Manipal Institute of Management, Manipal.

Constituent College of Manipal University

A project report

on

CHANGE IN BRAND LOYALTY AMONG CIGARETTE SMOKERS

MBA 2ND Semester

Submitted to: Dr. Manjunath Prasad

Subject: Research Methodology

Submitted by: GROUP 3; SECTION A

Parth Garg (091202006)

Amritayan Das (091202085)

Stanley John (091202016)

Akshatha Amin (091202065)

Praveen Hegde (091202108)

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work is a synergistic compilation of many minds. We deem it a privilege to express our
deepest gratitude for all the motivation, guidance and encouragement that led us through this
tedious yet enjoyable task. We would like to thank the Director of Manipal Institute of
Management Dr. K.V.M. Varambally for giving us the opportunity to study in this prestigious
institution and giving us a chance to explore the vast field of management. We are highly
obliged to Dr.Manjunath Prasad faculty, MIM for guiding us throughout this project and
providing us with all the required information and patiently cooperating in our task. We
would also like to thank all those who directly or indirectly helped in the preparation of this
report.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title 1
Topic 1
Objective of study 1
Importance of study 1
Research design 1
Sample design 2
Data collection 2
Statistical tools 3
Hypothesis 3
Analysis 4
Conclusion 28
References 29
Annexure 29

3
Title: Change in brand loyalty among cigarette smokers.

Topic of study: To find out change in brand loyalty among cigarette smokers in response to
change in factors determining selection of a particular brand of cigarette.

Objectives:

1. To find out the extent of change in brand loyalty among cigarette smokers, due to
change in certain factors determining the brand selection. Those factors are mentioned
below:

 Price

 Disposable income of student

 Taste

 Awareness

 Availability

 Peer pressure

 Free bees scheme

Importance of study:

1. A view of brand loyalty pattern to cigarette manufacturers (price sensitivity, income

sensitivity)

2. An in depth view to students themselves about their consumption pattern.

3. It will act as a base to determine strategies towards cigarettes industry by government

(as government increases tax every year assuming price and income elasticity.)

4. This study will also focus on factor leading to initiation of smoking habits amongst
youngsters.

Scope of the Study

The scope of study is restricted to final year B.tech students of MIT who smoke.

Limitations of Study

 The sample might not be represented properly.

 There might be some errors in analysis.

 Response by respondents might not be unbiased or objective or correctly given.

4
Research design

Type of Research: Analytical method has been used in this research. As the research is
related to the study of consumer behavior which can more effectively be studied through
direct questions, analytical research will be much effective as here we try to find out by
analysising the data that whether the various factors and brand loyalty are related or not..

Sample design:

Population: The population size according to our scope of study is all students of B.tech of
MIT who smoke.

Sampling unit: Final year B.tech students of MIT

Source list: NA

Size of sample: Sample size is determined by the formula

n = Z²σ²/e2

Confidence level= 95%

So, Z= 1.96

σ = 4/6=0.667

Precision error (e) = 0.12

By substituting the values in the above formula we get n = 119.

Parameters of interest: To find out that whether the factors and brand loyalty among
cigarette smokers are related or not.

Budgetary constraint: Has impact on decision related to size of sample and also type of
sample so our budgetary constraint is Rs-500/-.

Sampling technique (procedure): Here the sampling technique used is convenience

sampling. A convenience sample is a sample where the items are selected, in part or in
whole, at the convenience of the researcher. The researcher makes no attempt, or only a
limited attempt, to ensure that this sample is an accurate representation of some larger group
or population. The classic example of a convenience sample is standing at a shopping mall
and selecting shoppers as they walk by to fill out a survey

Data collection:

5
Primary data: we have given questionnaires to 119 respondents and collected information
on their smoking habit and their preference to various factors when they start smoking and
also when they switch their brand.

Secondary data: We have collected secondary data from journals, books, magazines,
reports, online articles and search engines regarding factors that are related to cigarette
smoking and to get some guidance from the already done studies on this topic

STATISTICAL TOOLS USED

CROSS TABULATION and HYPOTHESIS TEST: To determine the relation between

two variables. In this survey we have crossed tabulated and to determine if there is any
significant association between the:

1. Brand loyalty and price

2. Brand loyalty and Income

3. Brand loyalty and Taste

4. Brand loyalty and Peer pressure

5. Brand loyalty and Availability

6. Brand loyalty and Free bees scheme.

HYPOTHESIS:

1. Brand loyalty is not affected by change in price.

2. Brand loyalty is not affected by peer pressure.

3. Brand loyalty is not affected by change in income.

4. Brand loyalty is not affected by scheme of free gift introduced by other brand.

5. People give more importance to taste as compared to other attributes.

6. Brand loyalty is not affected by non availability of their brand.

7. Brand loyalty is not affected by awareness of their brand.

8. There is no significant difference in brand loyalty between regular smokers and

occasional smokers.

