Does an increase in tax on sugary drinks reduce

DOES AN INCREASE IN TAX ON SUGARY DRINKS

REDUCE MILLENNIALS SOFT DRINKS BUYING

INTENTION

BY

MR. SARUN SUBHAVAN

AN INDEPENDENT STUDY SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAM IN MARKETING

(INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM)

FACULTY OF COMMERCE AND ACCOUNTANCY

THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC YEAR 2017

COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

DOES AN INCREASE IN TAX ON SUGARY DRINKS

REDUCE MILLENNIALS SOFT DRINKS BUYING

INTENTION

BY

MR. SARUN SUBHAVAN

AN INDEPENDENT STUDY SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAM IN MARKETING

(INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM)

FACULTY OF COMMERCE AND ACCOUNTANCY

THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC YEAR 2017

COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

(1)

Independent Study Title DOES AN INCREASE IN TAX ON SUGARY

DRINKS REDUCE MILLENNIALS SOFT

DRINKS BUYING INTENTION

Author Mr. Sarun Subhavan

Degree Master of Science Program in Marketing

(International Program)

Major Field/Faculty/University Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy

Thammasat University

Independent Study Advisor Professor Malcolm C. Smith, Ph.D.

Academic Year 2017

ABSTRACT

This study is a contemporary topic in applied marketing on health, which

is focused on the consumers’ behavior in Thailand.

Having spent over 190 billion Baht yearly on imported medical services for

obesity and other weight related diseases, the Thai Government has announced a new

tax policy with the intention to reduce the sugar consumption rate among Thai people.

The new tax will not only increase the price of sugary products, but it will also reduce

the price of some products that are low in sugar content as well. Over consumption of

sugary drinks, specifically soft drinks, has been one of the most important topics in

society as it is strongly believed to be the major cause of obesity. Thailand is ranked as

the first runner-up for overweight population in Southeast Asia.

The methodology used in this study included both qualitative and

quantitative research methods. Secondary research and a focus group interview were

selected for the qualitative research. An online questionnaire was selected for the

quantitative research approach. Data were collected from 158 respondents from various

occupations. The data was analyzed using SPSS to obtain further key findings and

insights.

According to the analysis of this research, an increase in the retail price of a

single unit of soft drinks will affect consumers buying intention if it is greater than 5

baht. On the other hand, the buying intention for non-sugar alternatives will increase if

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

(2)

the price per unit has decreased. Apart from the price, other factors like nutritional

value, taste, and promotional campaigns are also strong influencing factors.

The results of this study will provide beneficial ideas and insights for both

the Thai Government as well as beverage companies, which can use these insights to

create effective campaigns and marketing strategies.

Keywords: Soft Drinks, No Sugar Alternatives, New Tax Policy, Impact, Millennials

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

(3)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Allow me to take this opportunity to express and extend my sincere

appreciation to my supportive advisor, Prof. Dr. Malcolm C. Smith, for his always

valuable feedback, comments, advice, and encouragement. It would never be such an

accomplishment on this independent study without his support and assistance. I also

would like to extend my appreciation to Asst. Prof. Pannapachr Itthiopassagul, MIM

Director, for the opportunity of being a part of this untradeable learning experience in

the MIM program. Furthermore, I would like to extend my appreciation to all of the

respondents, my family, and my friends who spent their valuable time responding to

both the focus group interview and the online questionnaires distributed.

Lastly, I would like to extend this special appreciation to my parents who

always understood and supported me throughout the entire program as well as my

personal life. Nothing here would have been so successful without their sincere

support.

Mr. Sarun Subhavan

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

(4)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT (1)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (3)

LIST OF TABLES (8)

LIST OF FIGURES (9)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Research Objectives 2

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4

2.1 The Background 4

2.2 The Millennials 4

2.3 The Current Situation 5

2.4 The Solutions 6

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 8

3.1 Research Methodology 8

3.1.1 Exploratory Research Design 8

3.1.1.1 Observation 8

3.1.1.2 Secondary Data 8

3.1.1.3 Focus Group 8

3.1.2 Descriptive Research Design 9

3.2 Sampling Plan 9

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

(5)

3.3 Survey Recruitment Process 10

3.4 Data Analysis 10

3.4.1 Frequency Analysis 10

3.4.2 Cluster Analysis 10

3.4.3 Independence Sample T-test 10

3.4.4 ANOVA 11

3.4.5 Custom Tables 11

3.4.6 Correlation 11

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12

4.1 Exploratory 12

4.1.1 Observation 12

4.1.2 Secondary Data 12

4.1.3 Focus Group 12

4.2 Descriptive 13

4.2.1 The Respondents’ Profile 13

4.2.1.1 General 13

4.2.1.2 Cluster Analysis 15

4.3 Results for Research Objectives 16

4.3.1 Current Perception 16

4.3.1.1 Important Attributes 16

4.3.1.2 Turn-off Factors 17

4.3.2 Purchasing Behaviors 17

4.3.3 Influential Factors 18

4.3.3.1 The Effects of Price 18

4.3.4 Satisfactory Levels among Existing Brands 19

4.3.4.1 Pepsi 19

4.3.4.2 Pepsi Max 20

4.3.4.3 Coke 21

4.3.4.4 Diet Coke 22

4.3.4.5 Coke Zero 23

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

(6)

4.3.4.6 Unif 24

4.3.5 Advertising and Marketing Campaigns 25

4.3.5.1 Important Attributes 25

4.3.5.1.1 Frequent Travelers 25

4.3.5.1.2 Health Conscious 26

4.3.5.2 Attractive Campaigns 26

4.3.5.2.1 Frequent Travelers 26

4.3.5.2.2 Health Conscious 26

4.4 Relationship between Variables 27

4.4.1 Levels of Importance and Levels of Agreement on Turn-off 27

Attributes (Soft drinks)

4.4.1.1 Price 28

4.4.1.2 Package 28

4.4.1.3 Easy to Find 28

4.4.1.4 Variety of Flavors 28

4.4.1.5 Nutritional Facts 28

4.4.1.6 Brands 29

4.4.1.7 Promotional Campaigns 29

4.4.2 Levels of Importance and Levels of Agreement on Turn-off 29

Attributes (No sugar alternatives)

4.4.2.1 Price 29

4.4.2.2 Package 30

4.4.2.3 Easy to Find 30

4.4.2.4 Variety of Flavors 30

4.4.2.5 Nutritional Facts 30

4.4.2.6 Brands 30

4.4.2.7 Promotional Campaigns 30

4.4.3 Levels of Importance and Satisfactory Levels 32

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 33

5.1 Summary 33

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

(7)

5.2 Recommendations 34

5.3 Limitations 35

5.3.1 Area Selected 35

5.3.2 Time 35

5.3.3 Factor Analysis 35

5.3.4 Convenience Sampling 35

REFERENCES 36

APPENDICES 37

APPENDIX A: Questions and Objectives Linkage of the Focus Group 38

Interview

APPENDIX B: Online Questionnaires Deployed 40

APPENDIX C: Bangkok Research Area 49

APPENDIX D: Clusters’ Profile and T-test Results 50

APPENDIX E: Current Perception 52

APPENDIX F: Turn-off Factors 53

APPENDIX G: Purchasing Behaviors 54

APPENDIX H: Effects of Price 55

BIOGRAPHY 57

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

(8)

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

Table 3.1: Sampling Plan 9

Table 4.1: Clustered Groups’ Profile 15

Table 4.2: Pepsi Satisfactory Levels 20

Table 4.3: Pepsi Max Satisfactory Levels 21

Table 4.4: Coke Satisfactory Levels 22

Table 4.5: Diet Coke Satisfactory Levels 23

Table 4.6: Coke Zero Satisfactory Levels 24

Table 4.7: Unif Satisfactory Levels 25

Table 4.8: Marketing and Promotional Campaigns 27

Table 4.9: Relationship between Importance and Soft Drinks Turn-off 29

Attributes

Table 4.10: Relationship between Importance and No Sugar Alternatives 31

Turn-off Attributes

Table 4.11: Relationship between Importance and Satisfactory Levels 32

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

(9)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

Figures 2.1: Thai Population Pyramid 2017 5

Figures 2.2: Overweight Populations in Southeast Asia 6

Figures 4.1: Respondents’ Profile 14

Figures 4.2: Current Perception 16

Figures 4.3: Purchasing Behaviors 18

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Over consumption of sugary drinks, specifically soft drinks, has been one

of the most important topics in society as it is strongly believed to be the major cause

of obesity. According to the Thailand Business News, Thai people consume sugar

around 4 times more than the recommended amount, and most of the sugar consumed

is from beverages (Languepin, 2015). 32% of the Thai population is overweight and

will soon reach half of the total population with the current rate (Lalande, 2016). Having

spent over 190 billion Thai Baht yearly on imported medical services for obesity,

diabetes, and coronary artery diseases, the Thai Government has announced a new tax

policy with the intention to reduce the sugar consumption rate among Thai people. The

government is hoping that this will also lead to a reduced expenditure on those imported

medical services (Chantanusornsiri, 2017).

Yet, as will be discussed below in the literature review, the Thai

Government does not know exactly whether this new tax policy will do the job.

Therefore, this research aims to answer the following questions: 1) “What is the current

consumer perception towards traditional soft drinks and no sugar alternatives?” 2)

“What is the consumer purchasing decision making process?” 3) “What are the factors

that influence consumers to buy traditional soft drinks or no sugar alternatives?”, and

4) “What should be the most effective campaign for the Thai Government to reduce

soft drinks consumption by the Millennials?”

