 4.50

RELATIVE DISCRIMINATING INDEX
Group Group li = ABS Ri = iii
1 2 Unstandardized (1(i)
sum
Mean Mean dic. Coeff. (kj) Mean ,
If j*100
X1 X2 Pc,— x ia
Place of
2.167 0.952 0.476 30.9
purchase -0.739 '
Amount Spent
on Milk per 1.909 0.808 1.024 0.077 5.0
month
Occupation 3.057 1.832 0.236 0.989 64.1
Total 1.542 100.0
230
Relative Discriminating Index
For each variable the respective D.F. co-efficient, its mean for each
group and R.; are given. R.; called as relative discriminating index is
calculated from the discriminant function coefficient and group means.
R. tells us how much each variable is contributing (%) to the function. By
looking at this column we find that occupation is maximum discriminating
variable and amount spent on milk per month is the least discriminating
variable.
The second question is answered by reclassifying the already
grouped individuals into low or high level using the D.F. (Z) defined in the
equation. This reclassification is called predictor group membership. In
short, the efficiency of the D.F. is how correctly it predicts the respondents
into respective groups.
TABLE NO. 4.51

CLASSIFICATION RESULTS
(BETWEEN LOW LEVEL AND HIGH LEVEL GROUPS)
Predicted group membership
Actual group No. of cases
Group I Group II
178 139
Group I (Low level) 317
56.2% 43.8%
110 173
Group 2 (High level) 283
38.9% 61.1%
Percent of grouped cases correctly classffied: 58.5%.
231
The above table gives the results of the reclassification. The
function, using the variables selected in the analysis classified 58.5% of
the cases correctly in the respective groups.
Discriminate function analysis was applied to the respondents based
on the low user and high user. The following factors significantly
discriminate the two user groups. They are
1. Place of purchase ( at 1°A level)
2. Amount spent on milk per month (at 1% level)
The occupation factor does not discriminate the two level groups.
From the analysis it is found that, place of purchase and amount spent
on milk per month are significantly discriminating the two user groups.
These are the variables that account for the largest proportion of inter-
group differences.
232
4.6 GARRETT RANKING
4.6.1 Product Related Factors
As stated earlier the product features and attributes play an
important role in influencing the buyers' brand preference in milk
purchasing. Various attributes of milk like, freshness of the milk, nutritive
value, level of fat content, thickness, utility in preparing other products,
quality of packaging, information in the label are to be studied so as to
device appropriate product strategies. The results of the analysis of these
factors are discussed in the following table.
TABLE NO. 4.52

