CHAPTER V BRAND PREFERENCES OF THE CONSUMERS IN …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/39351/11/11_chapter 5.p… · BRAND PREFERENCES OF THE CONSUMERS IN ... to which consumers

� �

�

��

CHAPTER V

BRAND PREFERENCES OF THE CONSUMERS IN

BUYING PACKAGED DRINKING WATER

The bottled water industry’s phenomenal growth in the recent years can be

attributed to the rising incidence of water-borne diseases, improper municipal supplies,

and the evolved health consciousness of people as well as globalization which has

brought in tremendous tourist inflow. Now, since the industry has matured, only big

companies with branded products are in the fray to capture a large market share.

Though the industry’s growth rate is 40-50% a year, India is still much behind

countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, where the industry is already

worth Rs. 15,000 to 20,000 crores, though, these countries have much smaller

populations but similar climatic conditions (D.Murali and C.Ramesh, 2007)1. The

Indian bottled water industry is big even by international standards. There are more

than 200 brands, and nearly 80% of this are local. Most of the small scale producers

sell non-branded items and serve small markets. In fact, making bottled water is today

a cottage industry in the country (Bhushan’s)2. Deepah, Prasanna and Srilakshmi

conducted a research study to gauge the history of the brands and the extent to which

consumers are aware about the brands. The study throws light on the effect of

advertisements on the sales of brands and consumers’ preference for brand and its

image both by itself and in the competitive context. The study also finds out the extent

to which consumers prefer Bisleri, when compared to Kinley and Aquafina. Bhushan’s

analysis reported that the per capita bottled water consumption in India is still unit

wise less than five litres a year as compared to the global comsumption of 24 litres.

� �

�

��

PREFERENCES OF BRAND

The brand name of the mineral water plays an important role in designing the

attitude of the consumers. Different attributes of the mineral water influence the

purchase decision of consumers (R.Jeya)3. In manufacturing packaged drinking water,

waterborne chemicals are removed through processes such as flocculation, filtration

and reverse osmosis. The final quality and shelf life of water is greatly proved by

proper pre-treatment. Here 92.14% of the respondents did not want to shift to other

brands after having chosen renowned brands. Most of the respondents expect price

discounts as a part of the sale promotion scheme (Sasirega Ramani and Sudharsava

Reddy, 1999)4.

Fig 5.1

Preferences of brand

Fig 5.1 indicates that majority of the respondents (42.2%) prefer Aquafina

followed by Quibell (24.1%), Vaigai (12.5%), SDR (9.1%), Thamiraparani (9.9%)

and Thendral (1.3%) and the least of them prefer Ganga. Most of the respondents

prefer Aquafina brand.

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !� ��

�� !�� !��

��

��

� �

�

��

EDUCATION AND BRAND PREFERENCES

Natural water is usually contaminated by a wide variety of pollutants and has

to be purified to make it safe for drinking. Polluted drinking water is the cause of

several diseases. Increased awareness about the quality of drinking water has created

a growing market for safe drinking water packed in bottles or containers. Standards

have been formulated in every country to ensure the quality of packaged drinking

water. The choice of the process of manufacturing packaged drinking water depends

on the contents of the raw water and several techno-commercial factors (Kiran S.

Gadre, 2004)5.

Table 5.1

Influence of education in brand preferences

Value df P value

Pearson Chi-Square 13.238a

12 .352*

Likelihood Ratio 14.108 12 .294

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.300 1 .254

N of Valid Cases 607

*Significant at 5% level

Table 5.1 shows the association between education and brand preferences of

the respondents. As per the acceptance of null hypothesis, there is no significant

association of education with the brand preferences of the respondents. The brand

preferences are not related to their education. Education of the respondents is not a

crucial factor determining the brand preferences of the respondents. The respondents

prefer various brands irrespective of their education.

BRAND PREFERENCES WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF OCCUPATION

Water is a main part of human beings’ daily life and consumers have their

choices for the mineral water. The brand name of the mineral water plays an

important role in designing the attitude of the consumers. Different attributes of the

mineral water influence the purchase decision of consumers (R.Jeya, 2007)6.

��

�

��

Tab

le 5

.2

Bra

nd

pre

fere

nce

s w

ith

dif

fere

nt

levels

of

occ

up

ati

on

Bra

nd p

refe

rences

T

ota

l

Occ

upat

ion

S

DR

Q

uib

ell

A

quafi

na

Tham

irap

aran

iV

aig

ai

Thendra

l G

anga

Em

plo

yed

N

o o

f R

espo

ndents

24

43

81

20

20

13

192

Occ

upat

ion (

%)

(12.5

%)

(22.4

%)

(42.2

%)

(10.4

%)

(10.4

%)

(.5%

)(1

.6%

)(1

00.0

%)

Bra

nd p

refe

rence

(%)

[40.0

%]

[29.5

%]

[31.6

%]

[36.4

%]

[26.3

%]

[12.5

%]

[50.0

%]

[31.6

%]

Busi

nes

s N

o o

f R

espo

ndents

8

59

50

16

23

21

159

Occ

upat

ion (

%)

(5.0

%)

(37.1

%)

(31.4

%)

(10.1

%)

(14.5

%)

(1.3

%)

(.6%

)(1

00.0

%)

Bra

nd p

refe

rence

(%)

13.3

%40.4

%19.5

%29.1

%30.3

%25.0

%16.7

%26.2

%

Ho

use

wif

eN

o o

f R

espo

ndents

21

28

44

918

50

125

Occ

upat

ion (

%)

(16.8

%)

(22.4

%)

(35.2

%)

(7.2

%)

(14.4

%)

(4.0

%)

(.0%

)(1

00.0

%)

Bra

nd p

refe

rence

(%)

[35.0

%]

[19.2

%]

[17.2

%]

[16.4

%]

[23.7

%]

[62.5

%]

[.0%

][2

0.6

%]

Labo

rer

No

of

Res

po

ndents

3

12

17

36

00

41

Occ

upat

ion (

%)

(7.3

%)

(29.3

%)

(41.5

%)

(7.3

%)

(14.6

%)

(.0%

)(.

0%

)(1

00.0

%)

Bra

nd p

refe

rence

(%)

[5.0

%]

[8.2

%]

[6.6

%]

[5.5

%]

[7.9

%]

[.0%

][.

0%

][6

.8%

]

Stu

den

ts

No

of

Res

po

ndents

4

464

79

02

90

Occ

upat

ion (

%)

(4.4

%)

(4.4

%)

(71.1

%)

(7.8

%)

(10.0

%)

(.0%

)(2

.2%

)(1

00.0

%)

Bra

nd p

refe

rence

(%)

[6.7

%]

[2.7

%]

[25.0

%]

[12.7

%]

[11.8

%]

[.0%

][3

3.3

%]

[14.8

%]

Tota

l N

o o

f R

espo

ndents

60

146

256

55

76

86

607

Occ

upat

ion (

%)

(9.9

%)

(24.1

%)

(42.2

%)

(9.1

%)

(12.5

%)

(1.3

%)

(1.0

%)

(100.0

%)

Bra

nd p

refe

rence

(%)

[100.0

%]

[100.0

%]

[100.0

%]

[100.0

%]

[100.0

%]

[100.0

%]

[100.0

%]

[100.0

%]

S

ourc

e: P

rim

ary D

ata

Th

e valu

e w

ith

in (

) d

enote

s ro

w p

erce

nta

ge

Th

e valu

e w

ith

in [

] d

enote

s co

lum

n p

erce

nta

ge

� �

�

��

In this study, the employed respondents (31.6%) give first preference to

Aquafina (42.2%), followed by SDR (12.5%) and the least of them prefer Thendral

(0.5%). Subsequently, 26.2% of the respondents are business persons and they prefer

Quibell (37.1%) and Thamiraparani (10.1%) and the least of them prefer Ganga

(0.6%). The housewives (20.6%) give first preference to Aquafina (35.2%), followed

by Vaigai (14.4%) and the least of them prefer Thendral (4%).

