CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARD RETAIL STORES

COMPARING BETWEEN SUPERSTORES AND

FAMILY-RUN STORES IN BANGKOK

By

Awng Di

SIU THE: SOM-MBA-2007-04

CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARD RETAIL STORES

COMPARING BETWEEN SUPERSTORES AND

FAMILY-RUN STORES IN BANGKOK

A Thesis Presented

By

Awng Di

Master of Business Administration in Management

School of Management

Shinawatra University

June 2008

Copyright of Shinawatra University

i

Acknowledgments

With the completion of this thesis, I am grateful to many people who have

helped me with their effort: knowledge, time, financial support, energy,

encouragement and prayer.

I would like to express my special thanks to Asst. Prof. Dr. Chanchai

Bunchapattanasakda, my advisor, for his valuable advice, kind patience and

wonderful guidance. His insightful knowledge and precious experience lead me to the

completion of this study. I also thank to Asst. Prof. Dr. Pacapol Anurit for his good

lectures in Research Method class and continue comments and advices throughout the

study.

I also wish to express my gratitude to Mr. Weerapon Sripongchai who kindly

translated my questionnaire into Thai language, and all friends who distributed

questionnaires to the sample population size. I would like to express my thanks to

Shinawatra University for the privilege of studying with outstanding professors,

friendly staffs, very nice environment, standard learning equipments and scholarship

program. Finally, I thank so much to my parents and my elder sister for their financial

assistance, love, encouragement, and prayer to complete this thesis paper and MBA

degree.

ii

Abstract

This study compares consumers’ perceptions between retail stores: superstores

and family-run stores in Bangkok. The superstores which were used to compare with

family-run stores in this study are Big C, Carrefour and Tesco-Lotus. The study was

quantitative research using survey questionnaires to collect data from 400 shoppers in

Bangkok areas. Quantitative statistics were used to analyze data variables and test

hypotheses.

The results from this study found that the competition between superstores and

family-run stores resulted in more benefits to customers. The customers were aware

that many family-run stores closed down because of superstores, but they preferred

free and fair competition. The results also found that the customers wanted the Thai

government to impose restrictions on superstore expansion and support family-run

stores, though they still agreed that superstores are essential for consumers and

family-run stores are not well allocated for consumers in Bangkok. Consumers were

satisfied more with marketing factors including product quality, product variety, and

stable prices of superstores. They also preferred the store environment of superstores

than with those of family-run stores. Consumers also thought that superstores

benefited the economy and society than family-run stores.

Keywords: Consumer perception

Family-run stores

Retailing

Superstores

iii

Table of Contents

Title Page

Acknowledgements i

Abstract ii

Table of Contents iii

List of Figures vi

List of Tables vii

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Statement of Problem 2

1.3 Objectives of Study 3

1.4 Methodology 3

1.5 Expected Outcomes 3

1.6 Conceptual Framework 4

1.7 Hypotheses 4

1.8 Definition of Terms 5

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Retail Industry in Thailand 7

2.2 Thailand’s Retail Store Market Share 11

2.3 Small Retailers Threatened by Big Influx 13

2.4 Disputes in Retail Industry 15

2.5 Restrictions on Superstore Expansion and Thai Retail 17

Regulation

2.6 Retail Formats and Brands 19

2.7 Consumers’ Perceptions on Product Assortment 22

2.8 Customer Services 23

2.9 Social Cue and Store Environment 24

2.10 Concepts and Theories 26

iv

Chapter 3 Methodology

3.1 Scope of Study 29

3.2 Population and Sample Size 29

3.3 Data Collecting Method 30

3.4 Research Process 31

Chapter 4 Research Analysis and Results

4.1 Demographic Factors 32

4.2 Shopping Behavior 36

4.3 Attitudinal Statements 39

4.4 Marketing and Business Factors 41

4.5 Economic and Social Factors 46

4.6 Testing Hypotheses 49

Chapter 5 Conclusions, Discussions and Recommendations

5.1 Summary of the Study 62

5.2 Findings from Attitudinal Statements 63

5.3 Hypothesis Testing 64

5.4 Research Difficulties and Limitations 65

5.5 Implementation 65

5.6 Business Suggestions 66

5.7 Recommendations for Future Research 66

References 67

Appendices

Appendix A Questionnaire (English) 74

Appendix B Questionnaire (Thai) 79

Appendix C Thailand Population 84

Appendix D Thailand Retail Sales Shares by Format (2005) 85

Appendix E Thailand Retail Market Shares 86

Appendix F Leading Superstores in Thailand (2000 – 2005) 87

Appendix G Thailand Retail Sales Index (2005 – 2007) 88

Appendix H Thailand Retail Sales (2005 – 2007) 89

v

Appendix I 2006 Global Retail Development Index 90

Appendix J 2006 GRDI Market Attractiveness 91

Appendix K Research Findings 92

Biography 104

vi

List of Figures

Title Page

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework 4

Figure 3.1 Table of Likert’s Scale 30

Figure 3.2 Research Process 31

vii

List of Tables

Title Page

Table 4.1 Demographic Factors – Gender 32

Table 4.2 Demographic Factors – Age 33

Table 4.3 Demographic Factors – Educational Background 33

Table 4.4 Demographic Factors – Occupation 34

Table 4.5 Demographic Factors - Monthly Income 34

Table 4.6 Demographic Factors - Marital Status 35

Table 4.7 Demographic Factors – Location 35

Table 4.8 Shopping Reasons 36

Table 4.9 Frequency of Shopping Times 37

Table 4.10 Frequency of Spending Shopping Time 38

Table 4.11 Spending Amounts for a Shopping 38

Table 4.12 Interpretation of Attitudinal Levels 40

Table 4.13 Interpretation of Consumer Attitudes towards Retail Stores 40

Table 4.14 Interpretation of Satisfaction Levels 41

Table 4.15 Consumer Satisfaction Levels on Product and Price 42

Table 4.16 Consumer Satisfaction Levels on Place 43

Table 4.17 Consumer Satisfaction Levels on Promotion 44

Table 4.18 Consumer Satisfaction Levels on Business Factors 45

Table 4.19 Interpretation of Perception Weighting Levels 46

Table 4.20 Consumer Perception on Economic Factors 46

Table 4.21 Consumer Perception on Social Factors 47

Table 4.22 Relationship between Demographic Factors and Product 49

Table 4.23 Relationship between Demographic Factors and Price 51

Table 4.24 Relationship between Demographic Factors and Place 52

Table 4.25 Relationship between Demographic Factors and Promotion 54

Table 4.26 Relationship between Demographic and Business Factors 56

Table 4.27 Relationship between Demographic and Economic Factors 58

Table 4.28 Relationship between Demographic and Social Factors 60

Table 5 Hypothesis Results 64

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

Over the past decades, retail stores in Thailand have developed from

traditional stores into modern stores and chain stores as with other places in the world.

Most of the major developments have taken place in Bangkok, the capital city. The

rising incomes and changing lifestyles have stimulated the development and

modernization of retailing in Thailand. The strong competition in Bangkok has also

encouraged superstores to move to provincial areas where significant competition has

yet to develop and where income levels are now beginning to justify the investments.

The giant companies are able to satisfy their shareholders by achieving continued

growth (Feeny, Vongpatanasin, & Soonsatham, 1996). Industry observers indicate

that superstore business is expanding rapidly due to their variety of product and

discount price. They make customers convenience with air-conditioned stores and

they attract customers with modern store layout. As the number of superstores

continues to grow, the number of family-run stores has fallen. In 2001, according to

the Commerce Ministry, more than 900 local retail operators ceased operations

because they were not able to compete with superstores (Jitpleecheep, 2006).

Kazmin and Rigby (2006) stated that Thailand considered restrictions on the

expansion of large foreign retailers such as Big C, Tesco Lotus, Carrefour and others,

following complaints from local retailers and consumer product manufacturers. The

Commerce Ministry has established a special committee to lay down new rules,

principles and guidelines for the expansion of retailers and wholesalers. Karun

Kittisataporn, permanent secretary for the commerce ministry, has also threatened

hefty fines or even prison sentences for big retailers who mistreat their suppliers.

According to ministry guidelines unveiled, retailers are prohibited from “unfair

practices” such as selling products below cost, asking suppliers for deep discounts,

demanding higher introduction fees for new products and returning products without

valid reason. Violators may be fined up to THB 6 million or jailed for up to three

years (Rigby & Kazmin, 2006).

Local retailers and wholesalers have set up the Thailand Wholesale and Retail

Association, to mobilize the buying power of tens of thousands of wholesalers and

2

small retail stores in order to compete with giant chain stores. While critics may

condemn the government for failing to protect small retailers, Thai consumers have

benefited the most from the competition which has forced all industry to enhance their

services to meet international standards. Thai consumers have also chosen to shop in

more air-conditioned stores with friendly staffs and a wide variety of reasonably

priced products. Other advantages are that Thai-made products are sold on the store

shelves of major superstores around the world (Jitpleecheep, 2006). Among the

superstores in Thailand, in this study, three international superstores (Big C, Tesco

Lotus and Carrefour) are chosen to compare with local family-run stores in order to

ascertain the perceptions of Thai consumers toward retail stores. Each superstore has

its core competencies such as discount prices and a variety of products by which they

are able to compete internationally and regionally. Local family-run stores also have

their own competitive advantages such as loyalty and location that make them survive

when they compete with the giants. Eventually, the study will focus on the perception

of Thai consumers toward retail stores through which government can be aware of

consumers’ benefits that might help issuing rules and regulations. Family-run stores

and superstores can also know about consumer perceptions of them in Bangkok by

which they can set strategies to achieve their goals.

1.2 Statement of Problem

Crispin and Shawn (2008) stated that foreign giant retailers such as Tesco

were among the country's largest foreign investors in the aftermath of the 1997-98

Asian financial crises. Their rapid in-country expansion has stirred a heated and still-

unresolved political debate about whether foreign retail investments are as beneficial

to the country as more export-oriented foreign direct investments. Although the

growth of superstores benefits local consumers by attracting them with low prices and

convenient shopping, it has damaged many smaller family-run stores. According to a

study by Thai Chamber of Commerce, by the end of 2005, there are 3709 foreign

retail stores operating in Thailand including 49 Big C stores, 72 of Tesco Lotus, 21

Carrefour and 29 Makro, 112 of Lotus Express and 3,300 7-Elevens, as well as some

others, compared with the departure of about 300,000 small local family-run shops in

the past decade (Jitpleecheep, 2006).

Thailand’s retail business, in Bangkok and other major cities, has changed a

lot because of the influence of foreign giant superstores and local giant chain stores

3

that have taken over the market. After the economic crisis, the superstore operators

continue to expand their market despite opposition by local retailers. From an

economic perspective, superstores may or may not be the best value for the

community but perhaps more significant than any of the economic considerations are

the qualitative benefits of local ownership. Locally owned retail stores build strong

communities, relationship, and create a sense of place and community identity. They

also reflect the local culture. Superstores, by contrast, may be sapping communities of

their character and individuality. The arrival of superstores may also affect the

destruction of important local landmarks (Jitpleecheep, 2006).

1.3 Objectives of Study

To determine consumers’ perceptions toward superstores and family-run

stores in Bangkok.

1.4 Methodology

This research is quantitative using survey questionnaires to collect primary

data from customers who are shopping in business districts and urban areas in

Bangkok using convenience sampling.

1.5 Expected Outcomes

This study is expected to know consumers’ attitudes toward retail stores such

as how much superstores affect on family-run stores, and to know consumers’

satisfaction on marketing, business, economic and social factor comparing between

superstores and family-run stores in Bangkok. After studying consumer perceptions

on them, superstores and family-run stores can set business strategies to better achieve

their goals.

4

1.6 Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework

1.7 Hypotheses

H01: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have no

different perceptions on marketing factors between superstores and family-run stores.

H1: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have

different perceptions on marketing factors between superstores and family-run stores.

H02: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have no

different perceptions on business factors between superstores and family-run stores.

H2: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have

different perceptions on business factors between superstores and family-run stores.

H03: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have no

different perceptions on economic factors between superstores and family-run stores.

H3: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have

different perceptions economic factors between superstores and family-run stores.

Demographic Factors - Gender - Age - Education - Occupation - Monthly Income - Marital Status - Resident Place

Consumers’

Perceptions toward Retail Stores

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Superstores - Marketing Factors - Business Factors - Economic Factors - Social Factors

Family-run Stores - Marketing Factors - Business Factors - Economic Factors - Social Factors

5

H04: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have no

different perceptions on social factors between superstores and family-run stores.

H4: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have

different perceptions on social factors between superstores and family-run stores.

1.8 Definition of Terms

Perception: The process by which an individual selects, organizes, and

interprets stimuli into a meaningful and coherent picture of the world (Schiffman &

Kanuk, 2004).

Retailing: Retailing is defined as the sale of goods and services to consumers

for their own use. The term has been adopted by a wide range of service providers

such as banks and other financial institutions, but the focus of this entry is on the sale

of goods to consumers. The entry outlines the emergence and decline of various retail

formats, including shopping centers, retail parks, department stores, variety stores,

superstores, hypermarkets, discounters and warehouse clubs. The main functions

within the value chain of retailing are summarized, including location, product

selection, buying, retailer branding, pricing, advertising, in-store design, human

resource management and logistics (Warner, 2002).

Superstores: Superstores are very large supermarkets or shops selling

household goods and equipment. Superstores are usually built outside city centers

away from other shops (Cobuild, 2001).

Hypermarket: A very large supermarket, usually built outside a town that

sells a wide range of goods (Macmillan Publisher Limited, 2002).

Chain Store: One of a series of stores owned by one company and selling the

same merchandise (Oxford University Press, 2005).

Family-run Business: A business environment that is owned or controlled by

a family, or one in which ‘family values’ have a strong bearing. There is no strict

6

definition of what constitutes a family firm, and organizational size is no guide. The

smallest business may be clearly identified as a family affair according to who owns

or controls it. But the largest business can market themselves as a family firm,

meaning that they strongly uphold the values of a paternal founder, who may or may

not be actually present (Vernon, 2001).

Core Competencies: Core competency has three characteristics: (1) It is a

source of competitive advantage in that it makes a significant contribution to

perceived customer benefits, (2) it has applications in a wide variety of markets, and

(3) it is difficult for competitors to imitate (Kotler & Keller, 2006).

Small Sized Business Enterprises: Bank of Thailand (2004) has adopted a

definition for small sized enterprises set by the Industry Ministry as a benchmark for

lending by retail commercial banks:

• Small enterprise in manufacturing or service sector has fewer than 50

employees and less than THB 50 million in fixed assets (Bank of Thailand,

2004).

• Small enterprise in wholesale sector has fewer than 25 employees and less

than THB 50 million in assets (Bank of Thailand, 2004).

• Small enterprise in retail sector has fewer than 15 employees and less than

THB 30 million (Bank of Thailand, 2004).

7

Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Retailing Industry in Thailand

Jitpleecheep (2006) stated that, over the past 60 years, Thailand’s shopping

landscape has changed dramatically. At that time, everyday groceries were sold in wet

markets and family shophouses. Yaowarat (Chinatown) was the largest shopping area

where a wide range of local and imported consumer products from shophouses. Thai

department stores included Tai Fah, Maw Dam (Black Cat), Nightingale, Artang,

Pacific and Kwan Nakhon were recognized as the first modern department stores

which sell clothes, home products, a few cosmetics and shoes. However, Thai retail

market was really revolutionized in 1972. The opening of Ratchadamri Arcade

brought a new era to Bangkok shopping sense. The complex included 220 air-

conditioned shops; restaurants, coffee shops, beauty treatment centers, boutiques and

leather goods centers. A Japanese retail chain, the Daimaru department stores, was

also introduced at the complex as the first time (Jitpleecheep, 2006).

From 1989 to 1990, many department stores entered the market. They are The

Mall, Merry Kings, Pata, Banglampoo, Cathay, Asia, Edison, Robison, Tang Hua

Seng, Big Bell, Imperial and Wellgrow. A few years later, it was the turn of foreign

and Japanese retail chains; Jusco, Isetan, Yaohan, Tokyu and Printemps department

stores. Consequently, shopping malls have become important venues for socializing

and recreation with children’s fun parks, fitness centers and movie theatres. Thai

consumers’ shopping habit went further in 1997 with the advent of foreign discount

superstore chains, touting cheaper prices, convenience and novel designs. They took

over the market in a shot period of time driven by consumers hunting for low-cost

goods during the economic crisis. Today there are 120 outlets of Big C, Tesco Lotus

and Carrefour. The Emporium, then Gaysorn, Erawan Bangkok and most recently

Siam Paragon are the high-end shopping complexes springing up of late. Thais will

have the chance to shop at Thai superstores abroad in next five decades because the

Central Group is looking to establish itself as regional retailing presence

(Jitpleecheep, 2006).

8

2.1.1 Big C.

Big C is a chain of retail superstore in Thailand. Casino of France owns

approximately 63 percent of the company. The remainder is owned by Central Retail

Corporation, Thailand’s largest retail conglomerate. As of February 2006, the

company operates 49 stores, 24 of which are in Bangkok. In 2006, Big C reported

sales of THB 58.03 billion (US$ 1.75 billion). Its main competitors are Carrefour and

Tesco Lotus (Big C Co. Ltd., 2006). Big C Supercentre is trying out a different retail

format - Mini Big C convenience store - after its Leader Price discount shops failed to

gain popularity and perform well even after seven years of operation. Jariya

Chirathivat, president for marketing and communications, said a pilot shop has

already been opened for business since last year (2006) in Sukhumvit Soi 103 in the

Udomsuk area of Bangkok. The Mini Big C's floor space of 200 square meters is

smaller than Leader Price's 300-700 square meters. Half of its shelves are filled with

house brands and half with branded products while Leader Price stocks only Big C

brands. Mini Big C so far has experienced good feedback. The company is now

developing a repositioning plan for the small-store business, including transforming

all Leader Price branches into Big C Minis and estimating the required budget, which

is expected to be finished in 2007 (Asawanipont, 2007).

