Bucharest University of Economic Studies

Faculty of Marketing

Advanced Marketing
Research Project
EXPERIMENT - BRAND INFLUENCE ON THE
PURCHASE INTENTION OF KETCHUP

Boldeiu Cristian, Cana Maria, Catalina Maria-Florina, Dobrin Iulia

MK YEAR III | GROUP 1752
 1. Introduction
One of the most important fields that relate to marketing is consumer behavior. To give a
broad definition, it involves the process that individuals or groups undertake to reach the products
(goods and services) to satisfy their needs, wants and desires. Out of the factors that builds up
consumer behavior we have perception, which is based on a human’s sensory system: vision,
smell, sound, touch and taste (Solomon, Russell-Bennett and Previte, 2012). With this experiment,
the research was mostly based on the last element – taste, which is crucial for food products in
general, especially since ketchup is both a condiment and a complement product to others (pizza,
hot dogs, burgers, french fries) but also a substitute product to other type of sauces (BBQ sauce,
mayonnaise, mustard, ranch and so on). To analyze the perception of an individual on taste,
usually blind tests are conducted by the producing company, not only for formula and ingredient
testing, but also for the results to become a valuable positioning factor for that specific brand
(example: “voted the best tasting X product”).
However, there is more to considered, since the brand plays an important role as well.
According to the American Marketing Association (2019), “a brand is a name, term, design,
symbol or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of
other sellers”, being an intangible asset which creates a distinctive image and association in the
mind of the consumer, linking to other aspects such as brand image, brand awareness, brand loyalty
and brand equity. Sarwar, Aftab and Iqbal (2014) studied the impact of branding in consumer
buying behavior and concluded that the more brand knowledge (awareness and positive image) an
individual has, the more he is likely to be responsive to the brand and initiate the purchase.
Ghose and Lowengart (2001) refer to the importance of taste tests of brands in order to
support marketing managers to be informed through this kind of research and make better
decisions regarding marketing segmentation, targeting and positioning.
In this case, based on a marketing experiment, the participant’s purchase intention towards
four ketchup brands (in their sweet alternative) found on the Romanian marketplace, (Hellmann’s,
Heinz, Yoky and Tomi) was measured and analyzed, taking into account two different dimensions:
based only on their taste (without seeing the brand) and based on both their taste and brand name.
Data and statistics obtained from the two situations are compared to discover if it is significant
divergent one from another, discovering the potential magnitude of the marketing influence of the
mentioned brands in the participant’s decision-making and buying process.
1
 2. Marketing experiment – literature review
Experiments can be applied in marketing research just as they are in multiple other
industries. Based on the decisional problem and the main objectives that need to be addressed in
research, the researchers choose their research design. Out of the three variants, exploratory
research, descriptive research and causal research, the last one is probably the most complex and
involves creating hypotheses that specify a relationship between two or more variables. In causal
research, specialists seek to get a grasp on a phenomenon which is explained with a conditional
statement “if-then” (Burns and Bush, 2014, p. 79). There are three conditions for causality:
concomitant variation, time order of occurrence of variables and elimination of possible causal
factors (Malhotra and Birks, 2006, p. 260).
The research hypotheses are either rejected or denied on the base of experiments, which
involves the manipulation of one or more independent variables in order to measure its effects on
the one or more dependent variables, taking into account the controlling of the extraneous
(external) variables. To be valid, experiments need to have internal validity (to actually present the
effects of the independent variables on the dependent variables, by limiting the extraneous
variables) and external validity (proving that the results of the cause-and-effect relationships can
be generalized to the whole population).
The independent variables (also known as treatments) are the ones being manipulated by
the researchers while the dependent variables are the ones that measure the effect of the
independent variables. Extraneous variables may have an extent of influence on a dependent
variable, but there should be attempts to keep them under control, since they might affect the
validity of the experiment. Other elements included in the process are test units, which are the
entities that are having their response to independent variables analyzed, and experimental design,
which is a set of procedures needed in order to correctly conduct the experiment, to make sure that
the dependent variables changes are taking place only because it is affected by independent
variables. In scientific literature, symbols are used for the description of experimental designs: O
(measurement of the dependent variable); X (manipulation of the independent variable); R
(random assignment of test units or groups to separate treatments). If the measurement of the
dependent variable is taken before manipulating the independent variable, it is called a pretest and
if this is done after, it becomes a posttest (Malhotra and Birks, 2006; Burns and Bush, 2014). The
classification of experimental designs can be seen in Figure 1. Pre-experimental designs are
2
characterized by lack of randomization. True experimental designs are more complex since the
researcher used randomization and assigns test units and treatments. In the quasi-experimental
designs, the researcher lacks control over the scheduling of treatments. In statistical designs,
multiple experiments are conducted at the same time and it the most advanced experiment design.
Figure 1 Experiment design classification