Table 5.3

Influence of occupation on brand preference

Value df P value


24 .000*





Table 5.3 reveals the association between the occupation of respondents and

their brand preferences. As per the rejection of null hypothesis, there is a significant

association between the occupation of the respondents and their brand preferences.

Therefore, the brand preferences are influenced by the occupations of the respondents.

When the occupations change the brand preferences of the respondents also change.

BRAND PREFERENCES OF DIFFERENT INCOME GROUPS

Kim and Chung, (1997)7 researching on brand popularity, country image and

market share believe that the competition among brands has become more

complicated as the number of brands originating from foreign countries increases.

They identified two concepts (brand popularity and country-of-origin-image) as being

key variables for the long-term success of brands or firms in global markets. They

strongly believe that these two factors interact with other marketing variables in

influencing brand performance and by extension, acceptance by consumers. Suffice it

to say here that what country-of-origin image does for brand performance in the

global market is what company-of-make-image does in the domestic market.

��

�

��

Tab

le 5

.4

Bra

nd

pre

fere

nce

s of

dif

fere

nt

inco

me

gro

up

s

Bra

nd p

refe

rence

s

Tota

l M

onth

ly

inco

me

SD

R

Quib

ell

Aquaf

ina

Tham

irap

ara

ni

Vai

gai

T

hen

dra

l G

anga

Bel

ow

Rs.

10000

No o

f R

esponden

ts39

91

159

28

48

24

371

Month

ly i

nco

me

(%)

(10.5

%)

(24.5

%)

(42.9

%)

(7.5

%)

(12.9

%)

(.5%

)(1

.1%

)(1

00.0

%)

Bra

nd p

refe

rence

(%)

[65.0

%]

[62.3

%]

[62.1

%]

[50.9

%]

[63.2

%]

[25.0

%]

[66.7

%]

[61.1

%]

Rs.

10000-

20000

No o

f R

esponden

ts14

43

75

23

24

61

186

Month

ly i

nco

me

(%)

(7.5

%)

(23.1

%)

(40.3

%)

(12.4

%)

(12.9

%)

(3.2

%)

(.5%

)(1

00.0

%)

Bra

nd p

refe

rence

(%

) [2

3.3

%]

[29.5

%]

[29.3

%]

[41.8

%]

[31.6

%]

[75.0

%]

[16.7

%]

[30.6

%]

Rs.

20001-

30000

No o

f R

esponden

ts3

611

14

00

25

Month

ly i

nco

me

(%)

(12.0

%)

(24.0

%)

(44.0

%)

(4.0

%)

(16.0

%)

(.0%

)(.

0%

)(1

00.0

%)

Bra

nd p

refe

rence

(%

) [5

.0%

][4

.1%

][4

.3%

][1

.8%

][5

.3%

][.

0%

][.

0%

][4

.1%

]

Above

Rs.

30000

No o

f R

esponden

ts4

611

30

01

25

Month

ly i

nco

me

(%)

(16.0

%)

(24.0

%)

(44.0

%)

(12.0

%)

(.0%

)(.

0%

)(4

.0%

)(1

00.0

%)

Bra

nd p

refe

rence

(%

)

[6.7

%]

[4.1

%]

[4.3

%]

[5.5

%]

[.0%

][.

0%

][1

6.7

%]

[4.1

%]

Tota

lN

o o

f R

esponden

ts60

146

256

55

76

86

607

Month

ly i

nco

me

(%)

(9.9

%)

(24.1

%)

(42.2

%)

(9.1

%)

(12.5

%)

(1.3

%)

(1.0

%)

(100.0

%)

Bra

nd p

refe

rence

(%

) [1

00.0

%]

[100.0

%]

[100.0

%]

[100.0

%]

[100.0

%]

[100.0

%]

[100.0

%]

[100.0

%]

So

urc

e: P

rim

ary D

ata

Th

e valu

e w

ith

in (

) d

enote

s ro

w p

erce

nta

ge

T

he

valu

e w

ith

in [

] d

enote

s co

lum

n p

erce

nta

ge

� �

�

��

Table 5.4 reveals that the majority of the respondents (61.1%) in the income

group of below Rs.10000, give first preference to Aquafina (42.5%), followed by

SDR (10.5%) and Thendral (0.5%). In the income group of Rs.10000 to Rs.20000

(30.6%), they prefer Aquafina (40%), followed by Thamiraparani (12.4%) and Ganga

(0.5%). In the income group of Rs.20000 to Rs.30000 (41.1%), they prefer Aquafina

(44%), followed by SDR (12%), Thamiraparani (4%) and no one prefers Thendral

and Ganga. The respondents in the income group of above Rs.40000 (4.1%) give first

preference to Aquafina (44%), followed by Thamiraparani (12%). Only 4% of them

like Ganga and no one prefers Thendral and Vaigai.

Table 5.5

Influence of income on brand preference

Value df P value


18 .299*


Linear-by-Linear Association .010 1 .919



Table 5.5 shows the association between brand preferences and the monthly

income of the respondents. The P value (P>0.05) discloses that there is no significant

relationship between the brand preferences and the different monthly incomes of

respondents. It is concluded that the brand preference is not based on the monthly

income of the respondents. Irrespective of their income, they purchase different

brands of packaged drinking water.

BRAND PREFERENCE AND ITS IMPACT ON WATERBORNE DISEASES

In manufacturing packaged drinking water, waterborne chemicals are removed

through processes such as flocculation, filtration and reverse osmosis. The final

quality and shelf life of water is greatly proved by proper pre-treatment (Jeya, 2007)8.

� �

�

��

Table 5.6

Relationship between brand preference and its impact on waterborne diseases

N Mean σ F value P value

Fever SDR 60 1.75 1.019

2.430 .025*

Quibell 146 1.55 .990

Aquafina 256 1.92 1.147

Thamiraparani 55 1.87 1.171

Vaigai 76 1.79 1.158

Thendral 8 1.13 .354

Ganga 6 1.33 .816

Vomiting SDR 60 1.95 1.333

2.368 .029*

Quibell 146 1.54 1.038

Aquafina 256 1.84 1.113

Thamiraparani 55 1.58 .937

Vaigai 76 1.58 .837


Ganga 6 1.33 .516

Diarrhoea SDR 60 2.00 1.289

3.743 .001*

Quibell 146 1.60 1.007

Aquafina 256 1.99 1.175


Vaigai 76 1.70 1.007


Ganga 6 1.50 .837

Unsettled stomach SDR 60 1.55 1.048

1.013 .416*

Quibell 146 1.55 1.018

Aquafina 256 1.55 .952


Vaigai 76 1.46 .886


Ganga 6 1.83 1.329

Allergy SDR 60 1.70 1.094

1.269 .269*

Quibell 146 1.51 1.026

Aquafina 256 1.50 .881


Vaigai 76 1.53 .871


Ganga 6 1.17 .408


The F test analyses the choice of packaged drinking water and its impact on

waterborne diseases. As per the acceptance of null hypothesis, there is no significant

association between the preference for packaged drinking water and water borne

diseases such as unsettled stomach. This analysis indicated that the consumption of

� �

�

��

packaged drinking water by different brands is not the cause for the waterborne

diseases such as unsettled stomach. Waterborne diseases such as fever, vomiting and

diarrohea are significantly related with the consumption of packaged drinking water

irrespective of their brands. The regular consumption of packaged drinking water

causes the water borne diseases of fever, vomiting and diarrhea.

