a project report on mr (product involvement and brand loyalty)

8/8/2019 A Project Report on MR (Product Involvement and Brand Loyalty)

1/21

a

A Project Report On

PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT & BRAND LOYALTY

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirementsFor the award of the degree of

Post Graduate Diploma in Management [PGDM]

AT

Submitted to

Mr. Rajesh Sharma VARUN NARANG

Roll No. 29118Ph No. 9810876503

NIILM Center for Management Studies

New Delhi 110044

Batch (2009-2011)


2/21

b

Contents

Abstract: ...................................................................................................................................................................... - 1 -

1.0 INTRODUCTION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO INDIAN CONTEXT: ................................................. - 1 -

1.2 Indian Salt Market .............................................................................................................................................. - 2 -

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... - 3 -

2.1 A brief review on Product Involvement............................................................................................................... - 4 -

2.2 A brief review of Brand Loyalty ......................................................................................................................... - 4 -

3.1 Pie Charts and Diagram .......................................................................................................................................... - 7 -

4.0 HYPOTHESIS ....................................................................................................................................................... - 8 -

5.0 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................. - 9 -

6.0 FINDINGS............................................................................................................................................................. - 9 -

7.0 SUMMARY WITH REFERENCE TO SIMILARITIES AND DISSIMILARITIES .............................................. - 10 -

8.0 MANEGERIAL IMPLICATION.......................................................................................................................... - 11 -

10.0 SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ............................................................................................................... - 12 -

11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................................. - 13 -


3/21

c


4/21

- 1 -

IS THERE A LINK BETWEEN PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT/ BRAND

LOYALTY: AN EMPERICAL STUDY INDIAN YOUTH

Abstract:

In the new stream of study between product involvement and brand loyalty, a convenience

sample of 100 people were asked to complete a questionnaire relating to two products (Sport

shoes and Salt) which had been found in preliminary qualitative research to be associated with

total and minimal level of involvement. The analysis of variance was conducted to know the

significant difference between high and low involvement product on the basis of five dimensions

such as Interest, Sign, Pleasure, Risk Probability and RiskImportance. Furthermore, the link

between product involvement and brand loyalty was found to inve different aspects of product for

each of the product concerned.

1.0INTRODUCTION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO INDIAN CONTEXT:

Indian markets from low-involvement to high-involvement product categories have been

experiencing sweeping changes in the past decade. Changing lifestyles, fragmented market

segments and consumer preferences, and intense competition from the brands of multinational

corporations (MNCs) have made branding strategies a prerequisite for marketing success1.

1.1 Sportswear Market in IndiaSportswear is a term that normally brings to mind an image of an athlete or a sportsman dressed

up to begin a game such as a cricketer in full gear, a tennis champ in sport clothing. However, it

is interesting to note that during the last few decades the dimensions of sportswear have

expanded to an extent that has brought forth a whole new face for this clothing category and

what was traditionally sports clothing, is fast acquiring the nomen activewear.

The Sportswear Market in India is highly competitive market. The youth in India is ready for the

sportswear definition. The youth in the relatively smaller cities is also aware of what brands are

doing globally, be it fashion or the automobile industry. Many a times, the customer is aware of

1 Excerpts from the Journal of Brand Management (2003)


5/21

- 2 -

the products before it even reaches the stores. This shows the involvement level of youth.

Awareness for sportswear category has been created by effective communication during product

launch, conveying what sportswear means.

The sportswear market is the only sector in India that has the presence of all top international

brands. The year 2006 witnessed the entry of Nike, Reebok and Adidas that gave a new

dimension to footwear and fashion retailing in the country. Then there are brands like Puma and

Tommy Hilfiger that are determined to present a whole new experience in fashionable active

wear and sportswear. All these brands are today targeting a nationwide expansion and this

market segment is suddenly beginning to look a lot bigger than what it was initially perceived to

be.