This research is a contemporary topic in applied marketing on health

focusing on consumers’ behavior toward sugary drinks in Thailand. The results of this

study are expected to provide a better understanding of target consumers, and it will help

to generate insights that can be implemented as marketing strategies.

Also, the results of this research are expected to provide more insights on

target consumers regarding their perceptions on soft drinks, and to identify factors that

lead to buying intention. The next section of this research will cover the research

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

2

objectives, which will be followed by the literature review, the research design, the data

analysis, the summary, the recommendations, and the references and appendices

respectively.

1.2 Research Objectives

Definitions:

Consumers mean Thai Millennials who regularly consume soft drinks on a

daily basis.

Sugary drinks and soft drinks mean sugar added beverages in forms of a can,

bottle, bag, etc.

No sugar alternatives mean beverages that contain sweetener instead of

sugar, for example Coke Zero, Diet Coke, Pepsi Max, etc.

There are three objectives that this research will focus on as follows;

1. To identify which consumer segment consumes the most amount of soft

drinks and at which price range of traditional soft drinks are mostly

consumed.

1.1. To identify the Millennial segments based on their lifestyle.

1.2. To identify the Millennial segments based on their demographics.

1.3. To identify how much of an increase in a single unit price of soft

drinks will reduce the consumption rate.

2. To determine the current perception of target consumers towards soft

drinks and no sugar alternatives.

2.1. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the

price of soft drinks.


package of soft drinks.


availability of soft drinks.


flavors of soft drinks.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

3


nutritional facts of soft drinks.


brands of soft drinks


promotional campaigns of soft drinks.

3. To determine the factors that influence the target consumer consumption

choice to shift to no sugar alternatives.

3.1. To determine the decision making process of soft drinks among

Millennials.

3.2. To determine the key purchasing factors, such as product, price,

availability, promotion, brand, etc. as well as the satisfactory level

of each factors.

3.3. To determine the reasons why Millennials do not consume no sugar

alternatives.

3.4. To determine the most appropriate campaign that will influence

Millennials’ intention to buy.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

4

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 The Background

Traditional soft drinks have been one of the most consumed beverages in

Thailand. These sugary drinks come in various flavors, packages, and prices from various

brands. According to the industry study of the Siam Commercial Bank of Thailand,

traditional soft drinks account for more than 220 billion Thai Baht in market value, or over

65% of the overall market share. The soft drinks industry is expected to grow continuously

as there are more and more players penetrating into the market yearly (Industry Outlook,

2016). One of most well-known characteristics of soft drinks apart from refreshing and

sweetness is the variety of flavors each of the beverage brands provides in the market.

Research has shown that 86.4% of respondents claim that flavor is the key consideration

when buying soft drinks, while the price and availability also strongly affect the purchasing

intention (Soft drink, 2014).

2.2 The Millennials

The Thai Millennials are one of the biggest population groups in Thailand.

According to the 2017 population pyramid in Figure 2.1, the Millennials account roughly

over 30% of the total Thai population. This will lead to a huge increase in the aging segment

of the population pyramid in the near future (Population Pyramids, 2017). Focusing this

research on the Millennials will help in solving health issues for a huge portion of the aging

society in the future.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

5

Figure 2.1: Thai Population Pyramid 2017 (Population Pyramids, 2017)

2.3 The Current Situation

Sugar consumption has become one of the most common habits of Thai people.

People consume sugar daily with or without knowing the exact portion. The Thailand

Business News stated that Thai people consume sugar around 4 times more than the daily

recommended amount, and that most of the consumed sugar came from beverages. Also, as

referred to in Figure 2.2, among all the countries in the Southeast Asian region, Thailand

has been ranked as the first runner-up in the overweight population size after Malaysia

(Languepin, 2015).

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

6

Figure 2.2: Overweight Populations in Southeast Asia (Languepin, 2015)

The over consumption of sugar has not only an individual impact, but an impact

on the whole country. The over consumption of sugar is leading a huge portion of the Thai

populations to a health disaster. Yearly, the Thai Government is spending 2.2% of country’s

GDP, or 198.5 billion Baht on imported medical services for treating obesity, diabetes, and

coronary artery diseases (Chantanusornsiri, 2017).

2.4 The Solutions

Having spent a huge amount of money yearly, the Thai Government announced

a new tax policy with an intention to reduce sugar consumption among Thai people. The

Thai Government believes that the lower sugar consumption will lead to a decreasing

expenditure on imported medical services as well. According to the Straits Times (2017),

the new tax will not only increase the price of sugary products, but will also reduce the price

of some products as well. For example, while a traditional soft drink will be subjected to a

higher tax at 0.13 Baht – 0.50 Baht per bottle, a no sugar alternative or a sugar-free drink

will also be taxed lower by 0.28 Baht – 0.36 Baht. This policy is very similar to how the

Canadian and the U.S. Governments increased the tax on tobacco, where the retail price has

increased dramatically, to reduce the consumption rate.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

7

In conclusion, the literature review provides the information for this study in

three major topics which are:

The new tax policy has not only raised the price on soft drinks, but also has

reduced the price on no sugar alternatives.

1. Flavor is the key consideration when buying soft drinks, while the price

and availability also strongly affect the purchasing intention.

2. The Thai Government believes that the lower sugar consumption will lead

to a decreasing expenditure on imported medical services.

However, there are several questions listed below that the literature review

has not answered and this research aims to do that.

1. What is the current consumer perception towards soft drinks and no sugar

alternatives?

2. What is the consumer purchasing decision making process?

3. What are the factors that drive consumers to purchase and consume soft

drinks and no sugar alternatives?

4. What should be the most effective action for the Thai Government to

reduce soft drinks consumption by Millennials?

By capturing the information from the literature review stated above, this

study will be able to determine the correctness of the past studies as well as provide a

new understanding of the current market situation. Also, this study will provide a better

understanding of current consumers’ behavior as well as their perception towards

traditional soft drink and no sugar alternatives.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

8

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Methodology

The study was conducted using both exploratory research and descriptive

research methods to achieve the study objectives. The two research methods focused on

different purposes.

3.1.1 Exploratory research design

The research design was conducted to determine consumer perception

towards soft drinks, and to explore consumer opinions, the buying decision making

process, and crucial factors that make consumers decide to consume or not consume soft

drinks.

3.1.1.1 Observation

The study included an observation of product prices in various

channels in order to compare the price and indicate whether the new tax

system has had any impact on the product’s retail price.

3.1.1.2 Secondary data

Data and relevant information was collected from credible sources

such as online news, industry statistics, etc. These secondary data helped

provide further information, which was used in the designing process of the

questionnaire for collecting primary data.

3.1.1.3 Focus group

The study included one focus group. The focus group was conducted in

early January with 6 Thai Millennial participants with an equal amount of

males and females. The participants varied in terms of occupations, but all

were active soft drinks or no sugar alternatives consumers. This method

helped to explore consumers’ attitudes towards soft drinks and no sugar

alternatives, and pointed out what influences them to choose a particular

beverage among others. An experienced moderator was hired to run this

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

9

focus group interview with a well-structured questions guideline in order not

to turn off the participants. See Appendix A for questions and objectives

linkage for the focus group interview.

3.1.2 Descriptive research design

This study described the current market situation, which includes

consumers’ perceptions towards soft drinks attributes, such as price, taste, variety of

flavor, package design, etc. The research was conducted through online questionnaires,

which were completed by 158 respondents. All questionnaires were completely filled

without any respondents’ error. The data collected was then analyzed to identify the

current situation, and to identify the factors that affect consumers to shift from

consuming traditional soft drinks to consuming no sugar alternatives. See Appendix B

for the deployed questionnaire questions.

The duration required to finish the questionnaire did not exceed 15 minutes

per respondent in order to keep an effective response rate.

3.2 Sampling Plan

The study used a convenience sampling method to select the respondents.

Also, the target respondents for the qualitative and quantitative researches were screened

by the same criteria as follows:

1. The target respondent must be Thai Millennials

2. The target respondents must be those who consumed soft drinks or no

sugar alternatives more than 5 times per month.

The summary of the sampling plan is described in the Table 3.1 below:

Table 3.1: Sampling Plan

Type of Research Methodology Pre-test Pilot Sample Size

1. Qualitative Focus Group 1 Group (3 people) 1 Group (6 people)

2. Quantitative Online Questionnaire 10 People 150 People

Target Population : Millennials Male/Female who actively consumed either

soft drinks or no sugar alternatives.

Area : Bangkok (see Appendix C)

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

10

3.3 Survey Recruitment Process

Respondents were obtained through 2 channels as described below:

Focus Group: 6 respondents were recruited from personal contacts who are,

colleagues, friends, and friends of friends.

The online questionnaires: The respondents were recruited using LINE

Messenger and Facebook Post, which the questionnaires were separated into 3 sets where

each of the 3 sets of the questionnaires was distributed to at least 50 respondents. Each

of the 3 sets of the questionnaires measured respondents’ reactions towards a different

increase in the price of a single soft drink unit and a decrease in the price of a single no

sugar alternatives unit. Thus, one group was asked to react to a change of +-2 baht,

another was asked to react to a change of +-5 baht, and the final group was asked to react

to a change of +-10 baht. The online questionnaires were posted via Facebook Post,

which was distributed and shared through Line Messenger and Facebook Messenger.

3.4 Data Analysis

3.4.1 Frequency analysis

A frequency analysis was used to identify the overall respondents profile in

terms of demographics and purchasing behaviors.

