S.V. Pathak, Aditya P.

Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal

Analyzing the Impact of Buyers Perception of ProductQuality in Indian Scenario: A Primary Research for selected Durable, Semi-Durable and FMCG Products
S.V. Pathak* Aditya P. Tripathi** Noopur Agrawal***
Despite the prominence of information-rich and time-poor customers, generally, it is believed that a buyer does not get ample time and opportunity to gather detailed information about the product. Absence of information and lack of actual experience of using all the available brands of a product forces the buyer to judge the quality of the product on the basis of certain visible signals i.e. Price, Brand Reputation and store reputation. Broadly they are known as external cues. These cues form the basis of buyers perception. Present paper unravels the three basic pillars of quality perception for all the three type of product viz; Durable, Semi-durable and FMCG products and also analyses the comparative strength of these three cues on buyers perception of product quality by validating through primary research.
* Associate Professor, Deen Dayal Updhayay, Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, India. ** Assistant Professor, Shyam Lal College (E), University of Delhi, Delhi, India. *** Associate Professor, Department of Management Studies, Delhi School of Professional Studies and Research, Delhi, India..

Key Words: Quality Perception, Brand Reputation, Store Reputation, Price. As intrinsic cues are difficult to manipulate without changing the integral components or make up of a product, marketers are more interested in extrinsic cues and their impact on consumer preference. For more than seventy years, researchers have identified many extrinsic cues, which have significant impact on quality perception which leads to consumers preference. Prominent among them are Price, Brand name, and store name & Advertising. The present study is restricted to these dimensions and their impact on Brand awareness & Consumer preference. Pricing is an area of Primary importance in marketing, as it is the only element in the marketing mix that produces revenue; the other elements production cost (Kotler, 1994). In spite of its importance; however it has been an area of little understanding and even less operating precision (Shapiro,1968). It is difficult to define Price as numerous factors determine the price of a product or service. The definition of price depends upon what is being offered.In common parlance, Price is defined as the value of an item (i.e. Product or service expressed in monetary terms. Price is unquestionably one of the most important market place cues. The all - pervasive influence of price is due, in part, to the fact that the price cue is present in all purchase situations and, at a minimum, represents to all consumers the amount of economic outlay that must be sacrificed in order to engage in given purchase transaction (Lichtenstein,1993). As early as in 1930, Scitovsky identified price as an important index of quality. In his words: Today, the consumer is no longer an expert shopper. The rise in the standard of living has greatly expanded the range and variety of consumer goods and increased the share of complex technical commodities in the consumers budget........As a result of these

99

100

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal they chose the higher-Priced brands. Further, the greater the perceived quality difference, the greater the uncertainty about a choice. Leavitt concluded that demand curves may not invariable be negatively sloped, that price itself may have more than one meaning to a consumer, and that a higher price may sometime increase rather than decrease his readiness to buy a high-price may be an attracting instead of a repelling force for particular brand of certain products and increased price may cause increased demand. Tull (1964) et.al. replicated Leavitts experiment using table salt, Aspirin, floorwax, and liquid shampoo, and found that the respondents tended to choose the higher-priced brands of products perceived to be heterogeneous. Another study, conducted by Gabor and Granger (1966) was an experimental work based on a simulate purchase situation using Six different products. Essentially, the investigation probed to determine the consumers too cheap and too expensive curves and from those, the buy response curve. They found that considerable proportion of the subjects trusted price rather than the evidence of their senses. The authors observed that price would be an indicator of quality for a wide range of commodities, such as, textile products, simply because their quality cannot be ascertained by sight and owing to constant changes in technology and fashion, past experience is of little use in this respect. The reputation of the manufacturer, the brand and the shop do, of course, matters, but it would be difficult to deny a reputation for high quality and high price generally go together. Although, this has the weakness of dealing with a simulated purchase situation in which the customer buys at no cost to himself, it is of great significance because it provides a concept of the price and its effect in the purchase decision. Shapiro explained the important role of Price in indicating the quality of products in four ways:

changes the average consumer of today has become a layman, not only when it comes to buying a motorcar or wireless set but also with respect to prime necessities and household implements....more and more therefore, the consumer of today has to judge quality by indices of quality which leads them for preferences and choices. The size of a firm, its age even its financial success are often regarded as indices of the quality of its produce.........Another important index of quality is price.........The word cheap usually means inferior quality now-a-days; and in the united states expensive is in the process of losing its original meaning and becoming a synonym for superior quality. Further, he believed that the habit of judging quality by price leads directly and indirectly to price discrimination which enables the producers to sell at different price and as different in quality, commodities that are essentially identical. Moreover, we tend to appraise other peoples income by their conspicuous expenditure. People may, therefore come to regard spending and the buying of expensive goods as ways of raising and maintaining their social status. When they do this, commodities and services acquire a value in their eyes by the mere fact that they are expensive provided that their expensiveness is conspicuous. One of the landmarks in price-perceived quality study is that of Leavitts (1954) His study dealt with four products: Floor wax, Razor blades, flakes and cooking sherry Leavitt used 60 subjects30 Air Force Officers and 30 male and female graduate students. Two Brands of each product were offered, and four sets of price were developed for product pair. He subjects were asked to choose a brand for each product, then answer a question regarding satisfaction with the choice, and rate the product in terms of their belief about the quality differences existing among brands based on their previous experience. The subjects often choose the higher-priced products especially incase of floor-wax. Leavitt observed that the subjects tended to have doubts when they chose the lower-priced brands than when

