Mentoring Live Project

RESEARCH ON THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND
STRATEGIC POSITIONING OF ALLEN SOLLY
Submitted By:
Ajay
Nupur
Anupam
INTRODUCTION OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT
Today, formal shirts are in demand not only for business and work purposes but also for
parties and other occasions. Our group decided to conduct a survey on a particular
brand of formal shirts and analyze and interpret the output of survey as part of our
research project.
Allen Solly was founded in 1744 by a company called William Hollin and Co Ltd. The
brand was purchased some tim e in the 90's by a new company called Madura
Garments which was a part of Madura Coats.
Allen Solly brings together people from different walks of life and unites them in the
matters of style and attitude. The innovative garments of Allen Solly give people an
identity in the work place and also while chilling out.
OBJECTIVE:-
The main purpose of this research is to find out the levels of customer satisfaction with
Allen Solly and its position in the market with respect to competitors like Peter England,
John Players, Louis Philippe etc.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY:
By understanding the various factors that contribute to the satisfaction level of the users
of Allen Solly we could find out which factor contributed the most and the least to the
satisfaction of the users of Allen Solly formal shirts.
This study helps us better determine the positioning of Allen Solly as compared to the
other competitors of it, based on various parameters. It helps us understand the areas
Allen Solly should improve on and the areas it can capitalize on (Strengths and
weakness).
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Looking at Allen Solly, the brand is not faring very well in the m arket and the research is
basically em phasizing on the formal shirts of Allen Solly. The reasons for it not faring
well could be
Competition
Customer Loyalty
Price
Positioning of the brand
RESEARCH DESIGN:
Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were used to collect the data.
Qualitative method included focus group and in-depth interviews. Focus Group
interviews was to find out the positioning of Allen Solly compared to other brands. In-
Depth interviews was carried on to see the satisfaction level of the users of Allen Solly.
Quantitative method included satisfaction and positioning survey.
SAMPLING PLAN:
Survey was conducted with the help of a questionnaire with two parts- one relating to
satisfaction of the users and the other part to see the positioning of the brand.
Sample size was 40 which mainly included students and young working professionals.
The survey was only conducted for men as they are the major users of formal shirts.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

The sampling size was comparatively small(40).
The focus was on only one segment of the market- one gender(men).
Respondent bias
Willingness of the participants in the focus groups and in-depth interviews.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH:
Focus Group and In-Depth interviews gave us an overview regarding the preference of
people to Allen Solly over other brands.
Focus group study conducted in Sjcba to assess the brand positioning for men on the
kind of formal shirts they use.
Size of the focus group was 8.
The moderator introduced the session to the participants by highlighting the purpose of
the study and its importance.
For the focus group interview we asked the following questions like
-What attributes influences their purchase of formal shirts?

-What other things determines the purchase of a formal shirt?
-Rank the top five attributes mentioned by them?
-How often they bought formal shirts?
-What was the purpose of the buy?
-Which big brand names were familiar to them among formal shirts?
-What was the market share of the Allen Solly in India?
-Who all were the competitors for Allen Solly?
The participants had a discussion about various attributes which are important for them
while they go for purchasing formal shirts. They felt that comfort, fabric,price, slim -fit,
colour, design, brand, availability and quality were important attributes. They were
asked to rank the top five attributes. Thus the top five attributes according to the group
were quality, comfort level, fabrics, price and design.
Some of the participants also considered discount offers and brand ambassadors as
important attributes. The purpose of their buy was for college as most of them were
management students and even for functions and occasions. The com petitors for Allen
Solly listed were Louis Phillipe, Van Heusen, Peter England, Arrow, Zodiac and John
Players. Most of them said that the look of the shirts of Louis Phillipe are outstanding.
They considered Allen Solly as a very expensive brand fit for working professionals and
students, therefore participants who had Allen Solly shirts did not buy it rather it was
gifted. They also stated that the brand was expensive for students but if given a chance
they would always want to try the brand.
IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW:
Two users of Allen Solly shirts were interviewed to know their satisfaction level with the
brand Allen Solly.
The following questions were asked:
Who influenced them to buy Allen Solly shirts?
Did they face any problem with the quality or the service of Allen Solly?
Would they recommend to others to buy a Allen Solly shirt?
Attributes which are there in Allen Solly which is not their in other brands?
Attributes which are there in other brands but not in Allen Solly?
Happy or emotional moments experienced with the brand?
Suggestions if any.
The respondents were not restricted with these questions. They were given the liberty to
share whatever they wanted associated with the brand.
Respondent 1: Advertisements and friends influenced his purchase of Allen Solly Shirt
which gives him comfort and the right fitting. According to him Allen Solly shirts gave
him the perfect formal look that is r equired for a official or responsible work. The comfort
factor and fitting is better compared to other brands. He said price is surely on the
higher side but its worth paying and is also easily available. He would surely
recommend the brands to others. He said that the other brands do have an edge over
Allen Solly because thay have more variety. He suggested that Allen Solly should work
on their pricing as it is not affordable by everyone. Also more variety and shades could
be introduced.
Respondent 2: Nobody influenced the decision for purchase of Allen Solly shirt. His
first purchase was just shopping in a mall and when he liked the fitting he became a
regular user of the brand. The quality and durability of Allen Solly shirts are liked by him.
He also believes that Allen Solly shirts potray what you are. The interaction of the
salesperson in the outlets are also impressive. According to him he would not suggest
the brands to everyone as the price is on the higher side and people who are not
working cannot afford. He felt that promotions are very rare in Allen Solly compared to
brands like Peter England and Van Heusen. He suggested that Allen Solly can make its
shirts more available to a larger section by working on its price and availability and also
come up with discount offers to motivate people to buy the shirt.
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH:
Analysis and interpretation of satisfaction survey
Correlation Analysis
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Comfort Level 5.3750 1.05460 40