6
 ANALYSIS

Variables: following variables used in tables and in graphs below are defined as:

1. PRS: represents relevance to price when student started smoking

2. INS: represents relevance to income when student started smoking
3. TAS: represents relevance to taste when student started smoking
4. AVS: represents relevance to availability when student started smoking
5. AWAS: represents relevance to awareness when student started smoking
6. PPS: represents relevance to peer pressure when student started smoking
7. FREES: represents relevance to free bees when student started smoking
8. PRICE: represents relevance to price when a student switches to another brand
9. INCOME: represents relevance to income when a student switches to another brand
10. TASTE: represents relevance to taste when a student switches to another brand
11. AVAILABTY: represents relevance to availability when a student switches to
another brand
12. AWARNES: represents relevance to awareness when a student switches to another
brand
13. PEERPRSR: represents relevance to peer pressure when a student switches to
another brand
14. FREEBIES: represents relevance to free bees when a student switches to another
brand
15. SMKHBY: represents smoking habit whether regular or occasional

7
FOR ANALYSIS

To determine whether the particular factor is related to brand loyalty or not, we will find out
the average preference rating given to that factor by all students when they started smoking.
We will also the average preference rating given to those factors by all the students when
they are asked about switching from current brand of cigarette to another. Then we will find
out the difference between the two preferences and rank them. If difference comes out to be 0
or less than 0, we say the factor is not related to brand loyalty. We keep 0 as the benchmark.
If difference comes out to be more than 0 we say that factor is related to brand loyalty.

Factors Average preference Average preference Difference

rating when started rating when switching between later and
smoking brand earlier average
preference
Price 2.2 4.2 2
Income 2.5 3.8 1.3
Taste 3.5 3.5 0
Availability 3.6 3.4 -0.2
Awareness 3 2.4 -0.6
Peer pressure 3.8 1.9 -1.9
Freebees 3.5 2.1 -1.4
Exhibit 1

Factor Difference value Rank

Price 2 1
Income 1.3 2
Taste 0 3
Availability -0.2 4
Awareness -0.6 5
Free bies -1.4 6
Peer pressure -1.6 7
Exhibit 2

PRICE AND BRAND LOYALTY

Hypothesis 1

H0: price does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)

H1: price influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)

PRS

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid least preferred 36 36.0 36.0 36.0
less preferred 32 32.0 32.0 68.0
moderately 17 17.0 17.0 85.0
preferred

8
 highly
9 9.0 9.0 94.0
preferred
most preferred 6 6.0 6.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

6.00% prs
least preferred
9.00%
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
36.00%
most preferred

17.00% Pies show counts

32.00%

PRICE

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid least preferred 2 2.0 2.0 2.0
less preferred 5 5.0 5.0 7.0
moderately
13 13.0 13.0 20.0
preferred
highly
31 31.0 31.0 51.0
preferred
most preferred 49 49.0 49.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

9
 2.00%5.00%
price
least preferred
less preferred
13.00%
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred

Pies show counts

49.00%

31.00%

From data we see that only 15% of students consider price to be an important factor when
selecting a brand but later 80% of students consider price to be an important factor when it
comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that average preference
difference for price comes to be 2 i.e. above 0.Also rank of price comes to be 1. So we say
price influences brand loyalty. So we reject the null hypothesis.

Further analysis
SMKHBY * PRS Cross tabulation

Count
PRS
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB regular 36 26 5 5 3 75
Y Occasion
0 6 12 4 3 25
al
Total 36 32 17 9 6 100

40
35
30
least preferred
25 less preferred
20 moderately preferred
15 highly preferred
10 most preferred
5
0
regular occasional

SMKHBY * PRICE Cross tabulation

10
Count
PRICE
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB regular 2 5 13 31 24 75
Y occasion
0 0 0 0 25 25
al
Total 2 5 13 31 49 100

35
30
25 least preferred
20 less preferred
15 moderately preferred
10 highly preferred
5 most preferred
0
regular occasional

Smoking habit Average preference rating Average preference rating

when started smoking when switching brand
Regular 2.2 4.2
Occasional 2.9 3.4

From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking, only 8% of
them took price to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to
switching to another brand from current brand, and then 56% of them considered price to be
an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 7% of them took price
to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another
brand from current brand, then 25% of them considered price to be an important factor.