The major brands of India in sports shoes like Bata and Liberty have also responded positively to

the challenges in a bid to retain the market leadership. They have significantly transformed their

retail formats to become more lifestyle-oriented and are positioning themselves as vibrant and

contemporary Indian brands.2

1.2 Indian Salt Market

The Indian Salt market is also gaining potential. There is huge competition in this market sector.

The companies offering the product are: Tata, Annapurna, Saffola, and Naturefresh.

According to a particular article of Business Line in 2008, Tata Salt continues to reap the early

bird advantage, with a leading 38 per cent share of the national branded salt segment, and a 17

per cent share of the total iodized branded salt market. Annapurna salt brand is estimated to have

a market share of about 16 per cent. (DCW Chemicals' Captain Cook, launched in 1991, was

subsequently acquired by International Best foods, which in turn was acquired by Unilever, HLL

continues to distribute Captain Cook salt, but the brand isn't being pushed as aggressively now,

observe FMCG analysts.)

New entrant Naturefresh, from the Cargill Foods stable, claims to be showing positive results.

Naturefresh salt has been able to make inroads, generating switch in brand preference from the

2

Excerpts taken from an article Sports enough to wear from the website of Third Eyesight accessed on 20/4/2010

at 10:15;http://3isite.com/articles/sportswear_brands_india_nike_reebok_adidas_tommy_hilfiger_armani_ralph_lauren_calvi

n_klein.htm


6/21

- 3 -

top end of the edible salt market. Other significant branded players include Marico's Saffola,

positioned as a niche, low-sodium brand introduced about four years ago, and Nirma Shudh,

which isn't completely national yet.

One of the reasons why salt is outperforming other commodities is to do with the life span of

branded salt being longer. Apart from that, there's been an effective `iodine deficiency

campaign', owing to which the penetration of branded salt is about 20 per cent nationally,

compared to one per cent for branded Atta and sugar."

Salt can be differentiated by free flowing', `iodized', `granular' and `vacuum evaporation'. While

the consumer is swayed by a number of brands and benefits which indicates low brand loyalty,

there is a preference for reputed brands and familiar names. That's because salt is a habitual

product and the consumer doesn't prefer frequent brand switches. The Indian consumer is willing

to switch among a set of preferred brands, depending on availability, personal preference and

product offering.3

Hence in Indian context the sport shoes is regarded as high involvement product and salt being

low involvement product is considered to be high brand loyal product.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Product involvement and brand loyalty are two important concepts believed to explain a

significant proportion of consumer purchase choices. Several studies (e.g. Traylor, 1981; Park,

1996; Iwasaki and Havitz, 1998), have examined the relationship between product involvement

and brand loyalty, under different names. Traylor (1981) used the term ego involvement and

brand commitment whereas Park (1996) referred to involvement and attitudinal

involvement.

Traylor (1983) stated that brand commitment is generally not directly related to product

involvement, suggesting that it is possible to consider cases where high product involvement is

directly related to low brand commitment and high brand commitment to low product

involvement. This is because involvement and loyalty is consumer defined phenomena.

3 Hindu Business Line dated 22/06/2008 Salts sweet success accessed on 20/4/2010 at 10:00 am

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/2002/06/20/stories/2002062000020100.html


7/21

- 4 -

2.1 A brief review on Product Involvement

According to Miller and Marks (1996), Product involvement inves an ongoing commitment on

the part of the consumer with regards to thoughts, feelings and behavioral responses to product

category. Product involvement is independent and situational influences (Miller and Mark,1996). Richens and Bloch (1986) note that the customers with high involvement products would

find the products interesting and this would occupy the consumers thoughts without the stimulus

of immediate purchase. Such interest may arise from consumers perception that the product

class meets important values and goals. According to OCass and Muller (1999), product

involvement is seen as the intensity with which a product gestalt is embedded in and driven by

the consumers value system.