PRODUCT RELATED FACTORS
S. Total Mean
Factors Rank
No. Score Score
1- Freshness of the Milk 36952 61.6 I
2- Nutritive value 34287 57.1 III
3- Level of fat content 30200 50.3 IV
4- Thickness 34291 57.2 II
5- Utility in preparing other products 28574 47.6 V
6- Quality of packaging 23456 39.1 VI
7- Label Information 21640 36.1 VII
The table reveals that, among the selected seven factors, most of the
consumers prefer 'Freshness of the milk' which ranked as first by them
233
with Garrett scores as 36952 points. It is followed by the second and third
factors 'Thickness' and 'Nutritive Value' with Garrett scores as 34291 and
34287 points respectively. The fourth and fifth factors are 'Level of fat
content' and 'Utility in preparing other products' with Garrett scores as
30200 and 28574 points respectively. The sixth factor is 'Quality of
Packaging' with Garrett scores as 23456 points. Finally the consumers'
least preferred product factor is 'label information' with Garrett scores as
21640 points. It could be found from the above analysis that most of the
consumers prefer freshness, thickness and nutritive value factors in the
milk product. And the least preferred factor is the information given in the
label.
4.6.2 Distribution Related Factors
Place utility and time utility are the important factors that fulfill the
milk consumers' expectations. The distribution system offers both to the
target consumers. The distribution related factors like, Easy availability,
Home delivery, Regular supply, Availability in required quantity, Timing
of the delivery, Behaviour of the milk supplier, Payment terms are to be
studied so as to draft appropriate distribution strategies. The results of the
analysis of these factors are discussed in the following table.
234
TABLE NO. 4.53
DISTRIBUTION RELATED FACTORS
S. Total Mean
Factors Rank
No. Score Score
1. Easy availability — Near to home 39395 65.7 I
2. Home delivery 33370 55.6 III
3. Regular supply 35395 59.0 II
4. Availability in required quantity 31109 51.8 IV
5. Timing of the delivery 25892 43.2 V
6. Behaviour of the Milk supplier 25056 41.8 VI
7. Payment terms 19105 31.8 VII
The table reveals that among the selected seven factors, most of the
consumers prefer 'Easy availability' which ranked as first by them with
Garrett scores as 39395 points. It is followed by the second and third
factors 'Regular supply' and 'Home delivery' with Garrett scores as 35395
and 33370 points respectively. The fourth and fifth factors are
'Availability in required quantity' and 'Timing of the delivery' with
Garrett scores as 31109 and 25892 points respectively. The sixth factor is
'Behaviour of the milk supplier' with Garrett scores as 25056 points.
Finally the consumers' least preferred distribution related factor is
'payment terms' with Garrett scores as 19105 points. It could be found
from the above analysis that most of the consumers prefer easy availability
and regular supply factors in the milk distribution system. And the least
preferred factor is the payment terms.
235
4.6.3 Promotion Related Factors
Promotion is a vital element of marketing because it brings to the
knowledge of customers about the product, price, etc. which a producer
has to offer to the consumers. It also creates interest and awareness among
potential buyers. The promotion related factors like Company's
advertisement, Brand image / popularity / Publicity, Sales promotional
offers, opinions and suggestions, influence of the seller, discounts and free
gifts are to be studied so as to device appropriate promotional strategies.
The results of the analysis of these factors are discussed in the following
table.
TABLE NO. 4.54