Easeof Availability 4.8750 1.30458 40
Variety 5.2500 1.23517 40
Quality 6.1000 1.08131 40
Design 5.5500 1.08486 40
Fabrics 5.8000 1.06699 40
Overall Satisfaction 5.1750 1.10680 40
Above shows the means of all the satisfaction factors that are taken into account. From
the above data we see that mean of quality is the highest. i.e. people are most satisfied
with the quality of the shirt which is followed by the fabrics and design respectively.
(Nothing to do with overall satisfaction)
Correlations
Ease of Overall
Comfort
Level Availability Variety Quality Design Fabrics Satisfaction
Comfort Level Pearson 1 .464 **

.477 ** .326 * .375 * .228 .777 **
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .002 .040 .017 .157 .000
N 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Ease of Pearson .464 * *1 .561 **

.155 .104 .184 .495 **
Availability Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .000 .341 .522 .255 .001
N 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Variety Pearson .477 * *.561 **

1 .538 ** .488 ** .389 * .680 **
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .000 .001 .013 .000
N 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Quality Pearson .326 * .155 .538 ** 1 .630 ** .729 ** .585 **
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .040 .341 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Design Pearson .375 * .104 .488 ** .630 ** 1 .518 ** .494 **
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .017 .522 .001 .000 .001 .001
N 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
* ** **
Fabrics Pearson .228 .184 .389 .729 .518 1 .291
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .157 .255 .013 .000 .001 .069
N 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Overall Pearson .777 * *.495 **

.680 ** .585 ** .494 ** .291 1
Satisfaction Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000 .000 .001 .069
N 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Here we are trying to find out, using correlation if the attributes are correlated with one
another and using partial correlation, we are trying to find out the extent of correlation
between the attributes, keeping one attribute suppressed.
-0.3 to +0.3 little or no association.
+0.3 to +0.7 positive association.
+0.7 to +1.0 strong positive association.
On the basis of the output 1 we have interpreted the following
The Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no correlation between overall satisfaction and
comfort level
Alternate Hypothesis (H1): There is a correlation between overall satisfaction and the
comfort level.
On the basis of comfort level, the significant level shown is less than o.o5 and hence P
value is less than 0.05. So we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that there is
association or strong positive correlation between overall satisfaction and comfort level.
The Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no correlation between overall satisfaction and ease
of availability.
ease of availability.
On the basis of ease of availability, the significant level shown is less than o.o5 and
hence P value is less than 0.05. So we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that
there is positive association or correlation between overall satisfaction and ease of
availability.
variety.
variety.
On the basis of variety, the significant level shown is less than o.o5 and hence P value
is less than 0.05. So we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that there is positive
association or correlation between overall satisfaction and variety.
quality.
quality.
On the basis of quality, the significant level shown is less than o.o5 and hence P value
is less than 0.05. So we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that there is positive
association or correlation between overall satisfaction and quality.
design.
design.
On the basis of ease of design, the significant level shown is less than o.o5 and hence
P value is less than 0.05. So we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that there is
positive association or correlation between overall satisfaction and design.
fabrics.
fabrics.
On the basis of fabrics, the significant level shown is greater than o.o5 and hence P
value is greater than 0.05. So we accept the null hypothesis. This indicates that there is
no association or correlation between overall satisfaction and fabrics.
Partial Correlation Analysis
-0.3 to +0.3 little or no association.