3.4.2 Cluster analysis

A cluster analysis method was used to segment the respondents into groups

based on their similarity of demographics and lifestyle information. This helped the data

to become easier to process and analyze using other analyzing methods, such as

regression analysis and correlation.

3.4.3 Independence sample t-test

An independence sample t-test was used to check whether there is a significant

difference between the two clustered groups or not. This helped to see which lifestyle

and demographic attributes of the two clustered groups were different.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

11

3.4.4 ANOVA

The study used One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to identify the

differences in the mean value of the 3 scenarios of the pricing impact on soft drinks and

no sugar alternatives.

2.4.5 Custom tables

Customs tables were used to illustrate the distribution of results of various

variables given by the clustered groups. This helped to easily compare the mean and

percentage between the reaction towards each of the variables and the clustered groups.

3.4.6 Correlation

The study used a correlation method in order to investigate if there was a

relationship among various variables. This identified whether the variables have any

positive or negative relationship to one another.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

12

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Exploratory

4.1.1 Observation

Observation was conducted to investigate the product prices in various

channels in order to compare the price and indicate whether the new tax implementation

has had any impact on the product’s retail price. There were three venues where the

observation took place which were Tops supermarket, Tesco Lotus, and 7-11. So far, there

is no significant change in the price of retail soft drinks and no sugar alternatives on any

size and package. For example, the price on a slim can of Coke and Diet Coke remains at

12 Baht per can, while the price on a 600ml bottle of Coke Zero and Pepsi Max remains at

17 Baht.

4.1.2 Secondary data

The key findings and insights of the secondary data research are described in

the literature review section.

4.1.3 Focus group

The focus group was conducted with 6 participants, including 3 females and 3

males. The participants came from different backgrounds in which 2 are students, 2 are

doctors, 1 is an employee, and another one has their own business. The focus group took

approximately 1:30 hours (from 16:00-17:30 hour) at the restaurant called the Summer

House in Ayutthaya province. The participants were asked several questions regarding their

perceptions, behaviors, and influencing factors. The key insights gained from this focus

group were that 1) 4 of 6 participants mentioned that the price is not the main factor when

buying soft drinks or no sugar alternatives, 2) the only 2 persons who mentioned that price

is the key consideration when buying soft drinks were the 2 students, 3) the price will be the

main consideration if it increases over 5 baht per unit, and 4) there were only 3 brands

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

13

recognized within the focus group when asked about soft drinks and no sugar alternatives,

which were Pepsi, Coke, and Unif.

The information gained, in terms of insights and variables, were analyzed and

used to develop the contents and questions of the online questionnaire.

4.2 Descriptive

4.2.1 The respondents’ profile

4.2.1.1 General

As shown in Figure 4.1, 62.7% of respondents were male and 37.3% were

female. The majority were 24-31 years old, which accounts 73.4% of the total

respondents. Around 60% of the respondents work between 8-10 hours a day

and more than 50% have a yearly household income of more than 600,000 Baht.

The occupations of these respondents were classified into students, freelancers,

employees, business owners, government sectors, and others, which represented

6.3%, 12.7%, 63.9%, 7%, 6.3%, and 3.8% respectively. 63.6% of these

respondents were those with Bachelor’s Degree, 32.3% were Master’s and

Doctoral Degrees, and 4.4% were below Bachelor’s Degree.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

14

Figure 4.1: Respondents’ Profile (N=158)

62%

38%

GENDER

Male

Female

46%

27%

19%

8%

AGE

24-27

28-31

32-35

36-39

25%

59%

16%

WORK HOURS

< 8 hrs

8-10 hrs

> 10 hrs

5%

63%29%

3%

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

<Bachelor's

Bachelor's

Master's

Doctoral

6%

13%

64%

7%

6%4%

OCCUPATION

Student

Freelance

Employee

OwnBusinessGovernment Sector

5%

25%

19%

51%

YEARLY INCOME

≤200k

200k-400k

400k-600k

>600k

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

15

4.2.1.2 Cluster Analysis

The 158 respondents were then clustered into 2 different segments based on

their demographic characteristics and lifestyle. Each of the clustered groups

contained 70 and 88 populations respectively. As shown in Table 4.1, 30% of

the populations of the first clustered group are male and 70% are female, and

the average weight ranges from less than 50 kilograms to 65 kilograms, where

the average height ranges from less than 150 centimeters to 175 centimeters. On

the other hand, 88.6% of the second clustered group are male and 11.4% are

female, and the average weight ranges from 61 kilograms to more than 80

kilograms, where the average height ranges from 156 centimeters to more than

180 centimeters.

Table 4.1: Clustered Groups’ Profile

Characteristics Frequent Travelers Health Conscious

Sample Size 70 88

Gender Male: 30%, Female: 70% Male: 88.6%, Female: 11.4%

Weight Range 50kg-65kg 61kg-80kg

Height Range 150cm-175cm 156cm-180cm

Regarding the lifestyle, the respondents in the first clustered group are those

who love traveling to new places, love shopping, and love trying new food.

However, they tend to consume less healthy food than the second clustered

group. Thus, the first clustered group is named the “Frequent Travelers”

segment. The respondents in the second clustered group are those with the

ultimate goal of living a healthy life. They love to play sports, and are consuming

more healthy food than the first clustered group. Thus, the second clustered

group is named the “Health Conscious Consumers” segment. A t-test was used

to see if there were differences in the mean values of the lifestyle and

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

16

demographic variables of the 2 segments. (See Appendix D for Clustered

Groups’ Profile)

4.3 Results for Research Objectives

4.3.1 Current perception

4.3.1.1 Important attributes:

Regarding the current perception of the population towards soft drinks

and no sugar alternatives described in Figure 4.2, the Frequent Travelers

think that the availability, brands, variety of flavors, and package are the

most important attributes, while the nutritional fact is the least important

attribute. On the other hand, the Health Conscious Consumers think that

the two most important attributes are availability and variety of flavors,

while the price is the least important attribute. (See Appendix E for Current

Perception)

Figure 4.2: Current Perception (N=158)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Price Package Availability Variety ofFlavors

NutritionalFacts

Brands PromotionalCampaigns

Frequent Travelers (N=70) Health Conscious (N=88)

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

17

4.3.1.2 Turn-off factors:

When comparing the mean scores of the level of agreement on reasons

why people are choosing to drink one item over another, it is clearly

illustrated that the reasons between the 2 segments are different.

From the analysis, the Frequent Travelers segment mentioned that they

are choosing soft drinks over no sugar alternatives as they perceived that no

sugar alternatives have a high price and that they dislike the taste with given

mean scores of 5.35 (t-value = 7.069) and 5.31 (t-value = -0.938)

respectively. On the other hand, those who are choosing no sugar

alternatives over soft drinks perceived that soft drinks look unhealthy with

a mean score of 5.00 (t-value = 0.59).

For the Health Conscious Consumers segment, those who are choosing

soft drinks over no sugar alternatives agreed that they dislike the taste of no

sugar alternatives with a mean score of 5.65 (t-value = -0.938) On the other

hand, with a mean score of 5.70 (t-value = -4.235), those who are choosing

no sugar alternatives over soft drinks agreed that the low nutritional values

factor of soft drinks is the let-down.

On the awareness side, both drinker groups do not have an issue with

either the brand reputation or the package attractiveness. (See Appendix F

for Turn-off Factors)

4.3.2 Purchasing behaviors

According to Figure 4.3, regarding the purchasing behaviors, about 80% of all

respondents purchase soft drinks or no sugar alternatives alone, while about 13% purchase

with friends. When it comes to consuming, 68.4% of the respondents mentioned that they

consume soft drinks or no sugar alternatives alone, while about 24% mentioned that they

consume with friends. When it comes to how they consume soft drinks or no sugar

alternatives, 43% of the respondents mentioned that they consume them with a major meal,

26.6% consume them with snacks, 27.8% consume them as they are, and 2.5% consume

them as a mixture to other drinks.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

18

Figure 4.3: Purchasing Behaviors (N=158)

When it comes to purchasing and consuming behaviors, both the

Frequent Travelers and the Health Conscious segments have a similar

distribution percentage in each of the aspects. (See Appendix G for

Purchasing Behaviors)

4.3.3 Influential factors

4.3.3.1 The effects of price

From the total 158 respondents, 50 respondents were asked their

reaction to an increase of 2 baht on soft drinks and a decrease of 2 baht on

no sugar alternatives, 52 were asked the same question, but with a 5 baht

difference, and 56 were asked with a 10 baht difference. After comparing

the means, there is a significant difference for those who were asked about

a 10 baht increase on a single unit price of soft drinks (F=7.16, P=0.01).

80%

13%

2% 5%

Purchase With

Alone

Friends

Family

Others68%

24%

8%

Consume With

Alone

Friends

Family

43%

27%

2%

28%

How You Consume

W/Meal

W/Snacks

W/Other Drinks

As it is

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

19

In this group 35 of 56 respondents are those who mostly consume soft

drinks and had a mean score of 3.3, which indicates that they will buy fewer

soft drinks if the price is increased by 10 baht. On the other hand, 21 of 56

respondents are those who mostly consume no sugar alternatives and had a

mean score of 3.7, which indicates that they will either buy fewer soft drinks

if the price is increased by 10 baht or not buy at all.

On the price decrease aspects on the no sugar alternatives, there is no

difference between the 3 mentioned groups of respondents, where the

average mean scores are 1.68, 1.82, and 1.58 respectively. This indicates

that they will either consume the same amount, or consume more no sugar

alternatives if the price is decreased. (See Appendix H for the Effects of

Price)

4.3.4 Satisfactory levels among existing brands

After running a custom table to compare the mean of the satisfactory score given

by the Frequent Travelers and the Health Conscious segments on each attribute of the

existing brands, the study is able to identify which attribute of which brand that needs special

focus on in terms of a push forward or an improvement.