PROMOTION RELATED FACTORS
S. Total Mean
Factors Rank
No. Score Score
1. Company's advertisement 36386 60.6 II
2. Brand image / popularity / Publicity 37376 62.3 I
3. Sales promotional offers 32548 54.2 III
4. Other's suggestions & opinions 27356 45.6 V
5. Influence of the milk supplier / seller 31614 52.7 IV
6. Discounts 24981 41.6 VI
7. Free Gifts with the Milk 19139 31.9 VII
236
The table reveals that, among the selected seven factors, most of the
consumers prefer 'Brand image' which ranked as first by them with
Garrett scores as 37376 points. It is followed by the second and third
factors 'Company's advertisement' and 'Sales promotional offers' with
Garrett scores as 36386 and 32548 points respectively. The fourth and
fifth factors are 'Influence of the Milk supplier / seller' and 'Other's
suggestions & opinions' with Garrett scores as 31614 and 27356 points
respectively. The sixth factor is 'Discounts' with Garrett scores as 24981
points. Finally the consumers' least preferred promotional factor is 'Free
Gifts with the Milk' with Garrett scores as 19139 points. It could be found
from the above analysis that most of the consumers prefer Brand image
and Company's advertisement factors in the milk promotion. And the least
preferred factor is the Free Gifts with the Milk.
4.7 FACTOR ANALYSIS
Factor analysis a method used to transform a set of variables into a
small number of linear composites, which have maximum correlation with
original variables. In this study, Factor analysis is used to study the
reasons behind consumers' buying of milk from unorganised milk vendors
in order to identify the major characteristics or factors considered as
important by the respondents. The purpose of factor analysis is to
determine the responses from the several number of statements, which are
237
significantly correlated. If the responses of the several statements are
significantly correlated, it is believed that the statement measures some
factors common to all of them.
Factor analysis can only be applied to continuous variables (or)
intervals scaled variables. A factor analysis is like regression analysis as it
tries to "best fit" factors to a scatter diagram of data in such a way that
factors explain the variance associated with responses to each statement.
4.7.1 Factors chosen for the analysis
The factors that influence the buyer to prefer traditional milk
vendors over packaged milk vendors were taken for Factor Analysis.
Twenty statements were chosen and Five point scaling technique was
employed to arrive at the opinions of the respondents on each statement.
Factor analysis was employed and the detailed analysis and discussion was
done at various stages.
4.7.2 Statistics associated with factor analysis
Bartlett's test of sphericity can be used to test the null hypothesis to
conclude that the variables are not correlated with the population. The test
of sphericity is based on the Chi-square transformation of the determinant
of the correlation matrix. A large value of test statistics will favour the
rejection of null hypothesis.
238
4.7.3 Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin-measure of sampling adequacy
This index compares the magnitude of the observed correlation
co-efficient to the magnitude of partial correlation co-efficient. Instances
of small values indicate that the correlation between pairs of variable
cannot be explained by other variable and hence factor analysis will not be
appropriate.
4.7.4 Eigen - values and communalities
A factor's Eigen value or latent route is the sum of the squares of its
factor loading. It helps us to explain how well a given factor fits the data
from all respondents on all the statements. Communalities are the sum of
squares of a statements factor loading, i.e. it explains how much each
variable is accounted for by the factors taken together.
4.7.5 Factor Loading
Simple correlation between the variables and the factors were
studied with the help of Factor matrix which contains the factor loading
and the factors. The researcher has applied the factor analysis to assess the
major reasons that influence the consumer preference towards the un-
organised milk vendors. The Correlation Matrix of the factors chosen for
the study is furnished in detail in Table No. 4.55.
239
CD 0
CV 0
C:d 0
::".' 8 6
-
00 - o
00
.-, o '0 -1-
_,
00 - CD oly
,I...,- 8 9, r-2.
g — 6
.
00
c=,
6 6
,..c 6 a. o t-n
-- ,oo
0
0 r-‘1 .40
C4 0 N 0 - --
CCI -. 6 6 6 6
- 8 4 4, ,t;-,. 4, 04
a cl (-4 -. ci'. r4 rl
02 - o o .. r.
cs r" ,..0 00 ,-*)

c-si
o q (-4 o 1-- r--
00
,-,
24 o q 6.
02 - 9 6 6 6 9 9
en 0 00 CV 00
... 0 V)
•-•
,u•-■
4:>
Cr,
•0
0,
...,
,N
r--
CD 00 `,0
g 0
1:TZ •-• 6 6 6 9 6 6 6
ei
Ea c> 6 oN 6 6 , ,c.?. 5`i r-- cr.
VI --. 00 NI ,-, `-' CV -
0
6-66-666-
co - 6 6 6 6 99 6 6
...., ,=, - 0 r..._ CV ,C)
kr)
Ccl
0
..,p CD oo
V1 C) ...• C.') •■1 C., •cr '0 ,0
CD -, cD. C). CD c:). -
CICI - 0 9 CD 99 6
999
”...
C>
c, CD
CV
CD
CV
Is--
CV
ON
N'I
r'n
("4
CV
cv cc)
r--- .--.
kr, '..)
r". crn
,1..,
g0 0 r•4 0 --, --. `---:
9 6 eS 6 99
Cr, 8 ,s g rc-.-..:., ,-
..„ g...., a; a„ 04 rc;-, C,-,
t7 r
c;
f:4 0 9 9 0 ,-. 0 0 0 0 '-'. 0 9
CO •-• 9 9 0 6 6 6 6 6 9 6 9
00 0 ...041 r--
00 -, cr.
C.-rs, 6,
a, .-, 0 ct---
eN r•I -,1 c>0 cr. r--
C> 00 9 CD ,--.
9 0
1:12 .--., 6 9 9 o 6 6 6 9 6 9 6 9
6 on en •wcp.., ,,, — 0 ,n
N- 0 0 •rn
0 .—
.0
-1-
0 kr,
0 r--
0 0 — 0 0
eq C...1
0
1--.
(:).
..,,
0
--
q
CD
C'.
Ni vr>
C4 c:? ©
02 —: 6 6 6 6 o o o 9 o 9 9 9 9
.e, o
0
r--
Ni
•er
r.-
r,r
N.
"1"
r"-
c:7'
00
rn
eV
s.CD
V)
VD
NI
r-.
.1-
r-.
0
Cr.
V:,
00
0.̀
N Lel
C4 0 0 r'.• r-- CD. C). 0 --. 0 0 0 CD 9 0 9
CO •-. 0 6 6 99 c, c; 6 6 6 6 9 6 9
WI c) Tp Nr -
m- rn 6 ,•-) c,
ev
r,i Ni
CV CV
CV
--.
Cs-
N1
s.t)
v-,
Ti.
c,
v-)
.0C
t--.
cr,
c=,
r...
c, .,::;, 0 0 0 0 © 0 0 CD CD cz) c, 0 c, c,
v?, rt-.1 ,.. ,?,