Thailand tends to have many small communities, which presents a good

market opportunity for this small retail model to enter. The two major reasons why

Leader Price's five branches have been a disappointment are because they are too big

and their merchandise assortment confuses shoppers. Consumers know that those

products are Big C products when they're placed in the main superstores but when

they're in the small shop, not many people know who owns those house brands.

Asawanipont (2007) stated that the company also maintains a policy of never

advertising its house brands in the mass media so its prices can be kept below other

brands. The company found difficulty in reaching sales targets with Leader Price's

large size. The stores started with 1,000 square meters and were gradually reduced to

700 square meters for standard branches and 300 square meters for mini branches.

Turning to the whole picture, Big C superstores enjoyed a good first quarter of year

2007 with THB 14.48 billion in sales. However, it didn't achieve its growth target of

10 percent as its sales rose only 7.2 percent. But that was still satisfactory given the

economic slowdown. The company will forge ahead with its plan to open four

superstores in 2007 (Asawanipont, 2007).

9

2.1.2 Carrefour.

Over the past 40 years, Carrefour group has grown to become one of the

world’s leading distribution groups. The first Carrefour store was opened in 1963 in

St. Genevieve de Bois, a town close to Paris. In 1996, the first Carrefour store has

opened in Thailand. In 2003, Carrefour celebrated its 40th Year Anniversary. In Year

2005, Carrefour is number one of retailing group in Asia and Europe and the second

largest retailing group worldwide with variety of business format of retail industry

The Carrefour hypermarkets offer a wide range of food and non-food products at very

attractive prices; their shelves stock an average of 70,000 items (Carrefour Co. Ltd.,

2007).

Jitpleecheep (2008a) stated that with an optimistic view of the stability of the

country's economy and politics, the Carrefour superstore plans to triple its investment

budget to three billion baht this year (2008) to open six or seven new branches, double

the number it had planned originally. The government has forecast that private

investment this year will increase by 5-6 percent, compared to 0.5 percent last year.

Mr Segsarn, the business development manager of CenCar Co., the local Carrefour

operator said that last year (2007) the company opened three new branches: in Chon

Buri, Rama II in Bangkok and Khlong Sam, Pathum Thani. The Rama II store, a

smaller format with 4,000 square meters, opened opposite rival Tesco Lotus at the end

of 2007. This year (2008) Carrefour plans to add six or seven new branches, both

conventional and various compact formats, but mainly around the 4,000 square meters

size. All of the new outlets will be modeled on the Chon Buri branch, its first

premium prototype store format (Jitpleecheep, 2008a).

The addition of more compact outlets will help the company speed up its

expansion and increase consumer access to its stores. Apart from new stores, the

company plans to spend at least THB 240 million to renovate its 24 existing stores

and make them premium superstores by the middle of 2008, starting with the Rama

IV, Phetkasem, Bang Yai, Ratchada and Pattaya branches. The merchandise mix will

be adjusted, increasing the proportion of non-food and home decoration items and

adding new anchors such as Boots personal-care stores. Marketing director Prapaphan

Ploysaengngam said the company would also join with Fun Characters International

(Thailand) Co Ltd, the local licensee for Disney consumer products, to co-develop

Disney merchandise to sell at all 27 Carrefour outlets this year (2008).

10

2.1.3 Tesco Lotus.

Established in 1998, Tesco Lotus was a joint venture of the Charoen

Pokphand Group and Tesco, the British giant superstore chain and was established in

1998. It is facing criticism over the growth of superstores in Thailand. The CP Group

sold its shares of Tesco Lotus in 2003. In Thailand, the stores are operated by Ek-Chai

Distribution System Co., Ltd. In various locations within Thailand, Tesco Lotus

Express stores (a smaller version of the Tesco Lotus supermarket) have opened at gas

stations and on busy roadside locations. They have a total of 24 superstores in

Bangkok, 31 superstores upcountry, 14 Lotus Markets, 15 Value stores and 189

Express stores with more being built all the time (Tesco Lotus Co. Ltd., 2008)

Crispin and Shawn (2008) stated that, when Tesco Lotus opened a new

superstore in the remote Thai border town of Mae Sai, local protestors hell-bent

against the foreign retail operator's arrival sent a coffin and petition written in blood

to company executives. Since first establishing operations in Thailand in 1998, Tesco

Lotus superstores have been targeted with grenade blasts, rocket attacks and gunfire

by various local interest groups. Tesco announced strong profit growth for annual

2007. International sales contributed strongly to Tesco's GBP 2.8 billion (US$ 5.6

billion) pre-tax profit, which was up 11.8% year on year. Tesco’s international

revenues, of which Thailand contributes around 3.7%, meanwhile were up 25.6% year

on year and accounted for 50% of total trading profit growth, according to company

statistics. Trading margins excluding China rose 5.8%, driven by strong growth in

South Korea, Malaysia and Thailand, according to the same statistics (Crispin &

Shawn, 2008).

Crispin and Shawn (2008) stated that the company has also long touted its

self-proclaimed socially responsible credentials, including its annual multi-million

baht donations to Thai charities and rapid-response delivery of emergency supplies to

areas hit by natural disasters, including recent flood-hit northern Thai provinces and

southern beaches struck by the 2004 tsunami. More recently, the company has

promoted a new environmentally conscious green store concept. Meanwhile, the

lawsuits filed by the company are shaping up into a public relations disaster as local

media editorials and international freedom of expression groups heap criticism on its

legal tactics. Local and foreign bloggers have called for a boycott of Tesco stores in

protest against the lawsuits, according to news reports. But as a foreign-owned

company with an ever-growing local profile and lots of political enemies, Tesco

11

Lotus' legal offensives arguably carry higher risks than mere non-governmental

organizations and editorial opprobrium.

Crispin and Shawn (2008) stated that Tesco and other superstore operators

have been able to squeeze the margins of traditional wholesalers and suppliers,

including politically powerful corporations like the Sahapat Group, which historically

commanded prices to fragmented, small-scale retailers. Some industry analysts

speculate that the superstore sector will be nearly if not fully saturated by the time the

retail legislation is finally passed, giving incumbents an advantage over new market

entrants. Until now Tesco Lotus has countered nationalistic criticisms by arguing that

its stores are net creators of jobs and provide convenient and efficient outlets for

locally produced foods and products. During these sensitive global economic times,

profitable multinational corporations face new and potentially volatile risks in the

developing world countries where they operate. That's particularly true in Thailand,

where the government's open-door investment policies are often counterbalanced on

the ground by always close-to-the-surface xenophobic sentiments, particularly against

foreign companies which compete for lucrative local markets (Crispin & Shawn,

2008).

2.2 Thailand’s Retail Store Market Share

Kuipers (2007) found that modern retail stores in Thailand represent 5% of

store numbers, but 45% of total retail sales. They have been increasing their sales

levels by an average rate of 15 per cent between 2000 and 2005, to reach a level of

THB 405 billion (US$10 billion). The superstore (hypermarket) is the main store

format for over 50% of shoppers in Thailand. In addition, over 85% of urban shoppers

in Thailand use convenience stores regularly with a high frequency of three to four

times a week. This growth from both the largest and smallest formats resulted in a

squeeze of the supermarket. In 2005, the number of supermarkets decreased by 8%

over the previous year, while the number of superstores (hypermarkets) and

convenience stores increased by 10% and 26% respectively. The main consequence of

this squeeze is that supermarkets are growing at a slower rate than other retail

formats, losing their market share in total retail sales. Eventually some smaller chains

like Jusco and Villa will decline, while leading players such as Tops and Tesco Lotus

will become prevalent. The ten Villa supermarkets in Thailand are operated by one of

12

the oldest retailers in the country, Villa market, which was established in 1974. Planet

Retail calculates total sales of these stores as US$ 74 million.

The main superstore operators are Casino – who operates 47 Big C superstores

through its Thai subsidiary in which the Thai retailer Central holds a 22% minority

stake – and Carrefour. Via its 100% Thai subsidiary Cencar, Carrefour operates 23

Carrefour hypermarkets in Thailand. Both Big C and Carrefour are with average store

sizes of 10,000 m² and 9,100 m² bigger than Tesco Lotus’ largest surfaces. These

Tesco Lotus superstores (hypermarkets) are some 8,500 m² on average, but have

recorded a stronger growth in store numbers last year than Big C and Carrefour.

However, Tesco Lotus and other large surface retailers are also experiencing that land

to build these large stores in major urban areas is rapidly becoming scarce, which

drives up land prices. This will reduce the growth rate of superstore format and will

lead to an appetite for multi-format strategies. As in most Asian markets, modern

retail in Thailand is concentrated in the urban centers where income levels are higher

(Kuipers, 2007).

The growth of retail industry is also related with the growth of other economic

factors of the country. Hugh (2008) stated some growth facts (2007) of Thailand.

Gross domestic product expanded by 1.8% in the fourth quarter of 2007 up from a

1.5% rate in the third quarter. Consumer spending rose 1.6% from a year earlier in the

fourth quarter, slowing from 1.8% in the previous three months. Total investment in

the fourth quarter rose 4% , accelerating from a 2.6% gain in the previous quarter,

today's report showed. Manufacturing gained 8.1% following a 5.7% expansion in the

previous three months. Private construction contracted 8.5% from growth of 0.7% a

year earlier. Government spending increased 16 percent, compared with the third

quarter's 9.5% pace. The Bank of Thailand lowered its benchmark interest rate five

times in 2007 as the longest string of rate cuts since May 2000. It reviews borrowing

costs again this week. Most analysts expect the Bank of Thailand to keep its

benchmark interest rate unchanged at the meeting on Feb. 27 due to accelerating

inflation. Consumer prices rose 4.3% from a year earlier in January, the fastest

inflation in 18 months, as fuel and food costs increased.

13

Global retail index

Kearney (2006) found that the globalization of modern retail accelerates to

expand. Since 2001, more than 49 retailers have entered about 90 new markets. But

expansion does not equal success: Retailers left 17 markets in 2005 and are expected

to exit another 19 in 2006. Many others are struggling to generate profits. A.T.

Kearney has helped retailers prioritize their global development strategies by

publishing the Global Retail Development Index (GRDI). The Index ranks 30

emerging countries based on more than 25 macroeconomic and retail-specific

variables. Beyond the yearly findings, they also examined more than 10 years of data

points. From this analysis, they gained new insights into the patterns and effects of

retail in emerging markets, including:

• Emerging markets pass through windows of opportunity, which remain

open for an average of 5 to 10 years.

• Certain retail formats work better than others, depending on time of entry

and region.

• Modern retail expansion contributes to economic growth.

2.3 Small Retailers Threatened by Big Influx

Although the growth of superstores benefits local consumers by attracting

them with low prices and convenient shopping, it has damaged many smaller family-

run stores. According to a study by Thai Chamber of Commerce, by the end of 2005,

there are 3709 foreign retail stores operating in Thailand including 49 Big C stores, 72

of Tesco Lotus, 21 Carrefour and 29 Makro, 112 of Lotus Express and 3,300 7-

Elevens, as well as some others, compared with the departure of about 300,000 small

local family-run shops in the past decade. Therefore, local retailers have called for the

government to establish a national retail law to restrict the expansion of foreign

retailers. Town planning regulations have failed to stem the rapid growth of

superstores, estimated to average 10% to 20% over the next few years, according to

the Thai Chamber of Commerce (Arunmas, 2006a). Last year, sales of The Mall

Group, one of the country’s largest retail groups, were estimated at THB 43 billion,

up 7% to 8% from the year before. The company expects its overall sales this year to

rise by 5% to THB 45 billion. It is adjusting its marketing strategy by focusing more

on in-store promotional events that can create sales immediately, rather than events

14

linked to image-building. It also intends to spend its advertising budget more

selectively. Thailand’s retail business overall to have a balance between traditional

and modern trade, retailers and wholesalers, and suppliers and grocery stores both in

Bangkok and upcountry, as well as create fair competition (Jitpleecheep, 2008b).

2.3.1 The affect of retail stores on local economy.

Family-run stores keep profit circulating within the local economy. They also

support a various functions of other small scale local businesses. They create

opportunities for service providers. They do business with the community bank. They

purchase goods from regional distributors. In this way, money spent at locally owned

businesses creates economic benefits through the community. By contrast, superstore

chains typically centralized these functions at their head offices. They keep local

investment and spending to a minimum. They bank with big national banks. In this

way, much of money spent at a chain store leaves the community immediately.

Family-run stores also create economic diversity and stability. Because they are

locally owned, these stores are firmly rooted in the community. They are unlikely to

move and will try to contribute their best to local economy even in crisis period.

Superstores, by contrast, tend to be fair-weather friends. They are highly mobile and

will abandon a location if profit margins do not meet their expectations. Eventually, a

community loses its local businesses to national chains and also risks losing other

economic development opportunities (Mitchell, 2000).

2.3.2 The affect of retail stores on community.

Local retail stores value the community by contributing to civic and cultural

life. Local merchants are more than providers of goods and services. They often take a

leadership role in community affairs. Many chair neighborhood organizations, host

cultural events or organize local festivals. Because they live in the places where they

do business, local business owners tend to be far more committed to the community’s

well-being and long-term stability than distant corporations. Finally, the shift from

local to absentee-owned stores means that business decisions are no longer made

locally by members of the community. In the case of superstores, these decisions

occur in distant boardrooms, where the values of the local community carry little or

no weight (Mitchell, 2000).

15

European retailers such as Tesco Lotus, Carrefour and Big C have been

opening new stores in Thailand since buying out their local joint-venture partners at

the depths of the country’s financial crisis in 1998. At the depths of the economic

crisis, superstores sales grew 16 per cent, far faster than sales growth of other retailing

formats. With the Thai economy now recovering, same-store sale are also picking up.

Superstore chains opening around Thailand are boosting the domestic economy by

creating fresh markets for local businesses and new jobs for Thais in provincial areas.

The expanding superstores are being embraced by cost-conscious Thai consumers for

their low prices and wide product selection. Superstores’ image offensive, which also

includes more traditional appeals to consumers seeking low prices and vast product

selection, underscores foreign retailers’ concern about a potential backlash, as they

rapidly expand in a country where most people still shop at traditional grocers and

open-air bazaars (Kazmin, 2001).

2.4 Disputes in Retail Industry

Phuangrach, director-general of Internal Trade Department, (2008) stated that

the ministry had received many complaints from manufacturers of plastic products

and vegetable oil about unfair fees and regulations imposed by supestores.The

department can act as a middleman to create fair regulations for suppliers and

superstores as both sides are unable to agree an acceptable compromise. Guidelines

were also drafted for rice packers and major superstores on fair trade practices. The

move came as a result of rice packers' complaints to the department that superstores

forced them to sell at lower prices and pay exorbitant fees. Retailers Big C, Carrefour,

Macro, Tesco Lotus and Tops Supermarket and the rice packers signed a

memorandum of understanding to create trading conditions that are fair to both

sides. In addition, the department is drafting a formula to calculate production costs

and sales margins to create fair pricing.

The Internal Trade Department will use this formula against the margins set by

retailers and manufacturers to decide whether to allow any proposed price increases.

Phuangrach (2008) stated the formula would be adopted to cover other goods,

particularly agricultural products, as this sector involves a large number of suppliers,

which should gave companies wanting to increase prices a clearer understanding of

the circumstances in which they can. Consumers should also get a fairer deal, as they

are less likely to be over-paying for goods. Meanwhile, Phuangrach (2008) stated that

16

the department would complete the drawing up of regulations for expansion by giant

retailers. Although Tesco Lotus and Big C still disagreed with the ministry's proposal

to regulate major retailers, they must reach agreement soon as the proposals will

create better understanding between large and small retailers. In the absence of a

business law covering retailers and wholesalers, the agreement is intended to resolve

the conflict between small and large retail operators. The proposals would limit the

location and opening hours for retail giants and commit small retailers to ending their

campaign against their larger rivals.

Supplier price problem

Thailand had already opened the door to the modern trade system, as in many

developed countries where consumers enjoyed cheaper goods and better quality than

in the days when choices were more limited. Thai government sometimes intervene

the conflict between superstores and conventional retailers and suppliers, said Ms.

Duenden, from the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI). In the United

States and Britain, the government as a regulator would not interfere in the business

relationships between superstores and suppliers, as long as their business practices did

not affect consumers (Maneerungsee, 2002).

Superstores have power on suppliers to lower their price because of their big

amount of order. In contrast, suppliers can charge higher to small retail shops for

small orders. This kind of negotiations is a business reality. There are also some

unfair practices by giants which are prohibitions against suppliers selling goods to

other buyers. Therefore, since the buying process, family-run stores rarely get the

same price as superstores get that can be an influence factor on setting pricing

strategy. Small Thai retailers have complained that they cannot qualify for the volume

discounts offered by suppliers and seek government intervention. Consequently,

Deputy Commerce Minister Newin Chidchob initiated an idea to require superstore

operations to disclose the fees they charge to product suppliers. As well, all fees

collected from suppliers by superstores might be subject to price controls monitored

by the Internal Trade Department (Maneerungsee, 2002).

17

2.5 Restrictions on Superstore Expansion and Thai Retail Regulation

In Thailand, foreigners (including companies where more than 49% of shares

are held by non-Thai nationals) are prohibited from engaging in retailing and

wholesaling goods under the Foreign Business Act 1999 (the FBA) unless the

registered capital of the company exceeds Bt 100 million or the company has

registered capital of Bt 20 million per store (for retail business); or the company’s

registered capital exceeds Bt 100 million per store (for wholesale business). Applying

for a foreign business license under the FBA is required if the foreign company’s

registered capital does not meet the above criteria (Mansri, 2006). Lunn and Chase

(2007) also reported that foreign entities are prohibited by the Foreign Business Act

1999 (FBA) from engaging in a wide range of activities in Thailand. Under the

existing provisions of the FBA, a company is considered to be a foreigner unless it is

registered in Thailand and Thai nationals hold more than half of the shares in the

company. Business activities which are restricted to foreigners are divided into three

lists with varying degrees of prohibition.

List 1 activities are absolutely prohibited to foreigners. These businesses are

not open to foreigners for special reasons and include activities such as media,

farming or land trading. List 2 activities may be undertaken by a foreigner with

ministerial approval. These businesses are restricted in the interests of national

security or relate to arts and culture, or environmental resources and include mining.

