consumer buying behavior of durable goods -...

105

Chapter 4

Consumer buying behavior of

Durable goods

(Analysis and Interpretation of Data)

4. Introduction.

In this chapter, an attempt has been made by the researcher to examine

the data relating to consumer buying behavior of durable goods. This

chapter provides data analysis and interpretation. It covers demographic

analysis with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing,

Brand awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty. It also covers the

Usage of Consumer durable products and Brand shifting, Factors influenced

Consumer’s Purchase decision and Expectations of consumer’s after sales

service. Factors are confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis. Assessing

the influence of interest in branded consumer durable goods and assessing the

influence of awareness towards branded consumer durable goods. Assessing

the relationship between Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and

Marketing and Brand awareness with Brand performance of durable goods.

Assessing the relationships between Purchase behavior, Perception,

Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness and Brand performance with

Brand loyalty of durable goods. Predictor variables of Performance of

branded durable goods and Brand loyalty of branded durable goods are

106

assessed. A Model has been proposed to enrich the Brand loyalty through

Performance of branded consumer durable goods. This chapter proceeds

as follows:

4.1 Descriptive analysis

4.2 Usage of Consumer durable products and Brand shifting.

4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

4.4

Analysis of demographic profile with Purchase behavior,

Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness, Brand

performance and Brand loyalty.

4.5 Influence of Interest in Consumer durable goods.

4.6 Influence of Awareness towards Consumer durable goods.

4.7

Relationships between Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion

and Marketing, Brand awareness and Brand performance of

consumer durable goods.

4.8

Relationships between Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion

and Marketing, Brand awareness, performance and Brand loyalty

of consumer durable goods.

4.9 Assessing the predictor variables of Performance of branded

Consumer durable goods.

4.10 Assessing the predictor variables of Brand loyalty in branded


4.11 Model for Brand loyalty of Consumers using durable goods in

Chennai city.

107

4.1. Descriptive Analysis.

Table 4.1. Purchase Behavior105

S.

No Statements Mean SD

1 I am knowledgeable to choose the products for my house. 3.92 .597

2 While buying new products, I consider other’s opinion also. 3.16 1.219

3 I prefer domestic products than imported ones. 3.46 .799

4 I feel branded products are more reliable. 3.51 .914

5 My household products are sleek and utility based. 3.85 .904

6 I consider branded products for the benefit of guarantee. 3.38 .708

7 My household products are mostly purchased on auspicious

days. 3.60 .661

8 I think rationally before I purchase any products. 3.92 .597

9 Advertisements present a true picture of the products. 3.16 1.219

10 Buying products during off season is cheaper. 3.88 .744

11 I don’t mind spending for products for more comfort. 3.51 1.259

12 Highly priced products are of better quality. 3.75 1.123

13 I am attracted by exchange schemes for products. 3.83 .996

14 I am on transferable job and hence change my products at

least once in 5 years. 3.92 1.025

Table 4.1 shows the mean responses given by the consumers of durable

goods towards purchase behavior. The mean response given by the

consumers for “I am knowledgeable to choose the products for my house” is

3.92. The mean response given by the consumers for “While buying new

products, I consider other’s opinion also” is 3.16. The mean response given

by the consumers for “I prefer domestic products than imported ones” is 3.46.

105

primary data

108

The mean response given by the consumers for “I feel branded products are

more reliable” is 3.51. The mean response given by the consumers for “My

household products are sleek and utility based” is 3.85. The mean response

given by the consumers for “I consider branded products for the benefit of

guarantee” is 3.38. The mean response given by the consumers for “My

household products are mostly purchased on auspicious days” is 3.60. The

mean response given by the consumers for “I think rationally before I

purchase any products” is 3.92. The mean response given by the consumers

for “Advertisements present a true picture of the products” is 3.16. The mean

response given by the consumers for “Buying products during off season” is

cheaper” is 3.88. The mean response given by the consumers for “I don’t

mind spending for products for more comfort” is 3.51. The mean response

given by the consumers for “Highly priced products are of better quality” is

3.75. The mean response given by the consumers for “I am attracted by

exchange schemes for products” is 3.83. The mean response given by the

consumers for “I am on transferable job and hence change my products at

least once in 5 years” is 3.92. The mean responses given towards purchase

behavior of durable goods are all above the average level; this shows that

the consumer’s purchase behavior is good towards the durable goods.

109

Table 4.2-Perception towards brand106

S.


1 I estimate the quality of the product before the decision of

purchase. 3.95 .997

2 Price must be proportion to the quality. 3.78 1.186

3 Particular brands should serve the purpose. 2.86 1.329

4 Manufacturer’s name and reputation are important to me. 3.19 1.177

5 I need innovation in every product of selected brands. 3.63 1.189

6 Service of the providers of the brand is an important factor

for purchase decision. 3.94 1.108

7 Selected brands of consumer durable products should be

medically fit for use. 3.92 .597

8 Availability is very important in my purchase decision. 3.16 1.219


goods towards perception about brand of durable goods. The mean

response given by the consumers for “I estimate the quality of the product

before the decision of purchase” is 3.95. The mean response given by the

consumers for “Price must be proportion to the quality” is 3.78. The mean

response given by the consumers for “Particular brands should serve the

purpose” is 2.86. The mean response given by the consumers for

“Manufacturer’s name and reputation are important to me” is 3.19. The mean

response given by the consumers for “I need innovation in every product of

selected brands” is 3.63. The mean response given by the consumers for

“Service of the providers of the brand” is an important factor for purchase

106

primary data

110

decision” is 3.94. The mean response given by the consumers for “Selected

brands of consumer durable products should be medically fit for use” is 3.92.

The mean response given by the consumers for “Availability is very

important in my purchase decision” is 3.16. The mean responses given

towards purchase behavior of durable goods are all above the average

level; this shows that the consumer’s perception about brand is good

towards the durable goods.

Table 4.3. Post- purchase behavior of branded durable products107

107

primary data

S.


1 I am always in favour of buying the brand 3.46 .799

2 In my view the brand I buy, tops among all the consumer

durable products 3.51 .914

3 I like to use the brand often and so I buy frequently 3.85 .904

4 I don’t want to switch over to some other brand if the

particular brand I use is not available 3.38 .708

5 I have profound bond of affection for the brand I use 3.60 .661

6 I won’t miss this brand at any cost 3.92 .597

7 I love this brand for various reasons 3.16 1.219

8 I love this brand for possessing the special features which I

expect 3.88 .744

9 I have deep attachment for the brand and the manufacturers 3.92 .597

10 I am delighted with the people who generally use my

favourite brand 3.06 .987

11 I believe this brand has no alternative 3.51 1.018

12 I like to have discussion on the brand I use 3.52 1.124

111


towards the post purchase behavior of selected consumer products. The

mean response given by the consumers for “I am always in favour of buying

the brand” is 3.46. The mean response given by the consumers for “In my

view the brand I buy, tops among all the consumer durable products” is 3.51.

The mean response given by the consumers for “I like to use the brand often

and so I buy frequently” is 3.85. The mean response given by the consumers

for “I don’t want to switch over to some other brand if the particular brand I

use is not available” is 3.38. The mean response given by the consumers for “I

have profound bond of affection for the brand I use” is 3.60. The mean

13 The selected brands of each consumer durable products are

meant for people like me 3.61 .985

14 I want others to realize the name of the brand. 3.55 1.009

15 I feel satisfied to use the consumer durable products. 3.46 .960

16 I always have a close observation on the performance of the

brand. 3.48 1.450

17 I remember that on several occasions I have enjoyed using

the selected brands. 3.52 1.018

18 I feel addiction towards the selected brands of each type of

consumer durable products. 3.93 1.051

19 If I had to buy other brands of each type of consumer durable

products I would feel disloyal to the selected brands. 4.17 .676

20 I can trust the selected brands of each type of consumer

durable products. 3.88 .788

21 I have strong positive feeling about the selected brands

consumer durable products. 3.93 .813

22 I have favorable image of the selected brands of each type of

consumer durable products. 3.68 .874

112

response given by the consumers for “I won’t miss this brand at any cost” is

3.92. The mean response given by the consumers for “I love this brand for

various reasons” is 3.16. The mean response given by the consumers for “I

love this brand for possessing the special features which I expect” is 3.88. The

mean response given by the consumers for “I have deep attachment for the

brand and the manufacturers” is 3.92. The mean response given by the

consumers for “I am delighted with the people who generally use my favorite

brand” is 3.06. The mean response given by the consumers for “I believe this

brand has no alternative” is 3.51. The mean response given by the consumers

for “I like to have discussion on the brand I use” is 3.52. The mean response

given by the consumers for “The selected brands of each consumer durable

products are meant for people like me” is 3.61. The mean response given by

the consumers for “I want others to realize the name of the brand” is 3.55.