, ,‘.2
CG 6 9 - 6 - - 6 9 - ,'5r: -2 6 6 9 6 6 6
02 - 9 6 c> 6 6 6 9 6 6 6 6 6 9 6 6 6
,..., 8 ,<..7., c , g4, zr, r... (,,i ..,-, .
) g.., ,.0 evq. i. . 2 g44, ,„., ,„., Q., ,ta .-
rn
6 C? 9 - 6 - - o .-. 6 6 --' 9 c::, 6 o q -
2 t.
0 _r . s
eq F g 6c- ,2 ,
s ,, ,, 7 _ 8 s
q c? q ?
- o Co q q q -
- q o o
9 9 9 o C? 0 6 6 6 9 o 6 9 9 9 o o
_ ,....4 0e.,.,,. Eii; s.A (4,. .,,..Q Ia, , r., 8 _ "
8 ,...., , pi ,,,, s-,,,, a, ,
cg 6 q 6 q 6 6 6 - - 6 o q q q - o o - o o
CO - o o 9 o 99 9 9 9 6 9 9 9 6 6 6 9 6 6
" ", .1- .1r, ‘.0 I,- 00 0‘ ,-1 .-....

C' ,-, ,-,em cr)
,-1 'V
,... In
..-. %.10
..-. N.
,-.• 00
.-4 Cr,
•-• 0
N
:4 12 W C4 C4 :
024 C4
02 W
20 r:4
02 act g CC C4 W 1:4 Cg Cg Cd Cg CC Cd
CO Ca CL1 CO Ce az aci gp 0 ci: 0 cr: 02 02 02
Table 4.55 is a correlation matrix constructed based on the ratings.
The analytical process is based on the matrix of correlation between the
variables. Valuable insights can be gained from an examination of this
matrix. If the factor analysis should be proper the variables must be
correlated. If the correlations between all the variables are small, factor
analysis may not be appropriate. In this inter correlation matrix the
correlation between all the variables are in good fit, hence the factor analysis
may be appropriate.
TABLE NO. 4.56

K.M.O. AND BARTLETT'S TEST
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.637
Bartlett's test of sphericity approx chi-square 4644.66
D.F. 190
Sig. 0
241
TABLE 4.57
COMMUNALITIES
Factor Initial Extraction