101

102

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal of a these studies have provided mixed evidence that-a general price-perceived quality relationship does not exist. In the Indian scene, Parasuraman A. and Kumar K. Ambarish (1972) conducted an experimental study to find out the relationship between quality and price perception as well as to study to brand choice of consumers, with respect to readymade shirts, white terrine, cotton cloth of four different textures and hence, of different prices per meter was purchased from a wellknown manufacturer. A pair of identical shirts from each of the four different fabrics was specially made for the study which were identical in all respect, such as, the collar design, size, type of stitching etc. The label of a well-know national brand was affixed to one shirt in each pair was branded, Maharja, a new name which is not marketed in India. The price of the shirts was worked out on the bases of actual cost and was in descending order for the four pair of shirts. A sample of 75 married couples belonging to the middle upper income group was chosen by convenience. The respondents were shown the four pairs of different quality shirts and asked whether they perceive any quality difference between the national as well as Maharaja Brands in each pair. The study revealed that the consumers are poor judges of the quality of shirts and price information has a significant effect on quality perception. Hence a marketer does have considerable flexibility in pricing his products, provided he can create a psychological image of quality. Parashuraman and Ambarish Kumar are of the view that it is possible to tone down the importance of the intrinsic quality of the fabric up to a point and allocate the cost reduction, thus achieved to increased budget of marketing expenses. The pay off from this strategy is likely to be higher. The study indicated that a majority of the respondents perceived same quality difference between the two identical quality shirts, which were identical except for the brand names. The results of the study clearly indicated that the name of a well-known brand does induce the consumer to be favourbly disposed towards that

Ease of Measurement: Price is concrete, measurable for the shoppers. Hence, the consumer view it with much confidence. He trusts it more than most cues directly concerned with quality (e.g.; Quality of technical components). Effort and Satisfaction: Consumer satisfaction with a product depends, at least in part, on the amount of effort, which the consumer expands to obtain the product. However, it seems reasonable to believe that, in a sense, an expenditure of money may be viewed by the consumer as similar to an expenditure of effort. It also seems reasonable to assume that when a consumer is choosing a product, he/she is likely to predict and consider his/ her feelings after purchase. Because of these two reasons, consumer uses price as an indicator of quality. Snob Appeal: In 1899, Thorstein veblan raised the idea of conspicuous consumption in his classic The theory of the Leisure class. Tibor Scitovsky (1968) used the same general notion to explain the consumer decision process. A person may know that the more expensive model is no better than the cheaper one and yet prefer it for the mere fact that it is more expensive. He may want his friends and neighbours to know that he can afford spending all that money or he may fell that his prestige and social position require that he should always buy the most expensive of everything. Perception of Risk: Another explanation of Price-quality relationship has to do with risk. The prospective buyer balances the extra cost of a higher-Priced product against the possibility of losing out because of the assumed lower quality of lowerpriced product. Hence, to reduce the risk of choosing a product of significantly poorer quality the consumer chooses the highpriced brand. Nearly 90 research studies in the past 30 years have been designed to test general wisdom that price and quality are positively related. Despite the expectation of a positive relationship, results

103

104

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal also more prices sensitive. 3. Household with larger, more expensive homes have fewer income constraints, so they are less price sensitive. 4. Black and Hispanic consumers are more price sensitive. Brand Name and Perceived Quality: Parashuraman and Ambarish Kumar found that the consumer attaches considerable importance to the brand image in the purchase of a product like readymade shirts as discussed in the earlier section and a marketer needs to give adequate support to his product line through advertising and promotional efforts. They were of the view that the chances of success in this business for a small manufacturer, who may be competing with larger national companies having considerable advertising resources and quite remote. Della Bitta proposed that a strong brand name helps to control or stabilise the Quality perception of a branded product even when its price is discounted. For many products consumer see a direct relationship between brand name or reputation and the products Quality. In the words of Leon G. Schiffman and Leslie Lazar Kanuk (2002). When the consumer is familiar with a brand name or has experience with a product or service, Price declines as a factor in product selection. Consumers perception of alternative brands in the market place depends upon the amount of available information. Woodruff (1972) examined the relative importance of three sources of Brand information, commonly used by consumers viz; 1. Marketer-dominated channels of communication: Advertisements, Sales Brochures and sales Personnel; 2. Consumer-Dominated channels of communication: Friends, Neighbour and product or brand users, and