The mean response given by the consumers for “I feel satisfied to use the

consumer durable products” is 3.46. The mean response given by the

consumers for “I always have a close observation on the performance of the

brand” is 3.48. The mean response given by the consumers for “I remember

that on several occasions I have enjoyed using the selected brands” is 3.52.

The mean response given by the consumers for “I feel addiction towards the

selected brands of each type of consumer durable products” is 3.93. The mean

response given by the consumers for “If I had to buy other brands of each

type of consumer durable products I would feel disloyal to the selected

brands” is 4.17. The mean response given by the consumers for “I can trust

113

the selected brands of each type of consumer durable products” is 3.88. The

mean response given by the consumers for “I have strong positive feeling

about the selected brands consumer durable products” is 3.93. The mean response

given by the consumers for “I have favorable image of the selected brands of each

type of consumer durable products” is 3.68. The mean responses given towards

post purchase behavior of durable goods are all above the average level; this

shows that the consumer’s post purchase behavior is good towards the durable

goods.

Table 4.4. Promotion and marketing108

S.


1 Advertisements of the consumer durable products made me

remember the brand ever. 3.71 .838

2 Door selling is convenient for me to maintain proximity with

the brand. 3.76 .954

3 Free offers are timely useful for satisfaction. 3.86 .841

4 Dealers’ display of the Brand makes me recall the brand

often. 3.97 .684

5 Advertisements are application oriented and useful to know

about the brand. 3.59 1.064

6 In the brand I use, there is no disparity between

advertisement and actual experience. 3.19 1.280

7 Manufacturers are showing enthusiasm to attract new

consumers. 2.94 1.232


goods towards promotion and marketing. The mean response given by the

consumers for “Advertisements of the consumer durable products made me

108

primary data

114

remember the brand ever” is 3.71. The mean response given by the consumers

for “Door selling is convenient for me to maintain proximity with the brand”

is 3.76. The mean response given by the consumers for “Free offers are timely

useful for satisfaction” is 3.86. The mean response given by the consumers for

“Dealers’ display of the Brand makes me recall the brand often” is 3.97. The

mean response given by the consumers for “Advertisements are application

oriented and useful to know about the brand” is 3.59. The mean response

given by the consumers for “In the brand I use, there is no disparity between

advertisement and actual experience ” is 3.19. The mean response given by

the consumers for “Manufacturers are showing enthusiasm to attract new

consumers” is 2.94. The mean responses given towards promotion and

marketing of durable goods are all above the average level, this shows

that the consumers are satisfied with promotion and marketing of

durable goods.

Table 4.5. Awareness about the brand109

S.


1 Brand of consumer durable products I use stand fast fixed in my

mind. 3.86 .841

2 I am able to distinguish one brand from the other to its

performance. 3.85 .751

3 Brand recognition of the consumer durable products depends on

its performance. 3.93 1.051

4 I am aware of the free gifts and sales offer of the consumer

durable products. 3.62 .681

109

primary data

115

5 I am able to discriminate the brand as I have previous

knowledge about consumer durable products. 3.20 .833

6 Good exposure to the brand plays an important role for

remembrance/ or memory. 3.96 .742

7 Retrieval of brand from memory in the midst of same category

of consumer durable products is not difficult. 2.91 1.135

8 Appearance of the product creates impact on consumer’s

awareness. 3.20 .833

9 Physical significance of brands of consumer durable products I

use, create more awareness. 3.80 .769

10 I take special interest to know the reputation of the

manufacturers of the brands of consumer durable products I use. 3.89 .689

11 I have the knowledge of other brands produced by the

manufacturer of consumer durable products. 3.62 .681


goods towards awareness about the brand. The mean response given by

the consumers for “Brand of consumer durable products I use stand fast fixed

in my mind” is 3.86. The mean response given by the consumers for “I am

able to distinguish one brand from the other to its performance” is 3.85. The

mean response given by the consumers for “Brand recognition of the

consumer durable products depends on its performance” is 3.93. The mean

response given by the consumers for “I am aware of the free gifts and sales

offer of the consumer durable products” is 3.62. The mean response given by

the consumers for “I am able to discriminate the brand as I have previous

knowledge about consumer durable products” is 3.20. The mean response

given by the consumers for “Good exposure to the brand plays an important

role for remembrance/ or memory” is 3.96. The mean response given by the

116

consumers for “Retrieval of brand from memory in the midst of same

category of consumer durable products” is not difficult” is 2.91. The mean

response given by the consumers for “Appearance of the product creates

impact on consumer’s awareness” is 3.20. The mean response given by the

consumers for “Physical significance of brands of consumer durable products

I use, create more awareness” is 3.80. The mean response given by the

consumers for “I take special interest to know the reputation of the

manufacturers of the brands of consumer durable products I use” is 3.89. The

mean response given by the consumers for “I have the knowledge of other

brands produced by the manufacturer of consumer durable products” is 3.62.

The mean responses given towards awareness about the brand of durable

goods are all above the average level; this shows that the consumer’s

awareness about the brand is good towards the durable goods.

Table 4.6. Performance of durable goods110

S.


1 The products serve their purpose perfectly. 4.05 1.032

2 They have special features in their performance. 3.80 1.092

3 Reliability is more. 3.64 1.151

4 It is easily distinguished from other brand in terms of

performance. 3.44 1.258

5 The effectiveness of usage is highly significant. 3.65 1.247

6 Effect is speedy and gives satisfaction. 3.52 1.166

110

primary data

117

7 The manufacturers\ providers respond very well to the

complaint. 4.13 .987

8 The status is raised due to the performance of the brand. 4.07 1.157

9 The brand gives a feeling of good satisfaction. 3.80 1.174

10 The performance ignores fluctuation in the price of the

product. 3.62 1.244

11 Fluctuation of price is considered to be an important factor

for the image of the brand. 3.79 .631


goods towards performance of durable goods. The mean response given by

the consumers for “the products serve their purpose perfectly” is 4.05. The

mean response given by the consumers for “they have special features in their

performance” is 3.80. The mean response given by the consumers for

“Reliability is more” is 3.64. The mean response given by the consumers for

“it is easily distinguished from other brand in terms of performance” is 3.44.

The mean response given by the consumers for “the effectiveness of usage is

highly significant” is 3.65. The mean response given by the consumers for

“Effect is speedy and gives satisfaction” is 3.52. The mean response given by

the consumers for “the manufacturers\ providers respond very well to the

complaint” is 4.13. The mean response given by the consumers for “The

status is raised due to the performance of the brand” is 4.07. The mean

response given by the consumers for “The brand gives a feeling of good

satisfaction” is 3.80. The mean response given by the consumers for “The

performance ignores fluctuation in the price of the product” is 3.62. The mean

response given by the consumers for “Fluctuation of price is considered to be

118

an important factor for the image of the brand” is 3.79. The mean responses

given towards performance of durable goods are all above the average

level; this shows that the performance of durable goods is good.

Table 4.7. Brand loyalty of durable goods111

S.


1 Product performance develops brand loyalty. 3.42 .786

2 Attitude of consumers. 3.54 .601

3 Frequency of purchase. 3.41 .718

4 Comparing many brand with brand used. 3.57 .709

5 Requirements from the product. 3.02 1.102

6 Family member’s co-operation in selecting the brands. 3.55 1.104

7 Cost of the product. 3.42 .870

8 Reputation of the product. 4.01 .854

9 Way of marketing by manufacturer. 3.95 .762

10 New schemes and offers. 3.20 1.380

11 Social status in acquiring the brand. 3.74 .802

12 Personality characteristics. 3.79 .631


goods towards brand loyalty of durable goods. The mean response given

by the consumers for “Product performance develops brand loyalty” is 3.42.

The mean response given by the consumers for “Attitude of consumers” is

3.54. The mean response given by the consumers for “Frequency of purchase”

is 3.41. The mean response given by the consumers for “Comparing many

brand with brand used” is 3.57. The mean response given by the consumers

111

primary data

119

for “Requirements from the product” is 3.02. The mean response given by the

consumers for “Family member’s co-operation in selecting the brands” is

3.55. The mean response given by the consumers for “Cost of the product” is

3.42. The mean response given by the consumers for “Reputation of the

product” is 4.01. The mean response given by the consumers for “Way of

marketing by manufacturer” is 3.95. The mean response given by the

consumers for “New schemes and offers” is 3.20. The mean response given

by the consumers for “Social status in acquiring the brand” is 3.74. The mean

response given by the consumers for “Personality characteristics” is 3.79. The

mean responses given towards brand loyalty of durable goods are all

above the average level; this shows that the consumer’s brand loyalty of

durable goods.

4.2.1. Usage of branded Color Televisions.

Consumers using branded durable products are selected for the study.

Consumers expressed their usage of Colour Televisions over the years.