HEALTH SAFETY AND QUALITY OF BRANDS

It is believed that branding or re-branding, with a new name or logo does not

come cheap and should therefore be handled with utmost care and precision, in case it

amounts to a total waste of money and other resources. (Lead Edge, 2005)9. Based on

the result of this survey it was concluded the value of a strong brand lies in the

impression left with anyone who comes into contact with the organization. The study

further opined that the most compelling reasons for effective branding is to gain

customer loyalty and support a premium price because purchasers rely on experience

and their long held attitudes about a brand, and that successful brands are often

focused on one specific market segment.

Table 5.7

Health safety and quality of brands

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t P value

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) .960 .156 6.142

.000*

Brand loyalty .204 .041 .203 4.940 .000

More hygienic .342 .042 .332 8.183 .000

Best quality .104 .034 .112 3.044 .002

Bottles affect

environment

.015 .033 .016 .446 .656

R value 0.512a

R square 0.262

F statistics (4, 602) 53.553

a. Dependent Variable: Safe for health


� �

�

��

Dependent variable : Safe for health

Independent variables : Brand loyalty, more hygienic, best quality,

bottles affect environment

Multiple R : 0. 512

R square : 0.262

Adjusted R2 :

0.258

F value : 53.553

P value : 0.000

R2

describes the amount of variability that has been caused by independent

variables of brand loyalty, more hygienic quality and bottles affect environment. Here

it is (0.262) 26%. Adjusted R2

gives an indication whether there is any insignificant

factor or not. It should be close to R2 value (Multiple). Here R

2 (0.262) and adjusted

R2

(0.258) are very close to each other which indicates good model. (Adjusted R2

is always < or = multiple R square).

The regression analysis R2

value always increases with the inclusion of

parameters, but adjusted R2

may not be. This indicates the presence of nuisance

parameters in the model. The significant P value of F test indicates that there is at

least one variable which has a significant contribution to the model. The P value of t –

test is significant (P<0.05), which indicates that all these variables have a significant

effect on the safety for health.

R2

is a measure designed to indicate the strength of the impact of the

independent variables on dependent variables. The number can be between 0 and 1,

with value closer to 1, meaning a strong relationship. R2

is 26% of variation in safety

� �

�

��

for health is connected by the independent variables brand loyalty, more hygienic,

best quality and bottles affect environment. This analysis indicates that there is a

relationship between the safe for health and the independent variables brand loyalty,

more hygienic, best quality and bottles affect environment.

Table 5.8

Brand preference and diseases of the respondents

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

T P

value

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 2.680 .126 21.238 .000

Fever -.050 .055 -.042 -.916 .360

Vomiting .010 .068 .009 .151 .880

Diarrhoea -.036 .063 -.030 -.574 .566

Unsettled

stomach

.225 .075 .165 3.019 .003

Allergy .015 .072 .011 .209 .834

R value .156a

R square .024

F statistics (5, 4.946) 2.990

a. Dependent Variable: Brand loyalty


Dependent variable : Brand loyalty

Independent variable : Fever, vomiting, diarrhoea, unsettled stomach,

allergy

Multiple R : 0. 156

R square : 0.024

Adjusted R2 :

0.016

F value : 2.990

P value : 0.011

R2

describes the amount of variability that has been caused by the

independent variables Fever, vomiting, diarrhoea, unsettled stomach and allergy. Here

� �

�

��

it is (0.024) 2%. Adjusted R2

indicates whether there is any insignificant factor or not.

It should be close to R2

value (Multiple). Here R2

(0.024) and adjusted R2

(0.016) are

very close to each other which indicates a good model. (Adjusted R2

always < or =

multiple R square).






least one variable which has significant contribution to the model. The P value of t –

test is significant (P<0.05), which indicates all these variables have a significant effect

on the variable brand loyalty. R2

is a measure designed to indicate the strength of the

impact of the independent variables on dependent variables. The number can be

between 0 and 1, with values closer to 1, meaning a strong relationship. R2

is 2% of

variation in brand loyalty which is connected by the independent variables of fever,

vomiting, diarrhoea, unsettled stomach and allergy. This analysis indicates that there

is a relationship between the dependent variable brand loyalty and the independent

variables of fever, vomiting, diarrhoea, unsettled stomach and allergy.

��

�

��

. T

ab

le 5

.9

Fact

ors

in

flu

enci

ng t

he

pu

rch

ase

of

pack

aged

dri

nk

ing w

ate

r

Tota

l V

ari

an

ce E

xp

lain

ed

Co

mpo

nent

Init

ial E

igen

valu

es

Extr

acti

on S

um

s o

f S

quar

ed L

oad

ing

s R

ota

tio

n S

um

s o

f S

quar

ed L

oad

ing

s

Tota

l %

of

Var

iance

Cu

mu

lati

ve

%

Tota

l %

of

Var

iance

Cu

mu

lati

ve

%

Tota

l %

of

Var

iance

Cu

mu

lati

ve

%

1

2.8

28

25.7

09

25.7

09

2.8

28

25.7

09

25.7

09

2.1

21

19.2

78

19.2

78

2

1.9

25

17.5

02

43.2

11

1.9

25

17.5

02

43.2

11

2.0

57

18.7

00

37.9

77

3

1.3

54

12.3

14

55.5

25

1.3

54

12.3

14

55.5

25

1.9

30

17.5

47

55.5

25

4

.973

8.8

43

64.3

68

5

.784

7.1

24

71.4

92

6

.733

6.6

66

78.1

58

7

.599

5.4

46

83.6

03

8

.577

5.2

41

88.8

45

9

.493

4.4

81

93.3

25

10

.466

4.2

33

97.5

58

11

.269

2.4

42

100.0

00

Extr

acti

on M

etho

d:

Pri

ncip

al

Co

mpo

nent

Analy

sis.

� �

�

��

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3

Vitamins .087 .887 .017

Minerals .075 .857 .198

Life style -.014 .256 .613

Taste .072 -.019 .749

Pure and fresh .100 -.095 .743

Convenience .353 .228 .335

Reasonable price .689 -.002 .123

Prestige .761 .015 .020

Confidence .710 .177 .077

Attractive packages .462 .388 -.369

Ingredients .442 .475 -.363

Factor 1 Brand loyalty

1. Prestige 0.761

2. Confidence 0.710

3. Reasonable price 0.689

4. Attractive packages 0.462

5. Convenience 0.353

Factor II Quality products

1. Vitamins 0.887

2. Minerals 0.857

3. Ingredients 0.475

Factor III Brand preferences

1. Taste 0.749

2. Pure and Fresh 0.743

3. Life style 0.613

Principal component analysis was the method of extraction. Varimax was the

rotation method. As per the Kaiser criterian, three factors in the initial solution have

values greater than 1. Together, they account for almost (55.52), 55% of the

variability in the original variables. Table 5.10 shows the factor loading values of the

factors analysis. Using the above rotated component value, the variables are classified

into three factors, namely brand loyalty, quality products and brand preferences.

� �

�

��

1. Brand loyalty is the name given to the first set of factors and is identified through

factor analysis. In addition to this, prestige is considered as the most important

factor in brand loyalty. It is followed by confidence towards brand. Further,

reasonable price is considered as the third important factor. Similarly, attractive

packages and convenience are considered as the fifth ranking factor.

2. Quality products: It is a set of practices designed to promote quality products in

effective manner. Vitamins are considered as an important factor while prefering

quality drinking water. It is followed by minerals and ingredients. These are

observed as important factors while purchasing the packaged drinking water.

Further, ingredients are also considered as a crucial factor. Hence, it is concluded

that quality products are very essential to avoid unnecessary health issues.