List 3 activities may be undertaken by a foreigner only if a foreign business license is

granted by the government. The activities on this list are those in which Thai nationals

are not yet ready to compete with foreigners. List 3 is by far the most extensive list

prohibiting most forms of business activity including wholesaling, retailing and all

service businesses. Notably, manufacturing for export is not included in List 3.

Due to the cumbersome and unwieldy procedures for obtaining ministerial

approval and foreign business licenses, a practice has developed where foreigners use

'Thai' entities to invest into Thailand. Historically, foreigners investing in Thailand

have established Thai-registered companies such that, while Thai nationals hold the

majority of issued shares, the majority of voting and dividend rights attach to

shares held by the foreign investor. These structures are routinely used by the foreign

investment community in Thailand where restrictions under the FBA prohibit

majority shareholdings by foreigners or foreign business licenses would be required

(Lunn & Chase, 2007)

18

Kazmin and Rigby (2006) stated that Thailand considered restrictions on the

expansion of large foreign retailers such as Big C, Tesco Lotus and Carrefour and

others, following complaints from local retailers and consumer product

manufacturers. The commerce Ministry has established a special committee to lay

down new rules, principles and guidelines for the expansion of retailers and

wholesalers. Karun Kittisataporn, permanent secretary for the commerce ministry, has

also threatened hefty fines or even prison sentences for big retailers who mistreat their

suppliers. According to ministry guidelines unveiled, retailers are prohibited from

“unfair practices” such as selling products below cost, asking suppliers for deep

discounts, demanding higher introduction fees for new products and returning

products without valid reason, Violators may be fined up to Bt 6 million or jailed for

up to three years (Kazmin & Rigby, 2006).

The Retail Laws draft was completed in 2003, but the cabinet decided to hold

it and suggested the use of existing laws, including town planning regulations of the

Interior Ministry, to control the expansion of superstores. However, retail zoning

laws, drafted by the Public Works and Town and Country Planning Department, could

not be effectively enforced because of the 1979 Building Control Law. The Building

Law also allowed local administrations to give approval for the establishment of a

new building if it was necessary. The Commerce Ministry could exercise its power to

limit foreign retail store expansion through laws such as the Trade Competition Law

to make certain of fair trade practice. It could also use the Trade Registration Law to

control any expansion in a saturated area (Arunmas, 2006b). Thai government can

also support local retailers by setting up a database to provide information and

statistics related to retail business, supporting both software and hardware technical

support in order to encourage more efficient management, and offer soft loans for

investing in computer technology and supporting shophouse pay-point services. The

government should also do more to help Thai manufacturers stay competitive by

promoting the country as a base for outsourcing consumer goods (Jitpleecheep, 2006).

Mansri (2006) stated that, in Thailand, there is no specific legislation

governing retail/wholesale businesses, despite the fact that these industries have been

growing rapidly throughout the country. The Ministry of Commerce has implemented

regulations aimed at ensuring there is a fair business competition environment

between retailers or wholesalers and manufacturers or suppliers. Additionally, interim

measures for controlling retail/wholesale business expansions were put in place in the

19

absence of the Retail Business Act. In response to complaints made by local

manufacturers and suppliers in respect of unfair business practices by modern

retailers/wholesalers with greater bargaining power, the Office of Trade Competition

Commission, Ministry of Commerce has implemented business practice guidelines in

the form of regulation B.E. 2549 (2006) (the Regulations). The Regulations were

issued under Section 29 of the Trade Competition Act 1999 (the Act) which prohibits

a business operator from carrying out any act that may constitute an act of unfair

competition and has the effect of obstructing, impeding or restricting the business

operations of others or preventing others from carrying out business or causing a

cessation of business. The Regulations took effect on 11 October 2006 and are

regarded as the first code of conduct for retail/wholesale businesses in Thailand.

The objectives of the Regulations are to provide guidelines for

retailers/wholesalers and manufacturers or suppliers in determining which business

practices may constitute unfair competition under Section 29 of the Act. Notably, the

Regulations do not specify restrictions on retail/wholesale expansions but they

specifically identify business practices that could be considered an act of unfair

competition (Mansri, 2006). The Regulations do not also clearly state what legal

sanctions will apply if any violation occurs. However, the Act provides that any

person who does not comply with Section 29 will be liable to 3 years in jail or to a

fine not exceeding 6 million baht, and double penalties will apply if an offence is

repeated. Additionally, if the offender is a juristic person, its authorized director,

managing partner or the person responsible for business operations of the juristic

person will be subject to the penalty unless it is proved that the offence was

committed without his or her knowledge or consent or he or she took reasonable

action to prevent the offence from occurring (Mansri, 2006).

2.6 Retail Formats and Brands

Uusitalo (2001) stated that the structure and strategies of retailing have been

shaped by the intense competition and struggle over market shares. Grocery retailers

operate in mature markets with slow growth opportunities. Meanwhile, retailers have

been less concerned with genuinely listening to consumers' needs and desires.

Consumers have had to adapt to any changes being made in the retail structure, that

they have changed their shopping behaviour to coincide with the products that retail

stores are providing. For example, consumers now have to travel longer distances, use

20

a car for shopping, buy larger purchases, and be able to store the product in their

homes. Retail firms have established distinctive retail store formats which are

differentiated from each other based on a single dimension or a combination of

several dimensions (Brown, 1992). Two commonly used dimensions are product

range and price level (Burt & Sparks, 1994; 1995). As a consequence of the concern

with retail formats and chain stores, retail brands with managed images have become

prevalent (Davies, 1992; Davies & Brooks, 1989; Walters & Knee, 1989).

In order to be defined as a retail brand, a retailer should fulfill four criteria:

differentiate, be capable of a separate existence, command a premium price, and offer

the customer some psychic value (Davies, 1992). These criteria should be perceived

by the consumers. This study investigates the consumer perspective to retail brands by

analyzing how consumers perceive retail stores and the meanings they associate with

particular stores. The retail brand has an established and recognized status in some

European countries such as France and the UK. However, it is not clear that the retail

brand is a uniform and established concept in other cultural contexts. Retailing is not

only about the physical distribution of goods. In addition to conducting their primary

task, retailers are intermediaries who participate in producing cultural meanings

through which consumers define their sense of self and make sense of the world

around them (Douglas & Isherwood, 1979; McCracken, 1988). Cultural meanings are

manipulated when retailers incorporate meanings into brands in advertising, physical

design of interiors and exteriors, and corporate culture, i.e. the way of doing business,

the way sales staff are dressed and groomed and how they behave. Because of their

ability to evoke changes in consumers' physical and interpretive activities, retailers

with retail brands can be considered change agents in society.

Two forms of retail brands exist: retailer named products and the process

brand (Davies, 1992). The latter refers to the experience, i.e. the service package that

retailers provide. The functions of retail stores may be connected with the useful or

necessary goals that the consumer expects to accomplish when conducting retail

shopping. Store size in terms of floor space, product range, and distance to the store

measured by the mode of transport used and the actual journey time, are arguably the

most important functional features of retail stores (McGoldrick & Thompson, 1992).

21

2.6.1 Family-run stores.

A retail store can attract consumers according to its size. As for family-run

store, they have less attractive size. One important aspect of a family-run store is the

opportunity for personal contacts with the salepersons of these stores. The feeling of

personal attention and care about personal needs and hopes was expressed by several

informants. Consumers can contact store owner and they can ask to order items as

extra service. One possible strength of the family-run store is personal customer

service. Uusitalo (2001) stated that there is a demand for personal customer service

and occasionally the consumers want it and need it.

Family-run stores are attractive because they are predictable. Buyers know

what to expect, what goods are available, where the goods are located, and what the

price level is. Shopping is efficient, quick, and without too many problems. It seems

that consumers have learnt to think about stores according to size. Therefore, different

types of shopping trips are associated with stores of different sizes. Accordingly,

consumers associate different goals and functions with family-run stores versus

superstores offer convenience in terms of ease of shopping. Consumers may prefer

them because of their accessibility and the familiarity and intimacy (Uusitalo, 2001).

2.6.2 Superstores.

Superstores may be associated with the availability of a wide variety of goods.

Some consumers perhaps find superstores convenient since they offer the possibility

to buy all the things they need in the same place. On the other hand, many consumers

feel that there is a lot of walking along and searching because superstores are big and

spacius. This extra walking is often compensated by purchasing large quantities of

goods at one time. These are market-like stores where the number of items is usually

larger. There is rarely a crush or queues, buyers don't have to stand idle for a long

time. They are usually new sites, a lot of space, no collisions against the shelves, good

lighting, easy to move around in, pleasant shopping. The method of shopping is such

that consumer take the goods on trolley to the car. Shopping goes smoothly if

consumer is on his/her own with a child (Uusitalo, 2001).

22

2.7 Consumers’ Perceptions on Product Assortment

The image of a retail outlet is largely admitted to be shaped from the

combination of cognitive and affective factors (Finn & Louviere, 1996; Lindquist,

1974; Zimmer & Golden, 1988). Assortment appears in a good place beside price

level, quality, services and atmosphere. Store image is the first factor that influences

shopping behavior. Monroe and Guiltinan (1975) and Hirschman, Enic, and Roering

(1981) showed the importance and impact of a store's image on some aspects of

consumer behaviour such as selection or patronage of a retail outlet if a retailer

succeed in being associated to the image of having a strong community reputation

which may affect store choice and lower the impact of other store attributes like price.

Bell (1999) found significant relationships between quality and range of products and

stores and consumers intent to patronize a retail center. Price, assortment range,

convenient location, perceived product quality, and customer service are the most

commonly attractive factors of retail stores. Inspite of the weighting of price,

assortment and products quality as most important attributes in retail store choice and

it is not relevant uniformly across buying situations. Their weights can change

radically. Van Kenhove, De Wulf, and Van Waterschoot (1999) demonstrated that

store attributes saliences varied significantly across task definitions. In case of an

urgent purchase, consumers tend to quick service and product availability.

In addition, the importance of retail store choice attributes seems to be store

format dependent. Hansen (2003) found that while high product quality and freshness

of products were ranked by specialty food store consumers at the first two places,

assortment was number three. Since assortment size strictly depends on the available

surface area in the store, a volume retailer will partially or fully meet consumer

expectations, depending on outlet area. As a result, the smaller the outlet area, the

more the retailer will have to choose between either providing a broad offering,

meeting different types of needs with little variety within each type or having a more

limited assortment with many choices within each type of need. In these conditions,

the assortment range becomes a decisive factor of perceived positioning (Amine &

Cadenat, 2003).

Several factors are likely to influence a volume retailer's choice of product

variety (Lancaster, 1991). The first factor is a potential increase of demand following

the offering of a broader variety. Tangible evidence of this is higher store patronage

or an increase in the average shopping cart. McKenna (1989) stated that consumers

23

are living in an era of diversity where they demand more variety and assortment for

all sorts of products, ranging from cars to clothes. Consequently consumer's need for

variety affects the quantitative and qualitative make-up of the assortment.

Koelemeijer and Oppewal (1999) showed that an increase in assortment size produces

more additional purchases than changing/improving store ambience. In their analysis

of retailers' performance drivers, Dhar, Hoch, and Kumar (2001) found out that the

best performing retailers are also those who offer broader assortments.

Amine and Cadenat (2003) stated that the second factor affecting assortment

growth involves the use of variety as a strategic dimension of retail store image. Wide

assortment is viewed as an appealing store image attribute valued by consumers

because they are more likely to find what they want when patronizing a store that

offers more varied assortments (Hoch, Bradlow, & Wansink, 1999). Krishnan,

Koelemeijer, and Rao (2002) developed the notion of assortment consistency, which

is a tacit commitment of a retailer to carry a given set of brands, sizes, colors and

flavors from one period to another, so that a consumer who looks for his preferred

brands will be able to find them for sure at that retail store. The assortment range is

then used as a major differentiating factor in the positioning strategies of retail outlets.

2.8 Customer Services

Retail industry is trying to improve customer service at new competition.

Personalized retail services have become a trend in customer service. Siler (1995)

stated that, when comsumers shop in retail stores, size is of minor consideration,

quality, service, percformance and management are more important. Retailers have to

remind that consumers are truly satisfied with entrance convenience, parking and

internal traffic flow. Superstores offered contomer services by cooperate with small

services and shops like: shoe repair, tailoring, package wrapping and mailing,

cafeterrias, restaurant, bakeries, beauty shops, video tape rentals, pharmacy, delivery

and carryout service. Besides that, superstore service proposition is also based on

price. Low price is king, and the costs of providing staff service have been abandoned

or cut right back. It is hard to get frontline managers and staffs to care about their

customers because of low payment, lack of training, rude customers, a workload filled

with repetitive tasks. Little staff service are the norm that consumers spend time to

find out the product, transport it to the check out, pay and carry out to their vehicles

(Siler, 1995).

24

As an advantage for superstores, they can use high technology. For example,

Carrefour has already installed Symbol's wireless and mobile computer solution to

enhance customer service, productivity and inventory management in more than 50

stores in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and China; Symbol is

set to deliver the Spectrum24-based solution to Carrefour stores in Thailand and

Korea. Consequently, by providing personalized attention and reducing customers’

wait time, retail stores can experience enchancements in operational efficiency and

brand logyalty. As this greatly improves the customer's overall experience,

organizations quickly reap the benefits (Editors, 1999).

Family-run stores are an extension of the style and customer service approach

of the owner. Usually they exhibit a strong loyalty to their stable of brands, which are

selected to sit alongside each other and appeal to the retailer's core customer. Family-

run stores offer a very personalised service to their customers. They will employ

service techniques such as preferred customer preview evenings, when new season

ranges are first available. Many will mailshot customers individually, pinpointing

specific brands and products. Because they are small (frequently one shop only),

service in the shop is specific to the customer, who is encouraged to enjoy and linger

over the shopping experience (Stern, 2008).

2.9 Social Cue and Store Environment

Hu and Jasper (2006) believed that store environment is a socially constructed

reality composed of both physical and social elements, and that the perception of a

store can be based on both physical and social cues. In a retail environment, social

meaning is usually conveyed through visual merchandising. Visual merchandising

involves a number of highly technical and artistic elements, such as color, texture,

lighting, mannequins, fixture, graphics, signage and so on (Pegler, 1998). So there is a

consensus that social cues in the store environment should include person-to-person

interactions as well as physical elements in the store environment that convey social

meaning. As a result, social cues have effect on examining store image. Several

studies have examined the effects of environmental elements such as color,

background music, and scent on store evaluation and patron behavior (Bellizzi,

Crowley, & Hasty, 1983; Bellizzi & Kite, 1992; Bruner, 1990; Milliman, 1982;

Spangenberg, Crowley, & Henderson, 1996).

25

Mittal and Lassar (1996) stated that the central focus of a store is the point of

sale. The sales transaction that occurs between salesperson and customer is the

defining social moment in a store's existence. The quality of this social encounter is

determined by how well a salesperson can interpret a customer's needs and interact in

a congenial manner. An enhanced interaction between the sales associate and

customer is referred to as personalization of service. Personalization is characterized

by an employee's politeness and courtesy, attempts to get to know customers as

individuals, and engagement in friendly conversation. Mittal and Lassar (1996) found

that personalization significantly influences customer evaluations of service quality;

and that consumers seek familiar, friendly service providers and retail salespeople.

Forman and Sriram (1991) suggested that lonely consumers in particular, are sensitive

to the depersonalization of the retail environment and are less likely to experience a

satisfactory shopping experience in a depersonalized service environment.

A market survey recently showed that 26 percent of consumers are often

persuaded by window displays to make a purchase; 15 percent of consumers use

seasonal product displays (e.g. Christmas, Valentine's Day) to reach purchase

decisions (Caine, 2003). Much as billboards of cigarettes and alcohol use social cues

to create a perception of social rewards that the consumer will feel desired enough to

step into a store and make a purchase (Bell & Ternus, 2002; Pegler, 1998). Consumer

affect toward a store is mainly described by two dimensions: pleasure-displeasure (the

degree to which the person feels good in the environment) and arousal-nonarousal

(the extent to which a person feels excited or stimulated) (Baker, Levy, & Grewal,

1992). The holistic view defines store image as the total impression a store makes on

the minds of its customers. Typically, a semantic differential scale such as good/bad,

favorable/unfavorable, or like/dislike is used (Yoo, Park, & Maclnnis, 1998).

26

2.10 Concepts and Theories

2.10.1 Perception.

Solomon and Stuart (2000) stated that Perception is the process by which

people select, organize, and interpret information from the outside world. People

receive information in the form of sensations by sensory receptors; eyes, ears, nose,

mouth and fingers. People interpret the sensations they receive by their past

experiences. The perception process is very important for marketers because it is

difficult even to make consumers notice their ads. Although consumers notice it, there

is no guarantee that they will perceive as marketers want. Therefore, marketers need

to care the whole process including exposure, perceptual selection and interpretation.

2.10.2 Marketing influences on consumer behavior.

Paul, James, and Donnelly (2001) stated that each element of marketing mix

can affect consumers in various ways as following:

1) Product Influences

The attributes of a product such as brand name, quality, complexity, packaging

and labeling information can affluence consumer behavior.

2) Price Influences

The price of product and services influences consumer behaviors. Higher

prices may not always discourage purchasing because consumers believe that the

products or services are higher quality. However, value-conscious consumers may

buy products more on the basis of price than other attributes.

3) Promotion Influences

Advertising, sales promotions, salespeople, and publicity can influence what

consumers think about products.

4) Place Influences

The marketer’s strategy for distributing products can influence consumers e.g.

convenient to buy, products sold in exclusive outlets offering products on Internet or

in catalogs.

27

2.10.3 Behaviors of Thai consumers.

Thais go shopping at malls, superstores and department stores as a form of

relaxation during their free times. Those stores are particularly crowded at the

beginning of the month just after salaries have been paid. Feeny, Vongpatanasin, and

Soonsatham (1996) found that Thai consumer behavior has also been dramatically

changed. Many now choose to shop in modern air-conditioned retail outlets with

friendly staffs and a wide variety of reasonably priced products that wouldn’t be out

of place in any developed nation.

2.10.4 Market dominance.

Depending on different kinds of industries, market dominance concepts

influence much or less on consumers’ perceptions to the particular industry.