120

Table 4.8. Usage of branded Colour Televisions112

No. of

consumers Percentage

Less than 3 years 85 17.00

3-5 years 92 18.40

5-7 years 40 8.00

Above 7 years 283 56.60

Total 500 100

Table 4.8 reveals the usage of branded Colour Televisions over the

years by the consumers. Out of 500 consumers, 56.60 % of the

consumers expressed that they are using colour Televisions for more

than 7 years, 18.40 % of the consumers expressed that they are using

colour Televisions for 3-5 years, 17.00 % of the consumers expressed

that they are using colour Televisions for less than 3 years and 8.00 % of

the consumers expressed that they are using colour Televisions for 5- 7

years.

112

primary data

121

Chart 4.1: Usage of branded Colour Televisions

4.2.2. Usage of branded Refrigerators.

Consumers expressed their usage of Refrigerators over the years. Table 4.9

gives the details of usage of Refrigerators.

Table 4.9. Usage of branded Refrigerators113

No. of consumers Percentage


3-5 years 136 27.20

5-7 years 73 14.60


Total 500 100

113

primary data

122

Out of 500 consumers, 31.20 % of the consumers expressed that they are

using refrigerators for more than 7 years, 27.20 % of the consumers expressed

that they are using refrigerators for 3-5 years, 27.00 % of the consumers

expressed that they are using refrigerators for less than 3 years and 14.60 % of

the consumers expressed that they are using refrigerators for 5- 7 years.

Chart 4.2: Usage of branded Refrigerators

123

4.2.3. Usage of branded Air-conditioners.

Consumers expressed their usage of air-conditioners over the years.

Table 4.10. Usage of branded Air-conditioners114



3-5 years 137 27.40

5-7 years 79 15.80


Total 500 100


using air-conditioners for less than 3 years, 27.40 % of the consumers

expressed that they are using air-conditioners for 3-5 years, 26.60 % of the

consumers expressed that they are using air-conditioners for more than 7

years and 15.80 % of the consumers expressed that they are using air-

conditioners for 5- 7 years.

Chart 4.3: Usage of branded Air-conditioners

114

primary data

124

4.2.4. Usage of branded Washing machines.

Consumers expressed their usage of washing machines over the years.

Table 4.11. Usage of branded Washing machines115



3-5 years 114 22.80

5-7 years 69 13.80


Total 500 100


using washing machines for less than 3 years, 25.00 % of the consumers

expressed that they are using washing machines for more than 7 years, 22.80

% of the consumers expressed that they are using washing machines for 3-5

years and 13.80 % of the consumers expressed that they are using washing

machines for 5- 7 years.

115

primary data

125

Chart 4.4: Usage of branded Washing machines

4.2.5. Usage of branded Micro-oven.

Consumers expressed their usage of Micro oven over the years.

Table 4.12. Usage of branded Micro Oven116



3-5 years 131 26.20

5-7 years 61 12.20


Total 500 100


using micro-oven for more than 7 years, 26.20 % of the consumers expressed

that they are using micro-oven for 3-5 years, 17.20 % of the consumers

116

primary data

126

expressed that they are using micro-oven for less than 3 years and 12.20 % of

the consumers expressed that they are using micro-oven for 5- 7 years.

Chart 4.5: Usage of branded Micro-oven

4.2.6. Usage of branded Audio-Video systems.

Consumers expressed their usage of Audio-video systems over the years.

Table 4.13. Usage of branded Audio -Video Systems117



3-5 years 131 26.20

5-7 years 71 14.20


Total 500 100

117

primary data

127


using Audio-Video Systems for more than 7 years, 26.20 % of the consumers

expressed that they are using Audio-Video Systems for 3-5 years, 26.00 % of

the consumers expressed that they are using Audio-Video Systems for less

than 3 years and 14.20 % of the consumers expressed that they are using

Audio-Video Systems for 5- 7 years.

Chart 4.6: Usage of branded Audio -Video Systems

128

4.2.7. Usage of branded Mixies Consumers expressed their usage of

mixies over the years.

Table 4.14. Usage of branded Mixies118



3-5 years 122 24.40

5-7 years 62 12.40


Total 500 100


using Mixies for more than 7 years, 24.40 % of the consumers expressed that

they are using Mixies for 3-5 years, 24.00 % of the consumers expressed that

they are using Mixies for less than 3 years and 12.40 % of the consumers

expressed that they are using mixies for 5-7 years.

Chart 4.7: Usage of branded Mixies

118

primary data

129

4.2.8. Usage of branded Grinders.

Consumers expressed their usage of grinders over the years.

Table 4.15. Usage of branded Grinders119



3-5 years 124 24.80

5-7 years 67 13.40


Total 500 100


using Grinders for more than 7 years, 24.80 % of the consumers expressed

that they are using Grinders for 3-5 years, 23.60 % of the consumers

expressed that they are using Grinders for less than 3 years and 13.40 % of the

consumers expressed that they are using Grinders for 5- 7 years.

Chart 4.8: Usage of branded Grinders

119

primary data

130

4.2.9. Usage of branded Induction Stoves.

Consumers expressed their usage of Induction stoves over the years.

Table 4.16. Usage of branded Induction Stoves120



3-5 years 139 27.80

5-7 years 82 16.40


Total 500 100

Table 4.16 displays the details of usage of branded Induction stoves by

consumers in Chennai city. Out of 500 consumers, 29.60 % of the consumers

expressed that they are using Induction stove for more than 7 years, 27.80 %

of the consumers expressed that they are using Induction stove for 3-5 years,

26.20 % of the consumers expressed that they are using Induction stove for

less than 3 years and 16.40 % of the consumers expressed that they are using

Induction stove for 5- 7 years.

Chart 4.9. Usage of branded Induction Stoves

120

primary data

131

4.2.10. Usage of branded Mobiles.

Consumers expressed their usage of mobiles over the years.

Table 4.17. Usage of branded Mobiles121



3-5 years 115 23.00

5-7 years 62 12.40


Total 500 100


using mobiles for more than 7 years, 29.00 % of the consumers expressed that

they are using mobiles for less than 3 years, 23.00 % of the consumers

expressed that they are using mobiles for 3-5 years and 12.40 % of the

consumers expressed that they are using mobiles for 5 - 7 years.

Chart 4.10: Usage of branded Mobiles

121

primary data

132

4.2.11. Place of buying consumer durable products.

Consumers expressed their views regarding the place of buying consumer

durable products.

Table 4.18. Place of buying consumer durable products122


From a particular shop 349 69.80

From an authourised dealer 98 19.60

From any where it is available 53 10.60

Total 500 100

Table 4.18 depicts the place of buying consumer durable products. Out of 500

consumers, 69.80 % of the consumers expressed that they are buying durable

products from a particular shop, 19.60 % of the consumers expressed that they

are buying durable products from an authorized dealer and 10.60 % of the

consumers expressed that they are buying durable products from any where it

is available. This shows that most of the consumers are buying the durable

goods from particular shop

Chart 4.11: Place of buying consumer durable products

122

primary data

133

4.2.12. Reasons for buying consumer goods in particular shop.

Consumers has given the reasons for buying consumer durable products in

particular shops.

Table 4.19. Reasons for buying Consumer goods in a particular

shop123

No. of

Consumers Percentage

Nearness 52 14.90

Availability of credit facilities 92 26.40

Standard price and quality 102 29.20

Courteous treatment 25 7.20

Relative or friend's shop 33 9.50

Sufficient stock 31 8.90

Sales service in time 14 4.00

Total 349 100

Out of 500 consumers, 29.20 % of the consumers expressed that the reason

for buying consumer goods in particular shop is standard price and quality,

26.40 % of the consumers expressed that the reason for buying consumer

goods in particular shop is availability of credit facilities, 14.90 % of the

consumers expressed that the reason for buying consumer goods in particular

shop is nearness, 9.50 % of the consumers expressed that the reason for

buying consumer goods in particular shop is relative or friend's shop, 8.90 %

of the consumers expressed that the reason for buying consumer goods in

particular shop is sufficient stock, 7.20 % of the consumers expressed that the

123

primary data

134

reason for buying consumer goods in particular shop is courteous treatment

and 4.00 % of the consumers expressed that the reason for buying consumer

goods in particular shop is sales service in time.

Chart 4.12: Reasons for buying Consumer goods in a particular

shop

4.2.13. Recently changed the brand of durable products.

Consumers expressed their acceptance for recent change in the brand of

durable products.

Table 4.20. Recently changed the brand of durable products124


Yes 98 19.60

No 402 80.40

Total 500 100

Out of 500 consumers, 80.40 % of the consumers expressed that they have not

recently changed the brand of consumer durable products and 19.60 % of the

124

primary data

135

consumers expressed that they have recently changed the brand of Consumer

durable products.

Chart 4.13: Recently changed the brand of durable products

4.2.14. Reasons for shifting the brand.

Consumers expressed the reasons for recent change in the brand of durable

products.