4.3.4.1 Pepsi:

According to Table 4.2, both the Frequent Travelers and the Health

Conscious segments were very satisfied on the availability and the taste

attributes of Pepsi, where the mean scores given were 6.54 and 6.13 for the

availability attribute, 6.21 and 5.86 for the taste attribute. Also, the two

segments do have the same dissatisfied attribute, which is the nutritional

values, where the scores given were 3.8 and 2.72 respectively. According

to the results from the t-test, all of the attributes except the promotional

campaigns are statistically different.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

20

Table 4.2: Pepsi Satisfactory Levels

Attributes/Satisfactory

Frequent

Travelers

(N=70)

Health

Conscious

(N=88)

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

F-Value T-Value

Package Design 5.56 5.00 0.005 0.066 2.863

Package Size 5.53 5.02 0.002 12.242 3.118

Price 5.29 4.90 0.045 0.419 2.020

Availability 6.54 6.13 0.002 15.458 3.096

Taste 6.21 5.86 0.031 9.525 2.173

Nutritional Values 3.80 2.72 0.000 4.366 5.271

Brand Reputation 5.91 5.41 0.002 7.383 3.151

Promotional

Campaigns 5.16 4.82 0.073 3.247 1.806

4.3.4.2 Pepsi Max:

As described in Table 4.3, both the Frequent Travelers and the Health

Conscious segments were very satisfied with the brand reputation of Pepsi

Max, which the given mean scores were 5.49 and 5.19. Price was another

strong satisfactory attribute for both segments, where the given mean scores

were 5.09 and 5.28. On the other hand, the least satisfied attribute for both

segments were, again, the nutritional values, where the given mean scores

were 4.19 and 3.82. According to the results from the t-test, the mean scores

given by the 2 segments have no differences in all attributes.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

21

Table 4.3: Pepsi Max Satisfactory Levels


Frequent

Travelers

(N=70)

Health

Conscious

(N=88)

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

F-Value T-Value

Package Design 5.01 5.08 0.748 19.372 -0.322

Package Size 4.96 5.14 0.374 16.628 -0.892

Price 5.09 5.28 0.351 0.266 -0.936

Availability 4.83 4.91 0.758 0.004 -0.309

Taste 4.71 4.18 0.071 5.837 1.821



Promotional Campaigns 4.24 4.56 0.130 0.283 -1.523

4.3.4.3 Coke:

According to Table 4.4, Coke scored highly on the availability attribute

for both segments with given mean scores of 6.46 and 6.11, and also on the

brand reputation attribute for the Frequent Travelers segment with a given

mean score of 5.96. For the Health Conscious segment, Coke scored highly

on the taste attribute with a given mean score of 5.72. On the other hand,

similar to Pepsi and Pepsi Max, Coke scored poorly on the nutritional values

attributes for both segments, where the given mean scores were 3.83 and

2.66. According to the results from the t-test, there is a difference in the

mean scores of the nutritional values attribute given by the 2 segments.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

22

Table 4.4: Coke Satisfactory Levels


Frequent

Travelers

(N=70)

Health

Conscious

(N=88)

Sig.

(2-tailed)

F-Value T-Value

Package Design 5.49 5.47 0.925 2.747 0.094

Package Size 5.49 5.47 0.928 6.768 0.090

Price 5.37 5.30 0.701 8.396 0.385

Availability 6.46 6.11 0.076 0.172 1.789

Taste 5.64 5.72 0.760 0.005 -0.305



Promotional

Campaigns 4.81 4.69 0.544 0.327 0.611

4.3.4.4 Diet Coke:

As illustrated in Table 4.5, Diet Coke has 3 stand out attributes scored

by the Frequent Travelers, which were the brand reputation, the package

size, and the package design, where the given mean scores were 5.5, 5.26,

and 5.2 respectively. The lowest scored attribute for Diet Coke for this

segment was the promotional campaign with a score of 4.36.

On the other hand, the top three attributes for the Health Conscious

segment were the package design, the price, and the brand reputation with

the mean scores of 5.53, 5.38. and 5.32 respectively. However, Diet Coke

scored poorly on the promotional campaign, the availability, and the

nutritional values on this segment with the mean scores of 3.63, 3.65, and

4.19 respectively. According to the results from the t-test, the mean scores

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

23

of the price, availability, nutritional values, and promotional campaigns

are statistically different.

Table 4.5: Diet Coke Satisfactory Levels


Frequent

Travelers

(N=70)

Health

Conscious

(N=88)

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

F-Value T-Value

Package Design 5.20 5.53 0.091 9.545 -1.703

Package Size 5.26 5.10 0.439 51.527 0.776

Price 4.94 5.38 0.034 2.458 -2.138

Availability 4.66 3.65 0.000 0.108 3.806

Taste 4.60 4.30 0.333 13.022 0.971



Promotional

Campaigns 4.36 3.63 0.001 4.704 3.387

4.3.4.5 Coke Zero:

As illustrated in Table 4.6, similar to Diet Coke, the 3 most satisfied

attributes of Coke Zero for the Frequent Travelers segment were the

package design, the brand reputation, and the package size, where the

mean scores were 5.4, 5.37, and 5.36. However, Coke Zero scored poorly

on the taste attribute with a mean score of 3.97.

On the other hand, for the Health Conscious segment, the two

strongest attributes of Coke Zero were the brand reputation and the

availability with mean scores of 5.36 and 5.27, while, the taste and the

nutritional values were the weakest attributes with mean scores of 2.88 and

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

24

3.98. According to the results from the t-test, the mean scores of the taste

and nutritional values are statistically different.

Table 4.6: Coke Zero Satisfactory Levels


Frequent

Travelers

(N=70)

Health

Conscious

(N=88)

Sig.

(2-tailed)

F-Value T-Value

Package Design 5.40 5.22 0.373 3.897 0.894

Package Size 5.36 5.26 0.633 15.815 0.479

Price 5.21 5.22 0.993 6.053 -0.008

Availability 4.97 5.27 0.212 1.435 -1.253

Taste 3.97 2.88 0.000 3.787 3.857



Promotional Campaigns 4.24 4.39 0.478 0.628 -0.711

4.3.4.6 Unif:

As the only fruit juice brand mentioned, as illustrated in Table 4.7,

Unif had three strongest attributes to the Frequent Travelers, which were

the nutritional values, the brand reputation, and the availability with mean

scores of 5.99, 5.71, and 5.61.

On the other hand, for the Health Conscious segment, Unif scored

highly on three attributes, which were the nutritional values, the taste, and

the brand reputation with scores of 5.6, 5.52, and 5.47.

However, Unif was the only brand of this study that received the

lowest score for the taste attribute from both segments with given mean

scores of 4.56 and 4.08. Also, Unif scored on 4.28 on the promotional

campaign attribute for the Health Conscious segment. According to the

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

25

results from the t-test, the mean scores of the price and promotional

campaigns are statistically different.

Table 4.7: Unif Satisfactory Levels


Frequent

Travelers

(N=70)

Health

Conscious

(N=88)

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

F-Value T-Value

Package Design 4.90 4.64 0.244 10.277 1.169

Package Size 5.03 4.69 0.119 8.283 1.567

Price 4.56 4.08 0.034 6.942 2.142

Availability 5.61 5.25 0.052 7.694 1.954

Taste 5.37 5.52 0.548 1.408 -0.602



Promotional Campaigns 4.80 4.28 0.014 0.435 2.480

4.3.5 Advertisement and marketing campaigns

4.3.5.1 Important attributes:

4.3.5.1.1 Frequent Travelers:

According to Table 4.8, for the Frequent Travelers who mostly

consume soft drinks over no sugar alternatives, the two most

important attributes when considering an advertisement were the

contents and the color tones. On the other hand, those who mostly

consume no sugar alternatives mentioned that the products, the

contents, and the nutritional facts were the most important attributes

when considering an advertisement.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

26

4.3.5.1.2 Health Conscious:

According to Table 4.8, the Health Conscious people who mostly

consume soft drinks mentioned that the contents and the products

were the most important attributes when considering an

advertisement. On the other hand, similar to the Frequent Travelers

segment, those who mostly consume no sugar alternatives mentioned

that the nutritional facts, the contents, and the products in the

advertisement were the most important attributes, but with higher

mean scores.

4.3.5.2 Attractive campaigns:

4.3.5.2.1 Frequent Travelers:

As described in Table 4.8, Frequent Travelers who mostly

consume soft drinks preferred free taste, premium gifts, and discounts as

promotional campaigns, while those who mostly consume no sugar

alternatives had no most preferred campaigns.