brand in terms of quality and price perception, as a majority of the respondents believed that the national shirt was of better quality than the Maharaja shirt. Furthermore, the consumer also seemed to be willing to pay a higher price for the wellknown brand, clearly indicating the value they attach to that brand. These interesting conclusions were drawn from the empirical results which are as follows: 1. The price-quality relationship appears to be operating in a reciprocal manner. High Priced cars are perceived to possess (unwarranted) high quality. High quality cars are likewise, perceived to be higher priced than they actually are. 2. As a consequence of the price-quality relationship, perceived price is a good proxy variable for perceived quality. However, price was found to have a positive but indirect effect or intention i.e. price affects intention positively through its positive effect on quality perception through the positive effect of quality perception on attitude, and through the positive effect of attitude on intention. 3. Price perception appears to have an independent and negative effect on the probability of purchasing a car-a budget constraint. Using weekly scanner data representing 18 product categories, Hoch and others (1995) estimated store-specific price elasticity for a chain of 83 super markets. They related these price sensitivities to a comprehensive set to demographic and competitor variables that described the trading areas of each of the stores. Specifically, the results are summarised as follows: 1. More educated consumers have higher opportunity costs. So, they devote less attention to shopping and therefore are less price sensitive. 2. Larger families spend more of their disposable income on grocery product, and therefore they spend more time on shopping to garner their increased returns to search, they are

105

106

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal shopping experiences. Store images often influences brand image. A positive store image produces a positive brand image, even when the product and price at which it is available are identical in most of the stores (Schiffman & Kanuk). The type of product the consumer wishes to buy influences his or her selection of retail outlet. Conversely the consumers evaluation of a product often is influenced by the knowledge of where it was bought. A consumer wishing to buy an elegant dress for a special occassion may go to a store with an elegant high fashion image. Regardless of what he/she actually pays for the dress, he selects (regular price or marked down price), he will probably perceive its quality to be high. However, he may perceive the quality of the same dress to be much lower if he buys it in an off-price store with low-price image (Schiffman & Kanuk). Retailers have a particular stake in establishing a positive store image, as their image is directly tied to sales results. Hence, many retailers tried to upgrade their image by repositioning their line to higher - quality merchandise (Walters). Most studies of the effects of extrinsic cues on perceived quality have focused on just one variable either price or store image. However, when a second extrinsic cue is available (e.g. price and store image), perceived quality is sometimes a function of the interaction of both cues on the consumer.

3. Neutral information sources: consumer product rating services. The result of his study showed that marketer dominated sources had the greatest impact followed by consumer-oriented and neutral sources in changing the consumers prior information on brand attribute. The relative importance of the information sources in changing opinions differed by brand attributes. Comprehensive models of consumer behavior have suggested that a consumers past information is an important input into his brand choice decisions (Engle, 1972) This variable is generally thought to be one of several key variables that intervene between a decision markers perception and his subsequent brand selection. Thus, knowledge of 84 consumers past information can help marketers influence brand choices . However, quantification of consumers prior information is quite difficult. As consumers with positive images of a brand are more likely to purchase it, a major purpose of advertising strategy is to develop a positive brand image. The importance of brand image is demonstrated by coca-cola conducted blind taste tests in which the brands were not identified and consumers were asked their taste preferences for new coke, old coke and Pepsi. Store Name and Perceived Quality: Retail stores have image of their own that serves to influence the perceived quality of products they carry, as well as the decision of consumers as to where to shop. In order to create a distinctive identity, many retailers put their own labels on the clothes of popular designers. Consumers perceive high quality and value in clothing that bears a well-known retail name. Because of this trend, private-Label fashions in many cases are squeezing well-known designer clothing off the racks (Schultz, 1998). Consumers develop store images based on advertising, merchandise in the store, opinions of friends and relatives, and

Relevance of the Study

Present study seeks to examine the relationship between the three Intrinsic Cues (i.e. price, brand reputation and store reputation) and impact of these cues on Buyers Perception of product Quality for Durable, Semi-durable and Fast Moving Consumer Goods. It also seeks to ascertain whether the effect of these cues on three types of product differs.

Objective of the Study

107

108

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal to one of the States Uttar Pradesh of India. Product selected for the Study: Three products viz, Colour Television , Readymade Shirt and Bathing Soap representing Durable, Semi-durable and FMCG were selected after a careful analysis to ensure the true representation of all the three categories of the products involoving different degree of involvements.

To examine the influence of Price, Brand Reputation and Store Reputation to durable, Semi-durable and non-durable Products. To evaluate the comparative strength of these three cues in terms of their influence on buyers perception of product quality with respect to each of three types of products. To examine the influence of socio-economic variables on buyers perception of Product Quality. To study the relationship between Brand Awareness and its impact on Consumer Preferences owing to advertising.

Sample Selection Method

Sampling unit: Household Sampling method: Non probability convenience sampling (To have gamut) Respondent Selection Criteria: 2, 1, 3 concept has been adopted to collect samples. i.e. Any person who has purchased colour television with in last 2 years. Any person who has purchased Readymade Shirt with in last 1 year. Any person who has purchased Bathing Soap with in last 3 months. Entire District was divided into six parts for the present study and was denoted by A, B, C, D, E, F, respectively..
Table A: Product-wise Distribution of Sample Name of the Product Colour Television Readymade Shirt Bathing Soap Total No. of Respondents 179 175 171 525 Table B: Distribution of Sample by Age Age Group No. of Percentage

Propositions Formulated after Reviewing the Literature

High Price has a positive influence on the buyers perception of product quality. Reputed Brand name has a positive influence on the buyers perception of product quality. Reputed store name has a positive influence on the buyers perception of product quality.