Consumers suspect that they are offered the best price, quality and service if there is

market dominance. Mansri (2006) stated that an entrepreneur was said to have

“market dominance” once they achieved a market share of 33.33% or more and total

sales revenue greater than Baht 1,000 million. For the retail-wholesale industry:

• An entrepreneur will be considered to have market dominance if he has a

market share of 20% or more and total sales revenue greater than Baht

27,000 million.

• If three entrepreneurs have an aggregate market share of 33.33% or more

and total sales revenue greater than Baht 45,000 million, they will be

considered to have “market dominance”. However, if the market shares of

each entrepreneur is 10% or less; they will not be considered to have

“market dominance”.

2.10.5 Decision making process.

Decision making, particularly, on purchasing is important for marketer since

marketing strategy nowadays aims to satisfy customers. Marketers try to find out what

factors influence the decision making process of their target groups, then they can use

the factors to be benefits on their marketing plan. In general, the starting point of

decision making process is the recognition of a need. Need recognition may be

triggered by individual factors such as running out of or becoming discontented with

goods or services or may be prompted by external stimuli such as marketing activities.

28

The model proposes that if the need is sufficiently intense, person will search for

information on how to satisfy the need. Search behavior, the second stage in the

decision process, involves drawing on information stored in memory (internal search)

and, if necessary, gathering additional information from external source (external

search). As indicated in the left hand part of the model, a consumer’s information

processing mechanisms are called into play at this stage, particularly in relation to

external search activities during which an individual tries to make sense of the

incoming information within a personal frame of reference. The next stage of the

decision model is the evaluation of alternatives. It is a t this stage, that a consumer’s

beliefs about and attitudes towards products are formed or changed as an individual

identifies relevant evaluative criteria by which to compare various offerings in the

marketplace and assesses which best meet his or her requirements. The purchase and

the outcomes complete the decision process. Situational factors can influence

consumers at the point of purchases and there has been much interest in recent years

in how retail environments and point-of-scale material can be manipulated to

influence consumer behavior. Finally, a consumer does not cease to think about a

purchase once the transaction is complete. Rather, the individual continues to assess

whether the right choice was made and his or her evaluations of whether the product

meets expectations form the basis of satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Warner, 2002b).

29

Chapter 3

Methodology

This research is quantitatively designed using a survey questionnaire using

convenience sampling to collect primary data from customers who shopped in

business districts and urban areas in Bangkok.

3.1 Scope of Study

The study focused on residents in Bangkok, both in downtown and suburb

districts during March - April 2008. The survey questionnaires were mainly

distributed near around Big C Saphankwai, Chuktuchuk Weekend Market, The Mall

Bangkapi, Tesco Lotus Wang Sawang and Carrefour Rangsit.

3.2 Population and Sample Size

Population for this research is residents of Bangkok, which has population

figure of 5,726,203 in 2001 (Alpha Research Co. Ltd., 2003). Since the size of the

population is large, sample size was calculated using Yamane formula (Yamane,

1967). The significant level is accepted at 95 percent.

n = N / 1+N(e)2

Note: n = Sample size

N = Amount of population (5,726,203)

e = Significant level (0.05 or 0.01)

According to the equation, the sample size can be calculated as follows;

n = 5,726,203 / 1+5,726,203 (0.05)2

n = 399.9721 or 400 samples

Therefore, the researcher set up sample size of 400 samples for the

convenience sampling. This study is quantitative design and data were analyzed by

descriptive and inferential statistics methods, and one-way ANOVA was used to test

the null hypothesis.

30

3.3 Data Collecting Method

Secondary source data were collected from text books, past researches,

newspapers, journals, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and world-wide-web pages.

Primary source data were collected from questionnaire survey. The questionnaire for

this study was developed based upon concepts, theories and past research information.

Then, it was translated into Thai language. The questionnaire consists of 3 parts

including part 1: questions about demographic data of samples, part 2: questions

about shopping behaviors, part 3: questions about consumers’ attitude, and part 4;

asking about consumer satisfaction on marketing, business, economic and social

factors comparing between superstores and family-run stores which were classified

into 5 levels (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) following Likert’s scale interval as in Figure 2.1.

This study used Likert’s scale (Davis, 2005) to evaluate the respondents’

satisfaction and agreement level. The scale is highly reliable when it comes to the

ordering of people with regard to a particular attitude.

Formula: N-1/N

5-1/5 = 0.80

Figure 3.1 Table of Likert’s Scale

4.21 5.0 3.41 4.20 2.61 3.40 1.81 2.60 1.0 1.80 Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

31

3.4 Research Process

Figure 3.2 Research Process

There are 3 steps in this research process as the above figure illustrates. The

study program started with literature reviews. The second step is distributing survey

questionnaires to sample groups to collect primary data, and analyzing data collected

from questionnaires. Third step are conclusions and recommendations.

Document-based Research

Literature Reviews

Distribution of questionnaires to find out primary Sources

Analysis on data collected from questionnaire

Conclusions and Recommendations

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

32

Chapter 4

Research Analysis and Results

This chapter presents the analysis and the results from survey questionnaire

using SPSS program. The analysis process is presented as:

• Descriptive frequency statistics was used to describe and analyze all part

of questionnaire.

• One-way ANOVA was applied in SPSS program to test hypotheses.

Symbols of data analysis:

X = Mean

SD = Standard déviation T = t-Distribution

Sig. = Data valuable significance level of 0.005

4.1 Demographic Factors

Demographic factors were divided into 7 categories which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and location. Demographic

data of the respondents obtained from questionnaires was analyzed and presented in

the following tables.

4.1.1 Gender.

Table 4.1 Demographic Factors – Gender

Gender Frequency Percent Female 216 54 Male 184 46

Total 400 100

The results from Table 4.1 show that majority of respondents in this group are

female (216 respondents) accounted for 54% of the total respondents. The rest are 184

male respondents accounted for 46% of the total respondents.

33

4.1.2 Age.

Table 4.2 Demographic Factors – Age

Age Frequency Percent Under 20 years 17 4 20 – 25 years 115 29 26 -30 years 126 32 31 -40 years 88 22 41 -50 years 40 10 51 -60 years 13 3 Above 60 years 1 0.3

Total 400 100

Age was divided into 7 ranges which are under 20 years, 20 – 25 years, 26 –

30 years, 31 – 40 years, 41 – 50 years, 51 – 60 years and above 60 years. The results

of Table 4.2 reveal that the majority of the respondent is age between 26 – 30 years

(32%) follow by 20 – 25 years (29%), 31 – 40 years (22%), 41 – 50 years (10%),

under 20 years (4%), 51 – 60 years (3%) and above 60 years (0.3%) respectively.

4.1.3 Educational background.

Table 4.3 Demographic Factors – Educational Background

Education Frequency Percent Bachelor Degree 226 57 Doctor Degree 10 3 High School 49 12 Master Degree 61 15 Other 4 1 Under High School 22 5 Vocational School 28 7

Total 400 100

Education background was divided into 7 ranges which are under high school,

high school, vocational school, bachelor degree, master degree, doctorate degree and

other. The descriptive analysis results from Table 4.3 indicate that majority of the

respondent holds a bachelor degree (57%), follows by master degree (15%), high

school (12%), vocational school (7%), under high school (5%), doctor degree (2%)

and other (1%) respectively.

34

4.1.4 Occupation.

Table 4.4 Demographic Factors – Occupation

Occupation Frequency Percent Employee 239 60 Entrepreneur 29 7 Government Official 11 3 Housewife 26 6 Other 41 10 Professional 2 1 Student 52 13

Total 400 100

Occupation of the respondents was divided into 7 categories which are

student, housewife, professional, government official, employee, entrepreneur and

other. The occupation analysis Table 4.4 describes that the majority of respondent is

employee (60%), followed by student (13%), other (10%), entrepreneur (7%),

housewife (6%), government official (3%) and professional (1%) respectively.

4.1.5 Monthly income.

Table 4.5 Demographic Factors - Monthly Income

Monthly Income Frequency Percent Less than Bt 10,000 116 29 Bt 10,001 - Bt 15,000 84 21 Bt 15,001 - Bt 20,000 35 9 Bt 20,001 - Bt 30,000 85 21 Bt 30,001 - Bt 50,000 55 14 More than Bt 50,000 25 6

Total 400 100

Monthly income level was divided into 6 ranges which are less than Bt

10,000, Bt 10,001 – Bt 15,000, Bt 15,001 – Bt 20,000, Bt 20,001 – Bt 30,000, Bt

30,001 – Bt 50,000 and more than Bt 50,000. The results from Table 4.5 show that the

majority of respondent has income less than Bt 10,000 (29%), followed by Bt 20,001

– Bt 30,000 (21%), Bt 10,001 – Bt 15,000 (21%), Bt 30,001 – Bt 50,000 (14%), Bt

15,001 – Bt 20,000 (9%) and more than Bt 50,000 (6%) respectively.

35

4.1.6 Marital status.

Table 4.6 Demographic Factors - Marital Status

Marital Status Frequency Percent Divorce 4 1 Married 120 30 Single 276 69

Total 400 100

Marital status was divided into 3 statuses which are single, married, and

divorce. The results from Table 4.6 show that the majority of respondent is single

(69%), followed by married (30%) and divorce (1%) respectively.

4.1.7 Location.

Table 4.7 Demographic Factors – Location

Location Frequency Percent Central Part 159 40 Eastern Part 56 14 Northern Part 100 25 Western Part 85 21

Total 400 100

Location was divided into 4 parts which are central part (Ladprao,

Ratchadapisek, Saphankwai, Sukhunvit and Silom), eastern part (Ramindra,

Sukhapiban, Bangkapi, Hua Mark and Ekkamai), western part (Wang Sawang,

Tiwanon, Dao Kanong, Phethkasem and Rama ll) and northern part (Chaengwattana,

Rangsit, Bangk Khaen, Don Muang and Laksi). The results from Table 4.7 reveal that

the majority of the respondent stays in central part (40%), followed by northern part

(25%), western part (21%) and eastern part (14%) respectively.

36

4.2 Shopping Behavior

Shopping behavior characteristics of respondents obtained from questionnaires

were analyzed and presented in the following details. There are four behavioral

questions in this research.

4.2.1 Question 1: When do you go shopping?

Table 4.8 Shopping Reasons

Reason One Reason Two Reason Three

When do you go shopping?

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

ent

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

ent

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

ent

When I need to buy something 352* 88 0 0 0 0 When I have extra money 17 4 33 17 4 4 While I am on the way 3 1 84* 42 8 8 When I accompany friends 7 2 45 23 29 29 When I am free 16 4 30 15 49* 49 When I feel lonely 2 1 3 1.5 10 10 Other 3 1 3 1.5 0 0

Total 400 100

198 100

100 100

Note: * Maximum Point

In this question, there are 7 nominal variables that respondents can choose as

shopping reasons. They are: when the respondent needs to buy something, when the

respondent has extra money, while the respondent is on the way, when the respondent

accompanies friends, when the respondent is free, when the respondent feels lonely

and other. In this case, respondents were allowed to choose more than one shopping

reasons and the research analysis counted on maximum 3 reasons. There are 400

respondents expressing one shopping reason. The finding from Table 4.8 reveals that,

as reason one, majority of respondent shops when they need to buy something (88%),

followed by when they have extra money (4%), when they are free (4%), when they

accompany friends (2%), while they are on the way (1%), other (1%), and when they

feel lonely (1%) respectively.

There are 198 respondents expressing two shopping reasons. The finding from

Table 4.9 reveals that, as reason two, majority of respondent shops while they are on

the way (42%), followed by when they accompany friends (23%), when they have

37

extra money (17%), when they are free (15%), when they feel lonely (1.5%), and

other (1.5%) respectively.

There are 100 respondents expressing three shopping reasons. The finding

from Table 4.10 reveals that, as reason three, majority of respondent shops when they

are free (49%), followed by when they accompany friends (29%), when they feel

lonely (10%), while they are on the way (8%), and when they have extra money (4%)

respectively.

The results from Table 4.8 found that respondents will shop when they need to

buy something, while they are on the way and when they are free.

4.2.2 Question 2: How often do you go shopping within a month? Table 4.9 Frequency of Shopping Times

Family-run Store Superstore How often do you go shopping Within a month? Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

None 66 17 16 4 1 - 3 times 168* 42 298* 75 4 - 6 times 67 17 65 16 More than 6 times 99 24 21 5

Total 400 100 400 100

Note: * Maximum Point

In this question, there are 4 variables which are none, 1 - 3 times, 4 -.6 times,

and more than 6 times. In this case, respondents were asked to choose both family-run

store side and superstore side. The results from Table 4.9 reveal that the majority of

respondents shops at family-run store 1 – 3 times within a month (42%), followed by

more than 6 times (24 %), 4 – 6 times (17%), and do not shop at all (17%)

respectively. The majority of respondents shops at superstore 1 – 3 times within a

month (75%), followed by more than 4 - 6 times 16%, more than 6 times (5%), and

do not shop at all (4% ) respectively.

The results from Table 4.9 found that respondents go shopping maximum 1-3

times per month at both family-run store and superstores. Therefore, respondents go

shopping at family-run stores as much as at superstores.

38

4.2.3 Question 3: How long does a shopping time last?

Table 4.10 Frequency of Spending Shopping Time

Family-run Store Superstores How long does a shopping time last? Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

None 56 14 6 2 Less than 30 minutes 295* 74 36 9 30 minutes - one hour 32 8 185* 46 More than one hour 17 4 173 43

Total 400 100 400 100

Note: * Maximum Point

In this question, there are 4 variables which are none, less than 30 minutes, 30

minutes – one hour and more than one hour. In this case, respondents were asked to

choose both family-run store side and superstore side. The results from Table 4.12

reveal that the majority of respondent spends less than 30 minutes per shopping at

family-run store (74%), followed by do not spend any time (14%), spend 30 minutes –

one hour (8%), spend more than one hour (4 %) respectively. The majority of

respondent spends 30 minutes – one hour per shopping at superstore (46%), followed

by more than one hour (43), less than 30 minutes (9%), and do not spend any time

(2%) respectively.

The results from Table 4.10 found that majority of respondents spend less than

30 minutes per shopping at family-run store, but they spend 30 minutes – one hour at

superstores. Therefore, respondents spend more time at superstores than family-run

stores although frequencies of shopping times are the same.

4.2.4 Question 4: How much money do you generally spend per a

shopping? Table 4.11 Spending Amounts for a Shopping

Family-run Store Superstore How much money do you generally spend per a shopping? Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

None 49 12 2 1 Less than Bt 500 307* 77 50 12 Bt 500 - Bt 1000 34 8 226* 57 Bt 1001 - Bt 3000 9 2 102 25 More than Bt 3000 1 1 20 5

Total 400 100 400 100

Note: * Maximum Point

39

In this question, there are 5 variables which are none, less than Bt 500, Bt 500

– Bt 1000, Bt 1001 – Bt 3000 and more than Bt 3000. In this case, respondents were

asked for to choose both family-run store side and superstore side. The results from

table 4.13 reveal that the majority of respondent spend less than Bt 500 per shopping

at family-run stores (77%), followed by Bt 500 – Bt 1000 (8%), Bt 1001 – Bt 3000

(2%), more than Bt 3000 (1%), and nothing (12%) respectively. The majority of

respondent spends Bt 500 – Bt 1000 per shopping at superstore (57%), followed by Bt

1001 – Bt 3000 (25%), less than Bt 500 (12%), more than Bt 3000 (5%), and nothing

(1%) respectively.

The results from Table 4.11 found that majority of respondents spend less than

Bt 500 per shopping at family-run store while they spend Bt 500 – Bt 1000 at

superstores. Therefore, respondents spend more money at superstores than family-run

stores.

4.3 Attitudinal Statements

There are 12 attitudinal statements:

• Statement 1 I enjoy going shopping

• Statement 2 I know the difference between superstores and family-run

stores.

• Statement 3 Retail stores improve consumers’ life style

• Statement 4 Superstores and family-run stores are competing with each

other

• Statement 5 Superstores have negative effects to family-run stores

• Statement 6 I care that family-run stores are closed down because of

superstores

• Statement 7 I know that Thai government is restricting on superstore

expansion

• Statement 8 Government should restrict more on superstore expansion

• Statement 9 Government should allow free and fair competition

• Statement 10 Government should support family-run stores

• Statement 11 We don’t need superstores because family-run stores are

enough

• Statement 12 Superstores are essential for consumers in Bangkok

40

The researcher used Likert’s Scale to analyze and the interpretation of

attitudinal level is as in Table 4.14.

Table 4.12 Interpretation of Attitudinal Levels

Result Interpretation of Attitudinal Level

4.21 – 5.00 Strongly Agree 3.41 – 4.20 Agree 2.61 – 3.40 Neutral 1.81 – 2.60 Disagree 1.00 – 1.80 Strongly Disagree

Table 4.13 Interpretation of Consumer Attitudes towards Retail Stores

Attitudinal Statements SD Level

I enjoy going shopping 3.83 0.721 Agree I know the difference between superstores and family-run stores 4.06 0.629 Agree Retail stores improve consumers' life style 3.68 0.723 Agree Superstores and family-run stores are competing each other 3.63 1.037 Agree Superstores have negative effects to family-run stores 4.20 0.872 Agree I care that family-run stores are closed down because of superstores 3.86 1.032 Agree I know that government is restricting on superstore expansion 3.58 0.974 Agree Government should restrict more on superstore expansion 3.92 0.943 Agree Government should allow free and fair competition 3.24 1.140 Neutral Government should support family-run stores 3.99 0.851 Agree We don't need superstores because family-run stores are enough 2.97 0.967 Neutral Superstores are essential for consumers in Bangkok 3.77 0.773 Agree

Respondents rated on weighting levels which are strongly agree, agree,

neutral, disagree and strongly disagree for each statements. According to the collected

data, Frequency count for each attitudinal level and Mean ( X ) were analyzed by

using SPSS program. The statistical analysis results from Table 4.15 present that the

respondents agreed with the statements: superstores have negative effects to family-

run stores ( X = 4.20), they know the difference between superstores and family-run

stores ( X = 4.06), they care that family-run stores are closed down because of

superstores ( X = 3.86), they enjoy going shopping ( X = 3.83), retail stores improve

consumers’ life style ( X = 3.68), superstores and family-run stores are competing

each other ( X = 3.63), government should support family-run stores ( X = 3.99),

government should restrict more on superstore expansion ( X = 3.92), superstores are

essential for consumers in Bangkok ( X = 3.77) and they know that Thai government

X

41

is restricting on superstore expansion ( X = 3.58). Respondents neutrally agreed the

statements: government should allow free and fair competition ( X = 3.24) and they

don’t need superstores because family-run stores are enough ( X = 2.97).

