A STUDY ON FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMERS FOR BUYING

CONVENIENCE FOOD

Deepti Yadav a*, Gaurav Bathla b

a
Research Scholar, CT University, Ludhiana, Punjab , b Associate Professor, CT University
a
deeptiyadav994@gmail.com, b
drbathla@ctuniversity.in

ABSTRACT:

Present research has shown the awareness level and purchasing features about convenience
food among consumers. Factor analysis, Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis was used
to verify the proposed hypothesis. Researcher performed Principal Component Analysis, on
11 items regarding various parameters identified for awareness of feature and 17 items of
regarding various parameters identified reasons to purchase. Out of 17 items regarding
various parameters identified for reasons to purchase, those items which had extraction value
of communalities < 0.5(reason purchase CF attractive packaging), suggested that it did not fit
well with the factor, was dropped. Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis were used to
find differences created by the demographics on the dependent variables (3 items of
awareness regarding convenience food, 5 factors of awareness regards to feature and 4 factors
of reasons to purchase). Research will help the manufacturers to identify various factors that
affect the purchase of the products.

Keywords: Convenience; Food; Purchase; consumers; parameter; manufacturer; awareness;

demographics; packaging; parameters.

1. INTRODUCTION:

As Jonathan Safran Foer says “food is not reasonable, it is culture, practice, need and
uniformity”. We can say consumer buying behaviour can be mentioned as the optimum
buying behaviour of the consumer. A purchasing decision is the final outcome of the
following factors like individual, social, intellectual and cultural factors. These elements
helps in the purchasing the different types of convenience food.
Global Market is competing amazingly with present high competition to reveal its products
with several marketing practices. Food industry is race with other industries in providing its
products. The present scenario take away meals are more in fashion.
National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) announces fourth India Food Services
Report (IFSR) 2019 evaluates Indian food services industry’s retail area at 4.23 lakh crore
INR in 2018-19 and look forward to arise at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9%
to achieve 6 lakh crore INR in the next five years. IN 2019 Indian food service report (IFSR)
sets the share at 35% for the food service industry. This decision was made after the
discussion with 3500 consumers of different cities and with 130 CEOs of the food industry.
Therefore the share is expected to rise 43% in the succeeding five years. According to
Hospitality India biz.com, NRAI India Food Services Report in 2019, the food service
industry has hired 7.3 millions of manpower and it is expected to rise by 9.2 million in 2022-
2023.

Corona virus pandemic activated an extraordinary flow in buyers’ demand, with yield jump
up by $1.32trn in a 2019 year and reached $8.27trn in 2020. Figure and data are expected to
slip to $8.22trn in 2021. The global market is expected to get $9.16trn value by the year
2025. The convenience food section noticed the grand sales growth in the middle of the
COVID-19 pandemic, with revenues surge by 76% year-over-year to $763.5bn in 2020. This
number is expected to fall by $683.2bn in 2021. In the year 2020 sale of cereals and bread has
also increased. This segment of the universal food market strike at 27% jump in a year with
value $1.2trn in 2020. The confectionary segment sale rose as third largest food segment by
16% with the value $1.4trn in the 2020 year. In same year if compared with other markets
like fruits, vegetable fish, sea food and meat, then sale were 14%. Globally the Indian food
segment as the third largest market marked the growth rate by 36% that is $633bn in 2020.
Survey says that Indian food industry will grow by $645.8bn in 2021, and it will increase 2%
year-over-year. Japan with $425.2bn and Russia with $275.8bn will follow India in food sale
revenue. (Food service 13 January, 2021)

THE FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMERS FOR BUYING CONVENIENCE

FOOD
 DEMOGRAPHIC
FACTORS
SOCIAL
ECONOMIC
FACTORS FACTORS

CULTURE PSCHOLOGICAL
FACTORS FACTORS

Figure 1: Source: Ramya, N., &Ali, S.M.(2016).Factors affecting consumer buying

behavior. IJAR, 2(10), 76-80.
There are factors responsible for buying convenience food. They are demographic factor,
social factor, psychological factor, culture factors and economical factors.
1. Demographic factors: includes the following features of an individual such as male
female, age group, wedding status, educational qualification, occupation.
2. Social factors: have features like nuclear or joint family, references from friends,
relatives and colleagues, and lastly the living standard (status) in the society.
3. Psychological factors: according to the Maslow’s theory features that affect the
consumer buying behaviour are motivation, perception, learning, attitude and belief.
4. Cultural factors: values and principles of a community or group of individuals.
Behaviour of a person is decided by the principles followed by him. We can say that,
culture is the habit of an individual. A person learns from his surroundings, family
environment and that becomes his culture.
5. Economic factors: includes the following features like personal income, family
income, consumer credits, liquid assets, and savings.
There are number of studied has been found regarding the convenience food in India
but specially focusing on the purchasing of the products is not mentioned.
Accordingly researcher would like to expand our in this discipline. We intentionally
focused on the five cities of the state as these cities have different geographical area
and therefore their habits might be varied. All the cities have unique lifestyle of
consumers. Although all the cities are in one state only therefore researcher believe
that consumers might make a purchase decision differently. Ramification of the study
can be the directions for convenience food manufacturers to make new strategies for
food products.
2. LITRATURE REVIEW:

Shoppers’ pessimistic approach on branding of an item navigates the value of the product
(Richardson et al., 1996). Buyers preceding awareness builds an influence on buying habits
of the consumers (Bettman and Park, 1980).Consumers during purchasing gives priority to
the brand image on frozen food (Islam and Ullah, 2010). Buying behaviour of the consumer
influence by the three (Jaafar et al., 2012).The first internal factors which includes the
perceived value, standard & contentment from the products. The second is an external factor
that includes availability, pricing, branding, packaging and advertising. The third is the
demographic factor which includes customer age, occupation, gender, marital status, family
position, earnings etc. As conventional food take over modern food changing eating habits,
therefore the convenience food expanded its market with many benefits like efficiency and
comfort (Vijayeta, 2015). A psychological survey on parents by Society for Nutrition
Education and Behavior in 2017 examined motivation factors for purchasing the processed
food. It has been noticed that 57% of the mother and father use because of the time saving
factor. 49% of the parents choose because of their family members like the frozen meals. One
third parents chosen the frozen food so that their children could easily prepare the food and
lastly 27% of the parents chose of the cost saving factor. Convenience is the major factors for
purchasing frozen food. It also helps to minimise energy and time during the preparation of
the food as it is time consuming process. Therefore, women want to minimise this time
during the meal preparation (Ahuja, 2011).
Gender play an important factor as the women and men have unlike thinking style. Demand
and desire for fashion and style does match with each other. Therefore, consumers buying
behaviour is different from one another. Most of the time in homes product purchase decision
is taken by the women. So, while selecting food products gender decision is majorly affected
(Ahuja 2011; Saleem et al. 2017).
Age has become the major factor in terms of buying convenience products. Consumers’
desire, needs and purchase decision making changes as the age grows. Older ones focus on
more on cereals, grain, fruits and vegetables where young ones are more on fast food and
spend much money on their lifestyle and fashion. Daily routine of eating habits is differed in
age group (Drewnowski and Shultz 2001).
People experiment varieties of foods to enjoy them and that bring change in the diet (Foxall,
1993).An adult and child carry different sense of taste (Negri et al., 2012). As we get varied
taste between the conventional home made recipes and ready to eat food (Hawa et al., 2014).
Some customers are money conscious & alert about their spending money. But it is not
always found true, mostly in terms of food utilisation. Some buyers use their money tactfully
see the low price in the items they purchase (Zeithaml, 1988). Buyers who prefer to buy
product on low price does not stick to one and they always try to buy other products (Baltas,
1997). As some consumers take the price tag as the sign of quality standard (Bao et al.,
2011).Consumers perception regarding high price products are always good. A study says
consumer willing to pay high price is to get the best quality products (Cranfield and
Magnusson 2003). Manufacturer of a particular product make it unique so that it can compete
with other products and then branding plays the major role (Vraneševic and Stančec 2003).
3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:
1. To estimate the awareness level of convenience food among the consumers of Uttar
Pradesh.
2. To identify various reasons to purchase convenience food
3. To suggest measures received from the outcome of above objectives to convenience
food manufacturer.
Based on the objectives of the study the below hypothesis has been framed.
4. HYPOTHESIS:
H01: Consumers are not aware about convenience food
H1: Consumers are aware about convenience food
H02: Consumers are not aware about the features of convenience food
H2: Consumers are aware about the features of convenience food
H03: Parameters of reason to purchase are not predicted by awareness of convenience
food.
H3: Parameters of reason to purchase are predicted by awareness of convenience food.
H04: Parameters of reason to purchase is not predicted by awareness of features
convenience food.
H4: Parameters of reason to purchase is not predicted by awareness of features
convenience food.
5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
A structured survey tool was used to gather the required response. Coincidental sampling
technique was used to collect data from 600 customers from Lucknow, Agra, Noida,
Prayagraj, Varanasi and some other cities of Uttar Pradesh and also the other states of
India. Data was collected online using Google Form as well as personally received
responses from customers using offline questionnaire.
 Factor analysis, Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis was used to prove the
proposed hypothesis.

6. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

Frequency table was created to find the demographic profile of respondents. The
demographic variables considered in the current study are Gender, Age, Marital Status,
Present area of residence, Qualification, Occupation, Salary, Type of family, Family size,
Spend on convenience food, Decision on convenience food buying, The details are
displayed in table 1.

