PRESENTED TO:

Saurabh Agarwal(09283)
Vijit Kumar(0294)
Pawandeep (09275)
Vineet Singh(09295)
Atul O Pathak(09261)
Samit Sinha(09282)
Ankit Chaturvedi(09254)
Rachit Singh(09277)
 India is world’s second largest producer of
food after China and has the potential of
being the biggest with Food & Agricultural
sector.
 The total food production in India is likely
to be double in next ten years & there is
an opportunity for large investments in
food industry especially in Packaged
Foods, Beverages & Soft Drinks.
Indian Food Industry…
 Health food & supplements is another
rapidly rising segment of industry that is
gaining vast popularity amongst health
conscious people.
 The Packaged Food Industry in India

 Growth in package food industry - 8% - 9%.

 Demand of Packaged Food in India – In India the
demand for packaging goods has been increased
immensely, it is just because of: -
• Increase in per capita income.
• Standard of living.
• Purchasing power & Consumer Expenditure.
• Source of Income of the family has been increased
mainly in urban areas.
 Continued…

 Size - The size of packaged food market

in India is estimated at $10 billion & is
expected to reach at $ 20 billion by
2014.
 Product coverage - ready to eat
products, Baby food, Bakery
products,Snacks/confectionary food etc
Some of the key players in this industry are
 HUL(tea, instant coffee,biscuits),
 ITC
 NESTLE(ready to eat product, instant coffee)
 PepsiCo & Haldiram (sweets, namkeens,
snacks).
 To determine the consumer preference
towards packaged food.
 Various factor affecting consumer
perception towards packaged food.
 Research Design

 Research Design - Descriptive research.

• Sample Unit - The sample unit of our study
is all those persons who are coming to
retail stores, people who buy package
foods in NCR region.
• Sample size - The sample size for the
study is thirty.
• Sampling area - Delhi, Noida &
Ghaziabad.
• Sampling Technique - Conveyance
sampling.
 Continued..

 Data Collection - There are 2 sources for

data collection : -
• Primary source.
• Secondary source.
 The primary data was collected through
structured questionnaire. As per our research
study we have collected primary data.
 Interpretations

 The person for whom the respondants buy came out to be-

Myself-44% ,Family-5%,children-25%,Institutional
purposes/Social occasions-26%.

 The type of packaged food genrealy bought.

Ready to cook food Bakery products-15%,Dairy products-
35%, Staples-36.5,Fruit drinks -13.5%etc.
 Interpretations

The store they preferred was

Kirana store-42.5%,organized
retails store-57.5%.
Crosstabulation age and categories to
packaged foods..
Nutritional value.
Dairy Fruit
Ready to cook Bakery products products Stapels drinks.
age 17-21 Count 1 4 0 1 10
Expected 11.8 2.9 2.9 2 4.1
Count
21-24 Count 2 0 0 7 3
Expected 3.9 1.0 1.0 2.7 1.4
Count
25-28 Count 0 0 1 1
8
Expected 2.7 .7 .7 1.9 1.0
Count
>31 Count 18 4 4 9 4
Expected 1.6 .4 .4 41.1 .5
Higher income groups buy most from staples and
Count
dairy category,and lower in ready to eat and drinks
Chi square test Income group and
Frequency of buying
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Va lue df sided)
Pearson Ch i-Squ are 79.848 a 9 .010
Likelihood Rat io 66.842 9 .000
Linear -by-Linear .860 1 .354
Assoc iation
N of Va lid Cases 50
a. 12 ce lls (75.0% ) ha ve expec ted count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .04.
At 5% level of significance Ho rejected hence there is
association between income group and frequency of buying
 Cross Tabulation monthly

income & frequency of buying

monthly income * frequency of buy food Crosstabulation
frequency of buy food
1-3 4-6 >6 t imes rare ly
month ly >10,000 Count 1 0 0 5
inco me Expected Cou nt 3.0 2.0 .2 .7
10,000 - Count 18 2 2 1
50,000 Expected Count 11.5 7.8 .9 2.8
50,000 - Count 1 0 0 0
100000 Expected Count .5 .3 .0 .1
10000 0- Count 3 15 2 0
500000 Expected Count 10.0 6.8 .8 2.4
Tota l Count 25 17 2 6
Expected Count 25.0 17.0 2.0 6.0

