MARKETING RESEARCH

FINAL REPORT
Section 1 – Group 8

KARAN JETLEY DM21135

MANONIT AGARWAL DM21142
SHAMSHAD ALAM DM21169
APARAJITA KUMARI DM21113
SAIMA TABASSUM DM21160
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................2

2. Literature Review.........................................................................................................................2

3. Qualitative Research ....................................................................................................................3

4. A Set of Testable Hypotheses ......................................................................................................4

5. Scales for DV and IV ...................................................................................................................4

6. List of Covariate Measures ..........................................................................................................4

7. Way Forward.…...……...………………………………………………………………………5

8. Survey Questionnaire……...……………………………………………………………………6

9. Data Collection……………..…………………………………………………………...…….10

10. Reverse Scored Questions………………………………………………………..………… 10

11. Data Analysis …..…………………………….………………………………...………….. 11

a. Cronbach Alpha…………………………………………………………….…………11

b. Linear Regression………………………………………………………………….…16

c. Linear Regression (with Interaction) ………………………………………………...18

d. Checking for Correlation………………………………………………………….…19

e. Factor Analysis……………………………………………………………………….20

f. Factor Rotation………………………………………………………………………..23

g. Regression……………………………………………………………………………25

12. Inferences……………………………………………..……………………………………26

13. Suggestions………………………………………………………………………………….27

14. References………………………………………………………………………………..…30

Page | 1
ISSUE 12: Take a soft drink of your choice. How can it enhance market share?

1. INTRODUCTION

The issue on our hand was to pick a soft drink and figure out how that particular brand of soft
drink can enhance its Market share. Soft Drinks have been part of Indian life for more than half a
century. Starting with Parle’s Gold Spot and now being dominated by Coca-Cola and Pepsi. We
chose PepsiCo’s Mountain Dew as our drink of choice. Mountain Dew is quite popular in its native
U.S., but it has never really grasped the attention of Indian taste buds. We set out to find what
consumers of soft drinks in general, and of Mountain Dew in particular think of these drinks. What
do they prefer in a soft drink and where do they generally consume it and for what reason? All of
this, we think, will help us in figuring out how to build up our drink’s Market Share.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

A lot of Research has been done on consumer behaviour when it comes to consumers’ preferences
towards cold drinks.

Literature Review 1

Consumer Preference Towards Soft Drinks: A Perceptual Study

By Dr. Satnam Ubeja, Ranjana Patel. 2014

This paper’s objective was to study and identify the effect that gender has on consumer preference
towards carbonated and non-carbonated drinks. A questionnaire was used to formulate six
influences on people’s preferences. These factors were found out to be Satisfaction of mental thirst,
Price and availability through ambassador promotion, Relaxation and refreshment on celebration,
Brand Positioning, Reliability and cleanness and Taste. These factors were found out in a hope
that they will help the marketing strategy of companies to be more precise in terms of targeting
the right customers the right way.

Literature Review 2

Factors Influencing on Buying Behaviour of Soft drink Products- A Perceptual Study

Page | 2
By Dr. G Somasekhar, Mr. T. Kishore Kumar

This study was done in order to find out significant factors involved in customers’ decision to buy
a soft drink. They found out that consumers are influenced by Taste, Price, Quality, Advertisement,
Brand Name, Availability and Friends’ Circle. They found primary data about this through the
survey they administered. Secondary data was also collected. They ranked each factor for each
brand of soft drink. They concluded that respondents were influenced most by quality when it
comes to Coca-Cola, taste and advertisement for sprite, friend circle and advertisement for Thums
up, friend’s circle and quality for Limca and Mazza.