According to Kapferer and Laurent (1985), different involvement profile can and should, be

developed for each individual consumer. The two profiles on the extreme end are high

involvement and low involvement profile. The involvement profile is based on five dimensions:

1) Interest: the personal interest a person has in a product category, its personal meaning and

importance. 2) Pleasure: the hedonic value of the product, its ability to provide pleasure and

enjoyment. 3) Sign: the degree to which it expresses the personal self. 4) Risk Importance: the

perceived importance of potential negative consequences associated with a poor choice of the

product. 5) Risk Probability: the perceived probability of making poor choice. All the facets

(dimensions) of the involvement profile must be considered simultaneously because different

facets have different influences on the selected aspects of consumer behavior. Depending on

these five dimensions, consequences on consumer behavior, such as time spent on information

search, the number of brands examined and the attention paid to advertisement messages, may

differ across individuals with respect to different product categories.

2.2 A brief review of Brand Loyalty

According to Aaker (1992), brand loyalty implies both a consistent pattern of purchase of a

specific brand over time and a favorable attitude towards a brand. The literature shows two

alternative approaches to the construct of brand loyalty. The first one is concerned with a

consistent purchase behavior of a specific brand over time. This is behavioral approach to brand


8/21

- 5 -

loyalty and the second one relies on a favorable attitude towards a brand is the attitudinal

approach to brand loyalty.

There are some definitions given by various authors like According to Kuehn (1962), brand

loyalty can be viewed as, at least in part, a function of the frequency and regularity with which a

brand has been selected in the past. According to tucker, brand loyalty is a biased choice

behavior with respect to branded merchandise. According to LeClerc and Little (1997), the

number of brand purchased in the last year as the indicator of loyalty. According to Cunningham

(1956), single brand loyalty is the proportion of total purchases represented by large single brand

used. Dual brand loyalty is the proportion of total purchases represented by the two largest single

brands used.

The conceptual definition of brand loyalty by Jacob and Kyner (1973) is: the biased(non biased),

behavioral responses expressed over time, by some decision making unit with respect to one or

more alternative brands out of the set of brands and is a functional of psychological processes.

2.3 Justification of basing hypotheses on demographic variables such as age, income,

education

The hypothesis is based on various factors such as age, income and education. The hypothesis is

reached out on the basis on argument given by various author.

Age has a great impact on involvement level of product. Age carries with it culturally defined

behavioral and attitudinal norms (Alreck 2000). Age affects consumers self concept and life

styles (Henry 2000). Age determines the consumption of various products, media, and shopping

centers and has been used by marketers to segment the markets. Age also influences the level of

consumer involvement (Slama and Tashchin 1985; Jain and Sharma 2002). Though age forms a

part of one's stage of family life cycle, yet it is in itself an important factor for various products.

Similarly income also has a significant impact on consumer involvement. Income of the family

combined with family's accumulated wealth determines the purchasing power (Hawkins et al

2003). However, income enables purchases but does not generally cause or explain them. It is

likely that the occupation and education directly influence the preferences for products, media

and activities; income provides the means to acquire them (Mulhern et al 1998). Jain and Sharma

(2002) and Slama and Taschian (1985) identified that income influences the involvement levels.


9/21

- 6 -

Similarly education also affects the involvement level of consumer. Education is one of the

widely applied cues to evaluate an individual (Hawkins et al 2003). It is strongly related to

occupation and income. Various studies have found differences in consumption of products with

differences in the Educations. Jain and Sharma (2002) could gather a minimal support for the

argument that consumer involvement differs for differences in consumers' Education. However,

it may be speculated that the differences in the involvement levels of consumer would be

influenced by different Education

3.0 METHODOLOGY

In the particular study, a survey was conducted for high involvement and low involvement

products where respondents were asked about their involvement (high and low) with products.

As a pretest analysis a sample of 50 respondents was taken from Select City Walk Mall. And the

findings indicated that Sport Shoes were regarded as High involvement product and Salt was

regarded as low involvement product. Then the questionnaire was prepared based on five

dimensions Interest, Sign, Pleasure, Risk Probability and Risk Importance. The Consumer

Involvement Profile (CIP) scale was used on seven point Likert scale from 1- strongly disagree

to 7- strongly agree.