Source: Malhotra and Birks (2006, p. 269).

Other classification of experiments is based on the place the experiment is conducted. One
option for the researches is to host a field experiment, where the location fits actual market
conditions, a realistic environment. In this specific case, control, reaction errors, internal validity
are all low. Costs are high, it is not easy to implement, it takes a long time but you can employ it
to a larger sample size and the external validly (the one implying generalization) is high. On the
other hand, the researcher may decide to host the experiment in a laboratory, an artificial
environment build by him, where the factors of comparison are the exact opposite of the field
experiment. As the research objectives are created, they should be taken into consideration when
deciding on which type of experiment to organize, but there are also other facts to considered such
as time, cost and administration, which can prove to be a limitation in their desired design.
Experiments can be very time-consuming especially if they take place on the long-run and
de researcher desires to discover long-term effects of the applied treatment. Often, business don’t
have this much time since they are always in the presence of pressure coming from competitor
moves. Experiments are most of the time expensive if conducted at a professional scale, and the
requirements, as well as the complexity of their design substantially adds to the cost. Lastly, they
are hard to be administered and the control of extraneous variables may be impossible in some

3
cases, resulting in added invalidity in the final results. Those limitations should be taken into
consideration before starting the experiment (Malhotra and Birks, 2006, pp. 263-280).
Experiment’s most frequent application is in text marketing (market testing), where a
controlled, limited experiment is usually deployed in different cities before penetrating a market
with a new product or modifying an existing’s product marketing mix. Most common test
marketing types are: standard, controlled, electronic and stimulated (Burns and Bush, 2014, p. 85).
In the application of specific experiments, Ghose and Lowengart (2001), stated the
difference between blind and branded taste-tests, as presented in Figure 2 below. In their study
they refer to branded tests presenting a more realistic view of the market compared to the blind-
tests, as knowing the brand takes into account the marketing efforts of the company which are
attractive to the consumers, but such an experiment will tell you they just exist, without revealing
which one have influence in clear. On the opposite, blind testing gives a coherent information
about taste preferences of participants.
Figure 2 Differences between blind and branded taste-test

Source: Ghose and Lowengart (2001, p.30)

3. Decisional problem
This project takes into account the food product ketchup. Since there are a variety of
versions for this culinary condiment item, the experiment was applied on sweet tomato ketchup.
Mordor Intelligence (2019) states that in 2015, the market for ketchup was valued at 4.15 billion
US dollars and constantly growing. The market is influenced by changing dietary habits,
preference for western lifestyle & culture, consumption of exotic flavors but also there are certain
factors that affect the market such as: presence of product alternatives (other sauces) and lower
consumption of products with sugar.
In Romania, according to Retail-FMCG in 2014, the sauce and dressing market was
considered atypical in Romania, since it’s mostly limited to mustard, ketchup and mayonnaise,

4
while other countries prefer more diversity in this category. Another article from Vaschi, in 2018,
states that Romanians start using more sophisticated sauces and dressings, citing a 11% growth
compared to 2017, with tomato-based sauces being the most popular.
According to studies conducted in 2011 and 2013 by a market research company,
360insights, ketchup is consumed by 2 of 3 Romanians, with the majority being in the 16-24
demographic, from urban areas. In an aided brand awareness study, they managed to mention the
following ketchup brands: Tomi (92%), Regal (78%) followed by La Minut (59%) and Hellmann’s
(44%), which is the similar brand ranking in terms of consumer purchase. In Figure 3, the assisted
brand awareness was measured between multiple ketchups present on the Romanian market.
Figure 3 Aided brand awareness of ketchup brands on the Romanian market