+0.3 to +0.7 positive association.
+0.7 to +1.0 strong positive association.
Mean Std. Deviation N
Overall Satisfaction 5.1750 1.10680 40

Quality 6.1000 1.08131 40
Ease of Availability 4.8750 1.30458 40
Design 5.5500 1.08486 40
Comfort Level 5.3750 1.05460 40
Fabrics 5.8000 1.06699 40
Variety 5.2500 1.23517 40
Correlations
Control Variables Overall Ease of
Satisfaction Quality Availability Design Comfort Level Fabrics
Variety Overall Satisfaction Correlation 1.000 .355 .187 .254 .702 .039
Significance (2-tailed) . .027 .254 .119 .000 .813
df 0 37 37 37 37 37
Quality Correlation .355 1.000 -.211 .499 .094 .669
Significance (2-tailed) .027 . .198 .001 .570 .000
df 37 0 37 37 37 37
Ease of Availability Correlation .187 -.211 1.000 -.235 .269 -.045
Significance (2-tailed) .254 .198 . .151 .097 .787
df 37 37 0 37 37 37
Design Correlation .254 .499 -.235 1.000 .186 .409
Significance (2-tailed) .119 .001 .151 . .258 .010
df 37 37 37 0 37 37
Comfort Level Correlation .702 .094 .269 .186 1.000 .052
Significance (2-tailed) .000 .570 .097 .258 . .753
df 37 37 37 37 0 37
Fabrics Correlation .039 .669 -.045 .409 .052 1.000
Significance (2-tailed) .813 .000 .787 .010 .753 .
df 37 37 37 37 37 0
Controlling the effect of variety
Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between quality and overall satisfaction, controlling the effect of
variety.
Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between quality and overall satisfaction, controlling the effect
of variety.
Controlling the effect of variety, we find that the significance level is less than 0.05 for quality, so we reject
the null hypothesis. This indicates that there is a positive correlation between quality and overall
satisfaction.
Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between comfort level and overall satisfaction, controlling the
effect of variety.
Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between comfort level and overall satisfaction, controlling the
effect of variety.
Controlling the effect of variety, we find that the significance level is less than 0.05 for comfort level, so we
reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that there is a positive correlation between comfort level and
overall satisfaction.
Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between ease of availability and overall satisfaction, controlling the
effect of variety.
Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between ease of availability and overall satisfaction, controlling
the effect of variety.
Controlling the effect of variety, we find that the significance level is greater than 0.05 for ease of
availability, so we accept the null hypothesis. This indicates that there is no correlation between ease of
availability and overall satisfaction.
Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between fabrics and overall satisfaction, controlling the effect of
variety.
Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between fabrics and overall satisfaction, controlling the effect
of variety.
Controlling the effect of variety, we find that the significance level is greater than 0.05 for fabrics, so we
accept the null hypothesis. This indicates that there is a no correlation between fabrics and overall
satisfaction.
Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between design and overall satisfaction, controlling the
effect of variety.
Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between design and overall satisfaction, controllin g
the effect of variety.
Satisfaction Availability Design Comfort Level Fabrics Variety
Q Overall Satisfaction Correlation 1.000 .505 .200 .765 -.244 .534
u Significance (2-tailed) . .001 .222 .000 .135 .000

al
df 0 37 37 37 37 37
it
Ease of Availability Correlation .505 1.000 .009 .442 .106 .574
y
df 37 0 37 37 37 37
Design Correlation .200 .009 1.000 .232 .112 .228
df 37 37 0 37 37 37
Comfort Level Correlation .765 .442 .232 1.000 -.015 .379
df 37 37 37 0 37 37
Fabrics Correlation -.244 .106 .112 -.015 1.000 -.005
df 37 37 37 37 0 37
Variety Correlation .534 .574 .228 .379 -.005 1.000
df 37 37 37 37 37 0
Controlling the effect of quality
Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between ease of availability and overall

satisfaction, controlling the effect of quality.
Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between ease of availability and overall

satisfaction, controlling the effect of quality.
Controlling the effect of quality, we find that the significance level is less than 0.05 for
ease of availability, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is a positive
correlation between ease of availability and overall satisfaction.
Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between comfort level and overall satisfaction
controlling the effect of quality.
Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between comfort level and overall

satisfaction controlling the effect of quality.
comfort level, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is a positive
correlation between comfort level and overall satisfaction.
Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between variety and overall satisfaction

Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between variety and overall satisfaction

variety, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is a positive correlation
between variety and overall satisfaction.
Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between design and overall satisfaction

Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between design and overall satisfaction