Literature Review 3

A Consumer Survey on Preferences of Soft Drinks

By Somavarupu and Mubeena, 2017

This survey was conducted to study the preferences of the people for soft drinks, factors that
influences the consumer’s consumption of soft drinks, consumer’s perception on the taste, price,
advertisements and celebrity endorsements related to soft drinks. They used Descriptive Research
Design and used convenience sampling technique with a sample size of 100 adolescent girls and
boys. They concluded that 81% of people liked soft drinks and consume it daily. Most respondents
drink a soft drink to quench their thirst and for their taste. The respondents liked the tv commercials
but were not affected enough by them to actually switch to that particular drink.

3. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

The method that we thought would be suitable for our marketing research topic is Focus Group
Discussions (FGDs). We choose to do two focus groups in order to get homogenous data intra-
group and get heterogenous data inter-group. The other methods serve different purposes suitable
for the conclusion one wants to derive from the research.

As we wanted to know what will enhance the market share of the soft drink. FGD seemed to be
the better options as FGD is a more feasible option for us to do the research, through this we focus

Page | 3
on homogeneous people and conduct a discussion among them and as they are familiar with one
another they answer spontaneously. This also helps to bring different sets of people in different
groups so that we can cover various segments together. With heterogeneity amongst the two groups
(Regular and Occasional drinkers) we get to know what people thought of our product and what
the mostly believed opinion was.

These are the questions asked to the focus groups to get their insights:

• Where would you rate your favourite drink in comparison to other soft drinks?
• Have you seen any commercials of your drink? What strikes you the most about the
advertisement?
• Would a change in the price of your favourite drink have an effect on your purchasing
behaviour?
• What is your frequency of purchase of your favourite drink? And that of other soft drinks?
• Will you specifically ask for your favourite drink in a shop?
• How do you feel about the fizz content in your favourite drink?
• Do you prefer high sugar content level in your favourite drink?
• What do you think about the sweetness level in your favourite drink?
• Do you like the colour of your favourite drink?
• Would you buy a soft drink if it is not chilled?
• Whom would you prefer drinking your favourite drink with: Friends or Family?
• What kind of container would you prefer for your favourite drink - Can, Plastic Bottle or a
Glass Bottle?
• What quantity would you prefer while purchasing?
• Do you consider caffeine content in a soft drink before purchasing?

4. A SET OF TESTABLE HYPOTHESES

Based on the answers of the respondents, we were able to formulate the following
Hypotheses:

Page | 4
Hypotheses:

H1: There is a positive relationship between taste and customer satisfaction.

H2: There is a positive relationship between price and customer satisfaction.
H3: There is a positive relationship between branding and customer satisfaction.
H4: There is a positive relationship between advertisement and customer
satisfaction.
H5: There is a positive relationship between availability and customer satisfaction.
H6: There is a positive relationship between Health consciousness and customer
satisfaction.

5. SCALES for DV and IV

5-point Likert Scales were used, with 5 being strongly agree and 1 being strongly disagree.

6. List of Covariates measures

Gender

Age

Soft Drink Consumption - Yes/No

Regularity of consumption

7. WAY FORWARD

We think, for us the way forward would be to make a questionnaire and conduct a complete survey
with at least 150 respondents. Then we will check if the data is good enough to use, by calculating
its Cronbach Alpha. Then we plan on analysing the gathered data. We intend on figuring out which
of the factors have a positive relation to market share of soft-drinks. This would also help us figure
out which one of hypothesis is true and which ones are not.

Page | 5
8. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

The following Survey was rolled out. A total of 161 respondents filled out the following survey.
The questions were designed to measure the six independent variables and the dependent variable
– Customer Satisfaction, along with some Covariates.

Page | 6
Page | 7
Page | 8
Page | 9
9. DATA COLLECTION:

We applied the Snowball sampling method. We forwarded our survey to our friends, family and
colleagues and asked them to send the survey to someone they might know. We put up 6 Reverse
Scored questions in the Survey.

10. Reverse Scored Questions:

The following six questions were reverse Scored using Excel, before any further analysis of
the Data.

Taste: Q4 I am indifferent to the taste of my brand of soft drink

Price: Q1 I think my brand of soft drink is overpriced.