Source: 360insights (2013)

Tomi is definitely the first choice of consumers (61% regular purchase and 50% most often
purchase), while Regal stands with 22% regular purchase in 2011. Emerging are retailer’s own
private brands. A study from 2015 stated Tomi, Heinz, Regal, Yoky and La Minut as having a
market share of 65.7% in value and 54.5% in volume (Tanase, 2015). The situation has slightly
shifted as of 2018, with Tomi, Heinz and La Minut owning 53.8% of the market share as top brands
(Vaschi, 2018). It is important to note that Tomi and La Minut are both owned by Orkla Foods
Romania.
Circled with red in Figure 3 are the brands taken into consideration for this experiment,
which were based on the store in which they were found – they were all the ketchup brands found
in Mega Image, Bucharest - and based on price difference and country of origin for the production.
They all are in their “original” version, with no additional flavors beside tomato. Hellmann’s
Classic Ketchup, which is produced by Unilever (produced in Poland) and costs 16.27 lei per
kilogram. Heinz Original Ketchup is the second ketchup, produced by Kraft Heinz (produced in
Holland), costing 17.51 lei per kilogram. Yoky (produced in Romania) is the third ketchup,
produced by Sitemani, and costs 4.70 lei per kilogram. The last ketchup was the top brand found

5
in Romania, Tomi, owned by Orkla Foods Romania (being also produced in Romania) which costs
10.86 lei per kilogram.
It is interesting about the products in the market that they are characterized by similarity,
since the taste variance between them is not extremely considerable, even remaining unnoticed by
certain individuals, and those differences are given by the small unique alterations in the recipe
since the base main ingredients remain tomato and sugar.
With this experiment, the main issue is to discover if the average ketchup consumer’s
purchase intention is affected by the brand (taking into consideration that for food usually the
sensory elements which showcase product preference should determine the decision to buy), and
to find out how knowing the brand of the product influences the consumer buying behavior.
In this way, we can determine if in the case of ketchup, individuals overlook the brand and
make a decision purely based on the trust they put in their own taste sensory system which
generated a preference for a product, or, on the opposite, the brand is a way more powerful
decision-making factor and it is more important than the taste.

4. Objectives
This experiment seeks to discover objectives that are primary and secondary. First of all,
the experiment involves the measuring of the purchase intention in two situations: based
exclusively on taste, without the participant knowing the brand of the ketchup and based on both
taste and the participant knowing what brand it is.

O1: The main objective is to analyze the purchase intention variation of the four aforementioned
ketchup brands for the ketchup consumers, between blind test and branded test, using statistical
tools to prove if there a statistically significant difference between the obtained results.

O2: The second objective is to rank the intention to buy of the four ketchup brands based on blind-
testing (perceptual preference) based on the computed average scores of each

O3: The third objective is to rank the intention to buy of the four ketchup brands based on the
branded test, based on the computed average scores of each.

O4: The fourth objective is to determine if there is an increased purchase intention in the branded
test for Romanian brands (Tomi, Yoky).

6
 5. Hypotheses
First of all, we formulated the main hypothesis which we conducted our experiment which
are based on the objectives mentioned above. Each one of them has a corresponding null
hypothesis, which is in contradiction to our hypothesis.

H1: The brand of ketchup influences purchasing decision, obtaining results which are significantly
different from the blind test.

H2: The best-tasting brand, according to international standards, Heinz (which is international
market leader according to Tanase, 2015), would have the highest intention of purchase based on
the average rating received following the blind test; this would be followed by Hellman’s, Tomi,
and Yoky (since the following brands are mentioned in price order).

H3: Based upon the average scores of each brand in the branded test, the intention to purchase
would be in the following order: Tomi, Heinz, Hellmann’s, and Yoky. (this hypothesis is built
upon the studies conducted in the Romanian sauces market).

H4: Based on the fact that Tomi is the most well-known brand in Romania, it is expected for it to
be the highest-ranked brand in terms of intention to purchase.