Hypotheses Formed
H1. There is no significant different in the buyers perception of quality of product falling in different price ranges. H2. The buyers perception of quality different brands of a product is not different. H3. The buyers perception of quality of the product purchased from different types of store is not different.

Research Design and Methodology

The sample size was 525. The respondents were selected from the main city and different parts of Gorakhpur District A District belonging

109

110

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal secured the third Rank among seven factors, with a mean value of 3.28. The importance of this factor is comparatively lesser in case of shirt. Many buyers went for unbranded or local brand of shirt, while there were others who were Brand loyal. Hence the factor, Brand Reputation was ranked fourth for this product, with a mean value of 3.04. People had even lesser attention to this factor while buying bathing soap. In fact, either they were brand loyal or they switched from one brand to another, merely for the sake of variety. Therefore Brand-Reputation secured
Table 1: Factors considered while Buying the Product Factors Colour Television N = 179 III I II VII IV V VI Readymade Shirt N=175 3.04 3.32 3.73 2.54 3.06 2.84 2.88 IV II I VII III VI V Bathing Soap N=171 Mean Rank 3.07 3.15 3.52 3.19 3.55 2.79 3.51 VI V II IV I VII II

Respondents Age Group A (Below 25 years) Age Group B (25-35 years) Age Group C (35-45 years) Age Group D (45 years & above) Total 184 137 163 41 525 35.04 26.09 31.05 7.82 100.0

Table C: Income-wise Distribution of Sample Income Group Income Group A (below Rs. 1,20,000) Income Group B (Rs. 120,001-240,000) Income Group C (Rs. 240,001-360,000) Income Group D ((Rs. 360,001 & above) Total No. of Respondents 95 178 157 95 525 Percentage

Mean Rank Mean Rank 18.10 33.90 29.90 18.10 100.0 Brand 3.28 Reputation Price Features Promotion Brand Loyalty 3.75 3.74 2.77 3.27

Data has been collected through personally administered questionnaire directed towards the core issues to be taken up in the study over a period of six months, in the year 2007-08.

Store 3.10 Reputation Store Loyalty 3.00

Factors Considered while Buying the Product

The factors considered by the respondents while buying any of the three products namely colour television, Readymade shirt, & Bathing soap were compared on the basis of their mean scores. As shown in table 1, Brand reputation is an important consideration while buying a colour Television and therefore it

Source: Primary Research.

the sixth Rank among the seven factors with a mean value of 3.07, for this product. People consider price as an important factor while purchasing the product. This was particularly true in case of consumer durables; like colour television as well as for semi-Durable products, like shirt. For colour television, this factor bagged the

111

112

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal In case of shirt, for the branded ones, generally people do not see a difference between the brand and the store, as most of them are sold through the exclusive show room. For unbranded shirts, people generally buy from hawkers, weekly markets or little known stores. Hence in both the cases people do not pay much attention to the reputation of the store. For the local brand sold through different types of outlets the buyer play a little attention to this factor. In overall the factor, store reputation secured the sixth rank for this product. However, for the durable category products like telveision, the buyers analysed the reputation of the store before purchasing the product. Hence, for this product the factor, store reputation managed to secure the 5th rank with a mean of 3.10. The seventh and the last factor which was studied, is store loyalty. While buying Bathing soap, the respondents exhibited a considerable extent of store loyalty. It might be because they habitually bought the product from the same store time and again. Therefore, this factor secured the 3rd rank (III) with a mean as high as 3.15. In case of shirt also, the respondents exhibited a moderate degree of store loyalty and this factor managed to secure the Vth rank with a mean score of 2.88. However, while buying a colour television, store loyalty was not taken as the important factor because of the long time between the two purchases,even if they have bought certain other durable electronic-products in between. Hence, for this product, store loyalty managed to secure the sixth (VI) rank with a mean score of 3.00.

first rank with a mean of 3.75 while in case of shirt price was ranked second with a mean score of 3.32. The buyers paid less attention to this factor while purchasing bathing soap and hence it managed to secure the 5th rank among the seven factors. The possible reason for this phenomenon is that people buy a particular brand habitually and therefore do not pay much attention to the price of the bathing soap. Feature of the product is an important intrinsic cue and it secured a considerably high rank among the factors considered while purchasing all the three types of products. This factor secured the second rank in case of both, colour Television and Bathing soap, with mean scores of 3.74 and 3.52 respectively. While in case of shirt, this factor secured the first rank with a mean as high as 3.73. The buyers paid less attention towards the promotion tools used by the companies while making purchase decisions. This was specially true for the products like television and shirt.Therefore this factor scored the last or seventh rank in both the cases. However promotion played a significant role in the selection of Bathing soap and hence it was ranked fourth with a mean of 3.19. Brand loyalty is another factor, which emerged as the most important factor while making purchase regarding Bathing soap. For that product, this managed to secure the first rank with a mean of 3.55. Even,while selecting Readymade shirt the buyers exhibited a considerable degree of brand loyalty and therefore this factor was ranked IIIrd with a mean score of 3.06. For television, however, the buyers seemed to be less brand loyal. Hence this factor was ranked fourth among the seven factors with a mean of 3.27. People paid less attention to the reputation of the store, especially for Bathing soap. This factor secured last rank among the seven factors considered by the buyers while purchasing bathing soap with a mean as low as 2.79.