3. Brand preferences: Brand preferences include taste, pure and fresh and life style.

It is a set of brand preferences designed to promote a brand in effective manner.

Taste is considered as an important factor to promote a brand. It is followed by

purity and fresh which is also observed as an important factor. Further, life style

is also considered as a crucial factor.

The respondents give first preference to brand loyalty followed by quality

products. In brand loyalty, they give importance to prestige and confidence. Then in

quality products they highly prefer vitamins and minerals. In brand preference they

give importance to taste and purity and freshness.

PURPOSES FOR USING PACKAGED DRINKING WATER - CORRELATION

Miller (2006)10

explores both the sides of the bottled water debate and points

out possible advantages with bottled water. He states that since water is most

� �

�

��

frequently bottled directly from its source, it runs a very low chance of contamination

from lingering, whereas treatment of freshwater includes potential contaminated

plumbing, excessive amounts of fluorine and/or chlorine as well as other means of

contamination in river, wastewater, and rain water collection. Health concerns also

arise from the possibility of broken, damaged or rusting pipes running to, from or

within water treatment facilities. This supports the argument that bottled water does

have the possibility of being purer than fresh water.

Table 5.10

Purposes for using packaged drinking water – Correlation

Table 5.10 shows the bivariate correlation between the life style, pure and

fresh, convenience, prestige and ingredients. In this analysis, there is a relationship

among the variables life style, pure and fresh, convenience, prestige and ingredients.

Life style

Pure and fresh

Convenience Prestige Ingredients

Life style Pearson

Correlation

1 .272**

.148**

.109**

-.062

P value .000 .007 .127

Respondents 607 607 607

Pure and

fresh

Pearson

Correlation

1 .170**

.014 -.168**

P value .000 .730 .000


Convenience Pearson

Correlation

1 .132**

.124**

P value .001 .002

Respondents 607 607

Prestige Pearson

Correlation

1 .252**

P value .000

Respondents 607

Ingredients Pearson Correlation

1

P value

Respondents 607

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

� �

�

��

The result shows that there is a positive relationship between the variables of

life style and pure and fresh (r=.272, P <0.01) and convenience and prestige.

Similarly, the two other variables life style and ingredients are negatively correlated

(r = -.062, P <0.01). The respondents give importance to the life style and purity and

freshness of packaged drinking water.

Eight factors have inter-correlation positive values

1. Life style and pure and fresh are highly correlated 0.272.

2. Life style correlates with convenience 0.148.

3. Life style correlates with prestige 0.109.

4. Pure and fresh correlates with convenience 0.170.

5. Pure and fresh correlates with prestige 0.014.

6. Convenience correlates with prestige 0.132.

7. Convenience correlates with ingredients 0.124.

8. Prestige correlates with ingredients 0.252.

Two factors have inter-correlation negative values

1. Life style correlates with ingredients - 0.062.

2. Pure and fresh correlates with ingredients - 0.168.

LIFE STYLE AND USING PACKAGED DRINKING WATER

As the whole human population needs drinking water for sustaining life,

the provision of a safe water supply is a high priority issue for safeguarding the

health and well-being of humans. The production of adequate and safe drinking

water is the most important factor contributing to a decrease in mortality and

morbidity. To assure consumers that drinking water is safe and can be consumed

without any risk, guidelines or standards have been set, giving maximum allow-

able concentrations for compounds in drinking water below which no significant

health risk is encountered (Leeuwen, 2000)11

.

� �

�

��

Table 5.11

Life style and using packaged drinking water

NX

σ F value P value

Good for health 161 3.24 1.258

0.566 0.637*

Affects the health 112 3.28 1.224

Safe for health 128 3.31 1.344

Don' t know 206 3.15 1.147

Total 607 3.23 1.233


Table 5.11 shows that F value of 0.566. P>0.05 is not significant, showing

there is no significant association between life style and using packaged drinking

water. As such, the null hypothesis is accepted and the alternate hypothesis is

rejected. The life style of the respondents does not influence the usage of packaged

drinking water.

� �

�

��

Table 5.12

Reasons to purchase different brands

NX

σ F value P value

More hygienic SDR 60 3.07 1.582

3.026 .006*

Quibell 146 3.86 1.558

Aquafina 256 3.63 1.363


Vaigai 76 3.82 1.354

Thendral 8 2.63 1.768

Ganga 6 4.00 1.549

Easy availability SDR 60 2.95 1.478

2.034 .059*

Quibell 146 3.33 1.415

Aquafina 256 3.38 1.329


Vaigai 76 3.34 1.239

Thendral 8 2.00 1.309

Ganga 6 3.50 1.975

Reasonable price SDR 60 2.78 1.303

.740 .618*

Quibell 146 2.95 1.374

Aquafina 256 2.94 1.209


Vaigai 76 2.92 1.241

Thendral 8 2.38 1.506

Ganga 6 2.50 1.378

Brand loyalty SDR 60 2.58 1.369

1.507 .173*

Quibell 146 2.87 1.330

Aquafina 256 2.97 1.278


Vaigai 76 3.16 1.297

Thendral 8 2.75 1.389

Ganga 6 3.17 1.472

Better quality SDR 60 2.63 1.551

1.846 .088*

Quibell 146 2.88 1.422

Aquafina 256 3.16 1.431


Vaigai 76 3.13 1.398

Thendral 8 2.25 1.488

Ganga 6 2.67 1.211

More quantity SDR 60 2.28 1.316

.525 .789*

Quibell 146 2.47 1.370

Aquafina 256 2.51 1.299


Vaigai 76 2.53 1.311

Thendral 8 2.88 1.642

Ganga 6 2.83 1.472

� �

�

��

Quality service SDR 60 2.45 1.333

.093 .997*

Quibell 146 2.34 1.320

Aquafina 256 2.41 1.323


Vaigai 76 2.36 1.151

Thendral 8 2.38 1.506

Ganga 6 2.50 1.378

Salesmen’s influence SDR 60 2.32 1.157

2.689 .014*

Quibell 146 2.66 1.392

Aquafina 256 2.48 1.394


Vaigai 76 2.30 1.255


Ganga 6 2.33 1.211

Convenience SDR 60 2.20 1.232

1.198 .305*

Quibell 146 2.34 1.407

Aquafina 256 2.41 1.403


Vaigai 76 2.62 1.423

Thendral 8 3.00 1.604

Ganga 6 2.67 1.506

Confidence SDR 60 2.57 1.511

.133 .992*

Quibell 146 2.68 1.513

Aquafina 256 2.63 1.492


Vaigai 76 2.54 1.409

Thendral 8 2.88 1.808

Ganga 6 2.50 1.517


In Table 5.12, ‘F’ test analyses the reasons for the purchasing different brands

of packaged drinking water. This analysis clearly indicates that the purchase of

packaged drinking water has a significant relationship with the important reasons like

packaged drinking water is more hygienic and the influence of the salesman. This

indicates that the consumers have high confidence in the packaged drinking water for

its hygienic nature, followed by salesmen’s influence. The respondents buy packaged

drinking water for its more hygienic nature than that of other waters. The other

reasons like easy availability, price, brand loyalty, quality service, convenience and

confidence have no significant relationship with the purchase of packaged drinking

water. These variables do not play prominent roles in influencing the purchasing

attitudes of the respondents.