Getting fresh milk immediately after milking 1.000 0.493
Receiving timely supply of the Milk 1.000 0.595
Can buy in required assortments 1.000 0.646
Can pay at convenient time 1.000 0.977
Enjoys the friendly behaviour of vendor 1.000 0.610
Satisfaction of getting "EXTRA MILK" 1.000 0.810
Can get milk for credit 1.000 0.403
Lesser quantity of water is added with milk 1.000 0.899
Receiving milk with full of Nutrition 1.000 0.892
Buying milk from the vendor for many years 1.000 0.586
Convenient door delivery 1.000 0.519
Irrespective of the seasonal difficulties assurance of
1.000 0.639
supply of milk
Availability of additional Milk in special days 1.000 0.978
Most reliable than other private and public organization's
1.000 0.696
Milk suppliers.
Mental satisfaction while receiving the milk in hand. 1.000 0.564
Vendor supplies the milk more systematically than the
1.000 0.409
private and public organisations
Vendor is rendering satisfactory service with minimal
1.000 0.638
profit than others
Satisfaction of helping for the vendor's hard work and
1.000 0.562
difficulties
Affection on the vendors who fulfill our home need. 1.000 0.453
Time spent for buying milk is minimised 1.000 0.526
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
242
The above table Bartlett's test of sphericity and Kaiser Meyer Olkin
measures of sample adequacy are used to test the appropriateness of the
factor model. Bartlett's test is used to test the null-hypothesis that is to find
out that the variables are not correlated. Since the approximate Chi-square
value on unorganized vendor milk preference is 4644.66 which is significant
at 1% level, the test leads to the rejection of the null-hypothesis.
The value of KMO statistics (0.637) is also high greater than 1%.
Thus, the factor analysis is considered as an appropriate technique for
analysing the correlation matrix.
243
1
1
38.878
Cumulative
C, en 00
31.950
52.214
64.473
en
C---- ON
VD C41
kri 0‹.;
.1- kr)
6.080
10.223
Loading
Rotation Sums 431
Variance
C) 00 00 CN VD 01
%of
,i- oo t.,1 C.
Lin ---, ON e-- Le') •--1
ce; 06 ■ c; ■
c; ■46 6
.....4
Total
c) 71- cn oo ■
J:::, c) en -4
.-.-1 il ,1 ■ 1 ,.1 ■
%
•••1
41.421
53.879
Cumulative
Extraction Sum of Squared
'Tr en •-, r's 00 Cr)

CD C■I VD eN1 CN1 t..`
:
\C0 C2) CN CV 4.
4 4 4
ts-
,---+ CV cn
Loadings
10.2 19
7.360
14.604
Variance
00 VD CV 01 kr)
% of
C4 kr) CN re) (N1

01 V3 kr; kri kri
1.848
2.044
Total
OLO' I
cv r--- CD CN 7I-
rI vl II ••••■1
85.918
53.879
Cumulative
000 001
.-4 .-.4 t•-■

92.282
74.236
78.420
64.473
..1 00 00 0 WI
24.823
c> o cl CA C,I ''. CD •71" kr) VD CD VD

VD C:p .71: CN r‘l 'T
4 4 .-, t---: 0.; cr; c,
i ca; kr; oc; cz, cr;
Initial Eigen values
en -,7r ,
71- kr) ■r) oo oo cs, 01 01 01
2.805
4.184
4.086
1.244
3.412
Variance
0.040
3.227
5.245
'71- Ch 00 0 ■0 ts--
WYE
Zg6'S
01 00 "'.
'Yo of
0 •--, en V:, 0 71- •1- ,--4 rn kr)

CV en VI en ON 00 ,--1 kr)
4 6 cr■ r-- ■c; kr; 4. 4 en c;
7
r
10.837
2.044
1.848
r-
20 -7 0.008
.
Total
CNI ,-, CD CD 0.1 CN .7r t..". kr)