Quality Perception of the Influencing Factor

The second set of the factors as indentified earlier, consisted of the buyers perception of the quality revealing ability of those factors. In an attempt to compare the quality perception of the factors with regard to the three products, the mean scores and the corresponding ranks were computed. It is noticed from the table that the buyers, to a considerable

113

114

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal The factor Promotion had a very little influence on the buyers perception of product quality. They did not believe that the quality of the advertisement or other promotion tools used could suggest the quality of the product. Hence, this factor was ranked Vth in case of both television and shirt with mean scores of as low as 2.74 & 2.80 respectively. In case of Bathing soap, however this factor secured a slightly better position with a mean value of 2.68. Finally, an analysis of the influences of store reputation on the buyers perception of the product quality shows that the respondents did not believe that the reputation of the store could suggest the quality of the product sold by it. This factor secured the IVth rank in case of television as well as for shirt.The mean scores for these two products stood 3.16 & 3.31 respectively. This factor was ranked Vth for bathing soap with a mean value of 2.66 in terms of their quality revealing ability were by and large similar for the television and the shirt. Even though for bathing soap, there was some shuffling of the position of the five factors influencing quality perception. A further analysis of the three main factors, around which the whole study revolves was conducted. This has resulted into some important conclusions which are discussed in the following paragraphs: Price of the Product: The importance of this factor while buying the three products, has already been discussed in previous paragraphs of this chapter. Here the principal components of this factor were further analysed on the basis of their mean scores and standard deviation. An analysis of variables revealed that for all the three products, the buyers gave much importance to the point that whether they would get value for money by buying that brand. This especially hold true for colour Television and shirt. The variable value for money scored a mean value of 4.58 and 4.39 for two products, while it was only 3.53 for Bathing soap.

degree, judged the quality of the product on the basis of the reputation of the brand. This holds true for all the three products. Therefore this factor secured IInd rank in case of both colour television and shirt with the mean scores of 3.50 and 3.37 where as for bathing soap it bagged the first rank with a mean of 3.36. Price was ranked III among the 5 factors in case of all the three products. For both, Television and readymade shirt, the mean score of this factor was 3.32 while it was 3.08 for Bathing soap. These results show that people generally believe that the higher the price of the product, the superior will be its quality. Buyer gave maximum weightage to features of the product, as
Table 2: Ranking of the Factors in terms of Quality Perception Factors Colour Television N = 179 II III I V IV Readymade Shirt N=175 3.37 3.32 3.82 2.80 3.3 II III I V IV Bathing Soap N=171 Mean Rank 3.36 3.08 3.14 2.68 2.66 I III II IV V

Mean Rank Mean Rank Brand 3.50 Reputation Price Features Promotion Store Reputation 3.32 3.74 2.74 3.6

Source: Primary Research.

they believed that the product quality could be judged on the basis of its features. Therefore, this factor was ranked first among the 5 factors in case of Television as well as shirt with a mean score of 3.74 & 3.82 respectively. For the product Bathing soap, this factor managed to secure the IInd rank with a mean of 3.14.

115

116

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal was 3.14 & 3.11, 2.37 respectively. It can be concluded that the buyers perceived a lesser association between the price and quality for the product Bathing soap in comparison to the Television & Shirt.
Table 4: Price and Quality Perception Factors Colour Television N = 179 Readymade Shirt N=175 Bathing Soap N=171

For all the three products majority of the respondents believed that the price of the brand ,they have purchased was reasonable. This variable scored an average rating for the three products. Next, the buyers perception of product quality on the basis of price of the product was further studied. For this purpose the statements related to the price of the products were selected and standard deviation for each of the statements were computed. The buyers believed that it would be risky to buy a low-priced brand, and hence, the mean computed for this variable was reasonably high in case of all the three products. The scores were 3.59, 3.58 & 3.42 respectively. Another interesting finding was that despite the respondents agreeing to common proposition The lower the price of the
Table 3: Variables Influencing the Price Consideration Factors Colour Television N = 179 Readymade Shirt N=175 Bathing Soap N=171

Mean Stan- Mean Stan- Mean Standard dard dard DeviDeviDeviation ation ation The higher 3.14 the price of the product, the better will be its quality. The lower 3.32 the price of the product, the inferior will be its quality. It is risky to 3.59 buy a low priced product 1.12 3.11 1.11 2.79 1.08

1.11

3.27

1.16

3.06

1.12

Mean Stan- Mean Stan- Mean Standard dard dard DeviDeviDeviation ation ation High Price 2.94 1.12 2.96 1.12 2.77 0.98 of the Product Value for 4.58 0.56 4.39 0.56 3.53 0.71 Money Source: Primary Research.

1.03

3.58

1.04

3.42

1.06

Source: Primary Research.

product, the inferior will be its quality: they did not strongly believe that The higher the price of the product, the better would be its quality. Therefore, while the mean scores for the former statement was 3.23, 3.27 & 3.06 respectively. For colour television, shirt & soap, the mean scores of the later statement

Brand Reputation
The major components or variables that make up the reputation of the brand were studied in detail for all the three products. In that regard the mean and standard deviation for those variables were computed result of which is shown in table 5.