� �

�

��

Table 5.13

Reasons to buy a specific brand – Regression Analysis

Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t P

value.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) .681 .183 3.712 .000*

More hygienic .056 .039 .063 1.434 .152

Easy availability .215 .041 .230 5.288 .000

Reasonable price .191 .041 .186 4.719 .000

Better quality .097 .035 .109 2.762 .006

More quantity .100 .040 .102 2.497 .013

Quality service .069 .039 .070 1.755 .080

Salesmen’s influence -.050 .036 -.052 -.367 .172

Convenience .040 .037 .042 1.079 .281

Confidence .029 .033 .033 .863 .389

R value 0.533a

R square 0.284

F statistics (9, 597) 26.286




Independent variables : More hygienic, easy availability, reasonable price,

better quality, more quantity, quality service,

salesmen’s influence, convenience, confidence.

Multiple R : 0.533

R square : 0.284

Adjusted R2 :

0.273

F value : 26.286

P value : 0.000

R2

describes the amount of variability that has been caused by the independent

variables more hygienic, easy availability, reasonable price, better quality, more

quantity, quality service, salesman influence, convenience and confidence. Here it is

(0.284) 28%. Adjusted R2

gives the indication whether there is any insignificant

factor or not. Here R2


(0.282) are very close to each other

which indicates good model. (Adjusted R2

always < or = multiple R square). The

� �

�

��

regression analysis R2

value always increases with the inclusion of parameters, but

adjusted R2

may not be, and this indicates the presence of nuisance parameters in the

model. The significant P value of F test indicates that there is at least one variable

which has a significant contribution to the model. The P value of t – test is significant

(P<0.05), which indicates all these variables have a significant effect on the brand

loyalty. R2


independent variables on dependent variables. The number can be between 0 and 1,

with values closer to 1, meaning a strong relationship. R2

is 28% of variation in brand

loyalty which is connected to the independent variables more hygienic, easy

availability, reasonable price, better quality, more quantity, quality service,

salesmen’s influence, convenience, and confidence. This analysis indicates that there

is a relationship between the brand loyalty and the independent variables more

hygienic in nature easy availability, reasonable price, better quality, more quantity,

quality service, salesman influence, convenience and confidence.

Table 5.14

Reasons for using a specific brand of packaged drinking water - Correlation

Brand

loyalty

Better

quality

More

quantity

Quality

service

Brand loyalty

Pearson Correlation

1 .324**

.268**

.243**

P value .000 .000 .000


Better quality

Pearson Correlation

1 .272**

.199**

P value .000 .000

Respondents 607 607

More

quantity

Pearson

Correlation 1 .395

**

P value .000

Respondents 607

Quality

service

Pearson

Correlation 1

P value

Respondents 607


� �

�

��

Table 5.14 shows the bivariate correlation between the variables brand loyalty,

better quality, more quantity and quality service. In this analysis, there is a

relationship among the variables brand loyalty, better quality, more quantity and

quality service. The results show that there is a positive relationship between more

quantity and quality service (r = 0.395, P < 0.01). The respondents give first

preference for the more quantity and service quality.

All the factors have inter-correlation positive values

1. More quantity and quality service are highly correlated 0.395

2. Better quality correlates with brand loyalty 0.324

3. Quality service correlates with better quality 0.199

4. Quality service correlates with brand loyalty 0.243.

Table 5.15

Factors influencing the purchase of a Specific Brand

Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

% of Varian

ce

Cumulative %

Total

% of Varian

ce

Cumulative %

Total

% of Varian

ce

Cumulative %

1 2.695

33.687 33.687 2.695

33.687 33.687 2.503

31.284 31.284

2 1.382

17.277 50.964 1.382

17.277 50.964 1.574

19.681 50.964

3 .868 10.847 61.811

4 .806 10.072 71.883

5 .683 8.533 80.416

6 .601 7.513 87.930

7 .488 6.095 94.024

8 .478 5.976 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

� �

�

��


Component

1 2

Easy availabilty .786 -.036

Brand loyalty .760 .152

More hygienic .791 .064

Safe for health .670 .185

Covenient package .222 .632

Foreign brand -.213 .742

Best quality .349 .401

Bottels affect environment .128 .634

Factor I Preference for purchase:

1. More hygienic 0.791

2. Easy availability 0.786

3. Brand loyalty 0.760

4. Safe for health 0.670

Factor II Quality of the products:

1. Foreign brand 0.742

2. Convenient package 0.632

3. Bottles affect environment 0.634

4. Best quality 0.401

In the above rotated component value, the variables are classified into two factors,

namely, preference for purchase and quality of the products.

1. Preference for purchase: It is the name given to the first set of factors and is

identified through factor analysis. All these variables have a factor loading of

above 0.5 for preference towards products. All these items have one

commonality. Lack of preference for a brand leads to various health issues

including waterborne diseases.

In addition to this, more hygienic in nature is considered as the most

important factor while purchasing a preferred brand. It is followed by easy

availability and brand loyalty. Further, safe for health is considered as an

� �

�

��

important factor while purchasing a brand. Hence, it is inferred that it is essential

to buy the right brand to lead a healthy life.

2. Quality of the products: Quality of the products includes convenient packages,

foreign brand, bottle affect environment and best quality. It is a set of products

designed to affect the idea about the quality of the products. Convenient package

is considered as an important factor and bottles affect the environment is also

observed as an important factor. Further, foreign brand is also considered as a

crucial factor. Hence, it is essential to ensure the quality of the products to lead a

healthy life.

The respondents give importance to hygienic nature of product, easy availability,

brand loyalty and safety. Then they give importance to foreign brand and convenient

package.

Table 5.16

Brand loyalty and accessibility of the brand - Regression

Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t P

value

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) .539 .168 3.215

.001*

Easy availability .263 .034 .296 7.639 .000

More hygienic .259 .041 .253 6.317 .000

Safe for health .146 .037 .146 3.888 .000

Convenient

package

.061 .037 .059 1.669 .096

Foreign brand -.017 .035 -.017 -.480 .631

Bottels affect

environment

.107 .031 .117 3.460 .001

R value 0.606

R square 0.367

F statistics (6, 600) 58.053



� �

�

��


Independent variables : Easy availability, more hygienic, safe for health,

convenient packages, foreign brand and

bottles affect environment

Multiple R : 0.606

R square : 0.367

Adjusted R2 :

0.361

F value : 58.053

P value : 0.000

R2

describes the amount of variability that has been caused by the

independent variables easy availability, more hygienic, safe for health, convenient

packages, foreign brand and bottles affect environment. Here it is (0.367) 36%.

Adjusted R2

indicates whether there is any insignificant factor or not. It is close to R2

value (Multiple). Here R2


(0.365) are very close to each other

which indicates a good model. (Adjusted R2

always < or = multiple R square).








on brand loyalty. R2


independent variables on the dependent variables. The number can be between 0 and

1, with values closer to 1, meaning a strong relationship. R2

is 36% of variation in

brand loyalty that is connected by the independent variables easy availability, more

hygienic, safe for health, convenient packages, foreign brand and bottles affect

environment. This analysis indicates that there is a relationship between brand loyalty

� �

�

��

and the independent variables easy availability, more hygienic, safe for health,

convenient packages, foreign brand and bottles affect the environment.

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PREFERENCES FOR PACKAGED

DRINKING WATER

The study conducted by AWWA in 1993, included a mass telephone survey

which showed that participants were satisfied with the overall safety of their tap

water. However, they saw bottled water as a luxury item and were motivated to drink

it based on taste, health and safety.

In the regulated bottled water industry in Nigeria, it was expected that the

issue of “better quality” should not arise. This is against the backdrop that the

National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) has

stipulated and is seriously enforcing both production and marketing standards for all

producers of bottled water, thereby making every brand of bottled water of equal

purity and quality. Yet most consumers of a product would readily pay a premium

price or are price insensitive when it comes to the purchase of a particular brand of

regulated water. This gets one wondering, whether it could be that consumers in

making choice are merely responding to the outcome of their perception which is a

function of such attributes like brand name, mark, package, company-of-make, etc. A

point to note is the fact that most producers strongly believe that branding has a very

high influence on consumer’s choice (Ogbuji, 2008)12

.