Then a sample of 100 students was taken in the study. Respondents were taken from shopping

malls and Jawaharlal Nehru University Campus. Respondents were classified on the basis of age,

income and education.

TABLE 1: Classification of Respondents on the basis of Age, Income and Education

Group RangeNo of Respondents and

percentage

AGE

< 20 yrs 820-30 yrs 83> 30 yrs 9TOTAL 100

Income

< 50,000 4750,000 100000 17>1,00,000 36TOTAL 100

Education

Undergraduate 10Graduate 23Post-Graduate 67TOTAL 100


10/21

- 7 -

3.1 Pie Charts and Diagram

3.1.1 Classification of respondents on the basis of age

3.1.2 Classification of respondents on the basis of Education

3.1.3 Classification of respondents on the basis of Household Income

9%8%

83%

AGE

< 20

20-30

> 30

10%

23%

67%

QUALIFICATION

UNDERGRADUATE

POST GRADUATE

GRADUATE

47%

17%

36%

RESPONSES

< 50,000

50,000-1,00,000

> 1,00,000


11/21

- 8 -

4.0 HYPOTHESIS

The below hypothesis are classified into High Involvement and Low Involvement Product

4.1 High involvement product

H01: There is no significant difference among different age groups for high involvement product

(shoes)

H02: There is no significant difference among different income groups for high involvement

product (shoes)

H03: There is no significant difference among different education groups for high involvement

product (shoes)

4.2 Low involvement product

H04: There is no significant difference among different age groups for low involvement product

(salt)

H05: There is no significant difference among different income groups for low involvement

product (salt)

H06: There is no significant difference among different education groups for low involvement

product (salt)

4.3 Impact on the basis of factors of consumer involvement

H07: There is no significant difference between high involvement and low involvement product

by interest factor


by sign factor


by pleasure factor


by risk probability factor


by risk importance factor.


12/21

- 9 -

5.0 RESULTS

5.1 One Way ANOVA

One Way ANOVA is analyzed using SPSS 15

TABLE 2: Showing the results of all the hypothesis of One Way ANOVAS

No. HYPOTHESIS Sig.

H1 No significant difference among different age groups in high involvementproduct (shoes) 0.874

H2 No significant difference among different income groups in high involvementproduct (shoes) 0.943

H3 No significant difference among different education groups in high involvement

product (shoes) 0.783

H4 No significant difference among different age groups in low involvement

product (salt) 0.949

H5 No significant difference among different income groups in low involvementproduct 0.924

H6 No significant difference among different education groups in low involvement

product (salt) 0.898

H7 No significant difference between high involvement and low involvement

product by interest factor 0.006*


product by sign factor 0.001*


product by pleasure factor 0.032*

H10 No significant difference between high involvement and low involvementproduct by risk probability factor 0.132

H11 No significant difference between high involvement & low involvementproduct by risk importance 0.041

*

H12 No significant difference between the mean rating of high involvement andLow involvement product 0.758

* The optimal level of accepting null hypothesis is p > 0.05 at 95% confidence level

6.0 FINDINGS

We observed the impact of age, income & education on high involvement & low involvement

product. We used one way ANOVA to find out the results. We found that the significant F test

for age was 0.949 & 0.874 for low involvement & high involvement products respectively. Since

both the values are greater than 0.05 at 95% confidence level, hence we conclude that there is no

significance difference among different age groups on high involvement & low involvement

products. Similarly we found that the significant F test for income was 0.843 & 0.981 for low


13/21

- 10 -

involvement & high involvement products respectively. So there is no significant difference

among different income groups on high involvement & low involvement products. The findings

also indicated that significant F test for education was 0.898 & 0.783 for low involvement &

high involvement products respectively. So there is no significant difference among different

education groups on high involvement & low involvement products.