Table 4.21. Reasons for shifting the brand125


Quality 16 16.30

Price 35 35.70

Quantity 25 25.50

Way of advertisement approach 6 6.10

Influence of friends\relatives 5 5.10

To have a change in the brand 5 5.10

Sales offers 6 6.10

Total 98 100

125

primary data

136

Out of 500 consumers, 35.70 % of the consumers expressed that the reason

for shifting the brand is price, 25.50 % of the consumers expressed that the

reason for shifting the brand is quantity, 16.30 % of the consumers expressed

that the reason for shifting the brand is quality, 6.10 % of the consumers

expressed that the reason for shifting the brand is way of advertisement

approach, 6.10 % of the consumers expressed that the reason for shifting the

brand is sales offers, 5.10 % of the consumers expressed that the reason for

shifting the brand is influence of friends\relatives and 4.00 % of the

consumers expressed that the reason for shifting the brand is to have a change

in the brand.

4.2.15. Marketing strategies adopted for selling the consumer durable

goods. Testing the significance of marketing strategies adopted for selling the

consumer durable goods, Friedman’s test for k-related samples was applied to

study the relationships between marketing strategies adopted for selling the


Null hypothesis H03: All the marketing strategies adopted for selling the

consumer durable goods will produce equal output.

137

Table 4.22-Marketing strategies adopted for selling the consumer

durable goods.

Mean Rank

Chi square

value

Product design, color, etc., 2.21

38.89**

(p<.001)

Discounts 2.44

Technology changes 2.67

Hire purchase or installment 3.23

Free delivery 3.56

Combo offer 3.98

Gifts 4.02

Package 5.38

Free installation 5.67

Dealer financing 6.78

** significant at 1% level

The result in the table 4.22 shows that the null hypothesis H03 is rejected at

1% level. This shows that all the marketing strategies adopted for selling the

consumer durable goods will not produce equal output. Further, the mean

ranks in the table 4.54 shows clearly that Product design, color, etc., and

Discounts are the top two marketing strategies ranked by the consumers

which will produce good sales. Package and Free installation are the

marketing strategies ranked by the consumers which will produce fewer sales.

138

4.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed for Purchase behavior,

Perception towards the brands, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness

about branded durable goods, Performance of durable goods and Brand

loyalty by using Analysis of moment structure (AMOS 16.1) to verify

factor structure of the variables. The Goodness of fit index ranges between

0 to 1 and closer to one point to a perfect fit model (Joreskog & Sorbom,

1984). Root-Mean square error approximation (RMSEA) ranges from 0 to 1

with a smaller value indicating a better model (Browne & Cudeek 1993).

Expected Cross Validation Index (ECVI) is an estimate of how well the result

obtained from one sample can be generalized to other samples. This measure

always remains positive and closer to zero indicating a better model (Browne

& Cudeek 1993). Chi square is sensitive to larger sample size and power of

the test. Therefore it is suggested the use of ratio of Chi square to degree of

freedom. Carmines & Mclver(1981) suggest that 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 is indicative

of acceptable model between hypothetical model and sample data. Ratio

approximately five or less is considered to be reasonable (Wheaton, Muthen,

Alwin & Summers 1977). The results of Confirmatory factor analysis

carried out for above said factors are displayed in the table 4.23.

139

Table 4.23

Confirmatory factor analysis

Factors GFI AGFI RMSEA ECVI χ 2 d.f

Purchase behavior .932 .911 .098 .432 2.234

Perception towards

the brands .962 .932 .085 .097 3.234

Promotion and

Marketing .951 .934 .323 .782 3.278

Awareness about

branded durable

goods

.949 .921 .086 .347 3.452

Performance of

durable goods .927 .902 .089 .178 2.567

Brand loyalty .924 .901 .236 .987 2.134

The GFI for Purchase behaviour is .932 and the AGFI value is .911,

indicating a reasonably good fit, the RMSEA value is .098 which is within the

range, indicating a better model fit, the ECVI value is .432, which is positive

and within the limit, the Chi-square ratio value of this model is 2.234

indicating reasonably good fit. (Refer Appendix I Figure 1)

The GFI for Perception towards the brands is .962 and the AGFI value is

.932, indicating a reasonably good fit, the RMSEA value is .085 which is

within the range, indicating a better model fit, the ECVI value is .097, which

is positive and within the limit, the Chi-square ratio value of this model is

3.234 indicating reasonably good fit. (Refer Appendix I Figure 2)

140

The GFI for Promotion and Marketing is .951 and the AGFI value is .934,





The GFI for Awareness about branded durable goods is .949 and the AGFI

value is .921, indicating a reasonably good fit, the RMSEA value is .086

which is within the range, indicating a better model fit, the ECVI value is

.347, which is positive and within the limit, the Chi-square ratio value of this

model is 3.452 indicating reasonably good fit. (Refer Appendix I Figure 4)

The GFI for Performance of durable goodsis .927 and the AGFI value is .902,





The GFI for Brand Loyalty is .924 and the AGFI value is .901, indicating a

reasonably good fit, the RMSEA value is .236 which is within the range,

indicating a better model fit, the ECVI value is .987, which is positive and

within the limit, the Chi-square ratio value of this model is 2.134 indicating

reasonably good fit. (Refer Appendix I Figure 6)

141

4.4.1. Testing for significant difference between Consumer’s age with

Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand

awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.

To test the significant difference between consumer’s age with respect to

Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods, Promotion and

Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products, Performance of branded

durable goods and Brand loyalty. One way ANOVA was applied to ascertain

if there were any significant differences between Consumer’s age with respect

to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods, Promotion

and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products, Performance of

branded durable goods and Brand loyalty. The following null hypotheses

were framed:

H0 4(a): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s age

with respect to purchase behavior.

H0 4(b): There is no significant difference between the “Consumer’s age

with respect to perception towards branded durable goods.

H0 4(c): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s age

with respect to promotion and marketing.

H0 4(d): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s age

with respect to awareness of branded durable products.

142

H0 4(e): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s age

with respect to performance of branded durable goods.

H0 4(f): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s age

with respect to brand loyalty.

Table 4.24 shows the significance of mean difference between Consumer’s

age with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable

goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products,

Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty.

Table 4.24. Difference between Consumer’s age with Purchase behavior,

Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness, Brand

performance and Brand loyalty.

Age N Mean S D F-value

Purchase behavior

Below 35 years 280 50.67 5.748

1.052

(p=.350)

36-50 years 128 51.45 5.398

Above 50 years 92 50.66 3.142

Perception towards

branded durable

goods

Below 35 years 280 26.90 4.217

53.175**

(p<.001)

36-50 years 128 29.93 3.392

Above 50 years 92 31.00 3.009

Promotion and

marketing

Below 35 years 280 24.26 3.921

15.993**

(p<.001) 36-50 years 128 24.96 6.489

Above 50 years 92 27.42 3.533

143

Awareness of

branded durable

products

Below 35 years 280 41.88 3.340

44.396**

(p<.001) 36-50 years 128 41.45 4.850

Above 50 years 92 38.45 3.151

Performance of

branded durable

goods

Below 35 years 280 40.50 10.174

5.289**

(p=.005) 36-50 years 128 42.28 5.886

Above 50 years 92 43.48 2.814

Brand loyalty

Below 35 years 280 42.35 6.306

1.433

(p=.240) 36-50 years 128 42.54 4.508

Above 50 years 92 43.48 4.714


Purchase behavior

The obtained 'F' value is 1.052 and it is not significant at 5% level. The

value indicates that there is no significant mean difference between

Consumer’s age with respect to purchase behavior.

Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 4(a) that “there is no significant

difference between the Consumer’s age with respect to Purchase

behavior” is accepted.

144

Perception towards branded durable goods.

The obtained 'F' value is 53.175 and it is significant at 1% level. The value

indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s age


Further, the mean table 4.24 indicates that consumers having age above 50

years have scored higher mean value of 31.00 and the lowest mean was

scored by the consumers who have age below 35 years ( 26.90 ). This shows

that the consumers with age above 50 years are having more perception

towards branded durable goods and the consumers having age below 35 years

are having less perception towards branded durable goods.

Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 4(b) that “there is no significant

difference between the Consumer’s age with respect to perception

towards branded durable goods” is rejected.

Promotion and marketing.






scored by the consumers having age below 35 years ( 24.26 ). This shows that

145

the consumers with age above 50 years are more covered by promotion and

marketing and the consumers with age below 35 years are having less interest

in promotion and marketing.

Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 4(c) that “there is no significant

difference between the Consumer’s age with respect to promotion and

marketing” is rejected.

Awareness of branded durable products.



with respect to awareness of branded durable products.

Further, the mean table 4.24 indicates that consumers having age less than 35


scored by the consumers having age above 50 years (38.45). This shows that

the consumers with age below 35 years are more aware about branded durable

products and the consumers with age above 50 years are less aware about

branded durable goods.

Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 4(d) that “there is no significant

difference between the Consumer’s age with respect to awareness of

branded durable products” is rejected.