��

�

��

Tab

le 5

.17

Sel

ecti

ng p

art

icu

lar

sou

rce

of

pu

rch

ase

- C

orr

ela

tion

Rep

uta

tion o

f th

e se

ller

Quali

tyP

roxim

ity

Cre

dit

Ser

vic

e quali

tyP

rice

Q

uanti

tyQ

uic

k d

eliv

ery

Rep

uta

tion o

f th

e se

ller

Pea

rson C

orr

elati

on

1.3

48

**

-.072

.357

**

.190

**

.239

**

.301

**

.282

**

P v

alu

e.0

00

.078

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

Res

ponden

ts607

607

607

607

607

607

607

Quali

tyP

ears

on C

orr

elati

on

1.3

43

**

.206

**

.138

**

.138

**

.180

**

.197

**

P v

alu

e.0

00

.000

.001

.001

.000

.000

Res

ponden

ts607

607

607

607

607

607

Pro

xim

ity

Pea

rson C

orr

elati

on

1-.

099

*.1

63

**

-.001

-.040

.024

P v

alu

e.0

15

.000

.978

.324

.561

Res

ponden

ts607

607

607

607

607

Cre

dit

Pea

rson C

orr

elati

on

1.2

21

**

.227

**

.354

**

.250

**

P v

alu

e.0

00

.000

.000

.000

Res

ponden

ts607

607

607

607

Ser

vic

e quali

tyP

ears

on C

orr

elati

on

1.1

31

**

.237

**

.281

**

P v

alu

e.0

01

.000

.000

Res

ponden

ts607

607

607

Pri

ce

Pea

rson C

orr

elati

on

1.4

31

**

.260

**

P v

alu

e.0

00

.000

Res

ponden

ts607

607

Quanti

tyP

ears

on C

orr

elati

on

1.3

70

**

P v

alu

e.0

00

Res

ponden

ts607

Quic

k d

eliv

ery

Pea

rson C

orr

elati

on

1

P v

alu

e

Res

ponden

ts607

**.

Corr

elati

on i

s si

gnif

icant

at

the

0.0

1 l

evel

(2-t

ail

ed).

� �

�

��

Table 5.17 analyses the bivariate correlation between the reputation of the

seller, quality, proximity, credit, service quality, price, quantity and quick delivery. In

this analysis, there is a relationship among the variables reputation of the seller,

quality, proximity, credit, service quality, price, quantity and quick delivery. The

result shows that there is a positive relationship between the variables of quantity and

price (r = 0.431, P < 0.01). Similarly, two other variables, proximity and price are

negatively correlated (r = -.001, P <0.01). The respondents give importance to the

quantity and price of the packaged drinking water.

Seven factors have correlation with positive value:

1. Reputation of the seller correlates with credit 0.357.

2. Quantity correlates with price 0.431.

3. Quick delivery correlates with quantity 0.370

4. Credit correlates with quantity 0.354

5. Quality correlates with proximity 0.343

6. Service quality correlates with quick delivery 0.281

7. Proximity correlates with service quality 0.163

Three factors have negative correlation values:

1. Proximity correlates with price -0.001

2. Reputation of the seller correlates with proximity -0.072

3. Proximity correlates with credit -0.099

� �

�

��

Table 5.18

Education and Selecting the particular Source of purchase

N X σ F value P value

Reputation of the seller Illiterate 39 2.64 1.442

3.605 .028* School level 266 3.38 1.633

College level 302 3.22 1.651

Quality Illiterate 39 2.67 1.420

6.133 .002* School level 266 3.08 1.417


Proximity Illiterate 39 3.00 1.589

2.674 .070* School level 266 3.37 1.382


Credit Illiterate 39 2.44 1.465

1.181 .308* School level 266 2.29 1.305


Service quality Illiterate 39 2.33 1.383

1.909 .149* School level 266 2.61 1.400


Force of sales man Illiterate 39 2.51 1.211

.079 .924* School level 266 2.47 1.349


Friends’ recommendation Illiterate 39 3.03 1.203

1.369 .255* School level 266 2.68 1.305


Price Illiterate 39 2.56 1.392

.718 .488*

School level 266 2.43 1.322


Quantity Illiterate 39 2.33 1.4021.452 .235*

School level 266 2.09 1.307


Quick delivery Illiterate 39 2.69 1.507

2.130 .120* School level 266 2.47 1.412



Table 5.18 shows the relation between the education of the respondents and

the reasons for selecting particular source of purchase considering variables such as

reputation of the seller, quality, proximity, credit, service quality, force of salesman,

friends’ recommendation, price, quantity and quick delivery. As per the rejection of

null hypothesis (P<0.05), there is a significant relationship between the variables

� �

�

��

reputation of the seller, quality and education of the respondents. The different levels

of education influence the buying decision considering the reputation of the seller and

the quality of the packaged drinking water.

As per the acceptance of null hypothesis (P>0.05), there is no relation among

the other eight variables proximity, credit, service quality, force of salesman, friends’

recommendation, price, quantity and quick delivery and education of the respondents.

The different levels of education of the respondents do not influence the decision to

selecting a particular source of purchasing packaged drinking water.

Fig 5.2

Shifting the Source of Purchase

This Figure analyses the change or shifting the source of Purchase. In the first

case, majority of the respondents (72.3%) point out that they prefer same source.

About 27.7% of the respondents prefer to change the source. It is concluded that most

of them prefer their present source of purchase.

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

Tab

le 5

.19

Rea

son

s fo

r se

lect

ing t

he

part

icu

lar

Sou

rce

Tota

l V

ari

an

ce E

xp

lain

ed

Co

mpo

nent

Init

ial E

igen

valu

es

Extr

acti

on S

um

s o

f S

quar

ed L

oad

ing

s R

ota

tio

n S

um

s o

f S

quar

ed L

oad

ing

s

Tota

l %

of

Var

iance

Cu

mu

lati

ve

%T

ota

l %

of

Var

iance

Cu

mu

lati

ve

%T

ota

l %

of

Var

iance

Cu

mu

lati

ve

%

1

2.9

34

29.3

39

29.3

39

2.9

34

29.3

39

29.3

39

2.1

50

21.5

00

21.5

00

2

1.3

76

13.7

57

43.0

96

1.3

76

13.7

57

43.0

96

1.8

93

18.9

31

40.4

31

3

1.1

32

11.3

17

54.4

14

1.1

32

11.3

17

54.4

14

1.3

98

13.9

83

54.4

14

4

.948

9.4

84

63.8

98

5

.734

7.3

37

71.2

35

6

.710

7.1

03

78.3

38

7

.626

6.2

57

84.5

95

8

.589

5.8

89

90.4

85

9

.513

5.1

33

95.6

18

10

.438

4.3

82

100.0

00

Extr

acti

on M

etho

d:

Pri

ncip

al

Co

mpo

nent

Analy

sis.

� �

�

��


Component

1 2 3

Reputation of the

seller

.072 .800 .127

Quality .063 .449 .721

Proximity .077 -.203 .846

Credit .245 .685 -.096

Service quality .568 .092 .234

Influence of salesman .553 .321 -.257

Friends’

recommendation

.745 -.224 .074

Price .474 .326 -.021

Quantity .586 .424 -.048

Quick delivery .568 .309 .092

Factor I Service quality

1. Friends’ recommendation 0.745

2. Quantity 0.586

3. Service Quality 0.568

4. Quick delivery 0.474

5. Price 0.474

6. Influence of salesman 0.553

Factor II Particular Source:

1. Reputation of the seller 0.800

2. Credit 0.685

Factor III Availability

1. Proximity 0.846

2. Quality 0.721

Principal component analysis is the method of extraction. Varimax is the

rotation method. As per the Kaiser criterion, three factors in the initial solution

are greater than 1.

