REPORT

ON
BRAND AWARENESS AS AN ANTECEDENT OF
BRAND LOYALTY (UBER EATS)

SUBMITTED BY : GROUP - 6
 RASHMI KUMARI (MBA/10003/18)
 TRINAY KUMAR (MBA/10011/18)
 RAVI KUMAR (MBA/10020/18)
 AKANSHA (MBA/10043/18)
 DIVYA DARSHNA (MBA/10049/18)
 PRAGYA (MBA/10054/18)
 KAJAL TRIPATHI (MBA/10069/18)
 DEVIKA (MBA/10070/18)
 SWARNIM ASHA MINZ (MBA/10078/18)

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

DR. SHRADDHA SHIVANI
DEPT. OF MANAGEMENT
BIT MESRA

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
“Such Thanks I give as near death to those that wish him Live”- Shakespeare

A formal statement of acknowledgement will hardly meet the ends of justice in

the matter of expressing our deep sense of gratitude and obligation to all those
who helped us in the completion of this project report.

The past three months working on this project under the guidance of our
subject teacher has greatly influenced our way of thinking towards facing the
challenges during day-to-day development of this project. This will help us a lot
in future as we move further ahead in my professional life in the days to come.

We are especially indebted to our HOD, DR.  SHRADDHA SHIVANI, without

whose precious time & expert guidance, the project would not have taken the
current shape. Her guidance and in depth knowledge of research concepts
have boosted our confidence to complete this project successfully. She made
the intricacies of the existing project clear to us. She deserves special thanks
for her technical guidance throughout the project. She was highly supportive
to develop this project.
Last but not the least I would also like to express my gratitude to all faculty
members and all our friends who helped us a lot throughout this project.

RASHMI KUMARI (MBA/10003/18)

TRINAY KUMAR (MBA/10011/18)
RAVI KUMAR (MBA/10020/18)
AKANSHA (MBA/10043/18)
DIVYA DARSHNA (MBA/10049/18)
PRAGYA (MBA/10054/18)
KAJAL TRIPATHI (MBA/10069/18)
DEVIKA (MBA/10070/18)
SWARNIM ASHA MINZ (MBA/10078/18)

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION -4-

2. COMPANY PROFILE -5-

3. RESEARCH PROBLEM AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE -6-

4. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS AND RESEARCH DESIGN -7-

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY -8-

6. DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION 9-21

7. FINDINGS -22-

8. LIMITATIONS -23-

9. SUGGESTIONS -24-

10. CONCLUSION -25-

11. REFERENCES -26-

12. QUESTIONNAIRE 27-31

3|Page
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
 Brand awareness refers to the extent to which customers are able to

recall or recognize a brand. Brand awareness is a key indicator of a

brand’s competitive performance.

 Brand loyalty is the pattern of consumer behavior through which

consumers tend to get committed to a specific brand and make repeat

purchases over time.

 The research aims at the association of brand awareness and brand

loyalty. So we are considering the example of Uber eats to depict the

association.

 Uber eats need to handle challenges and increase its market penetration

in a highly competitive environment with already established players like

swiggy, food panda, etc.

4|Page
 CHAPTER 2
COMPANY PROFILE
Uber Eats is a company operating a food delivery platform. Its product, the

Uber Eats app, provides full menus from a range of local restaurants, allows

clients to place an order and track the delivery. It is Subsidiary company. Its

parent company is Uber. Its headquarter is in San Francisco. It was founded in

the year 2004. The revenue of Uber eats for year 2018 is $1.5 billion. Which is

a 148.7 % increase from previous year. Its competitors are swiggy and food

panda.

5|Page
 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH PROBLEM

 Lack of awareness about the brand ‘Uber Eats’ in the market.

 Lack of brand loyalty of Uber Eats among its consumers.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

 To determine the creation of brand awareness of Uber Eats and its effect

on brand loyalty.

 To examine the factor affecting brand loyalty of Uber Eats.

 To determine the creation of brand awareness of Uber Eats and its effect

on brand loyalty.

 To examine the factor affecting brand loyalty of Uber Eats.

6|Page
 CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

 H1 : Brand Awareness as defined by Brand recall, is significantly related

to “Intention to buy”

 H2 : Brand Awareness as defined by Brand recognition, is significantly

related to “Intention to buy”

 H3 : Brand loyalty as defined by Brand satisfaction, is significantly related

to “Repeat purchase”

 H4 : Brand loyalty as defined by attitude, is significantly related to

“Repeat purchase”

RESEARCH DESIGN
 Analytical research followed by the conclusive research.

 Structured questionnaire has been distributed and the data collected

has been analyzed in order to conduct the study.

 Sample universe contains the population of pan India.

7|Page
 Sample size is of 60 people

CHAPTER 5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 RESEARCH TYPE

Exploratory research /Analytical research followed by the descriptive

research through a structured questionnaire.

 DATA TYPE

Primary Data - Questionnaire (Online)

Secondary Data - Journals, surveys, research papers, report publications.