Controlling the effect of quality, we find that the significance level is greater than 0.05 for
design, so we accept the null hypothesis. This indicates there is no correlation between
design and overall satisfaction.
Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between fabrics and overall satisfaction

Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between fabrics and overall satisfaction

Controlling the effect of quality, we find that the significance level is greater than 0.05 for
fabrics, so we accept the null hypothesis. This indicates there is no correlation between
fabrics and overall satisfaction.
Correlations
Satisfaction Availability Comfort Level Fabrics Variety Quality
Design Overall Satisfaction Correlation 1.000 .513 .734 .047 .578 .405
df 0 37 37 37 37 37
df 37 0 37 37 37 37
Comfort Level Correlation .734 .460 1.000 .042 .364 .125
df 37 37 0 37 37 37
Fabrics Correlation .047 .153 .042 1.000 .182 .606
df 37 37 37 0 37 37
Variety Correlation .578 .588 .364 .182 1.000 .340
df 37 37 37 37 0 37
Quality Correlation .405 .115 .125 .606 .340 1.000
df 37 37 37 37 37 0
Controlling the effect of design

satisfaction controlling the effect of design.

Controlling the effect of design, we find that the significance level is less than 0.05 for
ease of availability, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive
controlling the effect of design.

comfort level, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive correlation
between comfort level and overall satisfaction.
Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between quality and overall satisfaction

Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between quality and overall satisfaction

quality, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive correlation
between quality and overall satisfaction.


variety, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive correlation


Controlling the effect of design, we find that the significance level is greater than 0.05
for fabrics, so we accept the null hypothesis. This indicates there is no correlation
between fabrics and overall satisfaction.
Correlation
Satisfaction Availability Fabrics Variety Quality Design
Comfort Level Overall Satisfaction Correlation 1.000 .242 .186 .559 .557 .347
df 0 37 37 37 37 37
Ease of Availability Correlation .242 1.000 .091 .436 .004 -.085
df 37 0 37 37 37 37
Fabrics Correlation .186 .091 1.000 .328 .711 .480
df 37 37 0 37 37 37
Variety Correlation .559 .436 .328 1.000 .460 .379
df 37 37 37 0 37 37
Quality Correlation .557 .004 .711 .460 1.000 .579
df 37 37 37 37 0 37
Design Correlation .347 -.085 .480 .379 .579 1.000
df 37 37 37 37 37 0
Controlling the effect of comfort level

controlling the effect of comfort level.

Controlling the effect of comfort level, we find that the significance level is less than 0.05
for design, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive correlation
between design and overall satisfaction.

for quality, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive correlation


for variety, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive correlation

satisfaction controlling the effect of comfort level.

satisfaction controlling the effect of comfort level.
Controlling the effect of comfort level, we find that the significance level is greater than
0.05 for ease of availability, so we accept the null hypothesis. This indicates there is no


Controlling the effect of comfort level, we find that the significance level is greater than
0.05 for fabrics, so we accept the null hypothesis. This indicates there is no correlation
between fabrics and overall satisfaction.
Correlations
Satisfaction Availability Variety Quality Design Comfort Level
Fabrics Overall Satisfaction Correlation 1.000 .469 .643 .569 .420 .763
df 0 37 37 37 37 37
df 37 0 37 37 37 37
Variety Correlation .643 .540 1.000 .403 .363 .433
df 37 37 0 37 37 37
Quality Correlation .569 .030 .403 1.000 .430 .240
df 37 37 37 0 37 37
Design Correlation .420 .010 .363 .430 1.000 .309
df 37 37 37 37 0 37
Comfort Level Correlation .763 .441 .433 .240 .309 1.000
df 37 37 37 37 37 0
Controlling the effect of fabrics

satisfaction controlling the effect of fabrics.

Controlling the effect of fabrics, we find that the significance level is less than 0.05 for
ease of availability, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is a positive
controlling the effect of fabrics.
comfort level, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive correlation
between comfort level and overall satisfaction.


variety, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive correlation


quality, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive correlation


design, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive correlation
between design and overall satisfaction.
Correlation
Control Variables Overall
Satisfaction Variety Quality Design Comfort Level Fabrics
Ease of Availability Overall Satisfaction Correlation 1.000 .559 .592 .512 .711 .234
df 0 37 37 37 37 37
Variety Correlation .559 1.000 .551 .522 .296 .351
df 37 0 37 37 37 37
Quality Correlation .592 .551 1.000 .624 .291 .721
df 37 37 0 37 37 37
Design Correlation .512 .522 .624 1.000 .371 .511
df 37 37 37 0 37 37
Comfort Level Correlation .711 .296 .291 .371 1.000 .164
df 37 37 37 37 0 37
Fabrics Correlation .234 .351 .721 .511 .164 1.000
df 37 37 37 37 37 0
Controlling the effect of ease of availability

controlling the effect of ease of availability.