We also need to observe the impact of different dimensions of consumer involvement (Interest,

Sign, Pleasure, Risk Probability and Risk Importance) on high involvement & low involvement

products. So we observed that the significant F test was 0.006 which is less than 0.05, hence we

conclude that there is a significant difference between high involvement & low involvement

products due to interest factor. Similarly we observed a significant difference between high

involvement & low involvement products due to Sign, Pleasure & Risk Importance. But there is

no significant difference between high involvement & low involvement products due to Risk

Probability. This implies that Risk Probability do not have impact on high involvement & low

involvement products.

One of the findings indicates that there is no significant difference between the mean rating of

respondents for high involvement and low involvement product.

The Cronbach Alpha was applied to know the reliability & internal consistency of the test. The

Cronbach Alpha for 7 Point Scale measuring the consumer involvement stood at 0.944 & 0.958

for Salt & Sport Shoes respectively. Since the Cronbach Alpha for both the products is greater

than 0.7, hence the test is reliable.

We also found that the mean rating of respondents for low involvement products is greater than

the mean rating for high involvement product. This shows that low involvement product can

have high Brand Commitment & high involvement product can have Low Brand Commitment.

In this study Salt being a low involvement product is considered to be high in Brand Loyalty.

This proves that Brand Loyalty & Product involvement as consumer defined phenomenon as

stated by Traylor (1983).

7.0 SUMMARY WITH REFERENCE TO SIMILARITIES AND DISSIMILARITIES

The study conducted state that the high brand loyalty can be coupled with low product

involvement and vice versa. In this study salt being low involvement product is considered to be

high in brand loyalty. This findings is similar to the article of Business Line (2008) regarding


14/21

- 11 -

Salt's sweet success which also state that salt is a habitual product and consumer do not prefer

frequent brand switch, therefore salt is considered to be high in brand loyalty. 4

There was a similar study conducted by G. Sridhar in 20065 in his research on Consumer

Involvement in product choice- A Demographic Analysis where the researcher found the impact

of age, education and Income on High Involvement & Low Involvement Product. The research

found that there is a significant difference among different age group, Education and Income

group in high involvement & low Involvement product. But in the original study there is no

significant difference among different age group, education and Income in high involvement &

low Involvement products.

8.0 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATION

Our findings indicate that factors like age, Income, Education do not have a great impact on low

involvement and high involvement product. These findings are useful for marketer. Marketer

would continue to produce and offer high involvement and low involvement product without

segmenting the product Age wise, education wise and income wise, because these factors do not

affect the consumer involvement.

We also observe that various dimensions of consumer involvement like Interest, Sign, Pleasure,

Risk Probability and Risk importance helps to find out the significant difference between high

involvement and low involvement product. This finding can also be useful for the marketer. The

marketer must take into account the dimensions of involvement while offering high and low

involvement product. A marketer must analyze the product on the basis of Interest, Sign,

Pleasure and Risk Importance before offering product to consumer. A marketer must analyze the

reason of consumer to buy the particular product, whether the consumer is excited in buying the

product or whether the consumer buys the product because it expresses his/her own self or some

other reasons.The findings would be helpful for the Managers and executives in product planning. The

manager must analyze different dimensions of consumer involvement (Interest, Sign, Pleasure &

4Hindu Business Line dated 22/06/2008- Salts sweet success. Retrieved on April, 20th 2010 at 10:00 am fromhttp://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/2002/06/20/stories/2002062000020100.htm5 G. Sridhar (2007), XIMB journal of Management


15/21

- 12 -

Risk importance) in designing the marketing strategies. However there is no need for manager to

consider Risk Probability (as a dimension of involvement) in designing the marketing strategies

because Risk probability do not have significant impact on high and low involvement product

9.0 LIMITATION

The finding suffered from some limitations. One of the limitation was that majority of selected

sample was between the age group 20-30. We selected sample of 100 respondents from JNU

University. Hence the sample was confined to students of JNU University with similar age

group, Education Qualification. Another limitation was the Response bias. Many of the

respondents gave inaccurate answers. There was some Inability error i.e. Respondent were

unable to provide accurate answers because of various reasons like unfamiliarity, fatigue,

question content, question format. Another limitation was that there were very less number of

respondents selected as a sample representative.

