Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Assistant Professor and Research Scholar, Department of Economics, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli-620 023, Tamil Nadu
Assistant Professor and Research Scholar, Department of Economics, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli-620 023, Tamil Nadu
Based on Satisfaction Index, the respondents are classified as highly satisfied, satisfied
and dissatisfied as follows:
Table-1
Level of Satisfaction of the Respondents
Level of Satisfaction No. of Respondents Percentage
Highly Satisfied 68 34
Satisfied 103 52
Dissatisfied 29 14
Total 200 100
The above table shows that 68 Family status (5) Monthly income (6)
respondents (34 percent) are obtained Residential status (7) Size of the family
high level of satisfaction from the usage (8) Food habits (9) Period of usage (10)
of eagle processed spices products and Frequency of purchase (11) Awareness
103 respondents (52 percent) are about ingredients (12) Awareness about
satisfied and the remaining 14 percent of expiry date.
the respondents are not received any
satisfaction, but merely they used this Age and Level of Satisfaction
brand. It is evident that majority of the The age of respondents range
respondents (86 percent) are expressed from 20 to 62 years. On the basis of age,
positive approach towards this brand. respondents are classified into three
categories; young those who are up to 30
years, those who are between 30 and 40
Satisfaction Factors years of age as middle aged and old
The satisfaction level of those who are above 40 years. The
individual is influenced by many classification of respondents based on
independent factors such as: (1) Age (2) age and their satisfaction index are
Formal education (3) Occupation (4) presented in the following table.
Page 70 of 14
Table-2
Age and Level of Satisfaction
Age Level of Satisfaction
Group Highly Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total
Young 30 (32) 54 (57) 10 (11) 94 (100)
Middle aged 16 (24) 44 (66) 7 (10) 67 (100)
Old 11 (28) 23 (59) 5 (13) 39 (100)
Total 57 (28) 121 (61) 22 (11) 200
Note: Numbers in Parentheses are Percentage
Degrees of Freedom = 4 Calculated value of χ² = 1.49
Table value at 5% level = 9.49
Table-3
Education Level and Level of Satisfaction
Education Level of Satisfaction
level Highly Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total
Illiterate 10 (25) 22 (55) 8 (20) 40 (100)
School 21 (26) 52 (63) 9 (11) 82 (100)
UG 19 (32) 36 (60) 5 (8) 60 (100)
PG 6 (33) 10 (56) 2 (11) 18 (100)
Total 56 (28) 120 (60) 24 (12) 200
Note: Numbers in Parentheses are Percentage
Degrees of Freedom = 6 Calculated value of χ² = 4.04
Table value at 5% level = 12.59
Type of Family and Level of socializing force and agencies from joint
Satisfaction to nuclear families. The respondents are
The development of individuals classified into two groups namely;
proceeds under the influences of many nuclear and joint family.
Table-5
Type of Family and Level of Satisfaction
Type of Level of Satisfaction
Family Highly Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total
Nuclear 43 (28) 105 (69) 5 (3) 153 (100)
Joint 10 (27) 19 (51) 18 (22) 47 (100)
Total 53 (26) 124 (62) 23 (12) 200
Note: Numbers in Parentheses are Percentage
Degrees of Freedom = 2 Calculated value of χ² = 4.88
Table value at 5% level = 5.99
Table-6
Income and Level of Satisfaction
Income Level of Satisfaction
Level Highly Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total
Low 24 (21) 70 (60) 23 (19) 117 (100)
Moderate 25 (37) 36 (53) 7 (10) 68 (100)
High 3 (20) 11 (73) 1 (7) 15 (100)
Total 52 (26) 117 (59) 31 (15) 200
Note: Numbers in Parentheses are Percentage
Degrees of Freedom = 4 Calculated value of χ²= 54.81
Table value at 5% level = 9.49
Table-6 indicates that the high- influenced by the income level. Since
income category has more satisfied the calculated value is higher than the
respondents (93 percent) and only one table value, the hypothesis is rejected.
respondent has the dissatisfaction with Hence it is evident that there is a
the product. Both high and moderate significant relationship between the
income groups are achieved more level income and satisfaction levels of the
of satisfaction than the low income respondents.
group. Hence the level of satisfaction is
Table-7
Residential Status and Level of Satisfaction
Place of Level of Satisfaction
Residence Highly Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total
Rural 17 (24) 43 (62) 10 (14) 70 (100)
Urban 39 (30) 76 (58) 15 (12) 130 (100)
Total 56 (28) 119 (59) 25 (13) 200
Note: Numbers in Parentheses are Percentage
Degrees of Freedom = 2 Calculated value of χ²= 0.87
Table value at 5% level = 5.99
Page 74 of 14
Table-8
Size of the Family and Level of Satisfaction
Size of the Level of Satisfaction
Family Highly Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total
Small 17 (31) 28 (52) 9 (17) 54 (100)
Medium 28 (25) 67 (59) 18 (16) 113 (100)
Large 8 (25) 60 (48) 9 (27) 33 (100)
Total 53 (27) 111 (55) 36 (18) 200
Note: Numbers in Parentheses are Percentage
Degrees of Freedom = 4 Calculated value of χ² = 3.31
Table value at 5% level = 9.49
It is witnessed from the Table-8 and small size families are interesting to
that both small and medium size families enjoy with different variants of food
have more satisfaction than the large size products. Since the calculated value of
family. More respondents as per the the chi-square test is less than the table
percentage are dissatisfied with the value, the hypothesis is accepted. Hence
processed spices product in the large size it is confirmed that there is no significant
family. It is a strong support for relationship between the size of family
diversification patterns because medium and satisfaction level of the respondents.