Controlling the effect of ease of availability, we find that the significance level is less
than 0.05 for design, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive
correlation between design and overall satisfaction.

controlling the effect of ease of availability
than 0.05 for variety, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive
correlation between variety and overall satisfaction.

Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation quality and overall satisfaction control ling
the effect of ease of availability
than 0.05 for quality, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is positive
correlation between quality and overall satisfaction.

satisfaction controlling the effect of ease of availability
than 0.05 for comfort level, so we reject the null hypothesis. This indicates there is
positive correlation between comfort level and overall satisfaction.


controlling the effect of ease of availability
Controlling the effect of ease of availability, we find that the significance level is greater
than 0.05 for fabrics, so we accept the null hypothesis. This indicates there is no
correlation between fabrics and overall satisfaction.
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
HO : There is no variation in the overall satisfaction on account of the variation in the

attributes.
H1 : There is variation in the overall satisfaction on account of the variation in the

attributes
ANOVAs
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 38.968 6 6.495 24.337 .000 a
Residual 8.807 33 .267
Total 47.775 39
a. Predictors: (Constant), Fabrics, Ease of Availability, Comfort Level,
Design, Variety, Quality
b. Dependent Variable: Overall Satisfaction
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
d1 .903 a .816 .782 .51659

i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
0
a. Predictors: (Constant), Fabrics, Ease of Availability, Comfort Level, Design,
Variety, Quality
Coefficients a
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) -.631 .599 -1.053 .300
Comfort Level .549 .097 .523 5.684 .000
Ease of Availability .097 .085 .114 1.133 .265
Variety .185 .102 .206 1.810 .079
Quality .491 .132 .480 3.718 .001
Design .039 .106 .039 .373 .712
Fabrics -.310 .116 -.299 -2.678 .011

a. Dependent Variable: Overall Satisfaction
On the basis of the output
From the annova table, since the significance level is less than 0.05, so we reject
the null hypothesis. From the model summary table the R square value is .816
therefore 81.6% variation in the overall satisfaction is due to the variation in
quality fabrics and comfort level since their significance level is less than 0.05
From the coefficient Table we find:
Un-standardised Equation
Overall Satisfaction= .549 Comfort level + .491 Quality + (310) fabrics
Standardized Equation
Overall Satisfaction= .523 Comfort level + .480 Quality + (.299) fabrics
Therefore the variation in the overall satisfaction is maximum due to comfort level and
least due to fabrics.
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS: OVERALL SATISFACTION
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardi zed
Alpha Items N of Items
.803 .807 6
On the basis of the output:
The Cronbach’s Alpha for all the attributes combined together is 0.803 which is greater
than .6 therefore we can say that the scale used to measure satisfaction is reliable and
all the attributes can be combined together to find the overall satisfaction and therefore
its reliable scale.
POSITIONING STUDY:
Null Hypothesis(H0): There is no difference in the importance of the attributes that

influence the purchase of formal shirts by men.
Alternative Hypothesis(H1): There is a difference in the importance of the attributes that

influence the purchase of formal shirts by men.
Importance of the Attributes:
ANOVA
ATTRIBUTES
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 25.493 6 4.249 3.886 .001

Within Groups 298.475 273 1.093
Total 323.968 279
Interpretation:
The sig value is less than 0.05, thus we reject the null hypothesis. This implies that
there is a difference in the importance of attributes which influences the purchase of
formal shirts by men.
Means of the attributes:
Descriptives
ATTRIBUTES
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
FABRIC 40 5.85 .893 .141 5.56 6.14 4 7
COLOUR 40 5.88 .939 .148 5.57 6.18 3 7
BRAND NAME 40 5.18 1.500 .237 4.70 5.65 1 7
VARIETY 40 5.75 .954 .151 5.44 6.06 3 7
AVAILABILITY 40 5.28 1.132 .179 4.91 5.64 3 7
QUALITY 40 5.98 .800 .127 5.72 6.23 4 7
PRICE 40 5.93 .944 .149 5.62 6.23 4 7
Total 280 5.69 1.078 .064 5.56 5.82 1 7
The most important attribute is quality followed by price, colour, fabric, variety,
availability and brand name. There is very minute difference in the means of quality and
price which shows that the value for money which consumers pay are also an important
factor. Even the fabric and colour is very important. The least important attribute is the
brand name which influences the purchase of formal shirts.
Performance of the attributes:
ONE WAY ANOVA
FABRIC:
Null hypothesis(H0): There is no variance of preference between the brands Alle n Solly,
Peter England, Provogue, Van Heusen, Louis Phillipe, John Players when the factor
fabric is taken into consideration.
Alternative Hypothesis(H1): ): There is variance of preference between the brands Allen