6. Sample
Since it is extremely time-consuming and expensive (and sometimes impossible) to
conduct a study on an entire population, it is more practical to conduct a study based on a sample.
A sample is a small portion of the entire population that is tested in order to represent the
population as a whole (Burns and Bush, 2014, p. 211 ). The sample size that was gathered consists
of 24 people, found in the Bucharest University of Economic Studies (ASE) building 1, floor 1 –
“Mihai Eminescu”, ranging in age from 19-23 years old, both male and female, regular consumers
of ketchup – they all have consumed ketchup at least once in the past three months. They were
split equivalently into two groups (one control group and one experimental group), male and
female based on a quota sampling of 59% female (7 in each group) and 41% males (5 in each
group), given the fact that ASE has more female students than male. These students were most
likely to be from the Marketing or Management faculties within ASE, due to the location of the

7
classes held in this area of the building, but this factor hasn’t been explicitly addressed in the
survey.
The sample design used was a nonprobability sample, where the participants were selected
at random with an unknown probability of being selected; the downside of the chosen sampling
method is that it is prone to human error and can be subconsciously biased (Burns and Bush, 2014,
p. 214). Since we were intercepting potential experiment participants in the ASE building, a
convenience sampling method was utilized. This is due to the fact that the sampling units were
handled by the interviewers and the sampling was made on students who just happened to be in
the right place at the right time. This sampling method has also helped us optimize the use of time
as a resource, and yet it generated insightful results for our study, which can be considered a pilot
experiment.

7. Researched population
In research, a population is defined as “the aggregate of all the elements that share some
common set of characteristics and that comprise the universe for the purpose of the marketing
research problem” (Malhotra and Birks, 2006, p. 357) and it should be precisely defined in order
to not be misleading, including a precise statement of who should and who should not be included
in the sample (Malhotra and Birks, 2006, p. 358).
According to the profile of the consumer build by 360insights research company in 2013,
a Romanian ketchup consumer is more likely to be between the ages of 16-24 years old, more
likely to live in urban areas and be a fan of American-inspired culture and cuisine. Obviously, they
are also consumers of pizza, as this is one of the main complementary food-types used with
ketchup as a condiment. Besides age and gender, other demographic factors were not taken into
consideration, including education level, income level or religious beliefs for the population of the
study. We decided to focus on the 18 years and older segment (since for minors you have different
procedures to be able to conduct the experiment).

8. Experimental model
The experimental model that best-fitted our experiment was a post-test only control group
design. This design does not involve any pre-measurements, and it is easy to implement in an
experiment. This design has drawbacks, for example, it is sensitive to selection bias and mortality

8
(when the participants give up the experiment during it), and it does not allow the researcher to
see any changes for the individual test units. The researched population is split into two groups: a
control group and an experimental group. It is formulated symbolically as:

EG: R X O1
CG: R O2

Note: EG stands for Experimental Group, CG stands for control group, R is the random assignment of test units or groups to
separate treatments, X is the exposure to a treatment and O is the observation/measurement of the dependent variable on the test
units.

For our experiment, the control group received a blind-test and did not know the brand,
while the experimental group knew what brands they were sampling. The treatment of the
experimental model is that the experimental group knows what brands they are tasting. The
measurement is taken after each of the groups fulfills the experiment, with the help of a survey in
which they state demographics (age and gender) and then participants rated the purchase intention
for each of the brands (Malhotra and Birks, 2006, p. 263; p. 271).

9. Procedure
In regards to the procedure, the purpose and objectives of the research were established by
the researching team and then a measurement questionnaire was designed, followed up by the
holding of the experiment. 24 individuals, 7 female and 5 males in each group were sampled at
convenience and availability, splitting them into groups based on the similarity in terms of
participant profile (age level, all are students).
We decided that the testing of the ketchup brands cannot be done simply and it’s
uncomfortable to taste a condiment by itself, therefore we thought of something to be tasted with.
The best solution was French fries, especially the ones from McDonald's which is a very popular
fast food and also has a very close location near the university. Other than that, we gathered all the
materials we needed in order to perform the experiment.
We went in the Eminescu building of the university, at the 1st floor and starting to prepare
the table firstly for the blindfold testing.
We noted the ketchup brands as “1,2,3,4” and put a plate with french fries before them.
After the control group finished the blind testing, we displayed the ketchup bottles to investigate