4.4 Marketing and Business Factors

Consumer satisfaction level on marketing and business factors of superstores

and family-run stores are analyzed in this part. The researcher used Likert’s Scale to

analyze this case and the interpretation of satisfaction level is as in Table 4.14.

Table 4.14 Interpretation of Satisfaction Levels

Result Interpretation of Satisfaction Level

4.21 - 5.00 Very Satisfied 3.41 - 4.20 Satisfied 2.61 - 3.40 Neutral 1.81 - 2.60 Dissatisfied 1.00 - 1.80 Very Dissatisfied

Respondents rated on five satisfaction levels - very satisfied, satisfied, neutral,

dissatisfied, and very dissatisfaction for marketing and business factors. According to

the collected data, Frequency count for each satisfaction level, Mean ( X ) and

Standard Deviation (SD) were analyzed by SPSS program. After that, those Means

( X ) for each factor were interpreted as related level.

42

4.4.1 Product and price.

Table 4.15 Consumer Satisfaction Levels on Product and Price

Marketing Factors

Ver

y Sa

tisfie

d

Satis

fied

Neu

tral

Dis

satis

fied

Ver

y D

issa

tisfie

d

SD Level

Consumer Satisfaction on Product

Variety of products – SS 210 146 38 6 0 4.4 0.722 Very Satisfied

Variety of products – FS 18 85 211 71 8 3.09 0.810 Neutral

Quality of products – SS 85 210 89 8 5 3.91 0.791 Satisfied Quality of products – FS 18 125 219 30 4 3.31 0.720 Neutral Fresh and healthy food – SS 95 188 88 21 6 3.87 0.889 Satisfied

Fresh and healthy food – FS 22 104 206 56 8 3.19 0.820 Neutral Traditional & handmade products – SS 27 106 191 55 21 3.16 0.927 Neutral Traditional & handmade products – FS 26 102 185 59 13 3.18 0.891 Neutral

Consumer Satisfaction on Price Reasonable Price – SS 71 207 104 16 2 3.82 0.783 Satisfied Reasonable Price – FS 17 122 202 36 11 3.25 2.216 Neutral

Stable Price – SS 43 171 149 31 3 3.55 0.817 Satisfied Stable Price – FS 31 110 197 45 8 3.28 0.847 Neutral

Note: SS refers to Superstore FS refers to Family-run Store

The statistical analysis results from Table 4.15 state that respondents were

very satisfied ( X = 4.40) on superstore and neutral ( X = 3.09) on family-run store for

variety of products, satisfied ( X = 3.91) on superstore and neutral ( X = 3.31) on

family-run store for quality of products, satisfied ( X = 3.87) on superstore and neutral

( X = 3.19) on family-run store for fresh and healthy food, neutral ( X = 3.16) on

superstore and neutral ( X = 3.18) on family-run store for traditional & handmade

products, satisfied ( X = 3.82) on superstore and neutral ( X = 3.25) on family-run

stores for reasonable price, and satisfied ( X = 3.55) on superstore and neutral ( X =

3.28) on family-run store for stable price.

It could be summarized that respondents were very satisfied with more

product variety, and satisfied with quality of products, freshness and healthy food,

traditional & handmade products in superstores than those products in family run

stores. Regarding pricing, the customers felt that prices in superstores are more

reasonable and more stable than in family-run stores.

X

43

4.4.2 Place.

Table 4.16 Consumer Satisfaction Levels on Place

Marketing Factors

Ver

y Sa

tisfie

d

Satis

fied

Neu

tral

Dis

satis

fied

Ver

y D

issa

tisfie

d

SD Level

Consumer Satisfaction on Place Easily reachable location – SS 94 186 94 17 4 3.88 0.853 Satisfied

Easily reachable location – FS 102 154 106 32 1 3.82 0.918 Satisfied

Car parking space and service – SS 143 176 67 12 2 4.12 0.824 Satisfied

Car parking space and service – FS 15 70 161 120 30 2.8 0.946 Neutral

Cleanness of the store – SS 100 216 73 10 1 4.01 0.746 Satisfied

Cleanness of the store – FS 22 96 197 72 9 3.13 0.850 Neutral Quality of facility & equipment – SS 103 208 76 13 0 4 0.761 Satisfied

Quality of facility & equipment – FS 11 78 197 98 12 2.94 0.822 Neutral

Product placement – SS 114 197 66 22 1 4 0.833 Satisfied

Product placement – FS 4 101 193 90 7 3.01 0.772 Neutral

Toilet Service – SS 109 185 76 23 7 3.92 0.919 Satisfied

Toilet Service – FS 5 49 130 126 84 2.4 0.997 Dissatisfied

Note: SS refers to Superstore FS refers to Family-run Store

The statistical analysis results from Table 4.16 state that respondents were

satisfied ( X = 3.88) on superstore and satisfied ( X = 3.82) on family-run store for

easily reachable location, satisfied ( X = 4.12) on superstore and neutral ( X = 2.80)

on family-run store for car parking space & service, satisfied ( X = 4.01) on

superstore and neutral ( X = 3.13) on family-run store for cleanness of the store,

satisfied ( X = 4.00) on superstore and neutral ( X = 2.94) on family-run store for

quality of facility & equipment, satisfied ( X = 4.00) on superstore and neutral ( X =

3.01) on family-run store for product placement, and satisfied ( X = 3.92) on

superstore and dissatisfied on family-run store for toilet service.

It could be summarized that respondents were satisfied more on easily

reachable locations, parking space and services, cleanness of the store, quality of

facility & equipment product placement, and toilet service in superstores than in

family-run stores.

X

44

4.4.3 Promotion.

Table 4.17 Consumer Satisfaction Levels on Promotion

Marketing Factors

Ver

y Sa

tisfie

d

Satis

fied

Neu

tral

Dis

satis

fied

Ver

y D

issa

tisfie

d

SD Level

Consumer Satisfaction on Promotion Offering discount – SS 101 206 83 10 0 4 0.749 Satisfied

Offering discount – FS 4 73 214 77 26 2.88 0.820 Neutral

Occasional gift for consumer – SS 71 180 133 14 1 3.77 0.788 Satisfied

Occasional gift for consumer – FS 5 65 192 108 21 2.81 0.821 Neutral

Advertisement – SS 72 187 119 21 1 3.77 0.812 Satisfied

Advertisement – FS 10 66 191 84 39 2.81 0.923 Neutral

Note: SS refers to Superstore FS refers to Family-run Store

The statistical analysis results from Table 4.17 state that respondents were

satisfied with discount offering ( X = 4.00) in superstore and neutral ( X = 2.88) in

family-run store, satisfied with occasional gift offering ( X = 3.77) in superstore and

neutral ( X = 2.81) in family-run store, satisfied with advertisement ( X = 3.77) in

superstore and neutral ( X = 2.81) in family-run store.

It could be summarized that respondents were more satisfied on promotion

factors, offering discount, occasional gift for consumer and advertisement in

superstores than in family-run stores.

X

45

4.4.4 Business factors.

Table 4.18 Consumer Satisfaction Levels on Business Factors

Business Factors

Ver

y Sa

tisfie

d

Satis

fied

Neu

tral

Dis

satis

fied

Ver

y D

issa

tisfie

d

SD Level

Information service – SS 92 215 84 7 2 3.97 0.745 Satisfied

Information service – FS 11 64 180 98 43 2.75 0.946 Neutral

Sales service – SS 69 206 108 16 1 3.82 0.770 Satisfied

Sales service – FS 16 87 203 67 23 3.02 0.886 Neutral

Problem solving ability – SS 44 154 164 27 9 3.49 0.863 Satisfied

Problem solving ability – FS 11 59 205 82 35 2.82 0.893 Neutral

Management ability – SS 55 216 116 12 1 3.78 0.723 Satisfied

Management ability – FS 2 70 219 77 25 2.87 0.795 Neutral

Note: SS refers to Superstore FS refers to Family-run Store

The statistical analysis results from Table 4.18 state that respondents were

satisfied ( X = 3.97) on superstore and neutral ( X = 2.75) on family-run store for

information service, satisfied ( X = 3.82) on superstore and neutral ( X = 3.02) on

family-run store for sales service, satisfied ( X = 3.49) on superstore and neutral ( X =

2.82) on family-run store for problem solving ability, and satisfied ( X = 3.78) on

superstore and neutral ( X = 2.87) on family-run store for management ability.

It could be summarized that respondents were more satisfied on information

service, sales service, problem solving ability and management ability in superstores

than in family-run stores.

X

46

4.5 Economic and Social Factors

Respondents rated on five perception weighting levels by Likert’s scales

which are very high, high, rather high, low and very low for economic and social

factors. According to the collected data, frequency count for each satisfaction level,

Mean ( X ) and Standard Deviation (SD) were analyzed by SPSS program.

Table 4.19 Interpretation of Perception Weighting Levels Result Interpretation of Perception Weighting Level

4.21 – 5.00 Very High 3.41 – 4.20 High 2.61 – 3.40 Rather High 1.81 – 2.60 Normal 1.00 – 1.80 Low

4.5.1 Economic factors.

Table 4.20 Consumer Perception on Economic Factors

Economic Factors

Ver

y H

igh

Hig

h

Rat

her

Hig

h

Nor

mal

Low

SD Level

Benefiting local economy – SS 60 153 136 38 13 3.52 0.968 High

Benefiting local economy – FS 34 138 158 56 8 3.34 0.897 Rather High

Benefiting consumers – SS 72 198 111 16 3 3.8 0.804 High

Benefiting consumers – FS 37 151 156 45 7 3.42 0.875 High

Creating employment – SS 106 191 77 20 5 3.93 0.877 High

Creating employment – FS 13 63 174 95 50 2.73 0.984 Rather High

Giving tax to government – SS 64 203 108 25 0 3.76 0.791 High

Giving tax to government – FS 22 70 198 91 15 2.98 0.884 Rather High Follow government regulation – SS 63 156 128 47 5 3.56 0.935 High

Follow government regulation – FS 15 90 187 76 26 2.98 0.916 Rather High

Note: SS refers to Superstore FS refers to Family-run Store

X

47

The statistical analysis results from Table 4.20 state that respondents rated

high ( X = 3.52) on superstore and rather high ( X = 3.34) on family-run store for

benefiting to local economy, high ( X = 3.80) on superstore and also high ( X = 3.42)

on family-run store for benefiting to local consumers, high ( X = 3.93) on superstores\

and neutral ( X = 2.73) on family-run store for creating employment, high ( X = 3.76)

on superstore and rather high ( X = 2.98) on family-run store for paying tax to

government, and high ( X = 3.56) on superstore and rather high ( X = 2.98) on family-

run stores for follow government rules and regulations.

It could be summarized that respondents perceived that superstores created

more benefit economically than family-run stores. They perceived that the superstores

benefit the local economy and consumers, creating employment, paying more tax to

the government, and those superstores were more disciplined than family-run stores in

following the government rules and regulations.

4.5.2 Social factors.

Table 4.21 Consumer Perception on Social Factors

Social Factors

Ver

y H

igh

Hig

h

Rat

her

Hig

h

Nor

mal

Low

SD Level

Social activities – SS 53 177 131 29 10 3.58 0.897 High

Social activities – FS 11 61 180 92 46 2.74 0.955 Rather High

Humanitarian aid – SS 44 158 138 50 9 3.45 0.925 High

Humanitarian aid – FS 9 62 180 103 42 2.73 0.928 Rather High

Care about local culture – SS 37 127 169 53 14 3.3 0.934 Rather High

Care about local culture – FS 23 83 172 91 28 2.95 0.976 Rather High

Care about labor right – SS 44 134 177 40 5 3.43 0.861 High

Care about labor right – FS 13 58 175 109 39 2.74 0.941 Rather High

Environmental safety – SS 44 122 150 64 14 3.3 0.987 Rather High

Environmental safety – FS 15 51 179 109 39 2.73 0.941 Rather High

Note: SS refers to Superstore FS refers to Family-run Store

The statistical analysis results from Table 4.21 state that respondents rated as

high ( X = 3.58) on superstore and rather high ( X = 2.74) on family-run store for their

contributions to social activities, high ( X = 3.45) on superstore and rather high ( X =

X

48

2.73) on family-run store for contribution to humanitarian aid, high ( X = 3.30) on

superstore and neutral ( X = 2.95) on family-run store for care about local culture,

high ( X = 3.43) on superstore and rather high ( X = 2.74) on family-run store for Care

about labor right, and high ( X = 3.30) on superstore and rather high ( X = 2.73) on

family-run store for care about environmental safety. In this analysis, researcher

found that respondents rated as high level on superstore and rather high level for

family-run store for all social factors.

It could be summarized that respondents were more satisfied with superstores

than family-run stores in regard to contributions to the society. The groups were

satisfied with social activities done by superstores including humanitarian aid;

preserving local culture, caring about labor rights, and in social responsibility.

49

4.6 Testing Hypotheses

This study employed one-way ANOVA to test hypotheses using SPSS

program. According to significance levels from one-way ANOVA test, the results

were accepted or rejected at significance level 0.05.

4.6.1 Hypothesis 1: Relationship between demographic and marketing

factors.

H01: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have no

different perceptions on marketing factors between superstores and family-run stores.

H1: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have

different perceptions on marketing factors between superstores and family-run stores.

Table 4.22 Relationship between Demographic Factors and Product

Significant Level

Marketing Factor

(Product)

Stor

es

Gen

der

Age

Edu

catio

n

Occ

upat

ion

Inco

me

Mar

ital

Loc

atio

n

SS 0.245 0.196 0.000** 0.034* 0.114 0.132 0.335

Variety of products FS 0.345 0.437 0.226 0.003* 0.051 0.262 0.512

SS 0.587 0.037* 0.168 0.537 0.136 0.468 0.986 Quality of products FS 0.246 0.607 0.007* 0.282 0.090 0.488 0.950

SS 0.176 0.152 0.012* 0.035* 0.146 0.959 0.504

Fresh & healthy food FS 0.924 0.661 0.265 0.028* 0.247 0.902 0.680

SS 0.622 0.008* 0.022* 0.211 0.001* 0.719 0.220 Traditional products FS 0.615 0.150 0.002* 0.293 0.073 0.033* 0.101

Note: SS refers to Superstore

FS refers to Family-run Store

* Significant at 0.05 level

** Significant at 0.00 level

50

The results from Table 4.22 reveal that consumers with different education

background and occupation have different perceptions on variety of products in

superstores (Sig. at 0.000 and 0.034 respectively). In the mean time, consumers with

different occupation have different perceptions on variety of products in family-run

stores (Sig. at 0.003). Therefore, consumers with different demographic background

have different perceptions on variety of products between superstores and family-run

stores.

The results from Table 4.22 reveal that consumers with different age have

different perceptions on quality of products in superstores (Sig. at 0.037). In the mean

times, consumers with different education background have different perceptions on

quality of products in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.007). Therefore, consumers with

different demographic background have different perceptions on quality of products

between superstores and family-run stores.

The results from Table 4.22 reveal that consumers with different education

background and occupation have different perceptions on fresh and healthy food in

superstores (Sig. at 0.012 and 0.035 respectively). In the mean time, consumers with

different occupation have different perceptions on fresh and healthy food in family-

run stores (Sig. at 0.028). Therefore, consumers with different demographic

background have different perceptions on fresh and healthy food between superstores

and family-run stores.

The results from Table 4.22 reveal that consumers with different age,

education background and income have different perceptions on traditional products

in superstores (Sig. at 0.008, 0.022 and 0.001 respectively). Consumers with different

education background and marital status have different perceptions on traditional

products in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.002 and 0.033 respectively). Therefore,

consumers with different demographic background have different perceptions on

traditional products between superstores and family-run stores.

According to the results from Table 4.22, consumers with different

demographic background have different perceptions on product between superstores

and family-run stores.

51

Table 4.23 Relationship between Demographic Factors and Price

Significant Level

Marketing Factor

(Price) Stor

es

Gen

der

Age

Edu

catio

n

Occ

upat

ion

Inco

me

Mar

ital

Loc

atio

n

Reasonable price SS 0.161 0.000** 0.074 0.417 0.670 0.855 0.992 FS 0.293 0.635 0.571 0.930 0.807 0.332 0.272

SS 0.829 0.103 0.141 0.374 0.006* 0.447 0.248 Stable price FS 0.731 0.217 0.095 0.248 0.049* 0.059 0.840

Note: SS refers to Superstore

FS refers to Family-run Store

* Significant at 0.05 level

** Significant at 0.00 level

The results from Table 4.23 reveal that consumers with different age have

different perceptions on reasonable price only in superstores (Sig. at 0.000).

Therefore, consumers with different demographic background have different

perceptions on reasonable price between superstores and family-run stores. The

results from Table 4.23 also reveal that consumers with different income level have

different perceptions on stable price in superstores (Sig. at 0.006) and of family-run

stores (Sig. at 0.043). Therefore, consumers with different demographic background

have different perceptions on stable price between superstores and family-run stores.

According to the results from Table 4.23, consumers with different

demographic background have different perceptions on price between superstores and

family-run stores.