Table-9
Food Habits and Level of Satisfaction
Food Level of Satisfaction
Habits Highly Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total
Vegetarian 11 (24) 27 (60) 7 (16) 45 (100)
Non-Vegetarian 44 (28) 90 (58) 21 (14) 155 (100)
Total 58 (28) 117 (58) 28 (14) 200
Note: Numbers in Parentheses are Percentage
Degrees of Freedom = 2 Calculated value of χ² = 0.32
Table value at 5% level = 5.99
Table-11
Frequency of Purchase and Level of Satisfaction
Frequency of Level of Satisfaction
Purchase Highly Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Total
Monthly 14 (30) 23 (50) 9 (20) 46 (100)
Weekly 18 (26) 43 (61) 9 (13) 70 (100)
As and
24 (29) 49 (58) 11 (13) 84 (100)
when required
Total 56 (28) 115 (58) 29 (14) 200
Note: Numbers in Parentheses are Percentage
Degrees of Freedom = 4 Calculated value of χ² = 1.94
Table value at 5% level = 9.49
Table-12
Awareness about Ingredients and Level of Satisfaction
Awareness Level of Satisfaction
about Total
Highly Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied
Ingredients
Aware 40 (32) 70 (56) 16 (12) 126 (100)
Not Aware 16 (22) 46 (62) 12 (16) 74 (100)
Total 56 (28) 116 (58) 28 (14) 200
Note: Numbers in Parentheses are Percentage
Degrees of Freedom = 2 Calculated value of χ² = 45.37
Table value at 5% level = 5.99
Conclusion
From the analysis it is evident that out of 200 respondents, 34 percent are highly
satisfied, 52 percent are satisfied and only 14 percent are dissatisfied with t he Eagle
brand processed spices products. Further the research from analysis shows that there is a
significant relationship between level of satisfaction and following factors: (1) Income
(2) Awareness about ingredients and (3) Expiry date. However no significant relationship
is proved between level of satisfaction and following factors: (1) Age (2) Education (3)
Occupation (4) Family type (5) Residential status (6) Size of the family (7) Food habits
(8) Period of usage and (9) Frequency of purchase. However the overall analysis of the
study indicates that majority of the respondents has been satisfied with the Eagle brand
processed spices products. It is a strong evidence to improve the market in the processed
spices products.
Suggestions
The followings are the suggestions made on the findings of the analysis and
collected informations from respondents.
1) The Eagle Food Products Company may introduce some variants of
processed spices products in vegetarian category.
2) People like to buy small size pouch packs for every day purpose. This kind of
pouch packs will reach people easily.
3) The present advertisement covered by Eagle Food Products is inadequate.
Television advertisement is effective one. So that company may consider this
to promote the market size in rural areas.
4) Some of respondents feel to change the brand because of non-availability of
eagle products in all shops. So the managements will take steps to make the
availability of products in all shops. .
5) The company may consider avoiding the artificial colour in some products.
Page 79 of 14
References:
1) Carol M. Michael (1999), “Opportunities for the Advancement of Home
Economists in the Food Manufacturing Industry”, Family and Consumer Sciences
Research Journal, Vol.27, No.3, pp.293-319.
2) Cates, S.C. & Carter-Young, H., (2004) “Consumer Attitudes Towards and
Preferences for Food Standards of Identify”, Journal of Food Products
Marketing, Vol.No.10 (1), pp.67-84.
3) Ferdaus Hossain & Ruchi (2005), “Financial Structure, Production, and
Productivity: Evidence from the U.S. Food Manufacturing Industry”, Agricultural
Economics, Vol.33, pp.399-410.
4) Jairus Banaji (1997), “Globalization and Restructuring in the Indian Food
Industry”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol.24, No.1, pp.191-210.
5) Michalis M. Efstratiadis (2000), “Implementation of ISO 9000 to the Food
Industry: An Overview”, International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition,
Vol.51, pp. 459-473.
6) Nandagopal R and Chinnaiyan P (2004), “Small Scale Food Processing
Industries: A Case Analysis”, Small Enterprises Development Management and
Extension (SEDME) Journal, Vol.31, No.2.
7) Omesh Saigal (2001), “Food Processing Industry: Current Scene and
Prospectus”, Yojana, Vol.45, No.1.
8) Phillp Kottler (1995), “Principles of Marketing”, Prentice-Hall of India Pvt.,
New Delhi, p.553.
9) Rajanbabu.R (2008), “A Study of Diversification Patterns and Consumer
Satisfaction in Masala Products with Special Reference to Eagle Food Products,
Madurai”, M.Phil. Dissertation, Bharathidasan University, Trichy.
10) Robert W. Ivester (2008), “Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food
Safety”, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety,
Vol.7, pp.182-191.
11) Sarin K.P (1999), “Food Processing: An Introspection for the Next Millennium”,
Processed Food Industry, Vol.45, No.9.
12) Spyridon Mamalis (2009), “Critical Success Factors of the Food Service
Industry”, Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, Vol.21,
pp.191-206.
13) Sukhpal Singh (1997), “Aspect of Entrepreneurship in Primary Food-Processing
Industries in Punjab”, The Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol.6, No.2, pp.223-231.