Solly, Peter England, Provogue, Van Heusen, Louis Phillipe, John Players when the
factor fabric is taken into consideration.
ANOVA
BRANDS
Between Groups 49.471 5 9.894 6.933 .000

Within Groups 333.925 234 1.427
Total 383.396 239
Interpretation:
The sig value is less than 0.05 thus we reject the null hypothesis, which implies that
there is a difference in the preferences between the brands when the fabric is
considered.
Means of the Brands:
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
ALLENSOLLY 40 3 7 5.80 1.067

PETERENGLAND 40 3 7 5.05 1.197
PROVOGUE 40 2 7 4.82 1.318
VANHUESEN 40 3 7 5.77 1.121
LOUISPHILLIPE 40 2 7 5.95 1.197
JOHNPLAYERS 40 2 7 4.97 1.250
Valid N (listwise) 40
The most preferred brand is Louis Phillipe followed by Allen Solly when the attribute
fabric is considered The mean of Louis Phillipe is 5.95 and of Allen Solly is 5.80. Thus
by looking at the means we see that the least preferred brand in terms of fabric is John
Players while others have very little variance.
Colour:
Null hypothesis(H0): There is no variance of preference of brands i.e. Allen Solly, Peter
England, Provogue, Van Heusen, Louis Phillipe, John Players when the attribute colour
is taken into consideration.
Alternative Hypothesis(H1): There is variance of preference of brands i.e. Allen Solly,

Peter England, Provogue, Van Heusen, Louis Phillipe, John Players when the attribute
colour is taken into consideration.
ANOVA
BRANDS
Between Groups 15.688 5 3.138 2.313 .045

Within Groups 317.375 234 1.356
Total 333.063 239
Interpretation:
there is a difference in the preference of the brands when the attribute colour is
considered.
Means of the brands:
Allensolly 40 3 7 5.63 1.005

Peterengland 40 2 7 5.28 1.301
Provogue 40 3 7 5.43 .958
Vanhuesen 40 3 7 5.75 1.032
Louisphilli pe 40 2 7 5.58 1.217
Johnplayers 40 1 7 4.98 1.405
The most preferred brand is Van Heusen followed by Allen Solly when the attribute
color is considered. The mean of Van Heusen is 5.75 and mean of Allen Solly is 5.63.
This means that there is more variety of colours to choose from the brand Van Heusen
and then Allen Solly while others have few range of colours.
Brand Name:
Null hypothesis (H0): There is no variance of preference of brands i.e. Allen Solly, Peter
England, Provogue, Van Heusen, Louis Phillipe, John Players when the attribute colour
colour is taken into consideration.
ANOVA
BRANDS
Between Groups 25.521 5 5.104 3.255 .007

Within Groups 366.975 234 1.568
Total 392.496 239
Interpretation:
there is a difference in the preference of the brands when the attribute brand name is
considered.
AllenSolly 40 3 7 5.63 1.192

Peterengland 40 2 7 5.32 1.403
Provogue 40 3 7 5.47 1.281
VanHeusen 40 2 7 6.15 1.001
LouisPhil lipe 40 2 7 5.93 1.289
JohnPlayers 40 2 7 5.23 1.310
The most preferred brand is Van Heusen followed by Louis Phillipe when the attribute
Brand Nam e is considered.. The mean of Van Heusen is 6.15 and mean of Louis
Phillipe is 5.93. When we look at the mean of Allen Solly i.e.5.63 we see that there is a
significant amount of difference between Allen Solly and the other top two brands
mentioned. Thus the brand name “Van Heusen” and “Louis Phillipe” is more popular
than Allen Solly or we can say that when brand name is considered people prefer Van
Heusen and Louis Phillipe over Allen Solly.
Variety:
England, Provogue, Van Heusen, Louis Phillipe, John Players when the attribute variety
Alternative Hypothesis(H1): There is no variance of preference of brands i.e. Allen Solly,

variety is taken into consideration.
ANOVA
BRANDS
Between Groups 12.933 5 2.587 1.926 .091

Within Groups 314.250 234 1.343
Total 327.183 239
Interpretation:
The sig value is more than 0.05 thus we retain the null hypothesis, which implies that
there is no difference in the preference of the brands when the attribute variety is
considered.
Availability:
England, Provogue, Van Heusen, Louis Phillipe, John Players when the attribute
availability is taken into consideration.