Branding: Q3 I am indifferent to the logo of my brand of soft drink.

Availability: Q3 I go for alternatives if I do not find my brand of soft drink.

Advertisement: Q4 Most Advertising about my brand of soft drink is very annoying.

Q5 My brand of soft drink’s ads makes false claims.

Page | 10
11. DATA ANALYSIS:

Cronbach Alpha

We need to calculate the Cronbach Alpha to test the reliability of the said data.

We used SPSS to do the same.

Here are the Results.

Reliability

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 161 98.8
Excludeda 2 1.2
Total 163 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.792 28

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if
Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Item Deleted
S1 89.61 116.313 .607 .773
S2 90.01 114.762 .536 .773
S3 89.69 115.490 .565 .773
S4 90.29 116.758 .379 .782
P1 90.22 120.109 .326 .785

Page | 11
P2 89.99 118.194 .438 .779
P3 90.01 118.881 .407 .781
B1 89.25 121.816 .373 .783
B2 89.53 120.576 .372 .783
B3 90.09 124.935 .115 .796
AD1 89.58 117.982 .503 .777
AD2 90.50 112.564 .563 .771
AD3 89.98 119.124 .400 .781
AD4 89.87 116.039 .493 .776
AD5 90.15 116.128 .439 .778
H1 90.83 124.120 .118 .798
H2 90.78 126.684 .048 .800
H3 91.04 125.129 .097 .798
A1 89.44 124.123 .193 .791
A2 89.26 125.932 .159 .791
A3 89.81 127.240 .095 .793
T1 89.45 118.361 .607 .775
T2 89.81 121.506 .363 .784
T3 89.70 124.226 .241 .788
T4 89.75 122.975 .246 .788
Gender 93.19 128.928 .041 .793
Preference 92.76 127.397 .224 .790
Regularity 91.33 134.260 -.276 .807

Page | 12
Page | 13
Page | 14
Page | 15
As we can see all the Cronbach Alphas (of individual constructs and all the constructs combined)
are above 0.6 and thus, we can say that the Data is Valid and Reliable. Hence, we can proceed with
our Analysis.

Linear Regression (Without Interaction)

We performed Linear regression to check which independent variables are significant enough to
influence the dependent variable.

Page | 16
We first calculated the averages of the items in the construct and then we performed the Linear
regression analysis taking into consideration the Averages of independent variables, Average of
the dependent construct and the covariates. The regression model was significant with a p-value
of 0.00

We found that Branding, Health consciousness and Availability did not have any significant
effect on customer satisfaction. So, we fail to reject these independent variables’ corresponding
null Hypothesis, while rejecting the others.

Page | 17
Linear Regression (With Interaction)
We found that there may exist an interaction between Price - Advertisement, Price - Taste and
Advertisement – Taste (due to these constructs being individually significant during the
regression). So, we multiplied individual values of the constructs in Excel to find the interaction
values.

We named the interaction constructs as follows:

P-Ad: Interaction between Price and Advertising

P-T: Interaction between Price and Taste

Ad-T: Interaction between Advertisement and Taste

Page | 18
Checking for Correlation

After performing regression (with interaction) we check for correlation amongst the different
variables and interaction term from our surveyed data. We found significant correlation and thus
performed factor analysis in order to get rid of multi-collinearity.

Page | 19
Factor Analysis

Communalities

Initial Extraction
Pavg 1.000 .691
Bavg 1.000 .426
Adavg 1.000 .705
Havg 1.000 .766
Aavg 1.000 .924
Tavg 1.000 .631
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained

Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings
Compone % of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
nt Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 1.924 32.063 32.063 1.924 32.063 32.063 1.751 29.179 29.179
2 1.200 19.994 52.057 1.200 19.994 52.057 1.321 22.013 51.192
3 1.020 16.993 69.049 1.020 16.993 69.049 1.071 17.857 69.049
4 .860 14.328 83.377

5 .553 9.216 92.593

6 .444 7.407 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Page | 20
 Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
Pavg .667 -.493 -.047
Bavg .556 .284 .189
Adavg .748 .381 .029
Havg -.262 .744 .380
Aavg .252 -.344 .861
Tavg .692 .242 -.308
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
a. 3 components extracted.