Variables Value %
Gender Male 50.4
Female 49.6
Age 18-30 years 29
31-40 years 24.1
41-50 years 23
51-60 years 17.8
Above 60 years 6.2
Marital status Unmarried 63.4
Married 36.6
Present area of residence Lucknow 16.5
Prayagraj 17.3
Varanasi 16.5
Agra 17.8
Noida 17.6
Other City 14.3
Educational qualification Undergraduate 17.8
Graduate 37.3
Post graduate 36.3
Doctorate 8.7
Occupation Students 17.8
Government job 26.5
Private job 28
Business 18.8
 Retired 2
Self employed 3
Housewife 4
Annual income Not earning 19.1
Less than 1 lakh 11.6
1-3 lakhs 23.8
3-6 lakhs 25.3
6-10 lakhs 16.1
More than 10 lakhs 4
Type of family Nuclear 70.9
Joint 29.1
Family size Two members 17.3
Three members 30.3
Four members 18.5
Five members 15.5
Above 5 members 18.5
Spend on convenience food Less than or equal to Rs. 1000 20.0
Rs 1001 to Rs 2000 27.0
Rs. 2001 to Rs.3000 30.3
Above Rs. 3000 22.8
Decision on convenience food buying Self 23.3
Spouse 12.6
Children 16.3
Parents 33.9
Friends /relatives 13.8
Table1. Demographic characteristics of respondents

Internal consistency of scales was measured using Cronbach’s alpha scales to measure
awareness = .866scales to identify awareness about features = .872, scales to identify
reason to purchase =.901 which was found to be adequate and in acceptable range. Hence
further exploratory analysis could be performed. For finding factors of awareness of feature,
the results of KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Kaise-Meyer –Olkin Measure of
Sampling Adequacy: .960; Barlett’s test of Sphericity-significance: .000) and for finding
the factors of reasons to purchase the results of KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Kaise-
Meyer –Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy: .964; Barlett’s test of Sphericity-
significance: .000) As a result, the preliminary conditions of using factor analysis were
considered.

The researcher further performed Principal Component Analysis, on 11 items regarding

various parameters identified for awareness of feature and 17 items of regarding various
parameters identified reasons to purchase. Out of 17 items regarding various parameters
identified for reasons to purchase, those items which had extraction value of communalities <
0.5(reason purchase CF attractive packaging), indicating that it did not fit well with the
factor, was dropped.

Further Kaiser’s criterion analysis was used for awareness of feature; the scree plot graph
indicated clear five factors solution. The 5 components together account for 82.93% variance.
Items that had eigen value >1 were considered for respective components. The number of
iterations considered was 25. The component matrix uses the factors identified in Kaiser's
criterion. The criterion analysis reflects that the 5 factors show loadings of 0.5 and above.
Based on the findings of the Scree plot, Component Matrix, and Criterion analysis, it was
revealed that 5 factors explain awareness of features.
Kaiser’s criterion analysis revealed reasons to purchase; the scree plot graph indicated clear
four factors solution. The 4 components together account for 74.89% variance. Items that had
eigen value >1 were considered for respective components. The number of iterations
considered was 25. The component matrix uses the factors identified in Kaiser's criterion.
The criterion analysis reflects that the 5 factors show loadings of 0.5 and above. Based on the
findings of the Scree plot, Component Matrix, and Criterion analysis, it was revealed that 4
factors explain reasons to purchase.
The 5 components for awareness of feature are
Component 1: factor awareness about ingredient
Component 2: factor awareness about recipe and nutrition
Component 3: factor awareness about trendy feature
Component 4: factor awareness about reputation
Component 5: factor awareness about easy cook

The 4 components for reasons to purchase are

Component 1: reasons to purchase for ease of use and availability
Component 2: reasons to purchase for quality affordability referal
Component 3: reasons to purchase for convenience
Component 4: reasons to purchase for following standards

The normality of data was checked for awareness towards convenience food, awareness of
feature, reasons to purchase by using the K-S test. It was found that the data is non-normal
as displayed in table 2, table 3, and table 4.

Awareness: Awareness: Awareness:

ready to eat ready to use ready to
drink
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 6.935 6.564 5.786

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

Table 2: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for awareness towards con

factor_a factor_a factor_a factor_a factor_aware

ware_ing ware_rec ware_tre ware_rep _easycook
redient ipeandnu ndyfeatu utation
trition re
Kolmogorov-
3.259 3.288 3.683 3.097 5.786
Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
Table 3: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for awareness of feature

reason_p reason_p reason_ reason_p

urchase_ urchase_ purchas urchase_
easeofus qualityaff e_convi followsta
eandavail ordability nience ndards
ability referal
Kolmogorov-
3.514 3.788 3.227 5.296
Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-
.000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
Table 4: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for reasons to
purchase
Thus Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis were used to find differences created by the
demographics on the dependent variables (3 items of awareness towards convenience food,
5 factors of awareness towards feature and 4 factors of reasons to purchase).