117

118

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal After analysing the variables considered while selecting a brand, the buyers perception of product quality formed on the basis of the brand was studied. For this purpose mean & standard deviation for the variables, which were the principal component of brand reputation, were computed. The results are presented in Table 6. A majority of respondents agreed to the statement that, The higher the reputation of the brand, the superior will be its quality, and that to for all the three products. The mean for television, shirt, & soap were 3.85, 3.74 & 3.71 respectively. An analysis of the next two statement revealed that, while for shirt and soap, the buyers seemed to rely more on older brands for better quality. For television, they thought that upcoming brand would be of superior quality. In case of television, the buyers believed that the country -of origin of brand might give quality indication. But the same was not true for shirt and bathing soap. The mean scores in this respect were 3.49, 2.90 & 2.81 respectively for colour television, shirt, & bathing soap. Again for television a majority of the buyers agreed to the statement that - Multinational brands are of superior quality than the Indian Brands. The mean of this variable for the product was 3.37, 3.01 & 2.78 respectively. Most of the respondents were not able to make out which brands of soap were multinational and A Majority of the respondents believed that it would be risky to buy a lesser-known brand, and it was especially true for television and bathing soap. Hence the mean scores of the products were 3.99, 3.46 & 3.73 respectively. The mean score of shirt at 3.46 was comparatively lower. The buyers agreed that the brands that enjoy a greater market share or the one manufactured by large companies would be of better quality. This was found true for all the three products.

Table 5: Variable Influencing the Brand Reputation

Factors Colour Television N = 179 Readymade Shirt N=175 Bathing Soap N=171 Mean Standard Deviation 0.96

Mean Stan- Mean Standard dard DeviDeviation ation Good Reputation of brand. Country of origin of brand. This brand will project the buyer as a high status person. Multi National brand. Recommendation of friends and acquaintances. High market enjoyed by brand. Newly introduced brand. Old established brand. 4.23 0.79 3.76 1.05

3.89

3.32

1.17

2.48

0.93

2.55

0.89

2.94

1.14

2.78

1.15

2.18

0.89

3.31

1.26

2.67

1.08

2.28

0.90

3.42

1.04

3.03

1.08

2.75

0.99

3.47

1.04

2.97

1.08

3.29

1.10

2.23

0.78

2.65

0.98

2.63

0.98

3.10

0.98

3.15

1.04

3.49

0.98

Source: Primary Research.

119

120

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal

Table 6: Brand Reputation and Quality Perception

Factors Colour Television N = 179 Readymade Shirt N=175 Bathing Soap N=171 Mean Standard Deviation 3.71 0.97

Factors

Colour Television N = 179

Readymade Shirt N=175

Bathing Soap N=171 Mean Standard Deviation 3.56 0.89

Mean Stan- Mean Standard dard DeviDeviation ation The higher the Reputation of the brand, the superior will be its quality. The upcoming brands are of superior quality. The older established brands are more reliable and are generally of better quality. Country-oforigin of the brand gives quality indication. Multinational brands are of superior quality than Indian brands. It is risky to buy a little known brand. 3.85 0.98 3.74 1.05

Mean Stan- Mean Standard dard DeviDeviation ation Brands which 3.66 are enjoying greater market share, are of superior quality. The larger 3.28 the size of manufacturing company, the better will be product quality. 0.79 3.48 0.87

0.96

3.28

0.93

3.30

0.97

3.25

0.89

3.27

0.81

3.20

0.88

3.13

0.77

3.37

0.78

3.37

0.88

Source: Primary Research.

Factors Considered in Store Selection

3.49 1.09 2.90 0.97 2.81 0.86

3.37

1.27

3.01

1.13

2.78

1.18

As we have found a little influence of the reputation of the stores on buyers perception of product quality instead of analysing only the variables which were the component of this factor, all the variables considered while selecting the store were studied. The mean & standard deviation computed for these variables are presented in Table 7. In case of Television the buyers selected that store on which they have the faith that it would backup the products guarantee and would provide good after sales service. Hence, these two variables have scored mean of 3.87 & 3.68 respectively, before selecting the store, they have already decided the brand. They were intending to purchase and therefore they selected the store, that

3.99

0.91

3.46

1.13

3.73

1.13

contd...

121

122

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal

Table 7: Factor Considered in Store Selection

Factors Colour Television N = 179 Readymade Shirt N=175 Bathing Soap N=171 Mean Standard Deviation 1.00 0.89 0.86

Factors

Colour Television N = 179

Readymade Shirt N=175

Bathing Soap N=171 Mean Standard Deviation 0.96

Mean Stan- Mean Standard dard DeviDeviation ation Reputation of the store. Nearness of the store. Recommendation of others. Large size and decore of the store. Exclusive showroom of buyers preferred brand. Store was carrying buyers preferred brand. Personal acquaintance with the store owner. Store known for good after-sale services. 3.59 3.50 3.07 1.02 1.13q 1.03 3.02 2.86 2.99 1.11 1.01 1.07