9
the influence of the brand on the buying intention of the participants, since this acted as the
treatment of our study.
The refusal rate was higher than expected, however, we managed to get a satisfying number
of questionnaires as we selected persons randomly.
Before the actual tasting, the subjects were asked about their age in order to match the
profile. We also made sure of any possible allergies and qualified our participants as ketchup
consumers, obviously receiving their consent for the experiment.

10. Tools
Before the actual testing, we needed to create the questionnaire and to purchase different
instruments in order to be complete.
The questionnaire that was given to the participants after tasting had two demographic
questions and a question regarding the purchase intent for each of the four brands, on a scale from
1 to 10, similar to the grading system where 1 is the lowest value standing for: “will definitely
never buy” and 10 is the highest value meaning: “will definitely buy”.
The most important tools, other than the questionnaire, were the bottles of ketchup - we
needed different brands and quality - which were bought from Mega Image. Also, from this shop
we got water for our subjects, napkins, plates and small recipients for the sauces. As mentioned
before, from McDonald’s we gathered the second important tool for this experiment: the French
fries, we bought 5 big portions. For the display, we set a poster for a better understanding of the
experiment.
This was made in a fun way. After we finished with the questionnaires, we used them in
order to introduce their results into SPSS for interpretation. We proceeded with different
descriptive statistics and univariate analysis.

11. Data analysis and results

IBM SPSS version 25 was used to interpret the data, for the analysis of the statistical
indicators. After the variables and data are coded and introduced in this software, the next step
includes the descriptive statistics resulting from our survey. The experiment had 24 participants.
Table 1 represents the gender distribution and Table 2 the age distribution, while Table 3 depicts
the descriptive statistics of the variable “age”.

10
 Table 1 Gender distribution of the participants in SPSS

Gender distributin of the participants

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Male 10 41,7 41,7 41,7
Female 14 58,3 58,3 100,0
Total 24 100,0 100,0

Table 2 Age distribution of the participants in SPSS

Age distribution of the participants

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 19 2 8,3 8,3 8,3
20 8 33,3 33,3 41,7
21 9 37,5 37,5 79,2
22 3 12,5 12,5 91,7
23 2 8,3 8,3 100,0
Total 24 100,0 100,0

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the age variable of the participants

Statistics
Age
N Valid 24
Missing 0
Mean 20,79
Std. Error of Mean ,217
Median 21,00
Mode 21
Std. Deviation 1,062
Variance 1,129
Range 4
Minimum 19
Maximum 23

11
 Before diving into the test statitics to refer to the main hypothesis of the research, the
average scores of each brand of ketchup, discovered in both the blind test and the branded test are
calculated (as seen in Table 4) to find out how those brands rank competitively, to answer to our
second, third and fourth objectives.
Table 4 Average purchase intention scores (based on a 1-10 scale), in the blind and branded test

Ketchup Brand Blind test mean score Branded test mean score Difference
Hellmann's 8,58 7,08 -1.5
Heinz 7,17 7,83 +0.66
Yoky 5,08 5,17 +0.09
Tomi 5,5 8,58 +3.08

There is a noticable variance coming from both tests, especially for the brands Tomi (3.05
in favour of the purchase intention in the branded test) and Hellmann’s (1.5 in favour of the blind
test). Heinz and Yoky only record small differences. At first sight, the discrepancy between the
control group values and experimental group values are noticable, but those should be tested using
statistical tools. According to the ranking in the Table above, we can not accept H2, since the
highest intention to purchase based on the blind taste test is Helmann’s (8.58 average), followed
by Heinz, Tomi and Yoky. We can accept H3, since the ranking obtained in the branded test is in
corellation with the data from the secondary research conducted prior, reffering to the consumer
behaviour in regards to ketchup on the Romanian market. H4 is partially confirmed given the fact
that the country of origin effect was not particularly studied, but yet Tomi recorded a way higher
gap between the two purchase intention tests.
Moving on to the applying of statistical tests, given the fact that the experiment had metric
data and we have two samples, an independent samples t-test is used as a univariate technique, and
more than that, it fit because the research onvolved the mean of two different sample groups, out
of which one was subjected to treatment. The following hypothes are tested and the results of the
test can bee seen in Table 5.