It was found that gender and marital status does not create any difference on awareness
towards convenience food. Also awareness towards ready to drink is insignificant for age.

But family type, age, location, qualification, occupation, income creates difference on
awareness towards convenience food. Details are displayed in table 5.

Grouping Awareness: Awareness: Awareness:

Variable ready to eat ready to use ready to drink
Asymp Family_type
.000 .001 .010
. Sig.
Mean Rank 317.32 315.62 312.03 (Nuclear)
(Nuclear) (Nuclear)
Asymp Age ---
.001 .043
. Sig.
Mean Rank 329.96 (41-50 317.58 (51-60 ---
Years) Years)
Asymp Location
.002 .046 .020
. Sig.
Mean Rank 330.58 325.26 344.07
(Varanasi) (Varanasi) (Lucknow)
Asymp Qualification
.000 .001 .019
. Sig
Mean Rank 344.18 (Post 340.98 347.89
Graduate) (Doctorate) (Doctorate)
Asymp Occupation
.000 .000 .044
. Sig.
Mean Rank 348.43 341.07 318.93
(Government (Government (Government
Job) Job) Job)
Asymp Income
.002 .002 .000
. Sig
335.38 (> 10 373.40 (> 10 414.67 (> 10
Lakhs) Lakhs) Lakhs)
Table 5: differences created by the demographics on awareness towards convenience
food. Value of grouping variable in braces show highest mean rank

Since most of the demographics showed a difference in the awareness level of convenience
food H01 is partially rejected and H1 is partially accepted.

H1: Consumers are aware about convenience food.

It was also found that Gender does not create any difference on the parameters of awareness
towards features of convenience food except factor_aware_trendy feature with highest mean
rank in females (315.99).

Marital status does not create any difference in awareness towards features of convenience
food.

Family type also does not create any difference on the parameters of awareness towards
features of convenience food except factor_aware_easycook with the highest mean rank for
Nuclear Family (312.03).

Interestingly age creates the difference in all the parameters of awareness towards features of
convenience food except factor_aware_easycook.

Location and qualification, is another such demographic variable which shows the difference
in all the parameters of awareness towards features of convenience food, except
factor_aware_recipe and nutrition with reference to qualification.

Occupation creates a difference in all the parameters of awareness towards features of

convenience food except factor_aware_recipe and nutrition and factor_aware_easycook.

Income does not create any difference in the parameters of awareness towards the features of
convenient food except factor_aware_ingredient, factor_aware_trendyfeature,
factor_aware_reputation.

Interestingly family size does not create any difference in all the parameters of awareness
towards features of convenience food except factor_aware_easycook with the highest mean
rank of 322.81 for a family with 4 members. Displayed in table:6
Grou factor_a factor_aware_r factor_aware factor_awa factor_awa
ping ware_in ecipeandnutriti _trendyfeatu re_reputati re_easyco
Varia gredient on re on ok
ble
Asym Age .000 .002 .003 .001 -----
p.
Sig.
332.03 322.17(18.30yr 317.67(31- 327.63 (18- 310.95(51-
(18.30y s) 40 yrs) 30yrs) 60yrs)
rs)
Asym Locat .000 .000 .000 .000 .020
p. ion
Sig.
401.18 395.62 374.72 403.02 344.07
(luckno (lucknow) (lucknow) (lucknow) (lucknow)
w)
Asym Quali .000 ------ .006 .002 .019
p. Sig ficati
on
337.46 333.16 (post 328.89 347.89
(underg graduates) (undergrad (doctrate)
 raduate uates)
s)
Asym Occu .040 ------ .001 .009 ------
p. Sig. patio
n
319.78 357.97 (self 336.84
(self employed) (private
employ job)
ed)
Asym Inco ------ .018 ------ ------ .000
p. Sig. me
316.8 (3-6 414.67(>
Lakhs) 10 Lakhs)
Table 6: differences created by the demographics on awareness towards features
convenience food. Value of grouping variable in braces show highest mean rank

Since most of the demographics showed a difference in the awareness of features towards
convenience food H02 is partially rejected and H2 is partially accepted.

H2: Consumers are aware about the features of convenience food.

A multiple linear regression was calculated to predict [reason to purchase] based on

[Awareness: ready to eat], [Awareness: ready to use] and [Awareness: ready to drink]. A
significant regression equation was found (F (3,597) = 43.73. p <.000), with an R2 of 0 .180.
Participant predicted [reason_purchase_ease of use and availability] is equal to
5.798+0.473(Awareness: ready to drink) +0 .488 (Awareness: ready to use)
+.407(Awareness: ready to eat).
All the predictors [Awareness: ready to drink], [Awareness: ready to use] and [Awareness:
ready to eat] were significant predictors of [reason_purchase_ease of use and availability].