 SAMPLE SELECTION

 Sample design

Non-Probability, convenient sampling was used during the project.

 Universe

All consumers of uber eat in all over the country.

The sample universe contains the population of the country.

 Sample size – 60

 TOOLS OF ANALYSIS :

 Percentage Method

8|Page
  Correlation Method

 Chi-square Test

CHAPTER 6
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Analysis of data is a process of inspecting, cleaning, transforming and
modelling data with the Goal of highlighting useful information, suggesting
conclusion and supporting decision making.
Data analysis has multiple facets and approaches, encompassing diverse
techniques under a variety of names, in different business, science and social
science domains. Data analysis involves the systematic application of statistical
tools.
Data analysis has multiple facets business, science and social domains.
Interpretation is a function that provides the extension of symbols strings of
symbols of an object language.

Interpretation: According to this data most of the respondents are

9|Page
 between the age group of 20-30 years

Interpretation : Among those 43.3% respondents are male and rest

56.7% respondents are female

10 | P a g e
 Interpretation : According to this 56.7 % of the respondents are students
and rest 43.3% respondents are job holders in various
organizations.

Interpretation : According to this data 78.3% of the respondents have no

source of income.

Interpretation : According to this data 95% of the respondents prefer

ordering food online.

11 | P a g e
Interpretation : According to this data we got to know that swiggy food
delivery service is most popular among the respondents and
Uber eats stands second in terms of popularity.

Interpretation : According to this data Swiggy services are good in packaging,

quality of service, on time delivery and wide selection of food
in comparison to all other food delivery service companies.

12 | P a g e
Interpretation : According to this data Swiggy has the highest i.e. 71.7%
responses in its easy accessibility in ordering food, while Uber
eats has only 15% in easy accessibility to order foods in
comparison to the other companies.

Interpretation : According to this data the respondents rank the overall

services of the company they use to order food, neutrally
(neither the best nor the worst).

13 | P a g e
Interpretation : According to this data it shows that most of the respondents
i.e. 73.3% are loyal to the particular food delivery service the
use.

Interpretation : According to this data most of the respondents i.e. 40% are
more likely willing to try new alternative for food delivery
service, while 28.3% of the respondents are neutral on their
decisions.

14 | P a g e
Interpretation : According to this data Uber eats is ranked neutrally, neither
good nor poor, Food Panda is also ranked neutrally, Eat 24 is
also ranked neutrally, while swiggy is ranked good for its food
delivery service.

Interpretation : According to this data most of the respondents i.e. 68.3%

likely tends to suggest others to buy food online through
swiggy, and only 18.3% of the respondents likely tends to
suggest others to buy food online through uber eats, as
compared to the other companies which means that swiggy
has the highest preference among all the food delivery service
companies.

15 | P a g e
Interpretation : According to this suggestions we find that most of the
respondent’s top concern in ordering the food online is its
packaging, on time delivery, quality of food and taste, fast
delivery with some less delivery charge, etc.

CO-RELATION ANALYSIS TEST INTERPRETATION

 By conducting correlation analysis on brand recall, i.e. Q. No. 9 (X)and
intention to buy, i.e. Q.no. 10 (Y)it can be inferred that the two variables
have weak relationship as r = 0.1 28.
 It refers that “brand recall” does not strongly affects “intention to buy”.
 Correlating brand recognition, i.e. Q. No. 08(X) and intention to buy, i.e.
Q. No. 10 (Y),it can be inferred that X and Y have weak relationship as r=
0.00 158.
 It refers that “brand recognition” does not strongly affect “intention to
buy”.
 Correlating brand satisfaction, i.e. Q. No. 13(X)and intention to buy, i.e.
Q. No. 10 (Y)it can be inferred that X and Y have weak relationship as r =
0.12 15.

16 | P a g e
  It refers that “brand satisfaction” does not strongly affect “intention to
buy”.
 Similarly correlating attitude, i.e., Q. no. 15 (X) and repeat purchase, i.e.
Q. No 19 (Y) it can be inferred that X and Y have weak relationship as r = 0.
0674.
 It refers that “attitude” does not strongly affect “ intention to buy”.

CHI SQUARE DATA HYPOTHESIS TEST

HYPOTHESIS 1
  Less Frequently Few More Frequently  
 Observed times a
week
Heard 9 19 5 33
Not Heard 10 15 2 27
  19 34 7 60

Expected Less Few times a More  

Frequently week Frequently
Heard 10.45 18.7 3.85 33

Not Heard 8.55 15.3 3.15 27

  19 34 7 60

Chi square value=0.54304

Degree of freedom v=(r-1)(c-1)
=2
Table value=5.991
Thus Null Hypothesis is accepted.