Here we can see that higher income groups purchase

Frequency is the highest.
 Monthly income and attitude for which we
buying
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 79.848a 9 .010
Likelihood Ratio 66.842 9 .000
Linear-by-Linear .860 1 .354
Association
N of Valid Cases 50
a. 12 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .04.

At 5% level of significance Ho rejected hence there is

association between monthly income and attitude reflection.
Crosstabulation-Monthly income & Attitude
monthly income * attitude Crosstabulation
attitude
storng ly
strong ly dissagr e
agree agree neutra l disagree e
month ly >10,000 Count 0 0 3 2 0
inco me Expecte 1.9 2.4 .3 .2 .1
d Count
10,000 - Count 0 22 0 0 1
50,000 Expecte 8.9 11.3 1.4 .9 .5
d Count
50,000 - Count 0 1 0 0 0
100000 Expecte .4 .5 .1 .0 .0
d Count
10000 0- Count 17 1 0 2 0
500000 Expecte 7.8 9.8 1.2 .8 .4
d Count
Tota l Count 19 24 3 2 1
Expecte 19.0 24.0 3.0 2.0 1.0
d Count
 Chi square -Age & nutritional value

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Va lue df sided)
Pearson Ch i-Squ are 93.788 a 12 .020
Likelihood Rat io 84.701 12 .000
Linear -by-Linear 31.804 1 .000
Assoc iation
N of Va lid Cases 49
a. 16 ce lls (80.0%) ha ve expec ted count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is . 02.

At 5% level of significance Ho rejected hence there is

Association between age group and nutrients required.
Cross tabulation Age & Nutritional value requirement

Nutritional value.
strongly
strongly agree agree neutral dissagree dissagree
age 17-21 Count 1 1 0 1
Expected 11.8 2.9 2.9 8.2 4.1
Count
21-24 Count 2 0 0 7 3
Expected 3.9 1.0 1.0 2.7 1.4
Count
25-28 Count 0 0 1 3 1
Expected 2.7 .7 .7 1.9 1.0
Count
>31 Count 18 4 4 3 2
Expected 1.6 .4 .4 1.1 .5
Count
Total Count 20 5 5 14 7
Expected 20.0 5.0 5.0 14.0 7.0
Count

Hence, we can see that higher income groups stress more

On nutritional value.
 Chi square-Monthly income & brand value
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Va lue df sided)
Pearson Ch i-Squ are 61.745 a 12 .002
Likelihood Rat io 60.878 12 .000
Linear -by-Linear 15.998 1 .000
Assoc iation
N of Va lid Cases 49
a. 16 ce lls (80.0%) ha ve expec ted count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .02.

At 5% level of significance Ho rejected ,hence there is

association between Brand value requirement and
income group
Cross tabulation- Monthly income & Brand value.

monthly income * brand value Crosstabulation

brand value
strong ly strong ly
agree agree neutra l disagree disagree
month ly >10,000 Count 0 1 3 2 0
inco me Expected 1.8 2.0 .9 .1 .1
Count
10,000 - Count 1 18 3 1 0
50,000 Expected 8.4 9.4 4.2 .5 .5
Count
50,000 - Count 0 1 0 0 0
100000 Expected .4 .4 .2 .0 .0
Count
10000 0- Count 17 1 1 0 1
500000 Expected 7.3 8.2 3.7 .4 .4
Count
Tota l Count 18 20 9 1 1
Expected 18.0 20.0 9.0 1.0 1.0
Count