4.3.5.2.2 Frequent Health Conscious:

As described in Table 4.8, Health Conscious consumers who

mostly consume soft drinks preferred free taste as a promotional

campaign, while those who mostly consume no sugar alternatives

preferred premium gifts and discounts as promotional campaigns.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

27

Table 4.8: Marketing and Promotional Campaigns

Attributes Frequent Travelers (N=70) Health Conscious (N=88)

Advertisement Soft Drinks No Sugar

Alternatives

Soft

Drinks

No Sugar

Alternatives

Products 4.86 5.38 5.75 5.45

Theme Songs 4.92 4.95 4.69 4.43

Color Tones 5.06 4.86 5.23 4.63

Contents 5.18 5.19 5.60 5.58

Presenters 4.45 4.48 4.73 4.23

Nutritional Facts 4.59 5.19 4.56 5.75

Promotional

Campaigns Soft Drinks

No Sugar

Alternatives

Soft

Drinks

No Sugar

Alternatives

Discounts 5.61 5.10 4.56 5.43

Free Taste 5.69 5.05 5.13 5.03

Points Collection 4.98 4.95 4.56 4.90

Premium 5.69 5.14 4.67 5.73

4.4 Relationship between Variables

4.4.1 Levels of importance and levels of agreement on turn-off attributes

(Soft drinks)

The relationship between the levels of importance of product attributes and the

levels of agreement of soft drinks turn-off attributes are shown in Table 4.9.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

28

4.4.1.1 Price

There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the

price of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the “Hard to find”, “Less

Flavor Selections”, and “Less Package Selections” attributes.

4.4.1.2 Package


package of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the “Looks

Unhealthy” and “Unattractive Package” attributes. One the other hand,

there is a negative relationship between the levels of importance on the

package of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the “Hard to find”,

“Less Flavor Selections”, and “Less Package Selections” attributes.

4.4.1.3 Easy to find


easy to find and the levels of agreement on the “Looks Unhealthy” and

“Less Flavor Selections” attributes. One the other hand, there is a negative

relationship between the levels of importance on the easy to find of soft

drinks and the levels of agreement on the “Dislike the Brand” attributes.

4.4.1.4 Variety of flavors


variety of flavors of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the “High

Price” “Looks Unhealthy”, “Less Flavor Selections”, and “Unattractive

Promotional Campaigns” attributes.

4.4.1.5 Nutritional facts

There is a negative relationship between the levels of importance on

the nutritional facts of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the “Less

Package Selections”, “Dislike the Taste”, and “Dislike the Brand”

attributes.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

29

4.4.1.6 Brands


brands of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the “Looks Unhealthy”

and “Unattractive Package” attributes.

4.4.1.7 Promotional campaigns


promotional campaigns of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the

“Looks Unhealthy”, “Low Nutritional Values” and “Unattractive

Promotional Campaigns” attributes.

Table 4.9: Relationship between Importance and Soft Drinks Turn-off Attributes

4.4.2 Levels of importance and levels of agreement on turn-off attributes

(No sugar alternatives)

The relationship between the levels of importance of product attributes and the

levels of agreement of no sugar alternatives turn-off attributes are shown in Table 4.10.

4.4.2.1 Price


price of no sugar alternatives and every attribute of the levels of agreement

except the “Dislike the Taste” attribute.

Importance -

Price

Importance -

Package

Importance -

Easy to Find

Importance - Variety of

Flavors

Importance -

Nutritional Facts

Importance -

Brands

Importance -

Promotional

Campaigns

Pearson Correlation -.109 -.101 .215 .275* -.222 .002 -.167

Sig. (2-tailed) .402 .439 .097 .032 .086 .986 .199

Pearson Correlation -.160 .510**

.476**

.643** .056 .362

**.434

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .217 .000 .000 .000 .667 .004 .000

Pearson Correlation -.119 .353** -.007 .203 -.031 .408

** .028

Sig. (2-tailed) .361 .005 .956 .117 .815 .001 .831

Pearson Correlation .280*

-.420** .234 .149 -.099 -.191 -.076

Sig. (2-tailed) .029 .001 .069 .253 .448 .140 .560


-.341**

.285* .212 -.115 -.177 .014

Sig. (2-tailed) .015 .007 .026 .101 .379 .173 .915

Pearson Correlation .421**

-.280* .062 .324

*-.286

* -.106 .177

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .029 .633 .011 .025 .418 .172

Pearson Correlation .129 -.160 .193 .211 -.304* -.012 -.005

Sig. (2-tailed) .322 .217 .137 .102 .017 .926 .972

Pearson Correlation .234 .144 -.028 -.088 .060 -.124 .532**

Sig. (2-tailed) .069 .270 .831 .502 .644 .340 .000

Pearson Correlation -.024 -.030 -.459** -.099 -.269

* .169 -.027

Sig. (2-tailed) .852 .817 .000 .449 .036 .193 .835

Pearson Correlation .039 .176 .160 .507** -.179 .047 .460

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .768 .175 .217 .000 .168 .718 .000

SDAgree - Less

Package Selections

SDAgree - Dislike the

Taste

SDAgree - Low

Nutritional Values

SDAgree - Dislike the

Brand

SDAgree - Unattractive

Promotional Campaign

SDAgree - High Price

SDAgree - Looks

Unhealthy

SDAgree - Unattractive

Package

SDAgree - Hard to Find

SDAgree - Less Flavor

Selections

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

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

Correlations: Importance vs. Turn-off Attributes (Soft Drinks)

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

30

4.4.2.2 Package


package of no sugar alternatives and the levels of agreement on the “High

Price”, “Looks Unhealthy”, “Unattractive Package”, “Hard to find”, “Less

Flavor Selections”, and “Unattractive Promotional Campaigns” attributes.

4.4.2.3 Easy to find


easy to find and the levels of agreement on the “High Price”, “Unattractive

Package”, “Hard to find”, and “Less Flavor Selections” attributes.

4.4.2.4 Variety of flavors


variety of flavors of no sugar alternatives and the levels of agreement on the

“Unattractive Package”, “Less Package Selections”, “Less Nutritional

Values”, “Dislike the Brand”, and “Unattractive Promotional Campaigns”

attributes.

4.4.2.5 Nutritional facts


nutritional facts of no sugar alternatives and the levels of agreement on the

“High Price”, “Looks Unhealthy”, “Hard to find”, “Less Flavor Selections”,

“Less Package Selections”, and “Unattractive Promotional Campaigns”

attributes.

4.4.2.6 Brands


brands of no sugar alternatives and the levels of agreement on the “Dislike

the Brand” attribute.

4.4.2.7 Promotional campaigns


promotional campaigns of no sugar alternatives and the levels of agreement

on the “Unattractive Package”, “Less Package Selections”, “Low

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

31

Nutritional Values”, “Dislike the Brand”, and “Unattractive Promotional

Campaigns” attributes.

Table 4.10: Relationship between Importance and No Sugar Alternatives Turn-off

Attributes

Importance -

Price

Importance -

Package

Importance -

Easy to Find


Flavors

Importance -

Nutritional Facts

Importance -

Brands

Importance -

Promotional

Campaigns


.323**

.307** -.015 .368

** -.128 .115

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .002 .885 .000 .212 .262


.359** .137 .021 .271

** .171 .166

Sig. (2-tailed) .017 .000 .182 .839 .007 .094 .105


.326**

.300**

.309** .100 .160 .407

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .003 .002 .330 .118 .000


.203*

.290** .100 .340

** -.074 -.025

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .046 .004 .332 .001 .469 .805


.259*

.269** .178 .293

** -.047 .083

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .010 .008 .082 .004 .649 .417

Pearson Correlation .527** .022 .073 .344

**.412

** -.163 .298**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .833 .479 .001 .000 .110 .003

Pearson Correlation .094 -.131 .108 .047 -.049 .100 .191

Sig. (2-tailed) .359 .200 .294 .649 .634 .329 .061


** .199 .053 .411**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .214 .738 .000 .051 .603 .000


* -.121 .213*

.234*

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .614 .170 .049 .240 .036 .021


.282** .155 .475

**.260

* -.108 .559**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .005 .130 .000 .010 .291 .000

NSAgree - Less

Package Selections

NSAgree - Dislike the

Taste

NSAgree - Low

Nutritional Values

NSAgree - Dislike the

Brand

NSAgree - Unattractive




Correlations: Importance vs. Turn-off Attributes (No Sugar Alternatives)

NSAgree - High Price

NSAgree - Looks

Unhealthy

NSAgree - Unattractive

Package

NSAgree - Hard to Find

NSAgree - Less Flavor

Selections

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

32

4.4.3 Levels of importance and satisfactory levels

The relationship between the levels of importance of the product attributes and

the satisfactory levels on soft drinks and no sugar alternative brands are shown in Table

4.11.

Table 4.11: Relationship between Importance and Satisfactory Levels

Importance -

Price

Importance -

Package

Importance -

Easy to Find


Flavors

Importance -

Nutritional Facts

Importance -

Brands

Importance -

Promotional

Campaigns


.236**

.311**

.253** .008 .191

*.283

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .003 .000 .001 .925 .016 .000

Pearson Correlation .081 .320**

.308**

.229** -.089 .403

**.213

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .313 .000 .000 .004 .269 .000 .007


.163*

.165*

.281** -.123 .245

**.313

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .041 .038 .000 .124 .002 .000

Pearson Correlation .043 .058 .292** .050 .212

** .088 -.016

Sig. (2-tailed) .590 .467 .000 .533 .008 .272 .844


.229**

.271**

.423**

.176*

.337**

.273**

Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .004 .001 .000 .027 .000 .001

Pearson Correlation .329** .000 -.015 .351

** -.148 .126 .251**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .998 .852 .000 .064 .116 .001

Pearson Correlation .131 .149 .263** .124 .008 .338

**.271

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .100 .061 .001 .119 .923 .000 .001

Pearson Correlation .467** -.004 .061 .289

**.181

* .090 .486**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .958 .443 .000 .023 .260 .000

Importance -

Price

Importance -

Package

Importance -

Easy to Find


Flavors

Importance -

Nutritional Facts

Importance -

Brands

Importance -

Promotional

Campaigns

Pearson Correlation .106 .115 .218**

.261** .056 .088 .403

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .184 .150 .006 .001 .484 .272 .000