Mean Stan- Mean Standard dard DeviDeviation ation Faith in stores ability to backup the products guarantee. Belief that buying from this store will project the buyer as a high status person. Other stores having bad reputation. The store is located in a posh market. Good previous experience of buying from store. Always buy the product from this store. 3.87 0.79 3.55 0.93

3.61

2.89 3.71 2.60

2.47

0.89

2.55

1.08

2.19

0.81

3.16

1.06

3.38

1.08

2.85

0.96

3.28

1.12

3.34

1.15

2.68

0.96

2.39

0.93

2.60

0.92

3.63

0.96

3.49

1.04

3.09

1.02

2.87

2.87

3.15

1.03

2.50

0.78

2.70

1.03

2.22

0.91

2.73

1.05

3.42

1.04

3.70

0.97

4.02

0.70

3.68

0.94

3.27

1.02

3.15

1.02

3.09

3.34

3.88

0.90

contd...

Source: Primary Research.

123

124

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal The variables like Location of store in a posh marketand Always buy the product from this store got mean values of 3.15 & 3.09 respectively. Interestingly, the reputation of the store scored a low mean of 3.02. It shows that the buyers paid very less attention to the reputation of the store. Moreover recommendation of friends/ acquaintances and the nearness of the store seemed to be unimportant while purchasing shirt. The buyers gave very less rating to the variables like buying from this store will project the buyer as a high status person, bad-reputation of other stores and personal acquaintance with the store owner while selecting a store. For soap the buyers selected the stores with which they had good previous experience and infact most of them said that they always bought products from the same store. Therefore the mean scores of these two factors were as high as 4.02 & 3.88 respectively. The nearness of the stores was another important variable as people generally bought this product from a nearly store for this variable mean was 3.71. They preferred to buy from the store on which they have faith that it would backup the products guarantee. Some of them said that, they went for the store, which was carrying their preferred brand. The buyers perception of product quality on the basis of the reputation of the stores was further analysed for the three products. The result is presented in Table 8. In case of Television and Shirt, maximum number of respondents believed that the more reputed the store is, the better will be the quality of the product sold and hence this variable scored mean values of 3.34 & 3.43 for two products. But a majority of respondents disagreed with this statement in case of bathing soap and therefore the mean for this product was comparatively lower with a score of 2.57. Again in case of both Television and Shirt, a majority of respondents agreed that it would be risky to buy a well-known brand from local, little- known stores. The mean score in case

was carrying their preferred brand. A mean score of 3.63 for this variable supports the observation. Reputation of the store comes next, with a mean of 3.59, followed by the variable, nearness of the store with a mean score of 3.50. This leads to the conclusion, that although people preferred to buy from a reputed store, they looked for such stores in the nearby area, i.e. a reputed store in a neighbourhood area. Further the buyers preferred to buy from the store, with which they have good previous experience. This variable managed to score a mean of 3.42. Many of them selected the store, as it was the exclusive showroom of their preferred brand, and hence the mean value for this variable was 3.28. Moreover some respondents gave weightage to the size & looks of the store .This variable got a mean score of 3.16. Colour television and such other electronic products being of durable caterory are purchased infrequently and infact after a gap of considerable period of time. Hence, the variable always buy from this store managed to score a low mean of 3.15. The variables like recommendation of others, Location of the store in a posh market and personal acquaintance did not carry much weight while selecting the store. Moreover most of the respondents did not believe that buying from a reputed store would enhance their status in the eyes of others. While buying shirt, most of the buyers selected the store with which they had a good previous experience, hence this variable scored the highest mean value of 3.70. A faith that store would back up guarantee & services, like replacement of the defective product also influenced the buyers store selection. These two variables have mean scores of 3.27 & 3.55 respectively. As discussed in chapter 5, most of the reputed brand of shirt now a days sold through their exclusive show-room. The buyers selected that store, which was carrying their preferred brand or the exclusive showroom of that brand and hence these two variables managed the high mean values of 3.49 & 3.34.

125

126

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal of Television & shirt was 3.42 & 3.25 respectively. However it was as low as 2.76 in case of Bathing soap. The buyers seemed to be skeptical about the statement the large size, cleanliness and decore of store gives an indication about the quality of product sold. Hence this variable scored a mean value of 2.86 & 3.22 respectively. The buyers were more positive about the statement 4. It was particularly true in case of shirt, where the mean of this variable was 3.31. For Television it was moderately 3.17. However the mean of this variable was 2.80 in case of Bathing soap indicating that the buyers did not believed that soap purchased from a store located in a posh market would be better than that purchased from any other stores. The buyers perceive greater association between price and quality of Television and Shirt in comparison to Bathing soap. The reputation of the brand matters a lot while purchasing Television but the importance of this factor was lesser in case of shirt & bathing soap in comparison to television. While buying the Television, the reputation of the store, after sale services & nearness of the store, were important considerations in store selection. In case of shirt, people do ok for exclusive showrooms or selects the store with which they had a good previous experience. While buying Soap, people do not bother about the reputation of the store. They habitually buy the product from a nearby store. Hence nearness of the store is more important for the buyers while buying Bathing soap. Implication to the Marketers: Present study suggests following important points on the basis of research conducted in the form of implications. 1. A closer look at the socio-economic variables: Segmentation as per market sentiments. For Colour Television on the basis of income Shirt Promotion strategy aimed to emphasize Brand Reputation, Store Reputation and Price of Shirt.