52

Table 4.24 Relationship between Demographic Factors and Place

Significant Level

Marketing Factor

(Place) Stor

es

Gen

der

Age

Edu

catio

n

Occ

upat

ion

Inco

me

Mar

ital

Loc

atio

n

SS 0.834 0.095 0.107 0.000** 0.001* 0.606 0.016*

Reachable location FS 0.976 0.000** 0.000** 0.284 0.110 0.147 0.006*

SS 0.111 0.383 0.520 0.011* 0.750 0.104 0.065 Car parking space FS 0.941 0.252 0.000** 0.000** 0.001* 0.637 0.144

SS 0.991 0.292 0.765 0.311 0.639 0.903 0.353

Cleanness of store FS 0.753 0.256 0.095 0.002* 0.002* 0.935 0.014*

SS 0.493 0.133 0.911 0.005* 0.543 0.341 0.919 Quality of facility FS 0.309 0.142 0.036* 0.038* 0.042* 0.971 0.067

SS 0.656 0.057 0.027* 0.064 0.945 0.843 0.573

Product placement FS 0.019* 0.248 0.181 0.023* 0.274 0.263 0.006*

SS 0.032* 0.549 0.604 0.029* 0.254 0.521 0.300 Toilet Service FS 0.971 0.197 0.002* 0.031* 0.003* 0.394 0.686

Note: SS refers to Superstore

FS refers to Family-run Store

* Significant at 0.05 level

** Significant at 0.00 level

The results from Table 4.24 reveal that consumers with different occupation,

income level and location have different perceptions on reachable location in

superstores (Sig. at 0.000, 0.001 and 0.016 respectively). In the mean time, consumers

with different age, education background and location have different perceptions on

reachable location in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.000, 0.000 and 0.006 respectively).

Therefore, consumers with different demographic background have different

perceptions on reachable location between superstores and family-run stores.

The results from Table 4.24 reveal that consumers with different occupation

have different perceptions on car parking space of superstores (Sig. at 0.011). In the

mean time, consumers with different education background, occupation and income

have different perception on car parking space in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.000,

53

0.000 and 0.001 respectively). Therefore, consumers with different demographic

background have different perceptions on car parking space between superstores and

family-run stores. The result from Table 4.24 also reveals that consumers with

different occupation and income have different perceptions on cleanness of store only

in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.002 and 0.002 respectively). Therefore, consumers with

different demographic background have different perceptions on cleanness of store

between superstores and family-run stores.

The results from Table 4.24 reveal that consumers with different occupation

have different perceptions on quality of facility in superstores (Sig. at 0.05). In the

mean time, consumers with different education background, occupation and income

have different perceptions on quality of facility in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.036,

0.038 and 0.042 respectively). Therefore, consumers with different demographic

background have different perceptions on quality of facility between superstores and

family-run stores. The results from Table 4.24 also reveal that consumers with

different education background have different perceptions on product placement in

superstores (Sig. at 0.027). In the mean time, consumers with different gender status,

occupation and location have different perceptions on product placement in family-

run stores (Sig. at 0.019, 0.023 and 0.006 respectively). Therefore, consumers with

different demographic background have different perceptions on product placement

between superstores and family-run stores.

The results from Table 4.25 reveal that consumers with different gender status

and occupation have different perceptions on toilet service in superstores (Sig. at

0.032 and 0.029 respectively). In the mean time, consumers with different education

background, occupation and income have different perceptions on toilet service in

family-run stores (Sig. at 0.002, 0.031 and 0.003 respectively). Therefore, consumers

with different demographic background have different perceptions on toilet service

between superstores and family-run stores.

According to the results from Table 4.24, consumers with different

demographic background have different perceptions on place between superstores and

family-run stores.

54

Table 4.25 Relationship between Demographic Factors and Promotion

Significant Level

Marketing Factor

(Promotion) Stor

es

Gen

der

Age

Edu

catio

n

Occ

upat

ion

Inco

me

Mar

ital

Loc

atio

n

SS 0.665 0.135 0.000** 0.398 0.060 0.854 0.025*

Discount FS 0.581 0.000** 0.130 0.454 0.053 0.065 0.322

SS 0.678 0.028* 0.008* 0.354 0.190 0.027* 0.205 Occasional Gift FS 0.978 0.518 0.002* 0.605 0.045* 0.003* 0.330

SS 0.104 0.835 0.015* 0.078 0.013* 0.929 0.453

Advertisement FS 0.982 0.209 0.019* 0.035* 0.635 0.023* 0.651

Note: SS refers to Superstore

FS refers to Family-run Store

* Significant at 0.05 level

** Significant at 0.00 level

The results from Table 4.25 reveal that consumers with different education

background and location have different perceptions on offering discount in

superstores (Sig. at 0.000 and 0.025 respectively). In the mean time, consumers with

different age have different perceptions on offering discount in family-run stores (Sig.

at 0.000). Therefore, consumers with different demographic background have

different perceptions on offering discount between superstores and family-run stores.

The results from Table 4.25 reveal that consumers with different age,

education background and marital status have different perceptions on occasional gift

in superstores (Sig. at 0.028, 0.008 and 0.027 respectively). In the mean time,

consumers with different education background, income and marital status have

different perceptions on occasional gift in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.002, 0.045 and

0.003 respectively). Therefore, consumers with different demographic background

have different perceptions on occasional gift between superstores and family-run

stores.

The results from Table 4.25 reveal that consumers with different educational

background and income have different perceptions about advertisements in

superstores (Sig. at 0.015 and 0.013 respectively). In the mean time, consumers with

55

different education background, occupation and marital Status have different

perceptions on advertisement in family-run store (Sig. at 0.019, 0.035 and 0.023

respectively). Therefore, consumers with different demographic background have

different perceptions about advertisements between superstores and family-run stores.

According to the results from Table 4.25, consumers with different

demographic background have different perceptions on promotion between

superstores and family-run stores.

Therefore, the testing results Table 4.22, Table 4.23, Table 4.24 and Table

4.25 show that marketing factors (product, price, place and promotion) rejected null

hypothesis (H01) and accepted alternative hypothesis (H1). Therefore, consumers

with different demographic factors which are gender, age, education, occupation,

monthly income, marital status and resident place have different perceptions on

marketing factors between superstores and family-run stores.

56

4.6.2 Hypothesis 2: Relationship between demographic and business

factors.

H02: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have no

different perceptions on business factors between superstores and family-run stores.

H2: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have

different perceptions on business factors between superstores and family-run stores.

Table 4.26 Relationship between Demographic and Business Factors

Significant Level

Business Factor

Stor

es

Gen

der

Age

Edu

catio

n

Occ

upat

ion

Inco

me

Mar

ital

Loc

atio

n

SS 0.183 0.611 0.074 0.881 0.120 0.383 0.089

Information service FS 0.786 0.142 0.067 0.005* 0.005* 0.301 0.199

SS 0.020* 0.459 0.330 0.201 0.306 0.076 0.463 Sales service FS 0.864 0.048* 0.969 0.881 0.266 0.769 0.053

SS 0.772 0.129 0.355 0.087 0.548 0.035* 0.973

Complain FS 0.006* 0.127 0.145 0.008* 0.228 0.242 0.739

SS 0.367 0.367 0.749 0.104 0.533 0.184 0.488

Management ability FS 0.105 0.001* 0.020* 0.201 0.000** 0.027* 0.007*

Note: SS refers to Superstore

FS refers to Family-run Store

* Significant at 0.05 level

** Significant at 0.00 level

The results from Table 4.26 reveal that consumers with different occupation

and income have different perceptions on information service only in family-run

stores (Sig. at 0.005 and 0.005 respectively). Therefore, consumers with different

demographic background have different perceptions on information service between

superstores and family-run stores. The results from Table 4.26 also reveal that

consumers with different gender status have different perceptions on sales service in

57

superstores (Sig. at 0.020). In the mean time, consumers with different age have

different perceptions on sales service of family-run stores (Sig. at 0.048). Therefore,

consumers with different demographic background have different perceptions on sales

service between superstores and family-run stores.

The results from Table 4.26 reveal that consumers with different marital status

have different perceptions on complain and problem solving ability in superstores

(Sig. at 0.035). In the mean time, consumers with different gender status and

occupation have different perceptions on complain and problem solving ability in

family-run stores (Sig. at 0.006 and 0.008 respectively). Therefore, consumers with

different demographic background have different perceptions on complain and

problem solving ability between superstores and family-run stores. The results from

Table 4.26 also reveal that consumers with different age, education background,

income, marital status and location have different perceptions on management ability

only in family-run store (Sig. at 0.001, 0.020, 0.000, 0.027 and 0.007 respectively).

Therefore, consumers with different demographic background have different

perceptions on management ability between superstores and family-run stores.

All testing results from Table 4.26 show that business factors rejected null

hypothesis (H02) and accepted alternative hypothesis (H2). Therefore, consumers

with different demographic factors which are gender, age, education, occupation,

monthly income, marital status and resident place have different perceptions on

business factors between superstores and family-run stores.

58

4.6.3 Hypothesis 3: Relationship between demographic and economic

factors.

H03: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have no

different perceptions on economic factors between superstores and family-run stores.

H3: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have

different perceptions on economic factors between superstores and family-run stores.

Table 4.27 Relationship between Demographic and Economic Factors

Significant Level

Economic Factor

Stor

es

Gen

der

Age

Edu

catio

n

Occ

upat

ion

Inco

me

Mar

ital

Loc

atio

n

SS 0.153 0.003* 0.066 0.025* 0.020* 0.049* 0.194

Benefit economy FS 0.497 0.016* 0.011* 0.184 0.220 0.427 0.360

SS 0.295 0.418 0.856 0.034* 0.407 0.149 0.407 Benefit consumers FS 0.512 0.216 0.574 0.888 0.876 0.969 0.002*

SS 0.219 0.001* 0.000** 0.000** 0.707 0.272 0.149 Create employment FS 0.421 0.086 0.282 0.120 0.053 0.104 0.648

SS 0.530 0.089 0.180 0.645 0.050* 0.032* 0.656 Giving tax FS 0.931 0.777 0.074 0.588 0.642 0.144 0.015*

SS 0.256 0.071 0.132 0.198 0.020* 0.759 0.005* Follow regulations FS 0.428 0.145 0.239 0.180 0.852 0.634 0.331

Note: SS refers to Superstore

FS refers to Family-run Store

* Significant at 0.05 level

** Significant at 0.00 level

The results from Table 4.27 reveal that consumers with different age,

occupation, income, and marital status have different perceptions on benefiting local

economy in superstores (Sig. at 0.003, 0.025, 0.020 and 0.049 respectively). In the

mean time, consumers with different age and education background have different

59

perceptions on benefiting local economy in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.016 and 0.011

respectively). Therefore, consumers with different demographic background have

different perceptions on benefiting local economy between superstores and family-run

stores. The results from Table 4.27 also reveal that consumers with different

occupation have different perceptions on benefiting local consumers in superstores

(Sig. at 0.034). In the mean time, consumers with different location have different

perceptions on benefiting local consumers in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.002).

Therefore, consumers with different demographic background have different

perceptions on benefiting local consumers between superstores and family-run stores.

The results from Table 4.27 reveal that consumers with different age,

education background and occupation have different perceptions on creating

employment only in superstores (Sig. at 0.001, 0.000, and 0.000 respectively).

Therefore, consumers with different demographic background have different

perceptions on creating employment between superstores and family-run stores. The

results from Table 4.27 also reveal that consumers with different income and marital

status have different perceptions on giving tax in superstores (Sig. at 0.05 and 0.032

respectively). In the mean time, consumers with different location have different

perceptions on giving tax in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.015). Therefore, consumers

with different demographic background have different perceptions on giving tax

between superstores and family-run stores.

The results from Table 4.27 reveal that consumers with different income and

location have different perceptions on following government rules and regulations

only of superstores (Sig. at 0.020 and 0.005 respectively). Therefore, consumers with

different demographic background have different perception on following government

rules and regulations between superstores and family-run stores.

The results from Table 4.27 rejected H03 and accepted H3 which stated that

consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age, education,

occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have different

perceptions on economic factors between superstores and family-run stores.

60

4.6.4 Hypothesis 4: Relationship between demographic and social factors.

H04: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have no

different perceptions on social factors between superstores and family-run stores.

H4: Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age,

education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have

different perceptions on social factors between superstores and family-run stores.

Table 4.28 Relationship between Demographic and Social Factors

Significant Level

Social Factors

Stor

es

Gen

der

Age

Edu

catio

n

Occ

upat

ion

Inco

me

Mar

ital

Loc

atio

n

SS 0.096 0.125 0.586 0.347 0.078 0.602 0.722

Social Activities FS 0.376 0.041* 0.466 0.094 0.014* 0.017* 0.013*

SS 0.233 0.146 0.114 0.129 0.066 0.196 0.967 Humanitarian aid FS 0.283 0.129 0.576 0.312 0.061 0.048* 0.112

SS 0.013* 0.049* 0.017* 0.143 0.002* 0.864 0.738 Local culture FS 0.645 0.441 0.507 0.216 0.658 0.067 0.020*

SS 0.055 0.440 0.013* 0.086 0.001* 0.848 0.526 Labor, human right FS 0.980 0.018* 0.399 0.147 0.759 0.015* 0.579

SS 0.475 0.966 0.567 0.310 0.291 0.806 0.813 Environment Safety FS 0.950 0.003* 0.224 0.014* 0.656 0.006* 0.577

Note: SS refers to Superstore

FS refers to Family-run Store

* Significant at 0.05 level

** Significant at 0.00 level

The results from Table 4.28 reveal that consumers with different age, income,

marital status and location have different perceptions on contribution to social

activities only in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.041, 0,014, 0.017 and 0.013

respectively). Therefore, consumers with different demographic background have

different perceptions on contribution to social activities between superstores and

61

family-run stores. The results from Table 4.28 also reveal that consumers with

different marital status have different perceptions on contribution to humanitarian aid

only in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.048). Therefore, consumers with different

demographic background have different perceptions on contribution to humanitarian

aid between superstores and family-run stores.

The results from Table 4.28 reveal that consumers with different gender, age,

education background and income have different perceptions on care about local

culture in superstores (Sig. at 0.013, 0.049, 0.017 and 0.002 respectively). In the mean

time, consumers with different location have different perception on care about local

culture in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.020). Therefore, consumers with different

demographic background have different perceptions on care about local culture

between superstores and family-run stores.

The results from Table 4.28 reveal that consumers with different education

background and income have different perceptions on care about labor right and

human right in superstores (Sig. at 0.013 and 0.001 respectively). In the mean time,

consumers with different age and marital status have different perceptions on care

about labor right and human right in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.018 and 0.15

respectively). Therefore, consumers with different demographic background have

different perceptions on care about labor right and human right between superstores

and family-run stores. The results from Table 4.28 also reveal that consumers with

different age, occupation and marital status have different perceptions on care about

environmental safety only in family-run stores (Sig. at 0.003, 0,014 and 0.006

respectively). Therefore, consumers with different demographic background have

different perceptions on care about environmental safety between superstores and

family-run stores.

The results from Table 4.28 rejected H04 and accepted H4 which stated that

consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age, education,

occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have different

perceptions on social factors between superstores and family-run stores.

62

Chapter 5

Conclusions, Discussions and Recommendations

5.1 Summary of the Study

This study on consumer perception towards retail stores was accomplished by

approving hypotheses structured from the conceptual framework which focus a broad

sense on marketing, business, economic and social factors. A literature review was

also carried including past research, concepts and current issues concerned with

superstores and family-run stores. Literature review described the expansion of

superstores (Big C, Carrefour and Tesco Lotus) in Thailand. Besides that it

emphasized on the conflicts between retailers, wholesalers and international giants.

Government regulations for retail industry were also described. Local retailers and

wholesalers asked for government restrictions on superstores and intervention on

retail industry. Therefore, the Thai government made some restrictions on superstores,

but it also tried to create free and fair business practices to benefit ultimate

consumers.

The researcher used qualitative methods to approach a wide scope of

consumer perceptions. 400 sample people were randomly picked up from central,

northern, western and eastern parts of Bangkok. The respondents’ gender status is

nearly equal (210 female and 178 male). The majority of the respondents are 25 – 30

year old and 20 – 25 year old (126 and 115 respectively). Most of the respondents are

singles, bachelor degree holders and employees. The majority of the respondents earn

under Bt 10,000 per month.

The descriptive analyses of shopping behavior also revealed that majority of

respondents shopped when they need to buy something, while they are on the way and

when they are free. So the outcomes can not be assumed that consumers would shop

when they have extra money. The results from Table 4.9 and Table 4.10 found that

respondents spent more time at superstores than family-run stores although

frequencies of shopping times are the same. Consequently, the results from Table 4.11

found that respondents spent more money at superstores than family-run stores.

Spending more time might make respondents spent more money visa versa. So,

superstores could sell more and can make more profit that have negative affect on

family-run stores and the study can agree with what Jitpleecheep (2008b) said that,

63

about 300,000 small local family-run stores closed down their business in Thailand in

the past decade because of superstores.

5.2 Findings from Attitudinal Statements

According to the analysis results from attitudinal statements, respondents

enjoyed shopping. They believed that retail stores made consumers’ shopping more

convenient and improved. They knew that superstores and family-run stores compete

with each other by which they could obtain more benefit. They were aware of family-

run stores closed down because of superstores, and they have concerns on that.

Therefore, respondents wanted government’s intervention in the retail industry. They

wanted government to make more restrictions on superstores. However, they

preferred free and fair competition in retail store business. On the other hand, they felt

that government should support and helped family-run stores more. Finally, they

perceived that superstores are essential for consumers and family-run stores are not

enough for consumers in Bangkok.

Respondents were very satisfied with product variety in superstores, but they

were not dissatisfied in family-run stores. Respondents were more satisfied with

product quality in superstores than in family-run stores. However, they were neither

satisfied nor dissatisfied with traditional and handmade products both in superstores

and family-run stores. Respondents were perceived that the prices in superstores are

more reasonable and stable than prices in family-run stores. Respondents were more

satisfied with car-parking space, cleanness, quality of facility and product placement

in superstores than family-run stores. Regarding with toilet service, respondents were

dissatisfied in family-run store but satisfied in superstores. Respondents were also

satisfied with promotion services such as discount and occasional gift offerings in

superstores more than in family-run stores.

The study found that respondents are more satisfied with business factors such

as information service, sales service, problem solving activities and management

abilities in superstores than those in family-run stores. Respondents were perceived

that superstores benefited to local economy and contributed in social activities more

than family-run stores did. Therefore, respondents were generally more satisfied with

superstores than family-run stores.

64

5.3 Hypothesis Testing

One-way ANOVA was used to test hypotheses tested and the results were

summarized and presented below:

Table 5 Hypothesis Results

Hypotheses Statement Result

H01

Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age, education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have no different perceptions on marketing factors between superstores and family-run stores.