Pearson Correlation .152 .052 .209**

.254** .037 .194

*.275

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .057 .518 .008 .001 .640 .015 .000

Pearson Correlation .176* .030 .122 .161

* .087 -.001 .240**

Sig. (2-tailed) .027 .706 .127 .043 .278 .986 .002

Pearson Correlation -.033 -.004 .124 -.046 .119 .036 .134

Sig. (2-tailed) .679 .958 .121 .568 .135 .654 .094


.293**

.273**

.166* .139 .226

**.310

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .001 .038 .082 .004 .000


.215** .127 .032 .359

** .023 .298**

Sig. (2-tailed) .043 .007 .112 .691 .000 .778 .000

Pearson Correlation .076 .168*

.239** -.045 .147 -.013 -.046

Sig. (2-tailed) .343 .035 .003 .575 .065 .869 .567

Pearson Correlation .372** -.147 .014 .027 .212

** .020 .266**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .065 .858 .732 .008 .803 .001

Pepsi - Nutritional

Values

Pepsi - Brand

Reputation

Pepsi - Promotional

Campaign

Correlations: Importance vs Satisfactory (Soft Drinks)


Correlations: Importance vs Satisfactory (No Sugar Alternatives)


Pepsi Max -


Pepsi Max - Brand

Reputation

Pepsi Max - Package

Design

Pepsi Max - Package

Size

Pepsi Max - Price

Pepsi Max - Availability

Pepsi Max - Taste

Pepsi Max - Nutritional

Values

Pepsi - Package

Design

Pepsi - Package Size

Pepsi - Price

Pepsi - Availability

Pepsi - Taste

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

33

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

In conclusion, the key findings show that the Thai Government’s idea of

trying to increase the price of soft drinks and decreasing the price of no sugar

alternatives through a new tax policy can be an effective action if; 1) The increase in a

single unit price of soft drinks is greater than 5 baht, and 2) there is actually a decrease

in a single unit price of no sugar alternatives. However, when it comes to the two

clustered groups, the availability of the products and the variety of flavors are the most

importance attributes. When talking about soft drinks, as people are becoming more

health conscious, the most important attribute would be the nutritional values as the

majority of the respondents perceived that soft drinks are very unhealthy. On the other

hand, the most important attribute for no sugar alternatives would be the taste as well

as the promotional campaigns. As no sugar alternatives could not provide the natural

sugary flavor that sugar offered, this becomes a turn-down in the taste attribute where

people prefer the taste of natural sugar more than the artificial substitute. Also, the

promotional campaigns might not be so attractive to these segments.

This research classified consumers into two segments, which were the Frequent

Travelers and the Health Conscious consumers. The Frequent Travelers segment loves

traveling to new places, trying new food as well as love shopping, but tends to consume

less healthy choices of food. The soft drinks consumers of this segment tends to be very

satisfied with the availability and the taste of the existing soft drinks in the market, while

they do not seem to be satisfied with the nutritional values the products have offered. For

no sugar alternatives consumers, they are very satisfied with the brand reputation and the

package of the existing products; however, the taste becomes the let-down. This

consumer segment admires promotional campaigns over advertising. On the other hand,

the Health Conscious consumers segment loves to play sports and consuming healthy

products is their ultimate goal to live a healthy life. The factors that influence this

consumer segment to consume soft drinks or no sugar alternatives are the brand

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

34

reputation and the design of the package, while the nutritional values, same as the

Frequent Travelers, are not well perceived or admired. In contrast to the first segment,

this consumer segment prefers advertising over promotional campaigns.

5.2 Recommendations

The results from this research can help those marketers of beverage

companies to create the most attractive marketing approach for each of the consumer

segments. This will also indicate what are key points those marketers need to focus on

in order to effectively reach out with their marketing activities to each of the segments.

To increase the sales volume of soft drinks, a beverage company should be focusing on

the distribution channel of each product, and the main target segment of the soft drinks

would be the Frequent Travelers segment. The easier consumers can access to the

purchase channel, the higher the chance they are going to buy the products. In order to

raise awareness of soft drinks in this segment, a beverage company should be focusing

on the attractive promotional campaigns such as giving discounts, offering premium

gifts, or offering a free taste in new products. This will attract more consumers into the

distribution channels, and will increase sales volume.

On the other hand, to increase the sales volume of no sugar alternatives

products, a beverage company should be focusing on how to communicate the nutritional

values to educate the target segment. The main target for no sugar alternatives products

would be the Health Conscious consumers segment. Since the nutritional values attribute

is not well perceived by no sugar alternatives consumers, when they come across the

product, they might not buy it. The marketer should consider publishing an

advertisement rather than choosing to go for a promotional campaign as this consumer

segment preferred advertising. Also, in order to grab the attention from the Health

Conscious consumers, the marketer should be seriously focus on highlighting the product

and its nutritional facts, while delivering great advertising content as these are the factors

that this segment considers to be most important.

For the Government, in order to effectively reduce the consumption rate of

soft drinks of the Thai Millennials, they should increase the tax on sugary drinks at least

50% similar to what they had done to the tax on tobacco. On the other hand, if the

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

35

Government would like to shift the consumption rate of soft drinks to no sugar

alternatives, they should decrease the tax on no sugary drinks. This will decrease a single

unit price of the product, which will increase the overall buying intention of the Thai

Millennials.

5.3 Limitations

5.3.1 Area selected

The respondents were only from Bangkok. Thus, the respondents might not

represent the entire millennial population of Thailand as no sugar alternatives are harder

to find in some other provinces that are flooded with mom and pop shops rather than 7-

11 or big convenient stores.

5.3.2 Time

Due to the time constraint of this research the actual sample size collected

was small Thus, the insights gained from the analysis of this research might not be able

to represent the entire millennial population.

5.3.3 Factor analysis

Due to the limited variations of the lifestyle choices asked in the

questionnaires, the dimension reduction tool on factors could not be implemented. Thus,

the only method used to classify the respondents was the cluster analysis.

5.3.4 Convenience sampling

Due to convenience sampling was used for this study, the results should

not be generalized to the entire population.

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

36

REFERENCES

Articles

Chantanusornsiri, W. (2017), the Bangkok Post, “Sugar drinks: New tax, higher prices &

social engineering”, accessed on 1st November, 2017 at

https://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/ advanced/1269713/sugar-drinks-new-tax-

higher-prices-social-engineering

Lalande, G. (2016), The Nation, “Thailand and The Obesity Epidemic”, accessed 4th

October, 2017 at http://www.nationmultimedia.com/life/Thailand-and-the-obesity-

epidemic-30290296.html

Languepin, O. (2015), Thailand Business News, “Thailand’s Dangerous Sugar Addiction”,

accessed 4th October, 2017 at https://www.thailand-business-

news.com/news/headline/51508-thailands-dangerous-sugar-addiction.html

Straits Times, (2017), the Straits Times, “Cigarettes, alcohol and sugary drinks to cost more

in Thailand”, accessed on 31st October, 2017 at

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/cigarettes-alcohol-and-sugary-drinks-to-

cost-more-in-thailand

Industry Outlook, (2016), “Carbonates are the most popular non-alcoholic drink in

Thailand”, accessed on 20th November, 2017 at

https://www.scbeic.com/th/events_calendar/file/14489424

17159/e9luzo613s/Industry%20outlook%202016_FB_Tuna_fruitsandveggies_20

151127_final.pdf

Population Pyramids, (2017), “Population Pyramids of the World from 1950-2100”,

accessed 1st January, 2017 at https://www.populationpyramid.net/thailand/2017/

Soft drink, (2014), “Soft drink market studies in Thailand”, accessed 1st December, 2017

at

http://yimresearch.com/upload/userfiles/files/Voluntary%20Report_Thailand/Soft

_Drink_Market_Studies_Thailand.pdf

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

37

APPENDICES

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

38

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES LINKAGE OF THE FOUCS GROUP

INTERVIEW

Objectives and Focus Group Questions

1. To identify which consumer segment consumes the most amount

of soft drinks and at which price range of traditional soft drinks

are mostly consumed

1.1. To identify the Millennial segments based on their lifestyle.

What do you usually do on your weekends?

1.2. To identify the Millennial segments based on their demographics

If you are to identify the income range of 4 different groups of people,

what should they be?

Could you please tell us about your work?

1.3. To identify which how much on an increase in a single unit price of

soft drinks will reduce the consumption rate.

How much do you think an increase in the price of soft drinks will

become unreasonable?

2. To determine the current perception of target consumers towards

soft drinks and no sugar alternatives


price of soft drinks.

What should be the most appropriate price for a can of soft drinks?


package of soft drinks.

Do you have any special preference on beverage packaging?

In your opinion, what does package say about the product?


availability of soft drinks.

Have you ever buy alternative drinks when the usual one is sold out?

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

39


flavors of soft drinks.

Do you think you can identify the taste of each soft drink flavor under a

blind taste test?


nutritional facts of soft drinks.

Do you ever pay attention to the soft drink package label? Why?


brands of soft drinks.

What are the brands that come up into your mind when talking about

soft drinks?

How are they different in your opinion?


promotional campaigns of soft drinks.

What is your most favorite TV commercial on soft drinks? Why?

3. To determine the factors that influence the target consumer

consumption choice to shift to no sugar alternatives

3.1. To determine the decision making process of soft drinks among

Millennials.

Can you share with us your story where a consumption of soft drinks

was involved?