146

Performance of branded durable goods.


indicates that there is significant mean difference between consumer’s age

with respect to performance of branded durable goods.



scored by the consumers having age below 35 years ( 40.50 ). This shows that

the consumers with age above 50 years are having more satisfaction towards

the performance of branded durable products and the consumers with age

below 35 years are having less satisfaction towards the performance of


Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 4(e) that “there is no significant

difference between the Consumer’s age with respect to performance of

branded durable goods” is rejected.

Brand loyalty.



Consumer’s age with respect to brand loyalty.

147

Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 4(f) that “there is no significant

difference between the Consumer’s age with respect to brand loyalty” is

accepted.

4.4.2. Testing for significant difference between Consumer’s educational

qualifications with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and

Marketing, Brand awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.

To test the significant difference between consumer’s educational

qualifications with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded

durable goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable

products, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty. One way

ANOVA was applied to ascertain if there were any significant differences

between Consumer’s educational qualifications with respect to Purchase

behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods, Promotion and


durable goods and Brand loyalty. The following null hypotheses were

framed:

H0 5(a): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s

educational qualifications with respect to purchase behavior.

H0 5(b): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s

educational qualifications with respect to perception towards branded

durable goods.

148

H0 5(c): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s

educational qualifications with respect to promotion and marketing.

H0 5(d): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s

educational qualifications with respect to awareness of branded durable

products.

H0 5(e): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s

educational qualifications with respect to performance of branded

durable goods.

H0 5(f): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s

educational qualifications with respect to brand loyalty.


educational qualifications with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception

towards branded durable goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of

branded durable products, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand

loyalty.

149

Table 4.25- Difference between Consumer’s educational

qualifications with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and

Marketing, Brand awareness, Brand performance and Brand

loyalty.

Qualification N Mean S D F-value

Purchase behavior

Non-graduates 225 50.96 5.210 .284

(p=.753)

Graduates 156 50.60 6.426

Professionals 119 51.03 3.419

Perception towards

branded durable goods

Non-graduates 225 28.77 4.473

1.729

(p=.179) Graduates 156 27.96 4.117


Promotion and

marketing


3.073*

(p=.047) Graduates 156 24.62 3.847


Awareness of branded

durable products


33.494**

(p<.001) Graduates 156 39.72 2.990


Performance of



21.775**

(p<.001) Graduates 156 42.36 11.391


Brand loyalty


32.822**

(p<.001) Graduates 156 43.71 5.574



150

Purchase behavior.

The obtained 'F' value is .284 and it is not significant at 5% level. The


Consumer’s educational qualifications with respect to purchase behaviour.


difference between the Consumer’s educational qualifications with

respect to purchase behaviour” is accepted.




Consumer’s educational qualifications with respect to perception towards



difference between the Consumer’s educational qualification with respect

to perception towards branded durable goods” is accepted.



indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s

educational qualifications with respect to promotion and marketing.

151

Further, the mean table 4.25 indicates that, non-graduate consumers have

scored higher mean value of 25.60 than the consumers with professional

education (24.44). This shows that the non-graduate consumers have more

interest in the brand promotion and marketing and the consumers with

professional educational qualification are having less interest in brand

promotion and marketing.



respect to promotion and marketing” is rejected.




educational qualifications with respect to awareness of branded durable

products.

Further, the mean table 4.25 indicates that the consumers with professional

education have scored higher mean value of 42.11 and the lowest mean was

scored by the non-graduate consumers (38.32). This shows that the consumers

with professional education are having more awareness towards branded

durable goods and the non graduate consumers are having less awareness

towards the branded durable goods.

152



respect to awareness of branded durable products” is rejected.



indicates that there is significant mean difference between consumer’s

educational qualifications with respect to performance of branded durable

goods.

Further, the mean table 4.25 indicates that the consumers with professional

education have scored higher mean value of 44.25 and the lowest mean was

scored by the non-graduates (38.17). This shows that the consumers with

professional education are more satisfied with the performance of branded

durable goods and the non graduate consumers are less satisfied with the

performance of branded durable goods.


difference between the consumer’s educational qualifications with

respect to performance of branded durable goods” is rejected.

153

Brand loyalty.


indicates that there is significant mean difference between consumer’s

educational qualifications with respect to Brand loyalty.

Further, the mean table 4.25 indicates that professionals have scored higher

mean value of 44.23 and the least mean score was scored by the non

graduates (39.77). This shows that the non-graduate consumers are having

more brand loyalty towards durable goods and the consumers with

professional education are having less brand loyalty towards durable goods


difference between the consumer’s educational qualifications with

respect to brand loyalty” is rejected.

4.4.3. Testing for significant difference between Consumer’s gender with



To test the significant difference between consumer’s gender with respect to

Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods, Promotion and


durable goods and Brand loyalty. Independent sample t-test was applied to

ascertain if there were any significant differences between Consumer’s gender

with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods,

154

Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products,


The following null hypotheses were framed:


gender with respect to purchase behavior.


gender with respect to perception towards branded durable goods.


gender with respect to promotion and marketing.


gender with respect to awareness of branded durable products.


gender with respect to performance of branded durable goods.


gender with respect to brand loyalty.


gender with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable

goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded durable products,


155

Table 4.26-Difference between Consumer’s gender with Purchase

behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness,

Brand performance and Brand loyalty.

Gender N Mean S D t-value

Purchase behavior Male 232 50.18 4.180 2.718**

(p=.007) Female 268 51.46 6.008

Perception towards


Male 232 29.20 3.460 3.861**

(p<.001) Female 268 27.76 4.651

Promotion and marketing Male 232 23.21 5.480 8.352**

(p<.001) Female 268 26.58 3.418


durable products

Male 232 39.77 3.100 .421

(p=.674) Female 268 39.92 4.753

Performance of branded

durable goods

Male 232 41.68 5.680 .453

(p=.651) Female 268 41.35 10.104

Brand loyalty Male 232 42.70 4.190 .358

(p=.720) Female 268 42.52 6.628


Purchase behaviour.


indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s gender

with respect to purchase behaviour.

Further, the mean table 4.26 indicates that the female consumers have scored

higher mean value of 51.46 than the male consumers (50.18). This shows that

the female consumers are good with purchase behaviour than the male

consumers in durable goods.

156


difference between the Consumer’s gender with respect to purchase

behaviour” is rejected.



indicates that there is significant mean difference between consumer’s gender


Further, the mean table 4.26 indicates that the male consumers have scored

higher mean value of 29.20 than the female consumers (27.76). This shows

that the male consumers are having more perception than female consumers

towards branded durable goods.


difference between the consumer’s gender with respect to perception

towards branded durable goods” is rejected.



indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s gender


Further, the mean table 4.26 indicates that female consumers have scored

higher mean value of 26.58 than the male consumers (23.21). This shows that

157

the female consumers are more covered by promotion and marketing than

male consumers towards branded durable goods.


difference between the Consumer’s gender with respect to promotion and

marketing” is rejected.

Awareness of branded durable products



Consumer’s gender with respect to awareness of branded durable products.


difference between the Consumer’s gender with respect to awareness of

branded durable products” is accepted.




Consumer’s gender with respect to performance of branded durable goods.


difference between the consumer’s gender with respect to performance of

branded durable goods” is accepted.

158

Brand loyalty.



Consumer’s gender with respect to brand loyalty.


difference between the Consumer’s gender with respect to brand loyalty”

is accepted.

4.4.4. Testing for significant difference between Consumer’s marital

status with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing,

Brand awareness, Brand performance and Brand loyalty.

To test the significant difference between Consumer’s marital status with

respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded durable goods,


Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty. Independent

samples t-test was applied to ascertain if there were any significant

differences between Consumer’s marital status with respect to Purchase



durable goods and Brand loyalty.

159

The following null hypotheses were framed:


marital status with respect to purchase behaviour.


marital status with respect to perception towards branded durable goods.


marital status with respect to promotion and marketing.


marital status with respect to awareness of branded durable products.


marital status with respect to performance of branded durable goods.


marital status with respect to brand loyalty.


marital status with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded


products, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty.

160

Table 4.27-Difference between Consumer’s marital status with



Marital Status N Mean S D t-value

Purchase behaviour Married 380 50.96 5.007 .683

(p=.495) Unmarried 120 50.58 6.053

Perception towards


Married 380 28.56 4.254 1.225

(p=.221) Unmarried 120 28.02 4.007

Promotion and

marketing

Married 380 25.23 4.635 1.748

(p=.081) Unmarried 120 24.35 5.230


durable products

Married 380 40.05 4.015 1.923

(p=.055) Unmarried 120 39.23 4.186

Performance of


Married 380 42.11 7.667 2.921**

(p=.004) Unmarried 120 39.58 9.984

Brand loyalty Married 380 42.93 5.596 2.303*

(p=.022) Unmarried 120 41.58 5.617


Purchase behaviour.



Consumer’s marital status with respect to purchase behaviour. Therefore, the

formulated hypothesis H0 7(a) that “there is no significant difference

between the Consumer’s marital status with respect to purchase

behaviour” is accepted.