10.0 SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

There is a great scope for further improvement as the study was confined to the impact of various

dimensions of involvement on the two involvement profile. Factor Analysis might be conducted

in order to determine the number of factors that would account for maximum variance in the data

for use in subsequent multivariate analysis.

The study reveals that attitude is the key determinant of real brand loyalty, the other is behavioral

loyalty. Attitudinal loyalty has been broken down into cognitive, affective and conotive

construct. Quester and Lim (2003) found all the three variables merged into one factor for both

product and brand loyalty, so in order to replicate the study the researcher fixed the brand loyalty

into one factor. Hence there is a scope of further research to test these three construct of brand

loyalty against the five dimension of product involvement in order to find further insight.Another scope for improvement is that in addition with age, education and income, some more

factors can be taken like gender, marital status, and familys monthly expenditure


16/21

- 13 -

11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY1.Aaker, D. A. (1992). Value of Brand Equity. The Journal Business Strategy, 13 (4), 27-

37.

2.Alreck, P.L (2000). Consumer Age Role Norms.Psychology and Marketing, 891-900.3.Boonghe Yoo, Donthu, N. & S.Lee (2000). An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix

Elements and Brand Equity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(2): 195-

211.

4.Chaudhari, A. (1995). Brand equity and double jeopardy, Journal of Product and BrandManagement, 4 (2), 26-32.

5.Cunningham, R.M. (1956). Brand Loyalty- what, where, how much? Harvard BusinessReview, 34 (2), 116-28

6.Dick, A.S. & Basu, K. (1994) Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptualframework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (2), 99-113.

7.Douglas, N. (2006) How Product Involvement affects Brand Loyalty Journal ofMarketing Research. 4, 34-56.

8.Farley, J.U. (1964). Why does Brand Loyalty vary over product, Journal of MarketingResearch, 1 (4), 9-14.

9.Hawkins I. Del, Roger J. Best & Kenneth A. Coney (2003). Consumer Behavior BuildingMarketing Strategy, Ninth Edition, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi.

10.Henry, P. (2000). Modes of Thought that vary systematically with Social Class and Age.Psychology and Marketing, 421 440.

11.Iwasaki, Y. & Havitz, M.E. (1998). A path-analytic model of the relationships betweeninvolvement, psychological commitment and loyalty. Journal of Leisure Research, 30

(2), 256-80.

12.Jacoby, J. & Kyner, D.B. (1973). Brand Loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journalof Marketing Research, 10, 1-9.

13.Jain, K. & Srinivasan, N. (1990). An empirical assessment of multiple operationalizationsof involvement, in Goldberg, M.E. and Pollay, R.W.(Eds). Advances in Consumer

Research, 17, 594-602.


17/21

- 14 -

14.Jain K. Sanjay & Kavita Sharma (2002). Relevance of Personal Factors as Antecedentsof Consumer Involvement: An Exploration, Vision, 13 24.

15.Kapferer, J.-N. & Laurent, G. (1985a). Consumer Involvement Profiles: a new practicalapproach to consumer involvement. Journal ofAdvertising Research, 25 (6) 48-56.

16.Kapferer, J-N & Laurent, G. (1958b). Consumer involvement profiles: new empiricalresults in Hiroshima, E. and Holbrook, M. (Eds). Advances in Consumer Research, 12,

Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, 290-5.

17.Kuehn, A.A. (1962). Consumer brand choice as a learning process. Journal ofAdvertising Research, 2, 10-17.

18.LeClerc, F. & Little, JDC. (1997). Can advertisement copy make FSI coupons moreeffective?, Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 473-84.

19.Miller, D.W. & Marks, L.J. (1996). The Moderating effects of enduring involvement onimaginary- evoking advertisements, American MarketingAssociation, Winter, 121-8

20.OCass, A. & Muller, T. (1999). A study of Australian materialistic values, productinvolvement and the self-image/product image congruency relationships for fashion

clothing, Proceedings of the World MarketingCongress on Global Perspectives in

marketing for the 21stCentury, Qawra, Malta.