3.2. To determine the key purchasing factors, such as product, price,

availability, promotion, brand, etc. as well as the satisfactory level of

each factors.

What are the 3 top of mind words for your favorite soft drink?

3.3. To determine the reasons why Millennials do not consume no sugar

alternatives.

What do you think about no sugar alternatives? Why?

3.4. To determine the most appropriate campaign that influences

Millennials on their intention to buy.

What type of TV commercial you enjoy watching the most? Why?

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

40

APPENDIX B

ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRES DEPLOYED

A questionnaire for evaluating consumer’s behavior towards soft drinks

and no sugar alternatives

Screening Questions

S1 Were you born between the years 1980-2000?

A. Yes B. No (Terminate)

S2 Do you live in Bangkok?

A. Yes B. No (Terminate)

S3 How many times per month that you consume soft drinks or no sugar

alternatives?

A. Less than 5 times (Terminate) B. 5 times or more

Part A In this part of the questionnaire, you will be asked several questions regarding your

perceptions toward soft drinks, which will take no longer than 5 minutes.

A1 Please rate the level of importance of each of the given attributes when buying

soft drinks in a 1-7 scale [1=least important & 7=most important]

Attributes

Level of Importance

1 Not

important 2 3

4

Neutral 5 6

7

Extremely

Important

Price

Packaging

Availability

Variety of

Flavors

Nutritional

Facts

Brands

Promotional

Campaigns

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

41

A2 You mostly drink………

A. Soft drinks (Fill A3 and skip A4) B. No sugar alternatives (Skip A3 and fill

A4)

A3 Please rate the level of agreement of each of the given factors when choosing not

to buy no sugar alternatives in a 1-7 scale [1=strongly disagreed & 7=strongly

agreed]

Attributes

Level of Agreement

1

strongly

disagreed

2 3 4

Neutral 5 6

7

strongly

agreed

Price is Too

Expensive

The Product

Looks

Unhealthy

Package is

Not

Attractive

Hard to

Find

Less

Variety of

Flavor

Less

Variety of

Package

Size

Dislike the

Taste

Poor

Nutritional

Facts

Dislike the

Brand

Unattractive

Promotional

Campaigns

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

42

A4 Please rate the level of agreement of each of the given factors when choosing not

to buy soft drinks in a 1-7 scale [1=strongly disagreed & 7=strongly agreed]

Attributes

Level of Agreement

1

strongly

disagree

2 3 4

Neutral 5 6

7

strongly

agree

Price is Too

Expensive

The Product

Looks

Unhealthy

Package is

Not

Attractive

Hard to

Find

Less

Variety of

Flavor

Less

Variety of

Package

Size

Dislike the

Taste

Poor

Nutritional

Facts

Dislike the

Brand

Unattractive

Promotional

Campaigns

A5 What would be your action if the price of a single unit of soft drinks are to

increase by 2 baht? (The other 2 questionnaires were asked with 5 and 10 baht

respectively)

A. Consume more

B. Consume the same amount

C. Consume less

D. Not consume at all

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

43

A6 What would be your action if the price of a single unit of no sugar alternatives are

to decrease by 2 baht? (The other 2 questionnaires were asked with 5 and 10 baht

respectively)

A. Consume more

B. Consume the same amount

C. Consume less

D. Not consume at all

Part B In this part of the questionnaire, you will be asked several questions regarding your

decision making process and satisfactory level, which will take no longer than 5

minutes.

B1 Normally, who do you buy soft drinks or no sugar alternatives with?

A. Alone B. With friends C. With family D.

With others

B2 Normally, who do you drink soft drinks or no sugar alternatives with?

A. Alone B. With friends C. With family D.

With others

B3 Normally, how do you consume soft drinks or no sugar alternative?

A. With meal B. With snacks C. As mixture D. Only drink

soft drinks or no sugar alternatives

B4 Please indicate your satisfactory level on a 1-7 scale on the following attributes of

Pepsi [1=least satisfy & 7=most satisfy]

Attributes

Satisfactory Level

1 Least

satisfy 2 3

4

Neutral 5 6

7 Most

satisfy

Package

Design

Package

Sizes

Price

Availability

Taste

Nutritional

Facts

Brand

Reputation

Promotional

Campaigns

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

44


Pepsi Max [1=least satisfy & 7=most satisfy]

Attributes

Satisfactory Level

1 Least

satisfy 2 3

4

Neutral 5 6

7 Most

satisfy

Package

Design

Package

Sizes

Price

Availability

Taste

Nutritional

Facts

Brand

Reputation

Promotional

Campaigns


Coke [1=least satisfy & 7=most satisfy]

Attributes

Satisfactory Level

1 Least

satisfy 2 3

4

Neutral 5 6

7 Most

satisfy

Package

Design

Package

Sizes

Price

Availability

Taste

Nutritional

Facts

Brand

Reputation

Promotional

Campaigns

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

45


Diet Coke [1=least satisfy & 7=most satisfy]

Attributes

Satisfactory Level

1 Least

satisfy 2 3

4

Neutral 5 6

7 Most

satisfy

Package

Design

Package

Sizes

Price

Availability

Taste

Nutritional

Facts

Brand

Reputation

Promotional

Campaigns


Coke Zero [1=least satisfy & 7=most satisfy]

Attributes

Satisfactory Level

1 Least

satisfy 2 3

4

Neutral 5 6

7 Most

satisfy

Package

Design

Package

Sizes

Price

Availability

Taste

Nutritional

Facts

Brand

Reputation

Promotional

Campaigns

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

46


Unif 100% Fruit Juice [1=least satisfy & 7=most satisfy]

Attributes

Satisfactory Level

1 Least

satisfy 2 3

4

Neutral 5 6

7 Most

satisfy

Package

Design

Package

Sizes

Price

Availability

Taste

Nutritional

Facts

Brand

Reputation

Promotional

Campaigns

Part C In this part of the questionnaire, you will be asked several questions regarding your

preferences toward the promotional campaigns of soft drinks and no sugar

alternatives, which will take no longer than 2 minutes.

C1 Please indicate the level of importance of these attributes on advertisement

[1=Extremely important & 7=Not important]

Attributes 1 Extremely Important

2 3 4

Neutral 5 6

7 Not Important

Product

Theme

Music

Color

Tones

Content

Presenter

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

47

C2 Please rank, in order, your most preferred promotional campaigns for soft drinks

and no sugar alternatives [1=Most preferred & 7=Not preferred]

Attributes 1 Most Preferred

2 3 4

Neutral 5 6

7 Not Preferred

Discounts

Free Taste

Points

Collection

Premium

Gifts

Part D (Last Part) In this part of the questionnaire, you will be asked several questions regarding your

lifestyle and demographic information, which will take no longer than 3 minutes.

D1 Please select one of the statements below that best describes you;

1. I leave home early to work and arrive home late.

2. I have a great work life balance.

3. Staying fit is my ultimate goal.

4. I love exploring and traveling to new places.

5. I live a life with a slower pace.

6. I love shopping.

7. I love trying new food.

D2 What in your hobby?

____________.

D3 How many hours you work in a day?

1. Less than 8 hours

2. Between 8-10 hours

3. More than 10 hours

D4 What is your household income per year?

1. Below 200,000 B

2. 200,001 – 400,000 B

3. 400,001 – 600,000 B

4. Above 600,000 B

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

48

D5 What is your occupation?

1. Student

2. Freelance

3. Employee

4. Own Business

5. Government Sector

6. Others

D6 Please indicate your level of education

1. Below Bachelor’s Degree

2. Bachelor’s Degree

3. Master’s Degree

4. Doctoral Degree

D7 What is your age?

___________

D8 What is your weight range?

1. 50kg or lower

2. 51-55kg

3. 56-60kg

4. 61-65kg

5. 66-70kg

6. 71-75kg

7. 76-80kg

8. More than 80kg

D9 What is your height range?

1. 150cm or lower

2. 151-155cm

3. 156-160cm

4. 161-165cm

5. 166-170cm

6. 171-175cm

7. 176-180cm

8. More than 180cm

D10 What is gender?