INCOME AND BRAND LOYALTY

Hypothesis 2

H0: income does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)

H1: income influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)

INS

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid least preferred 24 24.0 24.0 24.0
less preferred 30 30.0 30.0 54.0

11
 moderately
24 24.0 24.0 78.0
preferred
highly
13 13.0 13.0 91.0
preferred
most
9 9.0 9.0 100.0
preferred
Total 100 100.0 100.0

9.00% ins
least preferred
24.00% less preferred
moderately preferred
13.00%
highly preferred
most preferred

Pies show counts

24.00%

30.00%

INCOME

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid least preferred 4 4.0 4.0 4.0
less preferred 6 6.0 6.0 10.0
moderately
17 17.0 17.0 27.0
preferred
highly preferred 51 51.0 51.0 78.0
most preferred 22 22.0 22.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

12
 4.00% income
6.00%
least preferred
23.00% less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
17.00% most preferred

Pies show counts

50.00%

From data we see that only 22% of students consider income to be an important factor when
selecting a brand but later 73% of students consider income to be an important factor when it
comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that average preference
difference for income comes to be 1.3 i.e. above 0.Also rank of income comes to be 2. So we
say income influences brand loyalty. So we reject the null hypothesis.

Further analysis

SMKHBY * INS Cross tabulation

Count

INS
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB Regular 24 30 9 7 5 75
Y occasion
0 0 15 6 4 25
al
Total 24 30 24 13 9 100

30 least preferred
25
20 less preferred
15
moderately preferred
10
5 highly preferred
0
most preferred
regular occasional

SMKHBY * INCOME Cross tabulation

13
 Count
INCOME
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB regular 4 6 17 36 12 75
Y occasion
0 0 0 14 11 25
al
Total 4 6 17 50 23 100

40
35
30 least preferred
25 less preferred
20 moderately preferred
15 highly preferred
10
5 most preferred
0
regular occasional

Smoking habit Average preference rating Average preference rating

when started smoking when switching brand
Regular 2.1 3.6
Occasional 3.5 4

From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking, only 12% of
them took income to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to
switching to another brand from current brand, and then 58% of them considered income to
be an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 10% of them took
income to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to
another brand from current brand, then 25% of them considered income to be an important
factor.

TASTE AND BRAND LOYALTY

Hypothesis 3

H0: taste does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)

H1: taste influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)

TAS

14
 Frequenc Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent Percent
Valid least
7 7.0 7.0 7.0
preferred
less
13 13.0 13.0 20.0
preferred
moderately
25 25.0 25.0 45.0
preferred
highly
32 32.0 32.0 77.0
preferred
most
23 23.0 23.0 100.0
preferred
Total 100 100.0 100.0

7.00% tas
least preferred
23.00% less preferred
13.00%
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred

Pies show counts

25.00%

32.00%

TASTE

Frequenc Valid Cumulative

y Percent Percent Percent
Valid least
4 4.0 4.0 4.0
preferred
less
11 11.0 11.0 15.0
preferred
moderately
27 27.0 27.0 42.0
preferred
highly
40 40.0 40.0 82.0
preferred
most
18 18.0 18.0 100.0
preferred
Total 100 100.0 100.0

15
 4.00% tas te
18.00% 11.00% least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred

Pies show counts

27.00%

40.00%

From data we see that only 55% of students consider taste to be an important factor when
selecting a brand but later 58% of students consider taste to be an important factor when it
comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that average preference
difference for taste comes to be 0 i.e. equal to 0.Also rank of taste comes to be 3. So we say
taste does not influence brand loyalty. So we accept the null hypothesis.