Rejected

H1

Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age, education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have different perceptions on marketing factors between superstores and family-run stores.

Accepted

H02

Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age, education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have different perceptions on marketing factors between superstores and family-run stores.

Rejected

H2

Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age, education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have different perceptions on business factors between superstores and family-run stores.

Accepted

H03

Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age, education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have no different perceptions on economic factors between superstores and family-run stores.

Rejected

H3

Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age, education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have different perceptions on economic factors between superstores and family-run stores.

Accepted

H04

Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age, education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have no different perceptions on social factors between superstores and family-run stores.

Rejected

H4

Consumers with different demographic factors which are gender, age, education, occupation, monthly income, marital status and resident place have different perceptions on social factors between superstores and family-run stores.

Accepted

65

5.4 Research Difficulties and Limitations

Since the researcher is not a Thai, the language barrier made difficulties when

questionnaires were distributed in Thai language. The researcher could not read Thai

journals, newspapers, and past time research articles and theses which are written by

Thai language. Therefore, only text books, theses, newspapers and international

journals and online articles, written in English language were described in this study.

Time and cost constraints were also limitations for this study.

Regarding questionnaire distribution, consumers were randomly selected near

shopping centers such as Big C Saphankwai, Chuktuchuk Weekend Market, The Mall

Bangkapi, Tesco Lotus Wang Sawang and Carrefour Rangsit. Most of the shoppers

were young Thai ladies and so receiving gender and age status was difficult to be

equal ratio. Finally, this survey questionnaire would not perfectly cover for the entire

Bangkok population.

5.5 Implementation

The results from this study provides basic information that could be beneficial

to related parties including superstores operators, local family-run stores, and general

public in different dimension.

Superstore operators can find out how the consumers’ perception on their

important position in Bangkok. They can know how much consumers care about the

conflicts with local retailers. The most important one is consumers’ perception on

their marketing strategies by which they can reach their goals and objectives.

Local family-run stores can be informed consumers’ shopping attitudes and

habits. They will know how consumers care only for their benefits despite their

conflicts with international giants. Moreover, they can know what consumers really

need and want by which they can change their business strategies to be able to

compete with others.

The general public have concerns about unfair competition between

superstores and local family-run stores, but they will focus on their benefits since they

all are consumers of retail stores. Besides that they can know how the government is

solving the conflicts between international giants and local retailers. They can know

the general perceptions on consumers on retail stores by which their perception might

also change to fit with they reality. They can also claims government to make free and

fair competitions in retail industry.

66

5.6 Business Suggestions

Family-run stores should take advantage on customer relationship as being

small ones. Moreover, they should keep clean store environment, place product in

neat and tidy, check up stocks and replace them often for appearance attraction. They

should try different consumer product brands from superstores. Sometimes pricing

strategies need to persuade consumers. If it is possible, they should have toilet service.

Superstores have to be careful of consumers’ perceptions that superstores

destroyed many local small stores. To get rid of that perception, they need to show

their charity and make donations to society. They should be involved in social

activities as much as they can. They should avoid banning wholesalers from selling to

small stores. Since they were big, product placement is important because consumers

used to have difficulty to find out the products they want. Sales staffs should have

more concerns on consumers.

5.7 Recommendations for Future Research

According to current issues and consumer perceptions, the researcher knows

consumers in Bangkok are not satisfied yet with retail stores industry. To optimize

consumers’ benefit, small stores, superstores and governments should know

consumers’ perception well. Just by the conflict between local retailers and

international giants, government should not restrict much on superstores but they also

should think on consumers’ benefits. To benefit consumers in Thailand, future

researches on consumer perceptions towards retail stores should be made much more

not only in Bangkok but also in other districts with both Thai and English languages.

67

References

ACNielsen & PlanetRetail. (2005). Share of modern grocery distribution: Store

numbers, Elsevier Food International, 10. Retrieved January 20, 2008, from

http://www.foodinternational.net

Alpha Research Co. Ltd. (2003). Thailand in figures.

Amine, A., & Cadenat, S. (2003). Efficient retailer assortment: A consumer choice

evaluation perspective. International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management, 31(10), 486.

Arunmas, P. (2006a). Local retailers threatened by foreign influx. Knight Ridder/

Tribune Business News, p. 1.

Arunmas, P. (2006b). Local retailers to get more protection from foreign saturation.

Knight Ridder/ Tribune Business News, p. 1.

Asawanipont, N. (2007). Change of track with mini Big C stores. Thai Press.

Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail

store environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445-60.

Bank of Thailand. (2004). Definition of small and medium sized business enterprises.

Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://www.siamlaw.co.th

Bank of Thailand. (2007a). Thailand economy watch: Thailand retail sales 2005-

2007. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://thailandeconomy.blogspot.com/

Bank of Thailand. (2007b). Thailand economy watch: Thailand retail sales index

2005-2007. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from

http://thailandeconomy.blogspot.com/

Bell, J., & Ternus, K. (2002). Silent selling. New York: Fairchild Publications.

Bell, S. (1999). Image and consumer attraction to interurban retail areas: An

environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer

Services, 6(2), 67-78.

Bellizzi, J., Crowley, A., & Hasty, R. (1983). The effects of color in store design.

Journal of Retailing, 59(1), 21-45.

68

Bellizzi, J., & Kite, R. (1992). Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase

likelihood. Psychology & Marketing, 9(5), 347-63.

Big C. Co., Ltd. (2006). Company profile. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from

http://en.wikipedia.org

Brown, S. (1992). Retail location. Avebury, Aldershot.

Bruner, G. (1990). Music, mood, and marketing. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 94-103.

Burt, S., & Sparks, L. (1994). Structural change in grocery retailing in Great Britain:

A discount reorientation? The International Review of Retail, Distribution and

Consumer Research, 4(2), 195-217.

Burt, S., & Sparks, L. (1995). Understanding the arrival of limited line discount stores

in Britain. European Management Journal, 13(1), 110-19.

Caine, R. (2003). Store design. Design Week, 17, 31-33.

Carrefour Co., Ltd. (2007). Company profil., Retrieved October 9, 2007, from

http://www.carrefour.co.th/

COBUILD. (2001). Collins COBUILD English dictionary for advanced learners.

London: HarperCollins Publishers.

Crispin, S., & Shawn, W. (2008). What's eating Thai Tesco? Asia Times Online.

Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://www.atimes.com/

Davies, G. (1992). The two ways in which retailers can be brands. International

Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 20(2), 24-34.

Davies, G., & Brooks, J. (1989). Positioning strategy in retailing. London: Paul

Chapman Publishing.

Davis, D. (2005). Business research for decision making (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:

Thomson-Brooks/Cole.

Dhar, S., Hoch, S., & Kumar, N. (2001). Effective category management depends on

the role of the category. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 165-84.

Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1979). The world of goods. London: Allen Lane.

Editors, B. (1999). Asia's largest hypermarket retailer installs symbol technologies

wireless mobile computing solution. New York: Business Wire.

69

Feeny, A., Vongpatanasin, T., & Soonsatham, A. (1996). Retailing in Thailand.

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 24(8), 38.

Finn, A., & Louviere, J. (1996). Shopping center image, consideration and choice:

Anchor store contribution. Journal of Business Research, 35(3), 241-51.

Forman, A., & Sriram, V. (1991). The depersonalization of retailing: Its impact on the

lonely consumer. Journal of Retailing, 67(2), 226-43.

Gogol, V., & Bartels, R. (1963). Wholesaling in the USSR in comparative marketing.

Homewood, IL: Richard Inwin Inc.

Hansen, T. (2003). Intertype competition: Specialty food stores competing with

supermarkets. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10(1), 35-49.

Hirschman, E., Enis, B., & Roering, K. (1981). Review of marketing. Chicago, IL:

American Marketing Association.

Hoch, S., Bradlow, E., & Wansink, B. (1999). The variety of an assortment.

Marketing Science, 18(4), 527-46.

Hu, H., & Jasper, C. (2006). Social cues in the store environment and their impact on

store image. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,

34(1), 25.

Hugh, E. (2008). Thailand growth Q4 2007. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from

http://thailandeconomy.blogspot.com/

Jitpleecheep, P. (2006). Thailand’s retail industry has changed dramatically in last 60

years. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, p. 1.

Jitpleecheep, P. (2008a). Carrefour speeds up expansion: Smaller store formats will be

in spotlight. Tribune Business News. Retrieved February 4, 2008, from

ABI/INFORM database.

Jitpleecheep, P. (2008b). Retailers hope confidence rises. Tribune Business News.

Retrieved February 4, 2008, from ABI/INFORM database.

Kamchadduskorn, C. (2001). Securitization in the land of smile. Retrieved January 9,

2008, from http://www.siamlaw.co.th

Kazmin, A. (2001). Tesco dishes out charm to lift Lotus position in Thailand.

Financial Times. Retrieved February 05, 2008, from ABI/INFORM database.

70

Kazmin, A., & Rigby, E. (2006). Thai ministry studies limits on susperstores foreign

retail. Financial Times, p. 29.

Kearney, A., (2006a). GRDI 2006 market attractiveness. Retrieved March 15, 2008,

from http://www.certifiedconsultants.org/

Kearney, A., (2006b). The 2006 global retail development index. Retrieved March 15,

2008, from http://www.certifiedconsultants.org/

Koelmeijer, K., & Oppewal, H. (1999). Assessing the effects of assortment and

ambience: A choice experimental approach. Journal of Retailing, 75(3),

319-45.

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. (2006). Marketing management (12th ed.). Singapore:

Pearson Education.

Krishnan, T., Koelemeijer, K., & Rao, R. (2002). Consistent assortment provision and

service provision in a retail environment. Marketing Science, 21(1), 54-73.

Kuipers, P. (2007). Thailand after the coup: Struggle between modern and traditional.

Elsevier Food International, 10(1). Retrieved June 12, 2008, from

http://www.foodinternational.net/

Lancaster, K. (1991). L'analyse economique de la variety de produits: Une revue de

la ltiterature. Recherche.

Lindquist, J. (1974). Meaning of image. Journal of Retailing, 50(4), 29-38.

Lunn, A., & Chase, J. (2007). Changes ahead for foreign inverstors in Thailand.

Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://www.siamlaw.co.th

Maneerungsee, W. (2002). Small Thai retailers seek government intervention in

superstore price cutting. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from ABI/INFORM

database.

Mansri, S. (2006). Thai retail regulation update. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from

http://www.siamlaw.co.th

Mazursky, D., & Jacoby, J. (1986). Exploring the development of store images.

Journal of Retailing, 62(2), 145-65.

71

McCracken, G. (1988). Culture and consumption: New approach to the symbolic

character of consumer goods and activities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Press.

McGoldrick, P., & Thompson, M. (1992). Regional shopping centers. Avebury,

Aldershot.

McKenna, R. (1989). Marketing in age of diversity. Harvard Business Review, 25-6.

Milliman, R. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket

shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 86-91.

Mitchell, S. (2000). The impact of chain stores on community. Retrieved October 3,

2007, from http://www.newrules.org

Mittal, B., & Lassar, W. (1996). The role of personalization in service encounter.

Journal of Retailing, 72(1), 95-109.

Monroe, K., & Guiltinan, J. (1975). A path analytic exploration of retail patronage

influences. Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 19-28.

Mueller, & Dentiste, R. (1995). International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management, 23(1). Retrieved February 15, 2008, from ABI/INFORM

database.

Oxford University Press. (2005). The new Oxford American dictionary (2nd ed.).

Paul, J., James, H., & Donnelly, J. (2001). Marketing management knowledge and

skills (6th ed.). NY: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Pegler, M. (1998). Visual merchandise & display. New York: Fairchild Publications.

Phuangrach, Y. (2008). Thailand: Ministry sees role in retail disputes. The Nation.

Pricewaterhousecoopers. (2007). Retail sales shares by format. Elsevier Food

International, 10. Retrieved January 20, 2008, from

http://www.foodinternational.net

Roger, D., Paul, W., & James, F. (2001). Consumer behavior (9th ed.). South-

Western.

Rundell, M., & Fox, G. (2002). Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners.

London: Macmillan.

72

Schiffman, L., & Kanuk, L. (2004). Consumer behavior (8th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Siler, B. (1995). Supercenters and consumer sense. Progressive Grocer, 74(6), 19.

Solomon, M., & Stuart, E. (2000). Marketing real people real choices (2nd ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Spangenberg, E., Crowley, A., & Henderson, P. (1996). Improving the store

environment: Do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviors? Journal of

Marketing, 60(2), 67-80.

Stern, S. (2008). When service comes with a snarl instead of a smile. Financial Times,

p. 18.

Tesco Lotus Co. Ltd. (2007). Company profile. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from

http://www.tescolotus.net

United Nation. (2007). Thailand economy watch: Thailand population pyramids.

Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://thailandeconomy.blogspot.com/

Uusitalo, O. (2001). Consumer perceptions of grocery retail formats and brands.

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 29(5), 214.

Van Kenhove, P., De Wulf, K., & Van Waterschoot, W. (1999). The impact of task

definition on store-attribute salience and store choice. Journal of Retailing,

75(1), 125-48.

Vernon, M. (2001). Familism. London: Routledge.

Walters, D., & Knee, D. (1989). Competitive strategies in retailing. Long Range

Planning, 22(6), 74-84.

Warner, M. (2002a). Consumer behavior, decision theories. In International

encyclopedia of business & management, operations research to simulation

modeling (2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 1035). High Holborn, London: Thomson

Learning.

Warner, M. (2002b). Retailing. In International encyclopedia of business &

management, operations research to simulation modeling (2nd ed., vol. 6,

p. 5641). High Holborn, London: Thomson Learning.

Wills, C., & Hayhurst, R. (1971). Marketing in socialist societies. European Journal

of Marketing, 5(2), 13-28.

73

Yamane, T. (1967). Statistic: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Harper

and Row.

Yoo, C., Park, J., & Maclnnis, D. (1998). Effects of store characteristics and in-store

emotional experiences on store attitude. Journal of Business Research, 42(3),

253-63.

Zimmer, M., & Golden, L. (1988). Impressions of retail stores: A content analysis of

consumer images. Journal of Retailing, 64(3).

74

Appendix A

Questionnaire (English)

This questionnaire is to collect data of consumers’ perception toward retail stores comparing

between superstore chains (Big C, Tesco Lotus, Carrefour) and family-run stores in Bangkok.

This survey is conducted for the purpose of the preparation of a thesis paper for the

completion of a Master’s Degree in Business Administration, Shinawatra University. Data

will be used for analyses and will remain confidential.

Part 1 - Demographic Information

Please mark ( ) a box for each question

1.1 Gender

Male Female

1.2 Age

Under 20 years 20 – 25 years 26 – 30 years

31 – 40 years 41 – 50 years 51 – 60 years

Above 60 years

1.3 Education

Under High School High School Vocational School

Bachelor Degree Master Degree Doctorate Degree

Other

1.4 Occupation

Student Housewife Professional

Employee Entrepreneur Government Official

Other

1.5 Monthly Income

Less than Bt 10,000 Bt 10,001 – Bt 15,000

Bt 15,001 – Bt 20,000 Bt 20,001 – Bt 30,000

Bt 30,001 – Bt 50,000 More than Bt 50,000

75

1.6 Marital Status

Single Married Divorce

1.7 Please select a place where you stay or a place close to your residence.

Central Part Eastern Part Western Part Northern Part

Ladprao Ramindra Wang Sawang Chaengwattana

Ratchadapisek Sukhapiban Tiwanon Rangsit

Saphankwai Bangkapi Dao Kanong Bang Khaen

Sukhunvit Hua Mark Phethkasem Don Muang

Silom Ekkamai Rama II Laksi

Part 2 - Behavioral Information

2.1 When do you go shopping? (You can mark more than one box)

When I need to buy something When I have extra money

While I am on the way When I accompany friends

When I am free When I feel lonely

Other

2.2 How often do you go shopping within a month? (Please mark on both sides)

Family-run Store Superstores (Big C, Tesco Lotus, Carrefour)

None None

1 - 3 times 1 - 3 times

4 – 6 times 4 – 6 times

More than 6 times More than 6 times

2.3 How long does a shopping time last? (Please mark on both sides)

Family-run Store Superstores (Big C, Tesco Lotus, Carrefour)

None None

Less than 30 minutes Less than 30 minutes

30 minutes– one hour 30 minutes– one hour

More than one hour More than one hour

76

2.4. How much money do you generally spend per a shopping?

(Please mark on both sides)

Family-run Store Superstores (Big C, Tesco Lotus, Carrefour)

None None

Less than Bt 500 Less than Bt 500

Bt 500 – Bt 1000 Bt 500 – Bt 1000

Bt 1001 – Bt 3000 Bt 1001 – Bt 3000

More than Bt 3000 More than Bt 3000

Part 3 - Attitudinal Statements Please mark ( ) in a cell for each statement that matches with your attitude.

Statement

Stro

ngly

A

gree

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

Dis

agre

e

Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

I enjoy going shopping

I know the difference between superstores and family-run stores

Retail stores improve consumers’ life style

Superstores and family-run stores are competing each other

Superstores have negative effects to family-run stores

I care that family-run stores are closed down because of superstores

I know that Thai government is restricting on superstore expansion

Government should restrict more on superstore expansion

Government should allow free and fair competition

Government should support family-run stores

We don’t need superstores because family-run stores are enough

Superstores are essential for consumers in Bangkok

77

Part 4 (A) Comparing consumer satisfaction level on superstore chains and family-run stores Satisfaction Levels 5 = Very Satisfied, 4 = Satisfied, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Dissatisfied, 1 = Very Dissatisfied

Two Types of Retail Stores Superstore Chains Family-run Stores

Please mark ( ) both sides 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

4.1 Marketing Factors

4.1.1 Consumer satisfaction on Product

Variety of products

Quality of products

Fresh and healthy food

Traditional product & handmade products

4.1.2 Consumer satisfaction on Price

Reasonable Price

Stable Price

4.1.3 Consumer satisfaction on Place

Easily reachable location

Car parking space and service

Cleanness of the store

Quality of facility and equipment

Product placement

Toilet Service

4.1.4 Consumer satisfaction on Promotion

Offering discount (price, premium, etc.)