A significant regression equation was found (F(3,597) = 53.31. p <.000), with an R2 of .211.
Participant predicted [reason_purchase_quality affordability referral] is equal to
7.102+0.862(Awareness: ready to use)+0.477 (Awareness: ready to eat) .All the predictors
[Awareness: ready to use] and [Awareness: ready to eat]were significant predictors of
[reason_purchase_quality affordability referral].

A significant regression equation was found (F(3,597) = 40.00. p <.000), with an R2 of

0 .167. Participant predicted [reason_purchase_convinience] is equal to 5.318 +0.428
(Awareness: ready to drink)+0.319 (Awareness: ready to eat) + .435 (Awareness: ready to
use). All the predictors [Awareness: ready to use] and [Awareness: ready to eat] were
significant predictors of [reason_purchase_convinience].

A significant regression equation was found (F(3,597) = 56.13. p <.000), with an R2 of .220.
Participant predicted [reason_purchase_follow standards] is equal to
2.660+0.338(Awareness: ready to use)+0.237(Awareness: ready to eat). All the predictors
[Awareness: ready to use] and [Awareness: ready to eat] were significant predictors of
[reason_purchase_convinience].

This nulls hypothesis is rejected and alternate hypothesis is fully accepted.

H4: Parameters of reason to purchase are predicted by awareness of convenience food

For verifying the fifth nulls hypothesis

H04: Parameters of reason to purchase are not predicted by awareness of features towards
convenience food.
A multiple linear regression was calculated to predict [reason to purchase] based on
[factor_aware_easycook], [factor_aware_recipe and nutrition], [factor_aware_trendy feature]
[factor_aware_reputation] and [factor_aware_ingredient]
For DV [reason_purchase_ease of use and availability], a significant regression equation
was found (F (5,595) = 36.47. p <.000), with an R2 of .235. Participant predicted
[reason_purchase_ease of use and availability] is equal to
4.902+.438(factor_aware_easycook) + .399(factor_aware_trendy feature
The predictors [factor_aware_easycook] and [factor_aware_trendy feature] were significant
predictors of [reason_purchase_ease of use and availability].

For DV [reason_purchase_ease of use and availability], a significant regression equation

was found (F (5,595) = 28.73. p <.000), with an R2 of .194. Participant predicted
[reason_purchase_quality affordability referal] is equal to 6.941+.791
(factor_aware_easycook) + .468 (factor_aware_trendyfeature)
The predictors [factor_aware_easycook] and [factor_aware_trendy feature] were significant
predictors of [reason_purchase_quality affordability referal].

For DV [reason_purchase_ease of use and availability], a significant regression equation

was found (F (5,595) = 38.83. p < .000), with an R2 of .246. Participant predicted
[reason_purchase_convinience equal to 4.228+ .496 (factor_aware_reputation)
+ .417(factor_aware_trendy feature) + .387(factor_aware_easycook)
The predictors [factor_aware_reputation], [factor_aware_trendyfeature] and
[factor_aware_easycook] were significant predictors of [reason_purchase_convinience].

For DV [reason_purchase_follow standards a significant regression equation was found (F

(5,595) = 31.19. p < .000), with an R2 of .208. Participant predicted
[reason_purchase_follow standards] is equal to 2.532 + .290 (factor_aware_easycook)
+ .146(factor_aware_trendy feature} + .144(factor_aware_reputation)
The predictors [factor_aware_easycook], [factor_aware_trendy feature] and
[factor_aware_reputation] were significant predictors of [reason_purchase_follow standards].

Looking at the significance of the entire model of Null Hypothesis is rejected and alternate
hypothesis is accepted.
H4: Parameters of reason to purchase are predicted by awareness of features convenience
food.
7. CONCLUSION:

For a victorious consumer-oriented market, service provider must work hard as a

psychologist to acquire consumers. By keeping in mind affecting features, things can be
made favourable and then goal of consumer satisfaction can be achieved. The Study of
consumer buying behaviour is key to success in market. To find out the differences created
by demographics on awareness regarding convenience food, it was found that gender and
marital status does not create any difference on awareness towards convenience food. Also
awareness towards ready to drink is insignificant for age. However family type, age, location,
qualification, occupation, income creates many differences on awareness of convenience
food. Arnold et al. (1998) had explored the study which shows that food choice is recognized
by the awareness of the food which is highly influenced by a demographic profile of
consumer. Furthermore, to find out the difference created by demographics on parameters of
awareness towards features of convenience food, it was found that gender, marital status,
family type, income and family size does not creates any difference. Whereas the age,
location and qualification, occupation creates the difference in all the parameters of
awareness towards features of convenience food. Sarkodie, N. A., & Boakye-Kessie, V. A.
(2017) according to researcher different parameters of awareness towards features of
convenience food is directly related to the buying beahviour of the consumers. Furthermore it
was concluded that awareness towards ready to eat food, ready to use food, ready to drink
beverages, leads to purchase of convenience food as it has been displayed in the regression
analysis equation showed in the analysis section. Lastly, it was also found that reason to
purchase convenience food is predicted by awareness towards the features about convenience
food. Jabir A, Sanjeev K and Janakiraman M (2010) in their study they focused on
purchasing habits of consumers which help to boost the economy. The liking of consumers
clearly indicates their priority for hygiene and health of food followed by quality, packaging,
variety of products and lastly the price and non-seasonal availability in the market. In
addition to a consumers’ choice of convenience food type majorly depends on convenience
factor for purchasing along with the availability of all the products at one place.
8. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:

The sampling method used in the current study is coincidental sampling. This sometimes
gives biased results.
1. The survey was conducted during COVID pandemic; therefore perception of
respondents may vary during normal condition.
2. The study area was major focused to Uttar Pradesh state and therefore may not give
similar results when generalized to other states of India.
3. The research design of the current study is cross-sectional. The longitudinal research
on the same population can creates a difference in their demographics might reveal
the exact purchase behaviour of the consumers.
4. The researcher suggest that studies can also be explored on marketing aspect
regarding consumer buying behaviour in convenience food industry and its
management in food safety, hygiene and nutrition etc.
9. VALUABLE SUGGESTIONS FOR MANUFACTURERS:

Respondents have suggested the below information for manufacturers of convenience food.
1. Food safety should be concerned while preparing the convenience food. It should
more of health concern to meet the target consumers. Therefore, a simple idea like
look good and feel good can be best to convince the consumers to buy products.
2. Manufacturers should make healthy food and should use the organic products for
making and as well as for packaging the food. They should adopt a unique marketing
strategy to communicate the information to the consumers.
3. Organic food will keep the body healthy whereas environment friendly packaging will
save the environment.
4. Manufacturers should focus on more and more to add nutritional values of the
products.
 5. Products should be more of pocket friendly. Recipe details should be mentioned on
the packet which will help consumers while preparation of the food. Pictures can be
added on the packet to the related food inside the packet. Information like one product
can be made in different style can also be added on the packet.
6. Manufactures can also launch Apps which should provide information regarding the
product. Videos can be uploaded which demonstrate the products. Apps can also show
nearby outlets from where items can be purchased or directly delivered at home.
7. Manufacturers should strictly follow the food safety guidelines made by the food and
health department like HACCP AND FSSAI etc.
.
10. REFRENCES:

Ahuja, H. K. (2011). A comparative study of attitude and adoption of frozen food amongst
the consumers of Ludhiana and Delhi cities. Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana– 141 004 (India). http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/5810020395

Ali, J., Kapoor, S., & Moorthy, J. (2010).Buying behaviour of consumers for food products
in an emerging economy. British Food Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701011018806

Anderson, E. W., &Shugan, S. M. (1991). Repositioning for changing preferences: The case
of beef versus poultry. Journal of consumer research, 18(2), 219-232.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209254
Arnold, S. J., Handelman, J., & Tigert, D. J. (1998). The impact of a market spoiler on
consumer preference structures (or, what happens when Wal-Mart comes to
town). Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 5(1), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(97)00011-8
Baltas, G. (1997). Determinants of store brand choice: a behavioral analysis. Journal of
product & brand management . https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429710179480
Bao, Y., Bao, Y., & Sheng, S. (2011). Motivating purchase of private brands: Effects of store
image, product signatureness, and quality variation. Journal of Business Research,
64(2), 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.02.007
Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase
of the choice process on consumer. https://doi.org/10.1086/208812
Bruhn, C. M., & Schutz, H. G. (1999).Consumer food safety knowledge and
practices. Journal of food safety, 19(1), 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745
4565.1999.tb00235.x
Candel, M. J. (2001). Consumers' convenience orientation towards meal preparation:
conceptualization and measurement. Appetite, 36(1), 15-28.
https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0364
Cranfield, JA, & Magnusson, E. (2003). Canadian consumer's willingness-to-pay for
pesticide free food products: an ordered probit analysis. International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review , 6 (1030-2016-82568). decision processes: A
protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 234–248.
http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.34381
Dixon, J. M., Hinde, S. J., &Banwell, C. L. (2006). Obesity, convenience and
“phood”. British Food Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700610682328
Drewnowski, A., & Shultz, JM (2001). Impact of aging on eating behaviors, food choices,
nutrition, and health status. Journal of Nutrition, Health &Aging .
FnB News. com. (2017). Indian convenience food mkt expected to touch Rs 1,580 bn by end
of ’17. Retrieved 30 May, 2020 from http://www.fnbnews.com/Top-News/indian
convenience-food-mkt-expected-to-touch-rs-1580-bn-by-end-of-17-41050
Foxall, GR (1993). Situated consumer behavior: A behavioral interpretation of purchase and
consumption. Research in Consumer Behavior , 6 , 113–152.
Food service 13 January, 2021

http://www.foodserviceindia.com

Future Market Insights. (2020). Global Convenience Foods Market Convenience Foods
Market: Global Industry Analysis and Opportunity Assessment 2014 – 2020.
Retrieved May 30, 2020 from https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports
/global -convenience -foods-market