Hence,we can see higher income group strongly agree

they prefer packaged foods with high brand value or name
Chi square age vs their buying behaviour
Dependent on visual appeal
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Va lue df sided)
Pearson Ch i-Squ are 32.548 a 12 .001
Likelihood Rat io 38.232 12 .000
Linear -by-Linear 11.468 1 .001
Assoc iation
N of Va lid Cases 51
a. 18 ce lls (90.0%) ha ve expec ted count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .39.
 Crosstabulation:Age & Visual appeal
visulappeal
strongly
strongly agree agree neutral dissagree dissagree
age 17-21 Count 18 4 4 3 1
Expected 11.8 2.9 2.9 8.2 4.1
Count
21-24 Count 0 0 0 7 3
Expected 3.9 1.0 1.0 2.7 1.4
Count
25-28 Count 2 0 1 3 1
Expected 2.7 .7 .7 1.9 1.0
Count
>31 Count 0 1 0 1 2
Expected 1.6 .4 .4 1.1 .5
Count
Total Count 20 5 5 14 7
Expected 20.0 5.0 5.0 14.0 7.0
Count
 Factor analysis
Total Variance Explained
Com Extraction Sums of Rotation Sums of Squared
pone Initial Eigenvalues Squared Loadings Loadings
nt % of % of
% of Cumulat Varianc Cumulat Varianc Cumulative
Tota l Variance ive % Tota l e ive % Tota l e %
1 4.879 40.661 40.661 4.879 40.661 40.661 4.669 38.911 38.911
2 2.053 17.110 57.771 2.053 17.110 57.771 2.151 17.923 56.833
3 1.182 9.851 67.622 1.182 9.851 67.622 1.295 10.789 67.622
4 .949 7.909 75.531
5 .868 7.230 82.761
6 .826 6.880 89.642
7 .671 5.591 95.233
8
dimen si o n0
.263 2.188 97.421
9 .140 1.166 98.587
1 .104 .868 99.455
0
1 .035 .295 99.750
1
1 .030 .250 100.00 0
2
Extract ion Me thod: Pr inc ipa l Co mponent Ana lys is.
 Rotated Component matrix

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3
taste .910
var iety .855
ava ilab ility .787
clean less -.456 .461
manufac turing date .8 67 .1 82
advert is me nt .927
brand a mbass a dor .965
nutr itiona l va lue . .624
brand va lue .932
sku un it .466
pro motiona l sch e mes .860
visu a l appea l .953
Extract ion Me thod: Pr inc ipa l Co mponent Ana lys is.
Rotat ion Method: Va rima x with Kais e r Normalizat ion.
a. Rotat ion conver ged in 4 iterat ions.
INTERPRETATION:-

67.622% of the total variance is explained by first three factors on

Hence decomposing all the factors into further sub headings.

•Factor 1(Brand Awareness)

Advertisment, Brand ambassdor,brand value, promotional

Schemes,visual appeal.

•Factor 2(Product characterstics)

Taste,Variety, cleanliness

Factor 3(product Quality)

Product availability, manufacturing date, sku unit, nutritional value
 Interpretations
 Similarly there was found to be association between Gender and
price .Ho
was rejected and hence association was there between gender and
pricing,Females were more price conscious.
 There was no association between gender,income groups ,age
groups and variety,availability,cleanliness that is all of our
respondents considered variety,cleanliness and availability as an
important factor for their buying of packaged foods.
 There came out to be no association between promotional schemes
and age.All respondents buying was dependent on promotional
schemes adopted by companies.
 Limitations

 The scope of research is confined only in

ghaziabad.
 Sample size to be small.
 The limitation of time of the project this is
minimum.
 The respondent always to hurry fill up the
questionnaire that can may be biased.
Recommendation

 Packaged food company should make

attractive packaging of the product.
 Packaged food company need to
choose famous brand ambassador for
advertisement of the product.
 Extra nutritional value should be added
for consumer attraction.
 Mostly target lower age group
consumer who are want to changed.