gt9.0
CN1
(NI r's CD CI1 C-- 7r 00 VD —00 CNI VD 7r. ,',
00C 1/4.C) VD kr) eV ,--I
.
. . . . C:\01
. .
CV
Component
18
LT
—' CN rn '7I
- kr) `,0 r". 00 c" --, ...--, ,. •■4
It is observed from Table 4.58 that the labeled initial Eigen values
use the Eigen values. The Eigen value for a factor indicates total variance
attributed to the factor. Factor one has a variance of 2.921 which is
14.604% of the total variance; likewise the second factor and third factors
have variances of 2.044 and 1.848 respectively which is cumulatively
34.061% of total variance. Similarly the fourth factor situation shows
1.472 variance, the fifth factor is represented with 1.301 variance. The
sixth and seventh factors showed the variance of 1.190 and 1.070
respectively. And the eighth factor situation shows 1.049variance.
4.7.6 Determination of factors based on Eigen values
In this approach, only the factors with Eigen values greater than 1.0
are retained (milk preference and buying behaviour), the other factors are
not included in this model.
245
TABLE 4.59
COMPONENT MATRIX
Component
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 -0.176 0.227 0.265 -0.076 0.326 0.044 0.263 -0.396
2 -0.126 0.015 0.010 0.327 0.516 -0.386 0.184 -0.152
3 -0.239 -0.001 -0.141 0.193 0.558 0.333 -0.303 0.133
4 0.486 0.634 -0.513 -0.231 0.053 0.123 -0.023 -0.056
5 -0.017 0.048 0.152 -0.110 -0.107 0.001 0.358 0.658
6 0.836 -0.268 0.140 0.076 0.067 0.078 -0.064 -0.003
7 0.086 -0.094 -0.146 0.176 0.245 0.158 0.488 0.107
8 0.866 -0.333 0.109 0.134 0.087 0.002 0.000 0.010
9 0.872 -0.297 0.163 0.106 0.068 0.009 -0.014 0.018
10 -0.068 0.013 -0.388 0.542 -0.107 -0.320 -0.138 0.067
11 -0.174 -0.117 -0.259 0.130 0.314 0.404 0.310 0.182
12 0.104 0.298 -0.147 0.348 0.234 -0.379 -0.255 0.364
13 0.485 0.642 -0.510 -0.222 0.056 0.124 -0.019 -0.048
14 0.176 0.062 -0.336 0.197 -0.262 -0.310 0.543 -0.222
15 0.110 0.431 0.492 0.104 0.228 -0.062 -0.067 -0.228
16 0.082 0.395 0.264 0.377 -0.065 0.103 0.074 0.118
17 0.043 0.191 0.259 0.532 -0.242 0.387 0.022 -0.204
18 -0.128 0.136 -0.136 0.478 -0.398 0.340 -0.080 -0.024
19 0.106 0.401 0.446 -0.076 0.039 0.125 0.098 0.222
20 0.056 0.480 0.430 -0.038 -0.124 -0.256 0.039 0.157
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis
246
The above component matrix table indicates the relationship
between the different factors and their individual value. It is clear that
factors are having high correlation with same component. For a better
interpretation, it is taken further to the next step.
TABLE 4.60
ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 0.632
2 0.531
3 0.679
4 0.981
5 0.562
6 0.893
7 0.606
8 0.942
9 0.940
10 0.654
11 0.674
12 0.740
13 0.980
14 0.766
15 0.565
16 0.430
17 0.765
18 0.694
19 0.629
20 0.474
Extraction Method: Principa Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with
Kaiser Normalization.
247
TABLE 4.61
GROUPS OF VARIABLES
Factor Groups of Variables Factor Name
1 • 6,8,9
• Satisfaction of getting "EXTRA MILK" NUTRITIVE
• Lesser quantity of water is added with milk VALUE
• Receiving milk with full of Nutrition
2 • 4,13
• Can pay at convenient time CONSUMER FRIENDLY
• Availability of additional Milk in special
days
3 • 5,19
• Enjoys the friendly behaviour of vendor SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
• Affection on the vendors who fulfill our
home need.
4 • 16,17,18
• Vendor supplies the milk more TRUST LEVEL
systematically than the private and public
organizations
• Vendor is rendering satisfactory service
with minimal profit than others.
• Satisfaction of helping for the vendor's
hard work and difficulties
5 • 10,12
* Buying milk from the vendor for many SUPPLIER
years LOYALTY
• Irrespective of the seasonal difficulties
assurance of supply of milk
6 • 1,2,15
• Getting fresh milk immediately after TIME FACTOR
milking
• Receiving timely supply of the Milk
• Mental satisfaction while receiving the
milk in hand.
7 • 7,11
• Can get milk for credit CONVENIENCE
• Convenient door delivery
8 • 3,14
• Can buy in required assortments NEED FULFILMENT
• Most reliable than other private and public
organization's Milk suppliers.
248
INTERPRETATION OF OUTPUT
The output of Factor analysis is obtained by requesting principal
component analysis and specifying the rotation. As evident from the above
table, it can be found that eight factors extracted together account for
64.47% of the total variance (information contained in the original 20
variables). Hence, the selected variables have reduced the number of
variables from 20 to 8 underlying factors. From the analysis, it is observed
that 16th and 20th factors have low loadings as 0.430 and 0.474
respectively. Hence, they were not included in the analysis.
Looking at the above table 4.61 the variables 'Satisfaction of getting
extra milk', 'Lesser quantity of water is added with milk', and 'Receiving
milk with full of Nutrition' have loadings of 0.893, 0.942, and 0.940
respectively on factor 1. This suggests that Factor 1 is a combination of
these three variables. Therefore this factor can be interpreted as
"Nutritive Value' Factor.
For Factor 2, the variables `Can pay at convenient time' and
'Availability of additional Milk in special days' have a high loadings of
0.981, and 0.980 respectively on factor 2. This indicates that Factor 2 is a
combination of these two variables. These variables can be clubbed into a
single factor called "customer friendly" Factor.