Gosse, V., & Moser, R. R. (Eds.). (2003). The World the Sixties Made: Politics and Culture
in Recent America. Temple University Press.p. 150.
Goyal, A., & Singh, N. P. (2007). Consumer perception about fast food in India: an
exploratory study. British Food Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710725536
Grunert, K. G. (2005). Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European
review of agricultural economics, 32(3), 369-391.
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurrag/jbi011
Hawa, A., Taneja, N., Kaliwala, S., Gopani, S., Maru, P., Sharma, S., ... &Kanani, H.
(2014). A study on consumer purchase intention towards ready-to-Eat food in
Ahmedabad. http://27.109.7.66:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/245
Hicks, D. T., Pivarnik, L. F., McDermott, R., Richard, N., Hoover, D. G., &Kniel, K. E.
(2009). Consumer awareness and willingness to pay for high‐pressure processing of
ready‐to‐eat food. Journal of food science education, 8(2), 32-38.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4329.2009.00069.x
Hjelmar, U. (2011). Consumers’ purchase of organic food products.A matter of convenience
and reflexive practices. Appetite, 56(2), 336-344.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.12.019
Hospitality india biz.com NRAI India Food Services Report January, 2019.
http://www.hospitalitybizindia.com ›

https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/paper3/food-processing-in-india

https://www.ksre.k-state.edu/kvafl/contact.html
Ilkay, J. (2013). Identifying motives of mothers who purchase healthy convenience snacks for
their children: A phenomenological study. Journal of Business Studies
Quarterly, 5(2), 237.
Industry ARC. (2017). Convenience Food Retail Market – Forecast (2020 - 2025).Retrieved
May 30, 2020 from https://www.industryarc.com/Report/18931/ n convenience-food
retail-market
Islam, N., & Ullah, GM (2010). Factors affecting consumers' preferences on fast food items
in Bangladesh. The Journal of Applied Business Research , 26 (4), 131.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2854795

Jaafar, SN, Lalp, PE, &Naba, MM (2012). Consumers' perceptions, attitudes and purchase
intention towards private label food products in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Business
and Management Sciences , 2 (8), 73–90.

Knight, A. J., Worosz, M. R., & Todd, E. C. (2009).Dining for safety: Consumer perceptions
of food safety and eating out. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33(4), 471
486. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1096348009344211
Levine, K., Yavelak, M., Luchansky, J. B., Porto-Fett, A. C., & Chapman, B. (2017).
Consumer Perceptions of the Safety of Ready-to-Eat Foods in Retail Food Store
 Settings. Journal of food protection, 80(8), 1364-1377. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362
028X.JFP-16-417
Liu, A., &Niyongira, R. (2017). Chinese consumers food purchasing behaviours and
awareness of food safety. Food Control, 79, 185-191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.03.038
Mallinson, L. J., Russell, J. M., & Barker, M. E. (2016). Attitudes and behaviour towards
convenience food and food waste in the United Kingdom. Appetite, 103, 17-28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.03.017
Meshram, S. R., Muralidharan, P., &Mulky, A. (2020). Consumer Behavior in the Ready to
Eat Foods Category: An Exploration in an Emerging Market.
Mohiuddin, Z. A. (2018). Effect of Lifestyle on Consumer Decision Making: A Study of
Women Consumer of Pakistan. Journal of Accounting, Business and Finance
Research, 2(1), 12-15.
Negri, R., Di Feola, M., Di Domenico, S., Scala, MG, Artesi, G., Valente, S., ... & Greco, L.
(2012). Taste perception and food choices. Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and
nutrition , 54 (5), 624-629. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3182473308
Olsen, N. V., Menichelli, E., Sørheim, O., &Næs, T. (2012). Likelihood of buying healthy
convenience food: An at-home testing procedure for ready-to-heat meals. Food
quality and preference, 24(1), 171-178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.11.001
One Green Planet. (2013). Convenience Foods: Not So Convenient for Your Health. Retrieved May 31,
2020 from shttps://www.onegreenplanet.org/natural-health/convenience-foods-not-so
convenient-for-your-health/
Raimundo, L. M. B., Batalha, M. O., & Sans, P. (2020). Consumer Attitudes Towards
Convenience Food Usage: Exploring the Case of São Paulo, Brazil. Journal of
International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 32(4), 403-424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2019.1697408
Ramaswamy, H. S., & Marcotte, M. (2005). Food processing: principles and applications.
CRC Press.
Ramya, N., & Ali, S. M. (2016).Factors affecting consumer buying behavior. IJAR, 2(10),
76-80.
Rani, P. (2014).Factors influencing consumer behaviour. International journal of current
research and academic review, 2(9), 52-61.
Rappoport, L., Peters, G. R., Downey, R., McCann, T., & Huff-Corzine, L. (1993). Gender
and age differences in food cognition. Appetite, 20(1), 33-52.
https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1993.1004
Research and Market.(2020). India Ready-To-Eat Food (RTE) Market Study, 2013-2023:
Analysis by Segment, Distribution Channel and State, Featuring Profiles of Leading
Players. Retrieved May 30, 2020 from https://www.globenewswire.com/news
release/2020/01/09/1968244/0/en/india-ready-to-eat-food-rte-market-study-20132023
analysis-by-segment-distribution-channel-and-state-featuring-profiles-of
leadingplayers.html.
Ricci, E. C., Banterle, A., &Stranieri, S. (2018). Trust to go green: an exploration of
consumer intentions for eco-friendly convenience food. Ecological economics, 148,
54-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.02.010
Richardson, PS, Jain, AK, & Dick, A. (1996). Household store brand proneness: a
framework. Journal of retailing , 72 (2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022
4359(96)90012-3