availability is taken into consideration.
ANOVA
BRANDS
Between Groups 8.071 5 1.614 1.171 .324

Within Groups 322.425 234 1.378
Total 330.496 239
Interpretation:
there is no difference in the preference of the brands when the attribute availability is
considered.
Quality:
England, Provogue, Van Heusen, Louis Phillipe, John Players when the attribute quality

quality is taken into consideration.
ANOVA
BRANDS
Between Groups 27.521 5 5.504 5.367 .000

Within Groups 239.975 234 1.026
Total 267.496 239
Interpretation:
there is a difference in the preference of the brands when the attribute quality is
considered.
Descriptives
BRANDS
95% Confidence Interval for
Std. Std. Mean
N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
ALLEN SOLLY 40 5.93 .944 .149 5.62 6.23 3 7

PETER 40 5.43 1.279 .202 5.02 5.83 3 7
ENGLAND
PROVOGUE 40 5.45 1.131 .179 5.09 5.81 3 7
VAN HEUSEN 40 6.13 .853 .135 5.85 6.40 4 7
LOUIS PHILLIPE 40 6.18 .747 .118 5.94 6.41 4 7
JOHN PLAYERS 40 5.38 1.030 .163 5.05 5.70 3 7
Total 240 5.75 1.058 .068 5.61 5.88 3 7
The most preferred brand is Louis Phillipe followed by Van Huesen and then Allen Solly.
There is very minute difference between the means of Louis Phillipe and Van Heusen.
The mean of Louis Phillipe is 6.18 and mean of Van Heusen is 6.13.
We know that quality is a very important attribute when we go for purchasing clothes.
Thus among the brands Allen Solly’s quality of shirts are good but it has to work on
more to reach the marks of Van Heusen and Louis Phillipe.
Price:
England, Provogue, Van Heusen, Louis Phillipe, John Players when the attribute price

price is taken into consideration.
ANOVA
BRANDS
Between Groups 5.683 5 1.137 .718 .610

Within Groups 370.300 234 1.582
Total 375.983 239
Interpretation:
there is no difference in the preference of the brands when the attribute price is
considered.
Thus there is no difference in the range of prices of shirts offered by these brands. To
be more specific the value for money which the customers for these brands are justified.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
In Correlation analysis (descriptive statistics) we found that that people are most
satisfied and give more importance to the quality of the shirt since the mean is the
highest we are not considering the overall satisfaction here.
In the correlation analysis between overall satisfaction and other attributes we found
that there is high correlation between overall satisfaction with comfort level, variety and
quality. On the other hand there is a positive but low correlation between overall
satisfaction ease of availability and design. There is no correlation or association
between overall satisfaction and fabric.
In the Cronbachs alpha test, we found that the scale is reliable and all the factors can
be clubbed together to find the effect of those attributes on the overall satisfaction.
In Regression analysis we found that 81.6% variation in the overall satisfaction is due to
the variation in quality fabrics and comfort level since their significance level is less than
0.05. Therefore the variation in the overall satisfaction is maximum due to comfort level
and least due to fabrics.
ANNEXURES
ALLEN SOLLY SURVEY
Valued Customer,
Please take a few minutes to fill this Customer Satisfaction and Positioning Survey being conducted by
us. Your comments will help us gauge how well our products are performing and help us ascertain
how to improve our products and serve you better.
SECTION A
Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following service factors provided by Allen Solly:
Extremely
Dissatisfied Satisfied
1. Overall Satisfaction 1 2 3 4
7
2. Comfort Level 1 2 3 4
7
3. Ease of availability 1 2 3 4
7
4. Variety 1 2 3 4
7
5. Quality of shirts 1 2 3 4
7
6. Design/patterns of shirts 1 2 3 4 5
7. Fabrics 1 2 3 4
7
8. Have you found any defects while making a purchase? Yes No
Extremely E
Dissatisfied Satisfied
9. If you have, how satisfied are you

with the way it was resolved? 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. What areas could be worked on to improv e your satisfaction with Allen Solly?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
SECTION B
11. How important are the following factors/attributes How do you perceive the following
to you when you go to purchase a formal shirt? companies perform on this attribute?
Least Most
Excellent
Important Important
1. Fabric 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Allen Solly 1 2 3

6
Peter 7
England 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Provogue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Van Heusen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Louis Phillipe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
John Players 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Colour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Allen Solly 1 2 3

6
Peter 7
England 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Provogue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Van Heusen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Brand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Allen Solly 1 2 3

6
Name 7 Peter England 1 2 3
6
Provogue 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Van Heusen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Variety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Allen Solly 1 2 3

6
Peter 7
England 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Provogue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Van Heusen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Availability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Allen Solly 1 2 3 4

7
Peter England 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Provogue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Van Heusen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Allen Solly 1 2 3 4
7
Provogue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Van Heusen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Price 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Allen Solly 1 2 3 4

7
Provogue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Van Heusen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SECTION C
12. Since when have you been using Allen Solly?