Further analysis

SMKHBY * TAS Cross tabulation

Count
TAS
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB regular 7 13 25 18 12 75
Y occasion
0 0 0 14 11 25
al
Total 7 13 25 32 23 100

25
20
least preferred
15 less preferred
moderately preferred
10
highly preferred
5 most preferred

0
regular occasional

16
 SMKHBY * TASTE Cross tabulation

Count
TASTE
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB regular 4 11 27 23 10 75
Y occasion
0 0 0 17 8 25
al
Total 4 11 27 40 18 100

30
25
20 least preferred
less preferred
15
moderately preferred
10 highly preferred
most preferred
5
0
regular occasional

Smoking habit Average preference rating Average preference rating

when started smoking when switching brand
Regular 3.2 3.3
Occasional 4.4 4.3

From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking, only 30% of
them took taste to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to
switching to another brand from current brand, and then 43% of them considered taste to be
an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 25% of them took taste
to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to another
brand from current brand, then 25% of them considered taste to be an important factor.

AVAILABILITY AND BRAND LOYALTY

Hypothesis 4

H0: availability does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)

H1: availability influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)

17
 AVS

Frequenc Valid Cumulative

y Percent Percent Percent
Valid least
5 5.0 5.0 5.0
preferred
less
12 12.0 12.0 17.0
preferred
moderately
23 23.0 23.0 40.0
preferred
highly
36 36.0 36.0 76.0
preferred
most
24 24.0 24.0 100.0
preferred
Total 100 100.0 100.0

5.00% avs
least preferred
24.00% 12.00%
less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred

Pies show counts

23.00%

36.00%

AVAILBTY

Frequenc Valid Cumulative

y Percent Percent Percent
Valid least
7 7.0 7.0 7.0
preferred
less
9 9.0 9.0 16.0
preferred
moderately
36 36.0 36.0 52.0
preferred
highly
33 33.0 33.0 85.0
preferred
most
15 15.0 15.0 100.0
preferred
Total 100 100.0 100.0

18
 7.00% availbty
15.00%
least preferred
9.00% less preferred
moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred

Pies show counts

33.00%
36.00%

From data we see that only 60% of students consider availability to be an important factor
when selecting a brand but later 48% of students consider availability to be an important
factor when it comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that
average preference difference for availability comes to be -0.2 i.e. less than 0.Also rank of
availability comes to be 4. So we say availability does not influence brand loyalty. So we
accept the null hypothesis.

Further analysis

SMKHBY * AVS Cross tabulation

Count

AVS
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB regular 5 12 23 22 13 75
Y occasion
0 0 0 14 11 25
al
Total 5 12 23 36 24 100

25
20 least preferred
15 less preferred
10 moderately preferred
5 highly preferred
0 most preferred
regular occasional

19
 SMKHBY * AVAILBTY Cross tabulation

Count

AVAILBTY
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB regular 7 9 36 15 8 75
Y occasion
0 0 0 18 7 25
al
Total 7 9 36 33 15 100

40
35
30 least preferred
25 less preferred
20 moderately preferred
15 highly preferred
10 most preferred
5
0
regular occasional

Smoking habit Average preference rating Average preference rating

when started smoking when switching brand
Regular 3.1 3.1
Occasional 4.4 4.2

Further analysis

From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking, only 54% of
them took availability to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to
switching to another brand from current brand, and then 23% of them considered availability
to be an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 25% of them took
availability to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching
to another brand from current brand, then 26% of them considered availability to be an
important factor.

AWARENESS AND BRAND LOYALTY

Hypothesis 5

H0: awareness does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)

H1: awareness influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)

20
 AWAS

Frequenc Valid Cumulative

y Percent Percent Percent
Valid least
7 7.0 7.0 7.0
preferred
less
16 16.0 16.0 23.0
preferred
moderately
21 21.0 21.0 44.0
preferred
highly
26 26.0 26.0 70.0
preferred
most
30 30.0 30.0 100.0
preferred
Total 100 100.0 100.0

7.00% awas
least preferred
less preferred
30.00% 16.00% moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred

Pies show counts

21.00%

26.00%

AWARNES

Frequenc Valid Cumulative

y Percent Percent Percent
Valid least
24 24.0 24.0 24.0
preferred
less
34 34.0 34.0 58.0
preferred
moderately
22 22.0 22.0 80.0
preferred
highly
12 12.0 12.0 92.0
preferred
most
8 8.0 8.0 100.0
preferred
Total 100 100.0 100.0

21
 8.00% awarne s
least preferred
24.00% less preferred
12.00% moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred

Pies show counts

22.00%

34.00%

From data we see that only 56% of students consider awareness to be an important factor
when selecting a brand but later 20% of students consider awareness to be an important
factor when it comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that
average preference difference for awareness comes to be -0.6 i.e. less than 0.Also rank of
awareness comes to be 5. So we say awareness does not influence brand loyalty. So we
accept the null hypothesis.