Together, they account for almost 54.41 (54%) of the variability in the original

variables. Table 5.27 shows the Eigen value of the factors. Using the above rotated

� �

�

��

component value, the variables are classified into three factors, namely service

quality, particular source and availability.

1. Service Quality is the name given to the first set of factors and is identified

through factor analysis. All these variables have factor loading. All items

have one commonality.

In addition to this, friends’ recommendation is considered as the most

important factor in changing the source of purchase. It is followed by quantity

and service quality. Quick delivery is also considered as an important factor

for changing a particular source of purchasing packaged drinking water.

Further, price and influence of salesmen are considered as important factors

for the change of particular source of purchasing packaged drinking water.

Hence, it is essential to ensure quality service to retain customers.

2. Particular source: The variable reputation of the seller and credit approval

influence the brand in effective manner. Reputation of the seller is considered

as an important factor to maintain the source preferences. It is followed by

allowing credit facility to the customer which is observed as an important

factor for source. Hence, it is concludes that the reputation of the seller and

credit facility are very essential to retain customers for packaged drinking

water.

3. Availability: In addition to this, the respondents change the source of

purchasing packaged drinking water due to quality and easy availability of the

product. The respondents give first preference to service quality followed by

availability and particular source. In the availability of the packaged drinking

water they highly prefer proximity followed by quality and they give

� �

�

��

importance to reputation of the seller. In service quality they give preference

to friends’ recommendation and quantity.

Table 5.20

Influence of price in shifting the source

Shifting the source NX

σ t value P value

Shift 168 2.49 1.2950.164 0.870*

Not shift 439 2.51 1.430


This table shows the relationship between price and shifting the source. As per

the acceptance of null hypothesis, there is no significant association of price with the

shifting the source of purchase. Hence, it is inferred that prices are not influential in

shifting the source of purchase.

Table 5.21

Influence of service quality in shifting the source

Shifting the source NX

σ t value P value

Shift 168 2.95 1.4513.203 0.001*

Not shift 439 2.55 1.342


This table reveals the relationship between service quality and shifting the

source. As per the rejection of null hypothesis, there is a significant relationship

between service quality and shifting the source of purchase. Hence, it is concluded

that shifting the source of purchase to another is due to poor service quality.

� �

�

��

Table 5.22

Shifting the source of purchase of packaged drinking water - Correlation

Poor

service

Old

stock

High

price

Sales man

behaviour

Credit

cancellation

Poor service Pearson

Correlation

1 .124 .028 .020 .046

P value .108 .721 .795 .554

Respondents 168 168 168 168

Old stock Pearson

Correlation

1 .007 -.106 -.243**

P value .929 .173 .002


High price Pearson

Correlation

1 -.130 .031

P value .093 .689

Respondents 168 168

Sales man

behaviour

Pearson

Correlation

1 .164*

P value .034

Respondents 168

Credit

cancellation

Pearson

Correlation

1

P value

Respondents 168


*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 5.22 analyses the bivariate correlation between the variables poor

service, old stock, high price, salesman behaviour and credit cancellation. In this

analysis, there is a relationship among the variables poor service, old stock, high

price, salesman behavior and credit cancellation. The result shows that there is a

positive relationship between salesman behaviour and credit cancellation (r = 0.164, P

< 0.05).

Similarly, the two other variables old stock and Salesman behaviour are

negatively correlated (r = -.106, P <0.01).

The respondents give importance to the salesman behaviour and credit

cancellation for shifting the source of purchase.

� �

�

��

Four factors are inter-correlated with positive value:

1. Poor service correlates with old stock 0.124

2. Salesman behaviour correlates with credit cancellation 0.164

3. Old stock correlates with high price 0.007

4. High price correlates with credit cancellation 0.031

Other three factors are negative correlation:

1. Old stock correlates with salesman behavior - 0.106

2. Credit cancellation correlates with old stock –0.243

3. High price correlates with salesman behavior -0.130

Table 5.23

Reasons for shifting the source of purchase of packaged drinking water

Mean of Rank Over all Rank

Poor service 4.98 1

Old stock 3.52 2

High price 3.21 4

Sales man behaviour 3.42 3

Credit cancellation 2.91 6

Residence change 2.97 5

Source: Primary Data

Table 5.23 demonstrates the reason for shifting the source of purchase. It

shows that respondents shift the source of purchase, mainly due to poor service (4.98),

followed by old stock (3.52), salesman behaviour (3.42), high price (3.21), residence

change (2.97) and lastly due to credit cancellation (2.91).

Table 5.24

Influence of education on switching over to other brands

Value Df P value


2 .007*





� �

�

��

This table demonstrates the association of the education of the respondents

with the switch over to other brands. As per the rejection of null hypothesis, there is a

relationship between the education of the respondents and their reasons for switching

over to other brand. It is concluded that the different levels of education are related to

switching over to other brand. The high and low level of education determines the

switch over to other brands. Based on the education, the respondents switch over to

other brands.

Table 5.25

Influence of occupation on switching over to other brands

Value df P value


4 .000*





This table shows the relationship between the occupation of the respondents

and the switch over to other brands. As per the analysis, there is an association

between the switch over to other brands and the occupation of the respondents. This

analysis concludes that the occupation of the respondents influence the switch over to

other brands of packaged drinking water.

� �

�

��

Table 5.26

Reasons for switching over to other brands

Coefficients


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

T P

value

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.681 .432 3.891

.000*

Bad odour -.012 .076 -.013 -.162 .871

Fungus/dust/worms .083 .081 .082 1.028 .306

Containers damage .178 .083 .169 2.144 .034

Affects health .033 .075 .034 .437 .662

R value 0.200a

R square 040

F statistics (4, 162) 1.691

a. Dependent Variable: Doctor's advice


Dependent variable : Change of brand

Independent variables : Bad odour, fungus/dust/worms, damaged containers,

affects health

Multiple R : 0.200

R square : 0.040

Adjusted R2 :

0.016

F value : 1.691

P value : 0.000

R2

describes the the amount of variability has been caused by the independent

variables bad odour, fungus/dust/worms, containers’ damage, affects health. Here it is

(0.040) 4%. Adjusted R2

gives an indication whether there is any insignificant factor

or not. It should be close to R2 value (Multiple). Here R

2 (0.040) and adjusted R

2

(0.016) are very close to each other which indicates good model. (Adjusted R2

always

< or = multiple R square). The regression analysis R2

value always increases with the

inclusion of parameters, but adjusted R2

may not be. This indicates the presence of

nuisance parameters in the model.

� �

�

��

The significant P value of F test indicates that there is at least one variable

which has significant contribution to the model. The P value of t – test is significant

(P<0.05), which indicates that all these variables have a significant effect on the

change of brand. R2


independent variables on the dependent variables. The number can be between 0 and

1, with value closer to 1 meaning the strong relationship. R2

is 4% of variation in

change of brand that is connected with the independent variables bad odour,

fungus/dust/worms, damaged containers and affects health.

This analysis indicates that there is a relationship between the change of brand

and the independent variables of bad odor, fungus/dust/worms, damaged containers

and affects health.