161




Consumer’s marital status with respect to perception towards branded durable

goods.


difference between the Consumer’s marital status with respect to

perception towards branded durable goods” is accepted.




Consumer’s marital status with respect to promotion and marketing.



promotion and marketing” is accepted.




Consumer’s marital status with respect to awareness of branded durable

products. Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 7(d) that “there is no

162

significant difference between the Consumer’s marital status with respect

to awareness of branded durable products” is accepted.




marital status with respect to performance of branded durable goods.

Further, the mean table 4.27 indicates that the Consumers who were married

have scored higher mean value of 42.11 than the consumer’s who are still

unmarried (39.58). This shows that the married consumers are more satisfied

than the unmarried consumers towards the performance of branded durable

goods.



performance of branded durable goods” is rejected.

Brand loyalty.



marital status with respect to brand loyalty.

Further, the mean table 4.27 indicates that the married consumers have scored

higher mean value of 42.93 than the consumers who are still unmarried

163

(41.58). This shows that the consumers got married are more loyal to their

brands of durable goods than the consumers who are still unmarried.


difference between the consumer’s marital status with respect to brand

loyalty” is rejected.

4.4.5. Testing for significant difference between Consumer’s occupations

with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand


To test the significant difference between consumers’ occupations with



Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty. One way ANOVA

was applied to ascertain if there were any significant differences between

Consumer’s occupations with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception



loyalty. The following null hypotheses were framed:


occupations with respect to purchase behaviour.


occupations with respect to perception towards branded durable goods.

164


occupations with respect to promotion and marketing.


occupations with respect to awareness of branded durable products.


occupations with respect to performance of branded durable goods.


occupations with respect to brand loyalty.


occupation with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded



Table 4.28-Difference between Consumer’s occupations with



Occupation N Mean S D F-value

Purchase behaviour

Government 76 49.78 3.656

1.894

(p=.152) Non-government 154 51.02 5.325

Self Employment 270 51.08 5.598

Perception towards



.483

(p=.617) Non-government 154 28.33 4.642


Promotion and

marketing

Government 76 24.46 4.346 1.815

(p=.164) Non-government 154 24.64 5.070

165



durable products


.613

(p=.542) Non-government 154 39.55 3.856



durable goods


1.974

(p=.140) Non-government 154 41.61 7.774


Brand loyalty


1.198

(p=.303) Non-government 154 43.11 5.443


Purchase behaviour.



Consumer’s occupations with respect to purchase behaviour.


difference between the Consumer’s occupations with respect to purchase

behaviour” is accepted.




Consumer’s occupations with respect to perception towards branded durable

goods.

166


difference between the Consumer’s occupations with respect to





Consumer’s occupations with respect to promotion and marketing.







Consumer’s occupations with respect to awareness of branded durable

products.



awareness of branded durable products” is accepted.

167




Consumer’s occupations with respect to performance of branded durable

goods.



performance of branded durable goods” is accepted.

Brand loyalty.



Consumer’s occupations with respect to brand loyalty.


difference between the Consumer’s occupations with respect to brand

loyalty” is accepted.

4.4.6. Testing for significant difference between Consumer’s family

income with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing,


To test the significant difference between consumer’s family income with


168


Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty. One way ANOVA

was applied to ascertain if there were any significant differences between

Consumer’s family income with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception





family income with respect to purchase behaviour.


family income with respect to perception towards branded durable

goods.


family income with respect to promotion and marketing.


family income with respect to awareness of branded durable products.


family income with respect to performance of branded durable goods.

H0 9(f): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s family

income with respect to brand loyalty.

169


family income with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards branded



Table 4.29-Difference between consumer’s family income with



Income N Mean S D F-value

Purchase behaviour

Below Rs.5 lakhs 269 51.42 5.121

4.002*

(p=.019) Rs. 5-10 Lakhs 174 49.98 5.203

Above 10 lakhs 57 50.96 5.891

Perception towards

branded durable

goods

Below Rs.5 lakhs 269 28.67 4.148

.945

(p=.389) Rs. 5-10 Lakhs 174 28.14 4.285

Above 10 lakhs 57 28.19 4.176

Promotion and

marketing

Below Rs.5 lakhs 269 25.31 4.794

1.575

(p=.208) Rs. 5-10 Lakhs 174 24.50 4.655

Above 10 lakhs 57 25.21 5.150

Awareness of

branded durable

products

Below Rs.5 lakhs 269 39.61 4.270

1.343

(p=.262) Rs. 5-10 Lakhs 174 40.25 3.555

Above 10 lakhs 57 39.73 4.506

Performance of

branded durable

goods

Below Rs.5 lakhs 269 41.27 8.865

1.168

(p=.312) Rs. 5-10 Lakhs 174 42.21 6.782

Above 10 lakhs 57 40.47 9.948

Brand loyalty

Below Rs.5 lakhs 269 42.65 5.136

.062

(p=.940) Rs. 5-10 Lakhs 174 42.61 6.133

Above 10 lakhs 57 42.36 6.283

*significant at 5% level

170

Purchase behaviour.


indicates that there is significant mean difference between consumer’s family

income with respect to purchase behaviour.

Further, the mean table 4.29 indicates that the consumer’s family income is

less than Rs.5 lakhs have scored higher mean value of 51.42 and the lowest

mean was scored by the consumers with family income of Rs. 5-10 Lakhs

(49.98 ). This shows that the consumers with family income less than Rs.5

lakhs are having more purchase behavior and the consumers with family

income Rs.5-10 lakhs are having less purchase behavior.


difference between the consumer’s family income with respect to

purchase behaviour” is rejected.




Consumer’s family income with respect to perception towards branded

durable goods.

171


difference between the Consumer’s family income with respect to





Consumer’s family income with respect to promotion and marketing.







Consumer’s family income with respect to awareness of branded durable

products.



awareness of branded durable products” is accepted.

172




Consumer’s family income with respect to performance of branded durable

goods.




Brand loyalty.



Consumer’s family income with respect to brand loyalty.


difference between the Consumer’s family income with respect to brand

loyalty” is accepted.

4.4.7. Testing for significant difference between consumer’s Nature of

family with Purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing,


To test the significant difference between consumers’ nature of family with


173


Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty. Independent

samples t-test was applied to ascertain if there were any significant

differences between consumer’s nature of family with respect to Purchase



durable goods and Brand loyalty. The following null hypotheses were

framed:


nature of family with respect to purchase behavior.

H0 10 (b): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s

nature of family with respect to perception towards branded durable

goods.

H0 10 (c): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s

nature of family with respect to promotion and marketing.

H0 10 (d): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s

nature of family with respect to awareness of branded durable products.

H0 10 (e): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s

nature of family with respect to performance of branded durable goods.

174

H0 10 (f): There is no significant difference between the Consumer’s

nature of family with respect to brand loyalty.


nature of family with respect to Purchase behavior, Perception towards

branded durable goods, Promotion and Marketing, Awareness of branded

durable products, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty.

Table 4.30-Difference between Consumer’s nature of family with



Nature of

family N Mean S D t-value

Purchase behaviour Joint 192 49.95 5.514 3.078**

(p=.002) Nuclear 308 51.43 5.044

Perception towards


Joint 192 27.53 4.233 3.848**

(p<.001) Nuclear 308 28.99 4.084

Promotion and

marketing

Joint 192 24.77 4.624 .932

(p=.352) Nuclear 308 25.18 4.897


durable products

Joint 192 39.72 3.988 .564

(p=.573) Nuclear 308 39.93 4.120

Performance of


Joint 192 41.03 8.160 .998

(p=.319) Nuclear 308 41.80 8.453

Brand loyalty Joint 192 42.08 5.891 1.656

(p=.098) Nuclear 308 42.93 5.437

**significant at 1% level

175

Purchase behaviour.


indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s nature

of family with respect to purchase behaviour.

Further, the mean table 4.30 indicates that consumers from nuclear family

have scored higher mean value of 51.43 than the consumers in joint family

(49.95 ). This shows that the consumers from nuclear family are better than

the consumers from joint family towards purchase behaviour.

Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 10(a) that “there is no

significant difference between the Consumer’s nature of family with

respect to purchase behaviour” is rejected.



indicates that there is significant mean difference between Consumer’s nature

of family with respect perception towards branded durable goods.

Further, the mean table 4.30 indicates that consumers in nuclear family have

scored higher mean value of 28.99 than the consumers from joint family

(27.53). This shows that the consumers from nuclear family are better than the

consumers from joint family towards perception towards branded durable

goods.

176

Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 10(b) that “there is no


respect to perception towards branded durable goods” is rejected.




Consumer’s nature of family with respect to promotion and marketing.


difference between the Consumer’s nature of family with respect to





Consumer’s nature of family with respect to awareness of branded durable

products.