H0: µ1 = µ2 ("the two population means are equal")

H1: µ1 ≠ µ2 ("the two population means are not equal")

(Kent State University, 2019)

12
Table 5 Independent sample t-test applied to the purchase intention variation of the blind and branded
test

Group Statistics
Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Intention to purchase the Control Group 48 6,50 2,917 ,421
ketchup brands Experimental Group 48 7,17 2,391 ,345

In the Independent Samples Test table, Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances has a
significance level of 0.161, which is higher than the p value of 0.05, resulting that we can not reject
the null hypothesis which states that the variance of the two groups is equal. Analysing further the
significance of the two-tailed t test it has a value of 0.224. In this case, being higher than the p of
0.05, we cannot reject H0 which states that the two populations means are equal. So, the differences
recorded between the control group and the experimental group given by the independent variables
(the treatment applied – presence of the brand name) regarding the purchase intention of ketchup
brands on the Romanian market are not significant.
In order not to make our final conclusions based on a single test, One-Way ANOVA
(„analysis of varaince”) was also used as a univariate analysis technique, to determine if whether
there is statistical evidence that the associated population means are significantly different,
resulting of a change in the responses of the experimental group which had the treatment applied.
The hypotheses are as following:

H0: µ1 = µ2 = µ3 = ... = µk ("all k population means are equal")

H1: At least one µi different ("at least one of the k population means is not equal to the others")
µi is the population mean of the ith group (i = 1, 2, ..., k)

(Kent State University, 2019)

13
 Table 6 One-Way ANOVA of the blind and branded taste tests
ANOVA
SS df Mean Square F Sig.
1 - Hellmann's Between Groups 13,500 1 13,500 1,982 ,173
Within Groups 149,833 22 6,811
Total 163,333 23
2 - Heinz Between Groups 2,667 1 2,667 ,704 ,410
Within Groups 83,333 22 3,788
Total 86,000 23
3 - Yoky Between Groups ,042 1 ,042 ,005 ,945
Within Groups 188,583 22 8,572
Total 188,625 23
4 - Tomi Between Groups 57,042 1 57,042 15,703 ,001
Within Groups 79,917 22 3,633
Total 136,958 23

As seen in Table 6, viewing the ANOVA output for each brand in part; given that the
significance level for Tomi is 0.001, lower than the p value of 0.05, we conclude that the mean of
the purchase intention is significantly different at least for one of the brands, presenting a
significant variation between the blind taste test and the branded taste test (we accept H1 on the
base of the One-Way ANOVA results). Thus, for Tomi, purchase intention is significantly
different in the two cases. For the other brands, the significance in the table is higher than p=0.05.

12. Conclusions
Taking into account the results obtained and the output presented in Tables 4, 5 and 6, we
can partially accept the fact that the presence of the brand name in the taste test has had some
impact over the buying intention of our participants, even though it is statistically significant only
in the case of the Tomi brand. This was expected, since Tomi is the number one Ketchup brand in
Romania in brand awareness and brand loyalty (as is stated in chapter 3) and has had over the
course of time extensive marketing efforts and it is also priced decently, at approximately 10 lei
per kilogram. The fact that it is a “Romanian brand” and it produced in Romania may also generate
the country-of-origin (COO) effect, but this should be proposed for a future research. However, it
is important to state that Tomi occupied the 3rd out of 4 position in our taste ranking, being

14
surpassed by competitor ketchup brands coming as exports from multinational companies
(Unilever and Kraft Heinz), which are also more expensive.
In Hellmann’s case, even though it is the best tasting one from the results, people are more
likely to associate this brand with mayonnaise, even though the multinational Unilever invests
heavily in advertising and Hellmann’s entered the sauces category in the same time with
mayonnaise, ketchup and mustard. Yoky is coming from the low-price category and the brand is
not engaged in any significant or known marketing activity, thus is has a significantly lower brand
awareness. Surprisingly, Heinz, the worldwide best perceived ketchup brand, recorded only a
small variation in buying intention caused by respondents knowing what brand they were testing.
Given the small sample, the nonprobability sampling method and the pilot-characteristic
of this experiment, it must be said that further research is needed in order to support the evidence
of brands influence on consumer buyer behavior in this product category since this experiment is
subjected to multiple biases given the limitations mentioned.