Rudolph, T., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Bauer, A., Franch, J., &Meise, J. N. (Eds.).
(2012). Diversity in European marketing: Text and cases. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Saleem, MA, Wasaya, A., & Zahra, S. (2017). Determinants of frozen food purchase
intentions: Insights from a developing country. Indian Journal of Marketing , 47 (7),
47–59.
Sarkodie, N. A., & Boakye-Kessie, V. A. (2017). Assessing Consumer’s Awareness of Food
Labeling in Sunyani Municipality. ADRRI Journal of Agriculture and Food
Sciences, 3(10), 1-10. https://journals.adrri.org/index.php/adrrijafs/article/view/340
Savelli, E., Murmura, F., Liberatore, L., Casolani, N., &Bravi, L. (2017).Food habits and
attitudes towards food quality among young students. International Journal of Quality
and Service Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-02-2017-0011
Sen, S., Antara, N., & Sen, S. (2019). Factors influencing consumers’ to Take Ready-made
Frozen Food. Current Psychology, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00201-4
Smith, D., &Riethmuller, P. (1999). Consumer concerns about food safety in Australia and
Japan. International Journal of Social Economics.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03068299910227237
Srinivasan, S., &Shende, K. M. (2015).A study on the benefits of convenience foods to
working women. Atithya: A Journal of Hospitality, 1(1), 56-63.
Stranieri, S., Ricci, E. C., & Banterle, A. (2017). Convenience food with environmentally
sustainable attributes: A consumer perspective. Appetite, 116, 11-20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.04.015
Thienhirun, S., & Chung, S. (2018). Consumer attitudes and preferences toward cross
cultural ready-to-eat (RTE) food. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 24(1), 56-79.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2016.1266544
Usha, V. (2007). A study on buying behaviour of consumers towards instant food products in
Kolar District. University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, India.
Van Dam, Y. K., & van Trijp, H. C. (1994). Consumer perceptions of, and preferences for,
beverage containers. Food quality and preference, 5(4), 253-261.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(94)90050-7
Van Loo, E. J., Ricke, S. C., Milillo, S. R., Seideman, S., & Crandall, P. G. (2010).
Consumer food safety perceptions of ready-to-eat deli foods in Northwest
Arkansas. Food Protection Trends, 30(11), 635-643.
Veeck, A., &Veeck, G. (2000). Consumer segmentation and changing food purchase patterns
in Nanjing, PRC. World Development, 28(3), 457-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305
750X(99)00135-7
Vijayeta, P. (2015). Purchasing practice of the consumers towards ready to eat food products.
Asian Journal of Home Science, 10(2), 290–295.
http://www.researchjournal.co.in/onli.
Vraneševic, T., &Stančec, R. (2003). The effect of the brand on perceived quality of food
products. British food journal . https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700310511609
Weaver, C. M., Dwyer, J., Fulgoni III, V. L., King, J. C., Leveille, G. A., MacDonald, R. S.,
... & Schnakenberg, D. (2014). Processed foods: contributions to nutrition. The
American journal of clinical nutrition, 99(6), 1525-1542.
https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.114.089284
Wright, L. T., Cova, B., & Pace, S. (2006). Brand community of convenience products: new
forms of customer empowerment–the case “my Nutella The Community”. European
journal of marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560610681023
Yan, Y. (2012). Food safety and social risk in contemporary China. The Journal of Asian
Studies, 71(3), 705-729. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021911812000678
Zeithaml, VA (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model
and synthesis of evidence. Journal of marketing , 52 (3), 2-22.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002224298805200302