249
For Factor 3, the variables 'Enjoys the Friendly Behaviour of
Vendor', and 'Affection on the vendors who fulfill our home need' have a
high loadings of 0.562, and 0.629 respectively on factor 3. This indicates
that Factor 3 is a combination of these two variables. Therefore this factor
can be interpreted as "Social Behaviour" factor.
For Factor 4, the variables 'Vendor supplies the milk more
systematically than the private and public organizations', 'Vendor is
rendering satisfactory service with minimal profit than others' and
'Satisfaction of helping for the vendor's hard work and difficulties' have a
high loadings of 0.421, 0.765, and 0.694 respectively on factor 4. This
indicates that Factor 4 is a combination of these three variables. The factor
consisting of above three variables can be termed as "Trust Level" Factor.
For Factor 5, the variables 'Buying milk from the vendor for many
years' and 'Irrespective of the seasonal difficulties assurance of supply of
milk' have a high loading of 0.654, and 0.740 respectively on factor 5.
This indicates that Factor 5 is a combination of these two variables. Thcse
variables can be clubbed into a single factor called "Supplier Loyalty"
Factor.
For Factor 6, the variables 'Getting fresh milk immediately after
milking', 'Receiving timely supply of the Milk' and 'Mental satisfaction

250
while receiving the milk in hand' have a high loadings of 0.632, 0.531, and
0.565 respectively on factor 6. This indicates that Factor 6 is a
combination of these three variables. Therefore this factor can be
interpreted as "Timeliness" factor.
For Factor 7, the variables 'Can get milk for credit' and 'convenient
door delivery' have high loadings of 0.606 and 0.674 respectively on
factor 7. This indicates that Factor 7 is a combination of these two
variables. The factor consisting of above two variables can be termed as
"Convenience" Factor.
For Factor 8, the variables 'Can buy in required assortments' and
'Most reliable than other private and public organization's Milk suppliers'
have high loadings of 0.679 and 0.766 respectively on factor 8. This
indicates that Factor 8 is a combination of these two variables. These
variables can be clubbed into a single factor called "Need Fulfillment"
Factor.
From the factor analysis, it is found that 8 factors namely,
1.Nutritive Value, 2. Customer friendly, 3. Social Behaviour, 4. Trust
Level, 5. Supplier Loyalty, 6. Timeliness, 7. Convenience, 8. Need
Fulfillment constitute the reasons behind consumers' preference towards
unorganized milk vendors over the branded milk suppliers.