21.Park, S-H (1996). Relationships between involvement and attitudinal loyalty construct inadult fitness programs. Journal ofConsumer Research, 28 (4), 233-50.

22.Quester, P. & Lim, A.L. (2000). Product Involvement/Brand Loyalty: is there a link? ,Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12 (1), 22-38

23.Rechin, M.L. & Bloch, P.H. (1986). After the wears off: the temporal context of productinvolvement, Journal ofConsumer Research, 7, 272-82

24.Slama, M.E. & Tashchian, A. (1985). Selected socioeconomic and demographiccharacteristics associated with purchasing involvement. Journal of Marketing, 49, 72-82

25.

Sridhar G. (2007). Consumer Involvement in Product Choice- A Demographic Analysis.

Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (4) , 43-68.

26.Traylor, M.B. (1981). Product involvement and brand commitment, Journal ofAdvertising Research, 51-6.

27.Traylor, M.B. (1983). Ego involvement and brand commitment: not necessarily the same.Journal ofConsumer Marketing, 75-9.


18/21

- 15 -

28.Tucker, W.T. (1964). The development of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research,1 (3), 32-5.

29.Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: AMeans-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing52 (July), 2-22.

WEBLOGRAPHY

ySalts sweet success, Hindu Business Line, 22/06/2008. Retrieved on April, 20th 2010fromhttp://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/2008/06/20/stories/2002062000020100.htm

ySports enough to wear, Third eyesight, 24/08/2006. Retrieved on April, 20th 2010 fromhttp://3isite.com/articles/sportswear_brands_india_nike_reebok_adidas_tommy_hilfiger_ar

mani_ralph_lauren_calvin_klein.htm

ANNEXURE


19/21

- 16 -

The following questions were prepared on the basis of 7 point Likert scale. And a sample of 100 respondents

were selected to fill questionnaire QUESTIONS

1 It was very important for me to buy this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over (an) other brand(s).

2Over the last few months/years, I have always bought the same brand of SPORTS SHOES because I really liked

the brand

3

I put in quite a great deal of effort when I made a decision about which brand of SPORTS SHOES to buy

among these brands

4 Although another brand was on sale, I still bought this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES

5 I would be upset if I had to buy another brand of SPORTS SHOES if this particular brand was not available

6I always thought of this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s) when I considered buying a

pair/one

7 I was excited about getting this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s)

8 I would continue to buy the same brand of SPORTS SHOES because I like the brand very much

9 I always found myself consistently buying this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s)10 I considered brand to be very important in choosing a SPORTS SHOES

11 I felt good about this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s)

12 I paid a lot of attention to this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s)

13 I felt very attached to this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s)

14 Once I have decided on a particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brands, I will stick by it

15I was interested in this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES over the other brand(s)

16If this particular brand of SPORTS SHOES wasnt available at the store, I would rather not buy at all if I have

to choose another brand


20/21

- 17 -

QUESTIONS

1 It was very important for me to buy this particular brand of SALT over (an) other brand(s).

2 Over the last few months/years, I have always bought the same brand of SALT because I really liked the brand

3I put in quite a great deal of effort when I made a decision about which brand of SALT to buy among these

brands

4 Although another brand was on sale, I still bought this particular brand of SALT

5 I would be upset if I had to buy another brand of SALT if this particular brand was not available

6 I always thought of this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s) when I considered buying a pair/one

7 I was excited about getting this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s)

8 I would continue to buy the same brand of SALT because I like the brand very much

9 I always found myself consistently buying this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s)

10 I considered brand to be very important in choosing a SALT

11 I felt good about this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s)

12 I paid a lot of attention to this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s)

13 I felt very attached to this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s)

14 Once I have decided on a particular brand of SALT over the other brands, I will stick by it

15 I was interested in this particular brand of SALT over the other brand(s)

16If this particular brand of SALT wasnt available at the store, I would rather not buy at all if I have to choose

another brand


21/21

- 18 -

a project report on mr (product involvement and brand loyalty)

Documents