Occasional gift for consumer

Advertisement and consumer awareness

4.2 Other Business Factors

Information service

Sales service

Complain and problem solving ability

Management ability

78

(B) Comparing consumers’ perceptions on superstores and family-run stores regarding

with economic factors and social factors.

Perception weighting Levels

5 = Very High, 4 = High, 3 = Rather High, 2 = Normal, 1 = Low

Two Types of Retail Stores Superstore Chains Family-run Stores

Please mark ( ) both sides 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

4.3 Economic Factors

Benefiting local economy

Benefiting local consumers

Creating employment

Giving tax to government

Follow government rules and regulations

4.4 Social Factors

Contribution to social activities

Contribution to humanitarian aid

Care about local culture

Care about labor right & human right Care about environmental safety (Pollution, Toxic, Garbage, etc.)

Your suggestions and feedbacks for Superstore Chains

Your suggestions and feedbacks for Family-run Stores

Thank you for your valuable time and feedback.

79

Appendix B

Questionnaire (Thai)

แบบสอบถามนี้มีวัตถุประสงคเพื่อศึกษาเปรียบเทียบเกี่ยวกับการรับรูของผูบริโภคที่มีตอหางคาปลีกขนาดใหญ (บิ๊กซี,เทสโกโลตัส,คารฟูร)และรานคาปลีกทั่วไปในกรุงเทพมหานครขอมูลที่ไดจากแบบสอบถามนี้จะถูกเก็บเปนความลับละจะนํามาใชสําหรับการศึกษาและวิจัยของคณะการจัดการมหาวิทยาลัยชินวัตรเทานั้นผูวิจัยขอขอบพระคุณที่ทานใหความกรุณาตอบแบบสอบถามมา ณ โอกาสนี้ดวย

สวนที่ 1 – ขอมูลสวนตัว

กรุณาทําเครื่องหมาย ลงใน ตอไปนี้ที่ตรงกับทานมากที่สุด 1.1 เพศ

ชาย หญิง 1.2 อายุ

ตํ่ากวา 20 ป 20 – 25 ป 26 – 30 ป 31 – 40 ป 41 – 50 ป 51 – 60 ป 60 ปขึ้นไป

1.3 การศึกษา ประถมศึกษา มัธยมศึกษา อาชีวะศึกษา ป.ตรี ป.โท ป. เอก อื่นๆ

1.4 อาชีพ นักเรียน แมบาน ผูเช่ียวชาญเฉพาะดา ขาราชการ พนักงาน เจาของธุรกิจ อื่นๆ

1.5 รายไดตอเดือน ตํ่ากวา 10,000 บาท 10,001 – 15,000 บาท 15,001 – 20,000 บาท 20,001 – 30,000 บาท 30,001 – 50,000 บาท 50,000 บาท ขึ้นไป

80

1.6 สถานะภาพ

โสด แตงงาน หยา/ หมาย

1.7 กรุณาเลือกพื้นที่ทานพักอาศัยหรือพ้ืนที่ใกลเคียง

กลาง ตะวันออก ตะวันตก เหนือ ลาดพราว รามอินทรา วงศสวาง แจงวัฒนะ รัชดาภิเษก สุขาภิบาล ติวานนท รังสิต สะพานควาย บางกะป ดาวคะนอง บางเขน สุมขุมวิท หัวหมาก เพชรเกษม ดอนเมือง สีลม เอกมัย พระราม 2 หลักสี่

สวนที่ 2 – พฤติกรรมการซื้อสินคา

2.1 ทานซื้อสินคาเมื่อไร (เลือกตอบไดมากกวา 1 ขอ) ตอนมีความจําเปนตองซื้อสินคา ตอนที่มีรายไดพิเศษ

ระหวางการเดินทาง ตอนที่ไปซื้อสินคาเปนเพื่อนบุคคลอื่น ตอนมีเวลาวาง ตอนที่อยูคนเดียว อื่นๆ

2.2 ทานซื้อสินคากี่ครั้งตอเดือน (กรุณาตอบทั้ง 2 สวน) รานคาปลีก (รานโชวหวย) หางคาปลีกขนาดใหญ (บิ๊กซี, เทสโกโลตัส, คารฟูร)

ไมซื้อสินคา ไมซื้อสินคา 1 - 3 ครั้ง 1 - 3 ครั้ง

4 – 6 ครั้ง 4 – 6 ครั้ง มากกวา 6 ครั้ง มากกวา 6 ครั้ง

2.3 ทานใชเวลาอยางนอยก่ีนาทีตอการซื้อสินคาแตละครั้ง (กรุณาตอบทั้ง 2 สวน) รานคาปลีก (รานโชวหวย) หางคาปลีกขนาดใหญ (บิ๊กซี, เทสโกโลตัส, คารฟูร)

ไมซื้อสินคา ไมซื้อสินคา นอยกวา 30 นาที นอยกวา 30 นาที

30 นาที – 1 ช่ัวโมง 30 นาที – 1 ช่ัวโมง มากกวา 1 ช่ัวโมง มากกวา 1 ช่ัวโมง

81

2.4 โดยทั่วไปทานใชเงินเปนจํานวนเทาไรตอการซื้อสินคาแตละครั้ง (กรุณาตอบทั้ง 2 สวน) รานคาปลีก (รานโชวหวย) หางคาปลีกขนาดใหญ (บิ๊กซี, เทสโกโลตัส, คารฟูร)

ไมซื้อสินคา ไมซื้อสินคา นอยกวา 500 บาท นอยกวา500 บาท

500 – 1000 บาท 500 – 1000 บาท 1001 – 3000 บาท 1001 – 3000 บาท มากกวา 3000 บาท มากกวา 3000 บาท สวนที่ 3 – ทัศนคติตอการซื้อสินคา กรุณาทําเครื่องหมาย ลงในชองวางดานขวามือของแตละขอความที่ตรงกับทานมากที่สุด

ขอความ

เห็นดว

ยที่สุด

เห็นดว

ย

เฉยๆ

ไมเห็น

ดวย

ไมเห็น

ดวยที่

สุด

ทานชอบและมีความสุขในการซื้อสินคา ทานทราบถึงความแตกตางของหางคาปลีกขนาดใหญกับรานคาปลีก รานคาปลีกชวยปรับรูปแบบการการดําเนินชีวิตของผูบริโภค หางคาปลีกขนาดใหญและรานคาปลีกแขงขันกันขายสนิคา หางคาปลีกขนาดใหญสงผลกระทบตอรานคาปลีก การปดกิจการของรานคาปลีกเปนผลกระทบจากหางคาปลีกขนาดใหญ ทานทราบวารัฐบาลมีนโยบายจํากัดการขยายตัวของหางคาปลีกขนาดใหญ รัฐบาลควรเพิ่มนโยบายจํากัดการขยายตัวของหางคาปลกีขนาดใหญ รัฐบาลควรสนับสนุนใหหางคาปลีกขนาดใหญและรานคาปลีกแขงขันกันอยางเสรี รัฐบาลควรมีนโยบายสนับสนุนและใหความชวยเหลือแกรานคาปลีก ทานไมตอการหางคาปลีกขนาดใหญเพราะรานคาปลีกมีจํานวนเพียงพอแลว หางคาปลีกขนาดใหญมีความจําเปนตอผูบริโภคในกรุงเทพมหานคร

82

สวนที่ 4 (A) การเปรียบเทียบความพึงพอใจของผูบริโภคที่มีตอหางคาปลีกขนาดใหญและรานคาปลีก (รานโชวหวย) ระดับความพึงพอใจ; 5 = พอใจที่สุด, 4 = พอใจ, 3 = เฉยๆ, 2 = ไมพอใจ, 1 = ไมพอใจที่สุด ประเภทของรานคาปลีก หางคาปลีกขนาดใหญ รานคาปลกี (รานโชวหวย) กรุณาทําเครื่องหมาย ลงในชองวางดานขวามือท้ัง 2 ประเภท 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

4.1 ปจจัยดานการตลาด 4.1.1 ความพึงพอใจในสินคา สินคามีความหลากหลาย คุณภาพของสินคา สินคาสด และสนิคาเพื่อสขุภาพ สินคาพื้นเมือง และสินคาหัตถกรรม 4.1.2 ความพึงพอใจในราคา ราคาสมเหตุสมผล ราคาคงที่ 4.1.3 ความพึงพอใจในสถานที่ รานคาตั้งอยูในพื้นที่ที่งายตอการเขาถึง บริการที่จอดรถ ความสะอาดของรานคา สิ่งอํานวยความสะดวกตางๆ มีคุณภาพ ตําแหนงการจัดวางสินคา บริการหองน้ํา 4.1.4 ความพึงพอใจในการสงเสริมการขาย สวนลด (เชน ลดราคา, ของสมนาคณุ เปนตน) ของขวัญในโอกาสตางๆ การโฆษณาและการตระหนักถึงผูบริโภค

4.2 ปจจัยอื่นๆ ดานธุรกิจ บริการขอมูลขาวสาร บริการการขาย บริการรองเรียนและการแกไขปญหา ความสามารถดานการจัดการ

83

(B) การรับรูของผูบริโภคตอหางคาปลีกขนาดใหญและรานคาปลีก(รานโชวหวย)ในปจจัยดานเศรษฐกิจและสังคม ระดัการรับรู; 5 = สูงสุด, 4 = สูง, 3 = คอนจางสูง, 2 = ปกติ, 1 = นอย ประเภทของรานคาปลีก หางคาปลีกขนาดใหญ รานคาปลกี (รานโชวหวย) กรุณาทําเครื่องหมาย ลงในชองวางดานขวามือท้ัง 2 ประเภท

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

4.3 ปจจัยดานเศรษฐกิจ สงผลดีตอสภาพเศรษฐกิจในพื้นที่ สงผลดีตอผูบริโภคในพื้นที ่ เกิดการจางงาน รัฐบาลมีรายไดจากการเก็บภาษีตางๆ ปฏิบัติตามกฎและนโยบายของรัฐบาล 4.4 ปจจัยดานสังคม สนับสนุนกิจกรรมของสังคม สนับสนุนกิจกรรมสาธารณกุศล ใหความสําคัญกับวัฒนธรรมไทย ใหความสําคัญดานแรงงานและสิทธิมนุษยชน ใหความสําคัญกับสิ่งแวดลอม (เชน มลภาวะ, สารพิษ, ขยะ เปนตน)

กรุณาแสดงความคิดเห็นและขอมูลปอนกลับของทานที่มีตอหางคาปลีกขนาดใหญ กรุณาแสดงความคิดเห็นและขอมูลปอนกลับของทานที่มีตอรานคาปลีก (รานโชวหวย)

ขอขอบพระคุณที่ทานใหความกรุณาตอบแบบสอบถาม

84

Appendix C

Thailand Population

Source: United Nation (2007)

85

Appendix D

Thailand Retail Sales Shares by Format (2005)

Thailand Retail Sales Shares by Format (2005)

Hypermarkets & warehouse clubs

Convenience stores

Department stores

Supermarkets

Specialty stores

Drugstores

Traditional stores

Source: Pricewaterhousecoopers (2007)

86

Appendix E

Thailand Retail Market Shares

Source: ACNielsen and PlanetRetail (2005)

87

Appendix F

Leading Superstores in Thailand (2000 – 2005)

Source: ACNielsen and PlanetRetail (2005)

88

Appendix G

Thailand Retail Sales Index (2005 – 2007)

Source: Bank of Thailand (2007b)

89

Appendix H

Thailand Retail Sales (2005 – 2007)

Source: Bank of Thailand (2007a)

90

Appendix I

2006 Global Retail Development Index

Source: Kearney (2006b)

91

Appendix J

2006 GRDI Market Attractiveness

Source: Kearney (2006a)

92

Appendix K

Research Findings

1. Comparing Three Shopping Reasons

Comparing Shopping Choices

352

84

49

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Whe

n I n

eed

to b

uy so

met

hing

Whe

n I h

ave

extra

mon

ey

while

I am

on

the

way

Whe

n I a

ccom

pany

frien

ds

Whe

n I a

m fr

ee

Whe

n I f

eel l

onely

Othe

r

Variables

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents

Choice one

Choice two

Choice three

93

2. Comparative Analysis of Shopping Times

How often do you go shopping within a month?

16.6

42

16.8

24.6

4.1

74.6

16.2

5.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

None 1 - 3 times 4 - 6 times More than 6 times

Shopping times

Perc

ent

Family-run Store

Superstores

94

3. Comparative Analysis of Spending Time

How long does a shopping time last?

13.9

73.8

8.14.3

1.5

8.9

46.343.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

None Less than 30 minutes 30 minutes - one hour More than one hour

Time

Perc

ent

Family-run Store

Superstores

95

4. Comparative Analysis of Spending Money

How much money do yo generally spend per a shopping?

12.2

76.8

8.5

2.2 0.20.5

12.5

56.5

25.6

4.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

None Less than Bt 500 Bt 500 - Bt 1000 Bt 1001 - Bt 3000 More than Bt 3000

Spending amount

Perc

ent

Family-run StoreSuperstores

96

5. Interpretation of Consumer Attitudes towards Retail Stores

Attitudinal Statements

Stro

ngly

A

gree

Agr

ee

Neu

tral

Dis

agre

e

Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

Rel

ated

L

evel

I enjoy going shopping 66 203 122 8 0 3.83 Agree

I know the difference between superstores and family-run stores 79 253 61 4 0 4.06 Agree

Retail stores improve consumers' life style 40 200 142 15 1 3.68 Agree

Superstores and family-run stores are competing each other 82 146 100 64 5 3.63 Agree

Superstores have negative effects to family-run stores 173 156 45 25 0 4.2 Agree

I care that family-run stores are closed down because of superstores 121 155 76 37 10 3.86 Agree

I know that government is restricting on superstore expansion 58 160 119 48 11 3.58 Agree

Government should restrict more on superstore expansion 109 154 99 28 5 3.92 Agree

Government should allow free and fair competition 38 168 75 85 33 3.24 Neutral

Government should support family-run stores 114 193 74 15 4 3.99 Agree

We don't need superstores because family-run stores are enough 23 90 151 116 19 2.97 Neutral

Superstores are essential for consumers in Bangkok 52 225 100 18 4 3.77 Agree

X

97

6. Comparative Analysis of Consumer Attitudes towards Retail Stores (1)

Attitudinal Level of Consumers towards Retail Stores - 1

3.83

4.06

3.68 3.63

4.20

3.86

1.00

1.80

2.60

3.40

4.20

5.00

I enjoy goingshopping

I know the differencebetween superstoresand family-run stores

Retail stores improveconsumers' life style

Superstores andfamily-run stores arecompeting each other

Superstores havenegative effects tofamily-run stores

I care that family-runstores are closeddown because of

superstores

Attitudinal Statements

Mea

n Le

vel

98

7. Comparative Analysis of Consumer Attitudes towards Retail Stores (2)

Attitudinal Level of Consumers toward Retail Stores - 2

3.58

3.92

3.24

3.99

2.97

3.77

1.00

1.80

2.60

3.40

4.20

5.00

I know thatgovernment isrestricting on

superstore expansion

Government shouldrestrict more on

superstore expansion

Government shouldallow free and fair

competition

Government shouldsupport family-run

stores

We don't needsuperstores becausefamily-run stores are

enough

Superstores areessential forconsumers in

Bangkok

Attitudinal Statements

Mea

n Le

vel

99

8. Comparative Analysis of Consumer Satisfaction Levels on Product and Price

Consumer Satisfaction on Retail Stores (Product & Price)

4.40

3.91 3.87

3.16

3.82

3.55

3.093.31

3.19 3.18 3.25 3.28

1.00

1.80

2.60

3.40

4.20

5.00

Variety of products Quality of products Fresh and healthyfood

Traditional &handmade products

Reasonable Price Stable Price

Product Price

Mea

n

Superstores Family-run Stores

100

9. Comparative Analysis of Consumer Satisfaction Levels on Place

Consumer Satisfaction on Retail Stores (Place)

3.88

4.124.01 4.00 4.00 3.92

3.82

2.80

3.132.94 3.01

2.40

1.00

1.80

2.60

3.40

4.20

5.00

Easily reachablelocation

Car parking spaceand service

Cleanness of thestore

Quality of facility &equipment

Product placement Toilet Service

Place

Mea

n

Superstores Family-run Stores

101

10. Comparative Analysis of Consumer Satisfaction Levels on Promotion and Business Factors

Consumer Satisfaction on Retail Stores (Promotion & Business Factors)

4.00

3.77 3.773.97

3.82

3.49

3.78

2.88 2.81 2.81 2.75

3.022.82 2.87

1.00

1.80

2.60

3.40

4.20

5.00

Offering discount Occasional gift forconsumer

Advertisement Informationservice

Sales service Problem solvingability

Managementability

Promotion Business Factors

Mea

n

Superstores Family-run Stores

102

11. Comparative Analysis of Consumer Satisfaction Levels on Economic Factors

Consumer Satisfaction on Retail Stores (Economic Factors)

3.52

3.803.93

3.763.56

3.34 3.42

2.73

2.98 2.98

1.00

1.80

2.60

3.40

4.20

5.00

Benefiting local economy Benefiting localconsumers

Creating employment Giving tax to government Follow governmentregulation

Economic Factors

Mea

n

Superstores Family-run Stores

103

12. Comparative Analysis of Consumer Satisfaction Levels on Social Factors

Consumer Satisfaction on Retail Stores (Social Factors)

3.583.45

3.303.43

3.30

2.74 2.732.95

2.74 2.73

1.00

1.80

2.60

3.40

4.20

5.00

Contribution to socialactivities

Contribution tohumanitarian aid

Care about local culture Care about labor right Care about environmentalsafety

Social Factors

Mea

n

Superstores Family-run Stores

74

104

Biography

Name: Awng Di

Date of Birth: February 20, 1984

Place of Birth: Yangon, Myanmar

Institutions Attended: Myanmar Institute of Theology

Yadanapon University

Home Address: 244/291, Soi 6, Ying O Lang, Viphawadee-Rangsit Rd.,

Srikan, Don Muang, Bangkok 10210

Telephone: +66847534294

E-mail: hpauladi@gmail.com