1. Less than 1 year
2. 1-3 years
3. 3-5 years
4. More than 5 years
13. How did you get to know about it?

1. TV Ads
2. Print Ads
3. Friends and Family
4. Radio
5. Bill Boards
14. Apart from Allen Solly, which is the next best brand? _____________________________
15. Would you switch to that brand? A. Yes B. No
16. If yes, for what reasons?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
17. Age: ___________

18. Occupation: _____________

Mentoring Live Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mentoring Live Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESEARCH ON THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND

STRATEGIC POSITIONING OF ALLEN SOLLY

SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

Size of the focus group was 8.

-What attributes influences their purchase of formal shirts?

Analysis and interpretation of satisfaction survey

Comfort Level 5.3750 1.05460 40

Comfort Level Pearson 1 .464 **

Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .002 .040 .017 .157 .000

Ease of Pearson .464 * *1 .561 **

Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .000 .341 .522 .255 .001

Variety Pearson .477 * *.561 **

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .000 .001 .013 .000

Quality Pearson .326 * .155 .538 ** 1 .630 ** .729 ** .585 **

Sig. (2-tailed) .040 .341 .000 .000 .000 .000

Design Pearson .375 * .104 .488 ** .630 ** 1 .518 ** .494 **

Sig. (2-tailed) .017 .522 .001 .000 .001 .001

Sig. (2-tailed) .157 .255 .013 .000 .001 .069

Overall Pearson .777 * *.495 **

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000 .000 .001 .069

On the basis of the output 1 we have interpreted the following

-0.3 to +0.3 little or no association.

Overall Satisfaction 5.1750 1.10680 40

Significance (2-tailed) . .027 .254 .119 .000 .813

Quality Correlation .355 1.000 -.211 .499 .094 .669

Significance (2-tailed) .027 . .198 .001 .570 .000

Ease of Availability Correlation .187 -.211 1.000 -.235 .269 -.045

Significance (2-tailed) .254 .198 . .151 .097 .787

Design Correlation .254 .499 -.235 1.000 .186 .409

Significance (2-tailed) .119 .001 .151 . .258 .010

Comfort Level Correlation .702 .094 .269 .186 1.000 .052

Significance (2-tailed) .000 .570 .097 .258 . .753

Fabrics Correlation .039 .669 -.045 .409 .052 1.000

Significance (2-tailed) .813 .000 .787 .010 .753 .

Satisfaction Availability Design Comfort Level Fabrics Variety

Q Overall Satisfaction Correlation 1.000 .505 .200 .765 -.244 .534

u Significance (2-tailed) . .001 .222 .000 .135 .000

Design Correlation .200 .009 1.000 .232 .112 .228

Significance (2-tailed) .222 .957 . .156 .498 .162

Comfort Level Correlation .765 .442 .232 1.000 -.015 .379

Significance (2-tailed) .000 .005 .156 . .927 .017

Fabrics Correlation -.244 .106 .112 -.015 1.000 -.005

Significance (2-tailed) .135 .521 .498 .927 . .977

Variety Correlation .534 .574 .228 .379 -.005 1.000

Significance (2-tailed) .000 .000 .162 .017 .977 .

Controlling the effect of quality

Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between ease of availability and overall

Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between ease of availability and overall

Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between comfort level and overall

Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between variety and overall satisfaction

Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between variety and overall satisfaction

Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between design and overall satisfaction

Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between design and overall satisfaction

Null Hypothesis: There is no correlation between fabrics and overall satisfaction

Alternate Hypothesis: There is a correlation between fabrics and overall satisfaction

Satisfaction Availability Comfort Level Fabrics Variety Quality

Significance (2-tailed) . .001 .000 .778 .000 .010

Ease of Availability Correlation .513 1.000 .460 .153 .588 .115

Significance (2-tailed) .001 . .003 .352 .000 .485

Comfort Level Correlation .734 .460 1.000 .042 .364 .125

Significance (2-tailed) .000 .003 . .800 .023 .450

Fabrics Correlation .047 .153 .042 1.000 .182 .606

Significance (2-tailed) .778 .352 .800 . .266 .000

Quality Pearson .326 * .155 .538 1 .630 .729 .585

Design Pearson .375 * .104 .488 .630 1 .518 .494