Table 5.27

Switch over to other brand – Correlation

Bad odor Fungus/dust/

worms

Containers

damage

Affects

health

Bad odour Pearson

Correlation

1 -.211**

.144 .022

P value .006 .064 .781


Fungus/dust/

worms

Pearson

Correlation

-.211**

1 .128 -.072

P value .006 .099 .352


Damaged

containers

Pearson

Correlation

.144 .128 1 .036

P value .064 .099 .643


Affects health Pearson

Correlation

.022 -.072 .036 1

P value .781 .352 .643



Table 5.27 shows the bivariate correlation between the bad odour,

fungus/dust/worms, damaged containers, and affects health. In this analysis, there is a

� �

�

��

relationship among the variables bad odour, fungus/dust/worms, damaged containers

and affects health. The result shows that there is a positive relationship between the

variables of bad odour and damaged containers (r = 0.144, P < 0.01). Similarly, the

two other variables bad odour and fungus/dust/worms are negatively correlated (r = -

.072, P <0.01). The respondents give importance to the bad odour and damaged

containers for switching over to other brand.

Two factors have inter correlation with positive value:

1. Bad odour correlates with damaged containers 0.144

2. Damaged containers correlates with fungus/dust/worm 0.128

Two factors have inter correlation with negative value:

1. Affects health correlates with fungus/dust/worms -0.072

2. Bad odour correlates with fungus/dust/worms -0.211

Table 5.28

Confidence and Different brands – Regression Analysis

Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t P

value

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.210 .181 6.699 .000*

Brand loyalty q15.4 .092 .048 .080 1.900 .058

Better quality q15.5 .134 .043 .130 3.125 .002

More quantity q15.6 .120 .049 .105 2.434 .015

Quality service

q15.7

.187 .048 .164 3.867 .000

R value 0.329a

R square 0.109

F statistics (4, 602) - 18.319

a. Dependent Variable: Confidence


Dependent variable : Confidence

Independent variables : Brand loyalty, better quality, more quantity, quality

service.

Multiple R : 0.329

� �

�

��

R square : 0.109

Adjusted R2 :

0.103

F value : 18.319

P value : 0.000

R2

describes that the amount of variability that has been caused by the

independent variables brand loyalty, better quality, more quantity and quality service.

Here it is (0.109) 1%. Adjusted R2

indicates whether there is any insignificant factor

or not. Here R2


(0.103) are very close to each other which

indicates a good model. (Adjusted R2


In the regression analysis, R2







on the factor confidence. R2


impact of the independent variables on the dependent variables. The number can be

between 0 and 1, with values closer to 1 meaning a strong relationship. R2

is 1% of

variation in confidence that is connected to the independent variables brand loyalty,

better quality, more quantity and quality service. This analysis indicates that there is a

relationship between the factor confidence and the independent variables brand

loyalty, better quality, more quantity and quality service.

� �

�

��

CONFIDENCE – PREFERENCE FOR PURCHASE OF PACKAGED

DRINKING WATER

Water quality can have a major impact on both individuals and communities’

health (Cemek et al., 2007)13

. Water may contain substances, whether natural or

through human activity, that can affect the quality and existence of life. It is important

to recognize between pure water and safe water. Pure water can be defined as water

that is free from all unrelated substances. But it may or may not be harmless to health.

On the other hand, safe water is water that is not likely to cause undesirable or

adverse effects, although it may contain certain pollutants. It should be clearly

understood that drinking water should be clean and safe, and that minute quantities of

contaminants present in water should meet the drinking water guidelines set by the

World Health Organization, to protect people's health (Wang, 1994)14

.

Table 5.29

Confidence – Different qualities of packaged drinking water-Regression

Coefficientsa


Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t P

value

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) .155 .205 .757 .449*

Vitamins .057 .042 .068 1.366 .172

Minerals .080 .047 .085 1.699 .090

Life style .011 .042 .010 .255 .799

Pure and fresh .041 .035 .044 1.171 .242

Convenience .061 .038 .060 1.591 .112

Reasonable price .154 .043 .142 3.623 .000

Prestige .369 .040 .353 9.292 .000

Ingredients .092 .040 .091 2.317 .021

R value 0.530a

R square 0.281

F statistics (8, 598) 40.612


Dependent variable : Confidence

Independent variables : Vitamins, minerals, life style, pure and fresh,

� �

�

��

convenience, reasonable price, prestige and ingredients.

Multiple R : 0.530

R square : 0.281

Adjusted R2 :

0.271

F value : 40.612

P value : 0.000

R2

describes the amount of variability that has been caused by the independent

variables vitamins, minerals, lifestyle, pure and fresh, convenience, reasonable price,

prestige and ingredients. Here it is (0.281) 28%. Adjusted R2

indicates whether there

is any in-significant factor or not. It should be close to R2 value (Multiple). Here R

2


(0.271) are very close to each other which indicates a good

model. (Adjusted R2









on the factor confidence. R2


impact of the independent variables on the dependent variables. The number can be

between 0 and 1, with values closer to 1, meaning a strong relationship. R2

is 28% of

variation in confidence that is a connected to the independent variables vitamins,

minerals, lifestyle, pure and fresh, convenience, reasonable price, prestige and

ingredients.

This analysis indicates that there is a relationship between the confidence of

the packaged drinking water and the independent variables vitamins, minerals,

lifestyle, pure and fresh, convenience, reasonable price, prestige and ingredients.

� �

�

��

REFERENCES

1. Murali D. and Ramesh, C. (2007). “Packaged Drinking Water Industry – What we

see is the Tip of the Ice Berg”, Business Line – e.paper, Friday, July 27-2007.

2. Bhushan’s, “Structure and Economics of the Indian Bottled Water Industry”,

Frontline, Vol.23(7) , pp. 8- 21.

3. Jeya, R. (2007). “A study on consumers attitude towards branded mineral water at

Kovilpatti Town”, August 2007, pp.85-91.

4. Sasirega Ramani and Sudharsava Reddy, C.H.,(1999). “A study on Institutional

consumer perception of packaged drinking water”, May 1999.

5. Kiran S. Gadre, (2004). “Use of ozone in packaged drinking water disinfection and

purification”, CEOQ universal ozone systems, Mumbai, Beverage and Food world,

June 2004.

6. Jeya, R., (2007). “A study on consumers attitude towards branded mineral water at


7. Kim, Chung Koo & Chung, Jay Young, (1997). Brand Popularity, Country Image

and Market Share; an Empirical Study. Journal of International Business Studies,

Vol. 26 (2), pp:361-386.

8. Jeya, R., (2007). “A study on consumers attitude towards branded mineral water at


9. Lead Edge, (2005). Developing an Effective Branding Strategy. [Online] Available:

http://www.leadedge.co.uk. (29 December, 2005).

10. Miller, M., (2006). Bottled Water: Why Is It so Big? Causes for the Rapid Growth

of Bottled Water Industries. University Honors Program. Paper 7.

http://ecommons.tx state.edu/honor prog/7, last accessed Mar 31 2011.

11. Leeuwen, F.X.R.V., (2000). Safe Drinking Water: Toxicologist's Approach. Food

and Chemical Toxicology Vol.38,pp:51-58.

12. Ogbuji, C.N., (2008). Analysis of the Popularity of Consumption of Sachet Water

Brands on Sale. Journal of Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 3, (1) pp: 239-247.

Last accessed Mar 31 2011.

13. Cemek, M., L. Akkaya., Y.O. Birdane., K. Seyrek., S. Bulut. & M. Konuk., (2007).

Nitrate and nitrite levels in fruity and natural mineral waters marketed in western

Turkey. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis Vol.20, pp: 236-240.

14. Wang, R.G.M., (1994). Water Contamination and Health: Integration of Exposure

Assessment, Toxicology and Risk Assessment. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Documents

CHAPTER V BRAND PREFERENCES OF THE CONSUMERS IN …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/39351/11/11_chapter 5.p… · BRAND PREFERENCES OF THE CONSUMERS IN ... to which consumers