Therefore, the formulated hypothesis H0 10(d) that “there is no


respect to awareness of branded durable products” is accepted.


177



Consumer’s nature of family with respect to performance of branded durable

goods.




Brand loyalty.



Consumer’s nature of family with respect to brand loyalty.



brand loyalty” is accepted.

4.5.1. Assessing the association between age and awareness about

consumer products.

Null hypothesis H0 12(a): There is no significant relationship between age

and awareness about consumer products.

178

To assess the relationship between age and awareness about consumer

products, Chi-square test was performed to identify the relationship between

age and awareness about consumer products.

Table 4.31- Association between age and awareness about consumer

products

Age

Total

Chi-

square

value

Below 35

years

36-50

years

Above 50

years

Awareness about

consumer

products

Yes 192 120 61 373

33.48**

(p<.001) No 88 8 31 127

Total 280 128 92 500

** Significant at 1% level

From the table 4.31, it is observed that there is significant association between

age and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square value (33.48)

shows that the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level. It is found from the

analysis that there is a close association between age and awareness about

consumer products. It is observed that awareness about consumer

products is more with the consumers with age less than 35 years.

4.5.2 Assessing the association between educational qualification and

awareness about consumer products.

Null hypothesis H0 12(b): There is no significant relationship between

educational qualification and awareness about consumer products.

179

To assess the relationship between educational qualification and awareness

about consumer products, Chi-square test was performed to identify the

relationship between educational qualification and awareness about consumer

products. The results are shown in table 4.32.

Table 4.32-Association between educational qualification and

awareness about consumer products

Educational Qualification

Total

Chi-

square

value

Non-

graduates Graduates Professionals

Awareness

about

consumer

products

Yes 200 82 91 373

64.44**

(p<.001) No 25 74 28 127

Total 225 156 119 500



educational qualification and awareness about consumer products. Chi-

square value (64.44) shows that the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level. It

is found from the analysis that there is a close association between

educational qualification and awareness about consumer products. It is

observed that most of the non-graduates are having awareness about

consumer products.

180

4.5.3 Assessing the association between gender and awareness about

consumer products.

Null hypothesis H0 12(c): There is no significant relationship between

gender and awareness about consumer products.

To assess the relationship between gender and awareness about consumer


gender and awareness about consumer products. The results are shown in

table 4.33.

Table 4.33. Association between gender and awareness about

consumer products

Gender

Total Chi-square

value Male Female

Awareness about

consumer products

Yes 191 182 373

13.64**

(p<.001) No 41 86 127

Total 232 268 500



gender and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square value (13.64)

shows that the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level. It is found from the

analysis that there is a close association between gender and awareness about

consumer products. It is observed that awareness about consumer

products is more with males.

181

4.5.4. Assessing the association between marital status and awareness

about consumer products.

Null hypothesis H0 12(d): There is no significant relationship between

marital status and awareness about consumer products.

To assess the relationship between marital status and awareness about

consumer products, Chi-square test was performed to identify the relationship

between marital status and awareness about consumer products. The results

are shown in table 4.34.

Table 4.34. Association between marital status and awareness about

consumer products

Marital status

Total

Chi-

square

value Married Unmarried

Awareness about

consumer products

Yes 290 83 373

2.46

(p=.117) No 90 37 127

Total 380 120 500

From the table 4.34, it is observed that there is no significant association

between marital status and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square

value (2.46) shows that the null hypothesis is accepted at 5% level. It is

found from the analysis that there is no relationship between marital

status and awareness about consumer products.

182

4.5.5. Assessing the association between occupation and awareness about

consumer products.

Null hypothesis H0 12(e): There is no significant relationship between

occupation and awareness about consumer products.

To assess the relationship between occupation and awareness about consumer


occupation and awareness about consumer products. The results are shown

in table 4.35.

Table 4.35. Association between occupation and awareness about

consumer products.

Occupation

Total

Chi-

square

value Government

Non-

government

Self

Employment

Awareness

about

consumer

products

Yes 59 120 194 373

2.34

(p=.310) No 17 34 76 127

Total 76 154 270 500


between occupation and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square


found from the analysis that there is no relationship between occupation


183

4.5.6. Assessing the association between family income and awareness


Null hypothesis H0 12(f): There is no significant relationship between

family income and awareness about consumer products.

To assess the relationship between family income and awareness about


between family income and awareness about consumer products. The results

are shown in table 4.36.

Table 4.36. Association between family income and awareness about

consumer products.

Family Income

Total

Chi-

square

value

Below

Rs.5 lakhs

Rs. 5-10

Lakhs

Above 10

lakhs

Awareness

about consumer

products

Yes 193 137 43 373

2.75

(p =.253) No 76 37 14 127

Total 269 174 57 500


between family income and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square


found from the analysis that there is no relationship between family

income and awareness about consumer products.

184

4.5.7. Assessing the association between nature of family and awareness


Null hypothesis H0 12(g): There is no significant relationship between

nature of family and awareness about consumer products.

To assess the relationship between nature of family and awareness about


between nature of family and awareness about consumer products. The

results are shown in table 4.37.

Table 4.37

Association between Nature of family and awareness about

consumer products

Nature of Family

Total

Chi-

square

value Joint Nuclear

Awareness about

consumer products

Yes 138 235 373

1.22

(p =.269) No 54 73 127

Total 192 308 500


between nature of family and awareness about consumer products. Chi-

square value (1.22) shows that the null hypothesis is accepted at 5% level. It

is found from the analysis that there is no relationship between nature of

family and awareness about consumer products.

185

4.5.8. Assessing the association between interest in consumer products


Null hypothesis H0 12(h): There is no significant relationship between

interest in consumer products and awareness about consumer products.

To assess the relationship between interest in consumer products and

awareness about consumer products, Chi-square test was performed to

identify the relationship between interest in consumer products and awareness

about consumer products. The results are shown in table 4.38.

Table 4.38. Association between interest in consumer products and


Awareness about

consumer products Total

Chi-

square

value Yes No

Interest in consumer

products

Yes 354 67 421

12.65**

(p<.001) No 19 60 79

Total 373 127 500



interest in consumer products and awareness about consumer products. Chi-

square value (12.65) shows that the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level. It

is found from the analysis that there is a close association between interest in

consumer products and awareness about consumer products. It is observed

186

that consumers having awareness about consumer products are having

interest in consumer products.

4.5.9. Assessing the association between place of buying and awareness


Null hypothesis H0 12(i): There is no significant relationship between

place of buying and awareness about consumer products.

To assess the relationship between place of buying and awareness about


between place of buying and awareness about consumer products. The

results are shown in table 4.39.

Table 4.39

Association between place of buying and awareness about consumer

products

Place of buying consumer

durable products

Total

Chi-

square

value

Particular

shop

Authorize

d dealer

Any

where

Awareness

about

consumer

products

Yes 332 30 11 373

25.88**

(p<.001) No 17 68 42 127


Total 349 98 53 500

187


place of buying and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square value

(25.88) shows that the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level. It is found from

the analysis that there is a close association between place of buying and

awareness about consumer products. It is observed that consumers having

awareness about consumer products are buying the products in

particular shops.

4.5.10. Assessing the association between recent change in brand and

awareness about consumer products.

Null hypothesis H0 12(j): There is no significant relationship between

recent change in brand and awareness about consumer products.

To assess the relationship between recent change in brand and awareness

about consumer products, Chi-square test was performed to identify the

relationship between recent change in brand and awareness about consumer

products. The results are shown in table 4.40.

Table 4.40. Association between recent change in brand and


Recently changed the

brand Total

Chi-

square

value Yes No

Awareness about

consumer products

Yes 38 335 373 82.55**

(p<.001) No 60 67 127

Total 98 402 500


188


recent change in brand and awareness about consumer products. Chi- square

value (82.55) shows that the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level. It is

found from the analysis that there is a close association between recent

change in brand and awareness about consumer products. It is observed that

consumers having awareness have not changed the brand recently.

4.6. Relationships between purchase behavior, Perception,

Promotion and marketing, Brand awareness and Brand

performance of Consumer durable goods.

To test the significant relationship between Purchase behavior, Perception,

Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness with Brand performance of

consumer durable goods. Bi-variate correlation was applied to ascertain if

there were any significant relationship between Purchase behavior,

Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness with Brand

performance. The following null hypotheses were framed:

H0 13: There is no significant association between (a) Purchase behavior,

(b) Perception, (c) Promotion and Marketing, (d) Brand awareness with

Brand performance of consumer durable goods.

189

Table 4.41

Correlation analysis of Brand performance

Performance of

branded durable

goods

Purchase behaviour r = .528**

p < .001

Perception towards branded

durable goods

r =.506**

p < .001

Promotion and marketing r =.349**

p < .001

Awareness of branded durable

products

r =.525**

p < .001


Positive significant correlation is observed between Purchase behavior and

Performance of branded durable goods (r = .528). Hence, the null hypothesis

“There is no significant relationship between Purchase behavior and

Performance of branded durable goods” is rejected at 1% level. This

shows that good Purchase behavior leads to good satisfaction in the


There is positive significant correlation observed between Perception towards

branded durable goods and Performance of branded durable goods (r = .506).