251
4.8 CONCLUSION
The consumption pattern, consumer awareness level, demographic
factors, satisfaction and preference level were studied and analysed with
the help of percentage method. Similarly, the influences of demographic
factors and socio-economic factors on the brand preference of the milk
buyers were studied with the help of Chi-square analysis. Further, the level
of brand preference perceived by the milk buyers was studied with the
help of Multi Regression analysis. Discriminate Function Analysis tool
was applied to identify the factors that significantly discriminate the low
and high user consumer groups. The factors related to Milk Product,
Distribution and Promotion were analysed and ranked with the help of
Henry Garrett ranking method. Factor analysis was chosen for the
multivariate analysis. To identify, out of twenty reasons, the major reasons
that constitute the factors behind consumers' preference towards
unorganized milk vendors over the branded milk suppliers, the factor
analysis was used. The result of Factor analysis showed that eight factors
were influencing the consumer preference towards the unorganized milk
suppliers.
252

10 - Chapter 4 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

10 - Chapter 4 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

In this chapter an attempt has been made to identify the existing

consumption pattern and buying behaviour of milk consumers in Salem

as the dependent variable. The independent variables chosen for the

analysis were occupation of the respondents, quantity, type of milk

purchase, mode of payment, monthly income and expenses. The primary

test, discriminate analysis, multiple regression analysis and factor analysis.

4.2.1 Monthly Household Expenses

Though milk is an essential product to the consumer, the

consumption level depends on the income level of the consumer as well as

per month on household expenses by the consumers.

respondents, 68.0% of the respondents were spending below Rs.5000 for

household expenses per month, whereas only 27(4.5%) respondents were

spending above Rs.10000 per month for household expenses. It is

concluded that, majority of the respondents' monthly household expenses

distribution of respondents based on the consumers' regularity in buying

TABLE NO. 4.2

buying milk everyday. From the analysis, it is concluded that majority of

buyers are not buying milk daily.

based on the consumers' awareness about existence of milk brands in the

TABLE NO. 4.3

S.No Brand Yes No

aware of Aavin and Arokya brands. While inquiring on Komatha brand of

milk, it is noted that 518(86.3%) respondents were aware of Komatha

brand. It is concluded that Aavin, Arokya and Komatha brands are

4.2.4 Consumers' Brand Preference

In assessing the milk consumption pattern of households, knowing

marketer to modify or develop the marketing strategies. The table no 4.4

displays the distribution of respondents based on the leading brand that is

preferred and bought by most of the consumers in the study area.

TABLE NO. 4.4

respondents i.e. 414(69.0%) respondents were buying Aavin brand.

136(22.67%) respondents were buying Arokya brand. 50 (8.33%)

respondents were buying Komatha brand. It is inferred that, among the

packaged milk brands, Aavin is the most sought brand, followed by

Arokya brand and Komatha brand in the study area.

4.2.5 Decision Maker in Milk buying process

Decision making is a term used to describe the process of finalizing

a solution from various alternatives by which the decision makers make

choices, determine judgments, and come to conclusions. The buying

decision plays an important role in selecting a particular brand of milk. In

decision maker in the milk buying process.

TABLE NO. 4.5

the meal planners. The remaining 39(6.5%) respondents expressed that

milk buying decision is made by others. It is concluded that majority of the

respondents opined that the brand of milk to be purchased is decided by

the meal planners.

4.2.6 Source of influence in brand preference

Consumers come in contact with others, especially friends, close

relatives and admired individuals. Such contacts develop attitudes which

influence the consumers' preferences and actual buying behaviour. The

no. 4.6 describes the distribution of respondents based on the source of

influence in preferring a particular brand of milk.

The above table shows that majority of the respondents 368(61.3%)

were influenced by their own personal preferences in preferring a milk

brand, whereas Neighbors 55 (9.2%), Family members 60 (10.0%) and

advertisement 45 (7.5%) sources are having direct influence to a certain

extent. But the influence levels of Doctors 20 (3.3%), Friends 24 (4.0%)

and dealers 28 (4.7%) are very insignificant in preferring a particular

brand of milk. It is concluded from the analysis that majority of the

respondents were influenced by their own personal preferences in