Page | 21
We use the Eigen Values in the ‘Total Variance Explained’ table to see the number of factors. In
this case, we got three factors with an Eigen value greater than 1 and a cumulative variance of
69.049%.
From the Scree Plot, we cannot infer accurately the number of factors that can be extracted as
there is a sharp break after the first factor itself. So, to get more reliable data, we choose the factors
from the Total Variance Table by looking at factors with an Eigen Value greater than 1.

Observations from Component Matrix

1. Component 1 has a high factor loadings of Pavg(0.667), Bavg(0.556), Adavg(0.748) &
Tavg(0.692)
2. Component 2 has a high factor loadings of Pavg(-0.493) & Havg(0.744)
3. Component 3 has a high factor loading of Aavg(0.861)
4. Since, component 1 and component 2 has one common medium factor loading, we cannot
name our components. So, we have to rotate the factors i.e., perform Factor Rotation

Component Score Coefficient

Matrix
Component
1 2 3
Pavg .103 .508 .153
Bavg .364 -.131 .155
Adavg .494 -.095 .003
Havg .177 -.703 .126
Aavg -.042 -.018 .901
Tavg .418 .108 -.273
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
Component Scores.

Page | 22
Component Score Covariance Matrix
Component 1 2 3
1 1.000 .000 .000
2 .000 1.000 .000
3 .000 .000 1.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
Component Scores.

Factor Rotation

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3
Pavg .342 .718 .240
Bavg .620 -.052 .196
Adavg .838 .014 .053
Havg .128 -.863 .070
Aavg .036 .076 .957
Tavg .727 .226 -.227
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations.

Page | 23
 Component Score Coefficient
Matrix
Component
1 2 3
Pavg .103 .508 .153
Bavg .364 -.131 .155
Adavg .494 -.095 .003
Havg .177 -.703 .126
Aavg -.042 -.018 .901
Tavg .418 .108 -.273
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
Component Scores.

Component Transformation Matrix

Component 1 2 3
1 .872 .448 .195
2 .488 -.815 -.312
3 -.019 -.367 .930
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.

Component Score Covariance Matrix

Component 1 2 3
1 1.000 .000 .000
2 .000 1.000 .000
3 .000 .000 1.000

Page | 24
Factor rotation was done to simplify the classification of different independent variables and group
them in their respective component category. We found that each of the 3 components obtained
reflected different perception of customer satisfaction. Each component were further named
according to their characteristics.

Now, after we have performed factor rotation, we observe that the factors can be classified easily
in their respective components. This further enables us to name the components.

Naming of Components

Component 1 – Brand Preference

Component 2 - Value Consciousness

Component 3 - Brand Reach

Regression
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
1 .649a .422 .399 .696071685897
762
a. Predictors: (Constant), Brand Reach for analysis 2, Value
Consciousness for analysis 2, Brand Preference for analysis 2, Gender,
Preference, Regularity

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 54.420 6 9.070 18.720 .000b
Residual 74.615 154 .485

Total 129.035 160

a. Dependent Variable: Savg

Page | 25
b. Predictors: (Constant), ), Brand Reach for analysis 2, Value Consciousness for analysis 2,
Brand Preference for analysis 2, Gender, Preference, Regularity

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 3.777 .238 15.896 .000

Gender -.114 .118 -.061 -.963 .337

Preference .397 .150 .179 2.643 .009
Regularity -.180 .075 -.168 -2.421 .017
Brand Preference .433 .057 .484 7.587 .000
Value Consciousness .124 .057 .139 2.165 .032
Brand Reach .021 .055 .024 .382 .703
a. Dependent Variable: Savg

As, the P-value =0, we can say that this regression was statistically significant. The adjusted R
square value is 0.399, meaning about 40% of the variance in Customer Satisfaction is being
explained by our dependent variables.
In the Coefficients table, we can see that amongst the factors, Brand Preference, Value
Consciousness are significant, whereas Brand Reach is not.