Hence, the null hypothesis “There is no significant relationship between

Perception towards branded durable goods and Performance of branded

durable goods” is rejected at 1% level. This shows that good Perception

190

leads to good satisfaction about the Performance of branded durable

goods.

Positive significant correlation is observed between Promotion and Marketing

and Performance of branded durable goods (r = .549). Hence, the null

hypothesis “There is no significant relationship between Promotion and

Marketing and Performance of branded durable goods” is rejected at 1%

level. This shows that Promotion and Marketing will help the consumers

to get good Performance of branded durable goods.

There is positive significant correlation observed between Awareness about

branded durable products and Performance of branded durable goods

(r = .525). Hence, the null hypothesis “There is no significant relationship

between Awareness about branded durable products and Performance of

branded durable goods” is rejected at 1% level. This shows that

Awareness about branded durable products will help consumers to

improve the Performance of branded durable goods.

4.7. Relationships between purchase behavior, Perception, Promotion

and marketing, Brand awareness, Performance and Brand loyalty of


To test the significant relationship between Performance, Purchase behavior,

Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness with Brand loyalty

of consumer durable goods. Bi-variate correlation was applied to ascertain if

191

there were any significant relationships between Performances, Purchase

behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing, Brand awareness with Brand


H0 14: There is no significant association between (a) Performance,

(b)Purchase behavior, (c) Perception, (d) Promotion and Marketing, (e)

Brand awareness with Brand Loyalty.

Table 4.42-Correlation analysis of Brand loyalty

Brand loyalty


durable goods

r =.615**

p < .001

Purchase behaviour r =.598

**

p < .001

Perception towards branded

durable goods

r =.558**

p < .001

Promotion and marketing r =.335

**

p < .001

Awareness of branded durable

products

r =.249**

p < .001


Positive significant correlation is observed between Performance of branded

durable goods and Brand loyalty (r = .615). Hence, the null hypothesis

“There is no significant relationship between Performance of branded

durable goods and Brand loyalty” is rejected at 1% level. This shows

that good Performance leads to Brand loyalty.

192

There is positive significant correlation observed between Purchase behaviour

and Brand loyalty (r = .598). Hence, the null hypothesis “There is no

significant relationship between Purchase behaviour and Brand loyalty”

is rejected at 1% level. This shows that good purchase behavior leads to

Brand loyalty.

Positive significant correlation is observed between Perception towards brand


significant relationship between Perception towards brand and Brand

loyalty” is rejected at 1% level. This shows that good brand perception

will bring good Brand loyalty.

There is positive significant correlation observed between Promotion and

Marketing and Brand loyalty (r = .335). Hence, the null hypothesis “There

is no significant relationship between Promotion and Marketing and

Brand loyalty” is rejected at 1% level. This shows that Promotion and

marketing is essential to bring Brand loyalty in consumers.

Positive significant correlation is observed between Awareness about brand


significant relationship between Awareness about brand and Brand

loyalty” is rejected at 1% level. This shows that good brand awareness

will bring good Brand loyalty.

193

4.8. Assessing the predictor variables of Performance of Branded


Multiple regression analysis was conducted by taking Performance of

consumer durable goods as dependent variable and Purchase behavior,

Perception, Promotion and Marketing and Brand awareness are taken as

independent variables (shown in the table 4.43)

Table 4.43. Regression analysis of performance of branded durable

goods

Variables

R2

Standard

Beta

F-value

t-

value

Purchase behavior

Perception

Promotion and Marketing

Brand awareness

0.439 .924

.854

.063

1.021

19.51**

2.272*

2.355*

1.767

3.467*

*

Adjusted R2

0.411

** Significant at 1% level * significant at 5% level

It is observed from the table 4.43, the regression model’s F value is 19.51 and

it is significant at 1% level. The regression model’s coefficient of

determination (R2) is 0.439 and adjusted R

2 is .411 which is a healthy

coefficient. From the Beta coefficients it is observed that, a unit increase in

Purchase behavior leads to an increase of .924 units in the satisfaction

towards the performance of durable goods. This shows that Purchase

194

behavior seem to be one of the main reason for the satisfaction towards the

performance of durable goods. A unit increase in Perception leads to an

increase of .854 units in the satisfaction towards performance of branded

durable goods. This shows that perception predicts Performance of durable

goods. Brand awareness predicts the performance and it increases

performance by 1.021 times. Promotion and Marketing is not serving as

predictor variable for the performance of durable goods. Hence, Purchase

behaviour, Perception towards branded durable goods and Brand

awareness serves as significant predictor variables for the performance

of branded consumer durable goods.

4.9. Assessing the predictor variables of Brand loyalty in Branded


Multiple regression analysis was conducted by taking Brand loyalty as

dependent variable and Performance of consumer durable goods, Purchase

behavior, Perception, Promotion and Marketing and Brand awareness are

taken as independent variables (shown in the table 4.44)

Table 4.44. Regression analysis of Brand loyalty of branded durable

goods

Variables

R2

Standard

Beta

F-value

t- value

Performance

Purchase behavior

0.542

1.024

.845

5.214**

4.355**

195

Perception

Promotion and Marketing

Brand awareness

Adjusted R2 .663

.145

.041

19.51** 3.171**

2.007*

.184

0.512

** Significant at 1% level *significant at 5% level

It is observed from the table 4.44, the regression model’s F value is 19.51 and

it is significant at 1% level. The regression model’s coefficient of

determination (R2) is .542 and adjusted R

2 is .512 which is a healthy

coefficient. From the Beta coefficients it is observed that, a unit increase in

satisfaction in the performance of durable goods leads to an increase of 1.024

units in Brand loyalty. This shows that performance seems to be one of the

main reasons for Brand loyalty towards branded consumer durable goods.

Purchase behavior increases Brand loyalty significantly by .845 units.

Perception serves as a significant predictor for Brand loyalty and increasing

Brand loyalty by .663 units. Promotion and Marketing serves as a significant

predictor for Brand loyalty. Brand awareness is not serving as significant

predictor for Brand loyalty in durable goods. Hence, Performance, Purchase

behavior, Perception and Promotion and Marketing serve as significant

predictor variables of Brand loyalty in consumer durable goods.

4.10. Model for Brand loyalty of consumers using durable goods in

Chennai city.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a statistical technique for testing

and estimating causal relations using a combination of statistical data

196

and qualitative causal assumptions. This definition of SEM was articulated

by the geneticist Sewall Wright (1921), the economist Trygve Haavelmo

(1943) and the cognitive scientist Herbert Simon (1953), and formally defined

by Judea Pearl (2000) using a calculus of counterfactuals.

SEM allows both confirmatory and exploratory modeling, meaning they are

suited to both theory testing and theory development. Confirmatory modeling

usually starts out with a hypothesis that gets represented in a causal model.

The concepts used in the model must then be operationalized to allow testing

of the relationships between the concepts in the model. The model is tested

against the obtained measurement data to determine how well the model fits

the data. The causal assumptions embedded in the model often have

falsifiable implications which can be tested against the data.

With an initial theory SEM can be used inductively by specifying a

corresponding model and using data to estimate the values of free parameters.

Often the initial hypothesis requires adjustment in light of model evidence.

When SEM is used purely for exploration, this is usually in the context of

exploratory factor analysis as in psychometric design.

A model was developed by using analysis of moment structure (AMOS 16.1).

A model is fit to ensure the Brand loyalty of consumer durable goods. In the

model factors such as Perception, Purchase behavior, Promotion and

Marketing, Awareness, Performance of branded durable goods and Brand

197

loyalty are taken as observed variables. e1 and e2 are error terms (residuals)

for Performance of branded durable goods and Brand loyalty.

Null Hypothesis H0 15: The model fitted for Brand loyalty in branded

durable goods used by consumers in Chennai city is good.

Figure 4.14 Model for Brand loyalty in branded consumer durable

goods in Chennai city

Model fit Summary.

The model fit Chi-square 2 = 2.546 and the model’s p-value is .280 which is

insignificant at 5% level, which shows that the null hypothesis “The model

fitted for Brand loyalty in branded durable goods used by consumers in

198

Chennai city is good” is accepted. The goodness of fit index (GFI) is .998 of

the model, shows reasonably good fit, and its adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI)

is .982. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is .023, a

smaller value indicates better model, and Expected Cross Validation Index

(ECVI) is .081, which are within the acceptable range indicating a better

model fit.

To conclude, in this chapter, the researcher has made an attempt to

examine the consumer behavior and the hypotheses framed were tested

in this regard by interpreting the data collected. The decision making

styles of the consumers with regard to the selection of the durable goods

have been examined in the next chapter.

consumer buying behavior of durable goods -...

Documents