Further analysis

SMKHBY * AWAS Cross tabulation

Count
AWAS
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB regular 7 16 21 18 13 75
Y Occasion
0 0 0 8 17 25
al
Total 7 16 21 26 30 100

25
20 least preferred
15 less preferred
10 moderately preferred
highly preferred
5
most preferred
0
regular occasional

22
 SMKHBY * AWARNES Cross tabulation

Count
AWARNES
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB regular 24 34 6 7 4 75
Y occasion
0 0 16 5 4 25
al
Total 24 34 22 12 8 100

35
30
25 least preferred
20 less preferred
moderately preferred
15
highly preferred
10 most preferred
5
0
regular occasional

Smoking habit Average preference rating Average preference rating

when started smoking when switching brand
Regular 3.1 2.1
Occasional 4.6 3

From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking, only 31% of
them took awareness to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to
switching to another brand from current brand, and then 11% of them considered awareness
to be an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 25% of them took
awareness to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching
to another brand from current brand, and then 9% of them considered awareness to be an
important factor.

PEER PRESSURE AND BRAND LOYALTY

H0: peer pressure does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)

H1: peer pressure influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)

PPS
23
 Frequenc Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent Percent
Valid least
3 3.0 3.0 3.0
preferred
less
9 9.0 9.0 12.0
preferred
moderately
22 22.0 22.0 34.0
preferred
highly
36 36.0 36.0 70.0
preferred
most
30 30.0 30.0 100.0
preferred
Total 100 100.0 100.0

3.00%
pps
9.00%
least preferred
less preferred
30.00% moderately preferred
highly preferred
most preferred

22.00% Pies show counts

36.00%

PEERPRSR

Frequenc Valid Cumulative

y Percent Percent Percent
Valid least
37 37.0 37.0 37.0
preferred
less
40 40.0 40.0 77.0
preferred
moderately
16 16.0 16.0 93.0
preferred
highly
5 5.0 5.0 98.0
preferred
most
2 2.0 2.0 100.0
preferred
Total 100 100.0 100.0

24
 5.00%2.00% pe erprsr
least preferred
less preferred
16.00% moderately preferred
highly preferred
37.00% most preferred

Pies show counts

40.00%

From data we see that only 66% of students consider peer pressure to be an important factor
when selecting a brand but later 7% of students consider peer pressure to be an important
factor when it comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that
average preference difference for peer pressure comes to be -1.4 i.e. less than 0.Also rank of
peer pressure comes to be 6. So we say peer pressure does not influence brand loyalty. So
we accept the null hypothesis.

Further analysis

SMKHBY * PPS Cross tabulation

Count
PPS
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB regular 3 9 22 28 13 75
Y occasion
0 0 0 8 17 25
al
Total 3 9 22 36 30 100

30
25
20 least preferred
less preferred
15 moderately preferred
10 highly preferred
most preferred
5
0
regular occasional

25
 SMKHBY * PEERPRSR Cross tabulation
Count
PEERPRSR
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB regular 37 26 8 3 1 75
Y occasion
0 14 8 2 1 25
al
Total 37 40 16 5 2 100

40
35
30
least preferred
25
less preferred
20 moderately preferred
15 highly preferred
10 most preferred
5
0
regular occasional

Smoking habit Average preference rating Average preference rating

when started smoking when switching brand
Regular 3.5 1.7
Occasional 4.6 2.6

From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking, only 42% of
them took peer pressure to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came
to switching to another brand from current brand, and then 4% of them considered peer
pressure to be an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 25% of
them took peer pressure to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came
to switching to another brand from current brand, then 3% of them considered peer pressure
to be an important factor.