13. References
1. 360insigts, 2013. Sosuri: Ketchup & Mustar. [online] Available at: <https://www.360insights.eu/ro/sauces-
ketchup-mustard/> [Accessed 23 May 2019].
2. American Marketing Association, 2019. AMA Dictionary [online]. Available at: <https://marketing-
dictionary.org/b/brand/#cite_ref-1> [Accessed 22 May 2019].
3. Burns, A., C. and Bush, R., F., 2014. Marketing Research (7th edition). London: Pearson.
4. Ghose, S. and Lowengart, O, 2001. Taste tests: Impacts of consumer perceptions and preferences on brand
positioning strategies. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing [e-journal] (10) 1: 26-41.
Available through Springer Link. [database] Available at: <
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740031.pdf> [Accessed 22 May 2019].
5. Kent State University, 2019. SPSS Tutorials: Independent Samples t Test. [online] Available at: <
https://libguides.library.kent.edu/spss/independentttest> [Accessed 24 May 2019].
6. Kent State University. 2019. SPSS Tutorials: One-Way ANOVA. [online] Available at: <
https://libguides.library.kent.edu/SPSS/OneWayANOVA> [Accessed 24 May 2019].
7. Malhotra, N., K., and Birks, D., F., 2006. Marketing Research: An Applied Approach (2nd European Edition).
Harlow: Prentice Hall.
8. Mordor Intelligence, 2019. Global Ketchup Market - Segmented by Product Ingredients Type (Tomato Ketchup,
Mushroom Ketchup, Mustard Ketchup, Fruit & Nut Ketchup), By Application (Food Services, Direct Family
Consumption, Other Cooking Applications), By Distribution Channel (Speciality Stores, Online Stores, Super
Markets/ Hyper Markets, Convenience Stores, Departmental Stores), By Geography - Growth, Trends And
Forecasts (2019 - 2024) [online]. Available at: < https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-
reports/ketchup-market> [Accessed 23 May 2019].
9. Retail-FMCG.ro, 2014. Piata de sosuri, dressinguri si condiment din Romania este una atipica. [online] Retail
FMCG. Available at: < https://www.retail-fmcg.ro/continut-premium/piata-de-sosuri-dressinguri-si-
condimente-din-romania-este-una-atipica.html> [Accessed 23 May 2019].
10. Sarwar, F., Aftab, M. and Iqbal, M., T., 2014. The Impact of Branding on Consumer Buying Behaviour.
International Journal of Technology and Research [e-journal] (2): 54-64. Available thorugh Research Gate

15
 (database). Available at:
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309563927_The_Impact_of_Branding_on_Consumer_Buying_Beha
vior> [Accessed 22 May 2019].
11. Solomon, M., Russell-Bennett, R. and Previte, J., 2012. Consumer Behaviour (3rd edition). London: Pearson.
12. Tanase, M., 2015. Alimentația sănătoasă atinge și piața sosurilor. [online] Magazinul Progresiv. Available at: <
https://www.magazinulprogresiv.ro/articole/alimentatia-sanatoasa-atinge-si-piata-sosurilor> [Accessed 23 May
2019].
13. Vaschi, M., 2018. Se schimbă gusturile: românii preferă tot mai mult sosurile și dressingurile sofisticate.
[online] Revista Piata. Available at: < https://www.revista-piata.ro/fmcg/analize-si-tendinte/alte-produse-
alimentare/item/13944-se-schimba-gusturile-romanii-prefera-tot-mai-mult-sosurile-si-dressingurile-sofisticate>
[Accessed 23 Mary 2019].

16