12. Inferences
Since, the Beta coefficient of Brand Preference is greater than Value Consciousness, and both of
them being significant, we will pay more importance to Brand Preference (0.484 vs. 0.139). And
Brand Reach is Insignificant, and hence plays no part in Customer Satisfaction when it comes to
Soft Drinks.

Page | 26
13. Suggestions

Based on the Analysis of the Data we collected, we would suggest the Brand of the Drink that in
order to capture a bigger market share, they need to focus on the following: -

The Two significant factors are Brand Preference and Value Consciousness.
More importance should be on Brand Preference.
Now, Brand Preference includes Branding, Advertising and Taste of the Drink.
Amongst these, they should focus the most on improving their Advertising and the taste of the
drink. Only after that they should focus on the branding of their company and improve on things
like a better logo.
In terms of Advertising, they should focus on making more believable ads and ads that do not
make any false claims as that makes the brand of soft drink more believable and trust worthy to
the average consumer. The advertisement should focus on how good the brand tastes.

In terms of Taste, they should tweak their drink’s taste to make it sweeter and fizzier than the
average (similar) drink in the market. We found the respondents on an average liked a fizzier drink
(3.75) and liked sweeter drinks (3.86). 3 being a score of neutrality, these two scores show us that
customer’s preference lies in fizzier and sweeter drinks. As we can also see from the picture of the
responses.

Page | 27
So, Consumers obviously prefer their soft drinks to be high on their fizzy and sweet content.

Page | 28
Then they should focus on Value Consciousness. Value Consciousness includes things like the
price of the Drink and the consumers view on Health Consciousness. In this they should focus on
their price being commensurate to the product they are offering. For customers it is important to
get the right value for their money. They can gauge this by seeing what their competitors are
asking for their respective product and make sure their price is in the same range.
And Health Consciousness has a negative effect on Customer Satisfaction. So, they should not
focus on Calorie Free substitutes of their soft drink, and definitely not spend their Resources and
Time on developing such alternatives.

If the Company has the option and resources then they should focus on both the first and the second
factor which are brand preference and value consciousness. If they do have budgetary constraints
then they should focus on only the first factor which is brand preference. Since brand preference
has a high beta value, focussing on this will result in a more satisfied customer and thus a higher
market share.

Also, they should not worry about their Brand Reach. As the data shows the Availability or the
Penetrability of their soft Drink would not make their Customers switch to a different one. So, it
is fine even if their drinks are not available in the smallest of markets/ shops. They should in stead
focus more on the existing stores and not on increasing the number of stores where their soft drink
is available.

Page | 29
14. REFERENCES:
▪ Consumer Preference Towards Soft Drinks: A Perceptual Study,By Dr. Satnam Ubeja,
Ranjana Patel, Pacific Business Review International, Volume 6, Issue 9, March
2014
▪ Factors Influencing on Buying Behaviour of Soft drink Products- A Perceptual Study, By
Dr. G Somasekhar, Mr. T. Kishore Kumar, International Journal of Latest Engineering
Research and Applications (IJLERA) ISSN: 2455-7137 Volume – 02, Issue – 12, December –
2017, PP – 93-98
▪ A Consumer Survey on Preferences of Soft Drinks,By Somavarupu and Mubeena,
2017,Research and Reviews: Journal of Dairy Science and Technology ISSN: 2319-3409
(Online), ISSN: 2349-3704 (Print) Volume 6, Issue 3

Page | 30