1. Male

2. Female

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

49

APPENDIX C

BANGKOK RESEARCH AREA

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

50

APPENDIX D

CLUSTERS’ PROFILE AND T-TEST RESULTS

General Profile

Count Column N % Count Column N %

Less than 8 hours 17 24.3% 22 25.0%

Between 8-10 hours 48 68.6% 45 51.1%

More than 10 hours 5 7.1% 21 23.9%

Less than 200K Baht 6 8.6% 2 2.3%

200001-400K Baht 12 17.1% 27 30.7%

400001-600K Baht 9 12.9% 21 23.9%

More than 600k Baht 43 61.4% 38 43.2%

Student 2 2.9% 8 9.1%

Freelance 12 17.1% 8 9.1%

Employee 49 70.0% 52 59.1%

Own Business 4 5.7% 7 8.0%

Government Sector 3 4.3% 7 8.0%

Other 0 0.0% 6 6.8%

Lower than Bachelor's Degree 6 8.6% 1 1.1%

Bachelor's Degree 42 60.0% 58 65.9%

Master's Degree 22 31.4% 24 27.3%

Doctoral Degree 0 0.0% 5 5.7%

17-19 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

20-23 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

24-27 31 44.3% 42 47.7%

28-31 20 28.6% 23 26.1%

32-35 14 20.0% 15 17.0%

36-39 5 7.1% 8 9.1%

50Kg or Less 26 37.1% 0 0.0%

51-55Kg 15 21.4% 0 0.0%

56-60Kg 24 34.3% 0 0.0%

61-65Kg 5 7.1% 13 14.8%

66-70Kg 0 0.0% 25 28.4%

71-75Kg 0 0.0% 21 23.9%

76-80Kg 0 0.0% 8 9.1%

More than 80Kg 0 0.0% 21 23.9%

150cm or Less 8 11.4% 0 0.0%

151-155cm 6 8.6% 0 0.0%

156-160cm 10 14.3% 4 4.5%

161-165cm 21 30.0% 16 18.2%

166-170cm 13 18.6% 29 33.0%

171-175cm 12 17.1% 16 18.2%

176-180cm 0 0.0% 16 18.2%

More than 180cm 0 0.0% 7 8.0%

Male 21 30.0% 78 88.6%

Female 49 70.0% 10 11.4%

Work Hours

Frequent Travelers Health Conscious Consumers

Yearly Household Income

Occupation

Educational Level

Age

Weight Range

Height Range

Gender

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

51

Independence Sample T-test: Lifestyle and Demographic Attributes of 2 Segments

Equal variances

assumed13.777 .000 1.515 156 .132 .44545

Equal variances not

assumed1.474 128.623 .143 .44545

Equal variances

assumed4.335 .039 .461 156 .645 .13182

Equal variances not

assumed.452 134.547 .652 .13182

Equal variances

assumed8.010 .005 -.345 156 .731 -.06753

Equal variances not

assumed-.336 129.391 .738 -.06753

Equal variances

assumed14.300 .000 3.275 156 .001 .71169

Equal variances not

assumed3.415 152.664 .001 .71169

Equal variances

assumed4.463 .036 .205 156 .838 .03929

Equal variances not

assumed.205 148.798 .838 .03929

Equal variances

assumed1.496 .223 3.961 156 .000 .82630

Equal variances not

assumed3.921 141.754 .000 .82630

Equal variances

assumed.364 .547 3.749 156 .000 .55942

Equal variances not

assumed3.805 154.454 .000 .55942

Equal variances

assumed2.423 .122 -4.614 156 .000 -1.15227

Equal variances not

assumed-4.582 143.839 .000 -1.15227

Equal variances

assumed9.536 .002 -.590 156 .556 -.10195

Equal variances not

assumed-.600 154.821 .550 -.10195

Equal variances

assumed6.136 .014 2.786 156 .006 .36688

Equal variances not

assumed2.887 154.829 .004 .36688

Equal variances

assumed.204 .652 -.005 156 .996 -.00162

Equal variances not

assumed-.005 145.583 .996 -.00162

Equal variances

assumed.553 .458 -2.773 156 .006 -.74481

Equal variances not

assumed-2.737 139.638 .007 -.74481

Equal variances

assumed1.440 .232 -1.646 156 .102 -.47013

Equal variances not

assumed-1.618 136.563 .108 -.47013

Equal variances

assumed1.706 .193 -1.574 156 .118 -.16006

Equal variances not

assumed-1.622 155.782 .107 -.16006

Equal variances

assumed1.764 .186 1.237 156 .218 .19188

Equal variances not

assumed1.220 138.703 .225 .19188

Equal variances

assumed9.869 .002 -1.570 156 .118 -.25617

Equal variances not

assumed-1.658 145.353 .099 -.25617

Equal variances

assumed.621 .432 -1.513 156 .132 -.14643

Equal variances not

assumed-1.518 149.975 .131 -.14643

Equal variances

assumed.192 .662 .158 156 .875 .02500

Equal variances not

assumed.159 150.449 .874 .02500

Equal variances

assumed6.640 .011 -19.582 156 .000 -3.87435

Equal variances not

assumed-20.314 154.490 .000 -3.87435

Equal variances

assumed.729 .395 -7.174 156 .000 -1.63994

Equal variances not

assumed-7.045 135.840 .000 -1.63994

Equal variances

assumed38.003 .000 9.420 156 .000 .58636

Equal variances not

assumed9.046 117.944 .000 .58636

Gender

Yearly Household Income

Occupation

Educational Level

Age

Weight Range

Height Range

Work Hours

Liftstyle - Live Healthy

Liftstyle - Seek New Places

Liftstyle - Live Slow Pace

Liftstyle - Love Shopping

Liftstyle - Love Trying New Food

Liftstyle - Love Playing Sports

Liftstyle - Love Music

Liftstyle - Mostly Communicate

through Mobile Phone

Liftstyle - 3 Meals a Day

Liftstyle - 5 Food Groups

Liftstyle - Sleep and wake up on time

Liftstyle - Good work life balance

Independent Samples TestLevene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

Liftstyle - Go to work fast come home

late

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

52

APPENDIX E

CURRENT PERCEPTION

Mean Count Column N % Mean Count Column N %

Importance - Price 4.33 70 100.0% 4.10 88 100.0% 0.798 1.209Importance - Package 5.29 70 100.0% 4.36 88 100.0% 4.355 6.256Importance - Easy to Find 6.14 70 100.0% 5.78 88 100.0% 1.744 2.528Importance - Variety of Flavors 5.47 70 100.0% 5.10 88 100.0% 1.527 2.535Importance - Nutritional Facts

4.30 70 100.0% 4.48 88 100.0%-0.672 0.44

Importance - Brands 5.71 70 100.0% 4.86 88 100.0% 3.659 5.113Importance - Promotional Campaigns 4.96 70 100.0% 4.76 88 100.0% 0.808 9.529

T-Value F-ValueFrequent Travels Health Conscious Consumers

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

53

APPENDIX F

TURN-OFF FACTORS

Mean

Column N

% Mean

Column N

%

NSAgree - High Price 5.35 100.0% 2.96 100.0% 7.069 0.026NSAgree - Looks Unhealthy 4.88 100.0% 3.75 100.0% 2.875 3.156NSAgree - Unattractive Package 4.10 100.0% 3.10 100.0% 3.179 0.449NSAgree - Hard to Find 4.65 100.0% 3.88 100.0% 1.852 7.916NSAgree - Less Flavor Selections 4.61 100.0% 3.60 100.0% 2.845 2.795NSAgree - Less Package Selections 4.16 100.0% 3.40 100.0% 2.449 1.275NSAgree - Dislike the Taste 5.31 100.0% 5.65 100.0% -0.939 0.735NSAgree - Low Nutritional Values 4.02 100.0% 3.73 100.0% 0.866 3.187NSAgree - Dislike the Brand 4.08 100.0% 3.13 100.0% 2.985 15.9NSAgree - Unattractive Promotional Campaign 4.86 100.0% 3.27 100.0% 4.92 0.052SDAgree - High Price 3.86 100.0% 3.53 100.0% 0.787 0.02SDAgree - Looks Unhealthy 5.00 100.0% 4.98 100.0% 0.065 13.798SDAgree - Unattractive Package 3.38 100.0% 2.55 100.0% 2.458 0.365SDAgree - Hard to Find 3.38 100.0% 2.78 100.0% 1.097 3.779SDAgree - Less Flavor Selections 3.19 100.0% 2.68 100.0% 1.049 3.045SDAgree - Less Package Selections 3.71 100.0% 2.53 100.0% 2.598 0.564SDAgree - Dislike the Taste 4.24 100.0% 2.80 100.0% 2.575 10.893SDAgree - Low Nutritional Values 3.95 100.0% 5.70 100.0% -3.874 1.285SDAgree - Dislike the Brand 3.24 100.0% 2.78 100.0% 1.182 3.746SDAgree - Unattractive Promotional Campaign 3.52 100.0% 3.65 100.0% -0.306 21.878

Cluster Number of Case


T-Value P-Value

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

54

APPENDIX G

PURCHASING BEHAVIORS

Count Column N % Count Column N %

Alone 54 77.1% 73 83.0%

With Friends 5 7.1% 15 17.0%

With Family 3 4.3% 0 0.0%

Others 8 11.4% 0 0.0%

Alone 44 62.9% 64 72.7%

With Friends 19 27.1% 19 21.6%

With Family 7 10.0% 5 5.7%

Others 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

With Major Meal 34 48.6% 34 38.6%

With Snacks 14 20.0% 28 31.8%

With Other Drinks 0 0.0% 4 4.5%

As It Is 22 31.4% 22 25.0%


Buy With Whom

Consume With Whom

How You Consume

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

55

APPENDIX H

EFFECTS OF PRICE

Descriptive

N Mean

Reaction - Increased 2 Baht Soft Drink 30 2.2667

No Sugar Alternatives 20 2.5000

Total 50 2.3600



Total 52 2.5192



Total 56 3.4643

Reaction - Decreased 2 Baht Soft Drink 30 1.6000


Total 50 1.6800



Total 52 1.8269



Total 56 1.5893

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

56

ANOVA

Sum of

Squares df F Sig.

Between Groups .653 1 2.437 .125

Within Groups 12.867 48

Total 13.520 49

Between Groups .156 1 .414 .523


Total 18.981 51

Between Groups 2.100 1 7.164 .010


Total 17.929 55



Total 22.880 49



Total 21.442 51



Total 21.554 55

Reaction - Decreased 2 Baht

Reaction - Increased 2 Baht





Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

57

BIOGRAPHY

Name Mr. Sarun Subhavan

Date of Birth January 7, 1989

Educational Attainment

2012: Bachelor’s Degree in Business and

Administration

Work Position Marketing Executive

Retailing Technology Company Limited

Work Experiences 2015 – Present: Marketing Executive

Retailing Technology Company Limited

2012 – 2015: Group Coordinator

Plaza Athenee A Royal Meridien Hotel

Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ

Documents

Does an increase in tax on sugary drinks reduce