FREE BIES AND BRAND LOYALTY

Hypothesis 7

H0: free bies does not influence brand loyalty (null hypothesis)

H1: free bies influences brand loyalty (alternate hypothesis)

26
 FREES

Frequenc Valid Cumulative

y Percent Percent Percent
Valid least
9 9.0 9.0 9.0
preferred
less
13 13.0 13.0 22.0
preferred
moderately
21 21.0 21.0 43.0
preferred
highly
30 30.0 30.0 73.0
preferred
most
27 27.0 27.0 100.0
preferred
Total 100 100.0 100.0

9.00% free s
least preferred
less preferred
27.00%
moderately preferred
13.00%
highly preferred
most preferred

Pies show counts

21.00%

30.00%

FREEBIES

Frequenc Valid Cumulative

y Percent Percent Percent
Valid least
31 31.0 31.0 31.0
preferred
less
39 39.0 39.0 70.0
preferred
moderately
16 16.0 16.0 86.0
preferred
highly
9 9.0 9.0 95.0
preferred
most
5 5.0 5.0 100.0
preferred
Total 100 100.0 100.0

27
 5.00% free bies
9.00% least preferred
less preferred
moderately preferred
31.00%
highly preferred
most preferred

16.00%
Pies show counts

39.00%

From data we see that only 57% of students consider free bies to be an important factor when
selecting a brand but later 14% of students consider free bies to be an important factor when
it comes to switching from one current brand to another brand. We see that average
preference difference for free bies comes to be -1.9 i.e. less than 0.Also rank of free bies
comes to be 7. So we say free bies does not influence brand loyalty. So we accept the null
hypothesis.

Further analysis
SMKHBY * FREES Cross tabulation
Count
FREES
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB regular 9 13 21 19 13 75
Y occasion
0 0 0 11 14 25
al
Total 9 13 21 30 27 100

25
20 least preferred
15 less preferred
moderately preferred
10
highly preferred
5 most preferred
0
regular occasional

SMKHBY * FREEBIES Cross tabulation

28
 Count
FREEBIES
least less moderately highly most
preferred preferred preferred preferred preferred Total
SMKHB regular 31 31 5 5 3 75
Y occasion
0 8 11 4 2 25
al
Total 31 39 16 9 5 100

35
30
25 least preferred
20 less preferred
15 moderately preferred
highly preferred
10 most preferred
5
0
regular occasional

Smoking habit Average preference rating Average preference rating

when started smoking when switching brand
Regular 3.1 1.9
Occasional 4.56 3

From the above cross tabulations we see when regular smokers started smoking; only 32% of
them took free bies to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to
switching to another brand from current brand, and then 8% of them considered free bies to
be an important factor. When occasional smokers started smoking, only 25% of them took
free bies to be an important factor in selecting a brand but later when it came to switching to
another brand from current brand, and then 6% of them considered free bies to be an
important factor.

CONCLUSION

The analysis of the data collected through the questionnaire brings out useful information
about brand loyalty among cigarette smokers (students of MIT). It tells that price and income
are the factors that are related to brand loyalty. It means that any change in price of cigarette,
income of student would lead to switch from present brand of cigarette to some other brand.
Study also shows that awareness of existing brands in market, peer pressure or free gifts or
schemes or free bies provided by any brand, taste and availability of the brand would not be a
successful factor in gaining the customers brand loyalty i.e. awareness, peer pressure, free
bies, taste and availability are factors that are not related to brand loyalty among cigarette
smokers.

29
 REFERENCES
1. Text book: C.R.KOTHARI
2. Wikipedia.org.in
3. India Today magazine

ANNEXURE

QUESTIONNAIRE
To study change in brand loyalty among cigarette smokers in response to
change in factors determining selection of a particular brand of cigarette.
Dear friends,
We are conducting a survey to study change in brand loyalty of cigarette smokers, due to
change in certain factors determining the brand selection. The survey is being done for the
purpose of our Research Methodology project and the information given by you will be kept
confidential with us. We would be grateful if you could spare some time in filling up this
questionnaire.
NAME (optional):_________________________________________

GENDER: Female Male

AGE (in years):_____________

Q1) Are you a regular smoker: yes no

Q2) Rate the factors below (from 1 to 5) according to the priority you give, while
purchasing/selecting a particular brand of cigarette when you started smoking?
Rating scale: Factors Rating
Price
1: Least preferred Income
2: Less preferred Availability
Taste
3: Moderately preferred Peer pressure
Free bees
4: Highly preferred scheme
5: Most preferred Awareness

30
Q3) Rate the factors below (from 1 to 5) according to the priority you give, while switching
from a particular brand of cigarette to another brand?
Rating scale:
1: Least preferred Factors Rating
Price
2: Less preferred Income
3: Moderately preferred Availability
Taste
4: Highly preferred Peer pressure
Free bees
5: Most preferred scheme
Awareness

Thank you

31