Table 8: Store Reputation and Quality Perception

Factors Colour Television N = 179 Readymade Shirt N=175 Bathing Soap N=171 Mean Standard Deviation 0.95

Mean Stan- Mean Standard dard DeviDeviation ation The more 3.34 reputed the store is the better will be the quality of the product sold. It is risky to 3.42 buy even a well known brand from local, little known store. The large 2.86 size, cleanliness and decor of the store gives an indication about the quality of product sold. The stores 3.17 located in good locality sales better quality product. 1.07 1.43 1.03

2.57

1.08

3.25

1.17

2.76

1.05

0.96

3.22

1.02

2.51

0.90

1.01

3.31

0.93

2.80

0.98

Source: Primary Research.

127

128

Research Findings Hypotheses Significant difference found Rejected H1: There is no significant difference in the buyers perception of qualify of product falling in different price ranges H2 : The buyers perception Significant difference of quality of different brand found of a product is not different Rejected H3: The buyers perception of quality of product purchased from different types of stores is not different Accepted Overall Comments 1. Socio-economic variable have a little influence on Significant differences found but with Features & Brand Reputation Partially Rejected Colour Television Readymade Shirt Bathing Soap

Significant difference But people would found pay high price if soap having someis USP. Rejected Rejected Significant difference Significant difference found found Rejected Rejected Priority to income Accepted and promotion rather store Accepted 1. Reputation of 1. Price & Brand Brand has positive Reputation has a impact. positive influence

DSM Business Review

contd...

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

129 130
Hypotheses Colour Television Readymade Shirt buyers Product evaluation 2. Price has a strong 2. Reputation of & positive effect on store is not very buyers perception. important Bathing Soap 3. Reputation of store 3. High price of Shirt influences the has a positive buyers perception influence on to a lesser degree perception. in comparison to Price & Brand Reputation Source: Primary Research.

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal

on buyers perception 2. Features & Brand loyalty greatly influences the buyers purchase decision.

DSM Business Review

Vol. 1, No. 1 (June, 2009)

S.V. Pathak, Aditya P. Tripathi and Noopur Agrawal Relationship in an Experiment Setting, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.5 (Aug.), pp.300-34. Parashuraman, A. and Kumar, K. Ambarish (1972), Impact of Price and Brand on Consumers Choice: An Experimental Study, quoted in Subhash C. Mehta, Indian Consumer: Studies and Cases for Marketing Decisions, New Delhi, Tata Mc-Graw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., pp.53-62. Schiffman, Leon G. and Kanuk, Leslie Lazar (2002), Consumer Behavior Pearson Education, Asia, pp.149-150. Schiffman, Leon G. and Kanuk, Leslie Lazar (2002), Consumer Behavior op.cit., p.193. Schultz, Don E. (1998), Branding the Basis of Marketing Integration, Marketing News: Reporting on Marketing Profession, Vol.32, No.24, (Nov.), pp.8-9. Shapiro, Benson P (1968), The Psychology of Pricing, Harvard . Business Review, Vol.46, (July -Aug.), p.14. Shapiro, Benson P. (1968), op.cit, p.18. Stephen, J. Hoch et.al (1995), Determinants of Store-level Price Elasticity, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.32 (Feb.), pp.17-29. Tull, D.S., et. al (1964), A Note on the Relationship of Price and Imputed Quality, The Journal of Business, Vol.37 (April), pp.186-191. Veblen, Torstein, Theory of the Leisure Class, quoted in Benson P. Shapiro, op.cit., p.22. Walters, C. Glenn and Bergical Blaise J., op.cit., p.155. Woodruff, Robert B. (1972), Brand Information sources: opinion change and uncertainty, Journal of Market research, Vol.9 (Nov.), pp.441-15. Woodruff, Robert B. (1972), op.cit, p.258.

Marketer of Bathing Soap should keep in mind the income level and education level of the targeted audience. 2. Identify the key Intrinsic & Extrinsic signals and should act accordingly. 3. Building Brand Image because for all products buyers rely on Brand Reputation. 4. Pricing. 5. Store Reputation Building. 6. A blend of extrinsic & intrinsic cues.

References
Bitta, Della et.al (1981), Consumer Perception of Comparative Price Advertisements Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18, (Nov.), pp.416-427. Engle, James F. (1972), Consumer Behavior, Quoted in Rober B. Woodruff , Measurement of Consumer, prior Brand Information, Journal of Marketing Resarch, Vol.9 (Aug.), p.258. Gabor, A. and Granger, C.W.J., (1966), Price as a Indicator of Quality: Report on an Inquiry, Economica, Vol.33, pp.43-70. Kotler, Philip (1996), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, 9th Edition, New Delhi, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., p.494. Leavitt, Harold J. (1954), A Note on Some Experimental finding about the Meaning of Price, Journal of Business, Vol.27 (July), pp.205-10. Lichtenstein, Donald R., et al. (1993), Price Perception and Consumer Shopping Behavior: A Field Study, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.30 (May), p.234. McConnell, J. Douglas (1968), The Price-Quality

131

132