17 | P a g e
HYPOTHESIS 2
observed      
  heard of(1) not heard(0)  
most often 11 8 19
used(1)
used 17 17 34
sometimes(2)
less often 5 2 7
used(3)
  33 27 60

expected      
  heard of(1) not heard(0)  
most often 10.45 8.55 19
used(1)
used 18.7 15.3 34
sometimes(2)
less often 3.85 3.15 7
used(3)
  33 27 60

Chi square value=0.5567

Degree of freedom v=2
Table value =5.99
Null hypothesis is selected (as chi square value is less than table value)

18 | P a g e
HYPOTHESIS 3
Observed Rank
best neutral
uber eats(1) 3 4 7
Company food panda(2) 6 4 10
Eat 24(3) 1 2 3
swiggy(4) 13 27 40
23 37 60

Expected Rank
best neutral
uber eats(1) 2.683333 4.31 7
Company food panda(2) 3.83 6.16 10
Eat 24(3) 1.15 1.85 3
swiggy(4) 15.33 24.66 40
23 37 60
Chi square value=0.448
Degree of freedom v=3
Table value =7.814
Null hypothesis is selected (as chi square value is less than table value)

HYPOTHESIS 4
Observed Rank
best neutral
uber eats(1) 3 4 11
Company food panda(2) 6 4 5
Eat 24(3) 1 2 3
swiggy(4) 13 27 41
23 37 60

19 | P a g e
 Expected Rank
best neutral
uber eats(1) 4.21 6.78 11
Company food panda(2) 1.91 3.08 5
Eat 24(3) 1.15 1.85 3
swiggy(4) 15.71 25.28 41
23 37 60

Chi square value=0.011008

Degree of freedom v=3
Table value =7.814
Null hypothesis is selected (as chi square value is less than table value)

CHI SQUARE HYPOTHESIS TEST ANALYSIS

 In Chi square test Chi square value of Question. No. 09 & Q. No- 10 is
0.54304;is less than table value 5.5 (Degree of freedom being 2); the null
hypothesis is accepted.
 It means that brand awareness defined by brand recall is not
significantly related to intention to buy as it is affected by other factors.
Brand awareness must be for the preceded to knowledge for the leading to
liking, then preference followed by conviction to finally lead to intention to
buy, i.e, purchase.
 Similarly Chi square value of Q. No. -08 & Q.no- 10 is 0.5567; is less than
table value 5.99;( Degree of freedom being 2),the null hypothesis is
accepted.
 It refers that brand awareness as defined by brand recognition is not
significantly related to intention to buy, customers who are aware of the
brand may not turn up to be ultimate customers of the brand just for the
fact that the brand is known and recognisable.
 The chi-square value of Q. No. 13 & Q. No-10 is 0.448 is less than table
value, i.e. 7. 814 (Degree of freedom being 3), the null hypothesis is
accepted.

20 | P a g e
 It refers the brand loyalty defined by brand satisfaction is not
significantly related to intention to buy as consumer may switch brand due
to price sensitivity even if they are satisfied with the brand.
 The chi-square value of Q.no.-15 & 19 is 0.011008,is less than table
value, i.e. 7.81(degree of freedom being 3),the null hypothesis is accepted.
 It refers that brand loyalty as defined by attitude is not significantly
related to repeat purchase.

21 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 7
FINDINGS
1. Uber eats is not as popular as other food delivery due to lack of its
awareness among the customers.
2. Uber failed to create Trust among the customers through its services.
3. Uber in comparison to its competitors failed to provide on time delivery
to its customers i.e. It has long delivery wait times.
4. Uber cannot retain its customer due to poor service quality.
 
It was also found that Zomato acquired Uber Eats on date due to the reason
that Uber eats was working with the minimum funding, it was rivalling against
the stronger communications from its competitors.
It had disadvantages of being a late entrant and not having a separate identity.
It also got side-lined from the parent company and offering deep discounting.
 
These were the factors that led to its decline and in spite of having its parent
company name, deep discounting offers, Uber eats failed to gain customer’s
preferences, as the customers had lack of awareness regarding this food
delivery app and preferred to use other food delivery apps instead of Uber
eats, which also showed its less Brand loyalty.

22 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 8
LIMITATIONS
 Time constraint

 Limited sample size

 Lack of professionalism

 Ambiguous response

23 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 9
SUGGESTIONS
 The marketers should try to make faster delivery.
 The marketers should also focus on good packaging, quality of service, on
time delivery and wide selection of food to attract customers as it is an
influencing factor to get an edge over competitors.
 The marketers should increase interaction with audiences on various social
media platforms.
 The marketers should grab the attention of target audiences by use of
catchy taglines.
 The reply to complaints by customers should be prompt and efficient.
 The marketers should do various campaigns, events and use hashtags to
reach a large no. of audiences.

24 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 10
CONCLUSION
 The research was conducted with sample size 60.
 Tools used to analyze: Percentage Method, Co-relation Method and Chi-
Square test.
 45% of respondents recalls Uber eats while ordering food online but
from the above research it seems that they very less often used this
delivery service for ordering food.
 Uber eats is not as popular food delivery due to lack of awareness
among customers.
 According to the research, Uber Eats is lowest in easy accessibility to
order food online compared to swiggy.

25 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 11
REFERENCES
 https://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/brand-awarenesson-
brand-loyalty-marketing-essay.php
 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322233878_The_Effect_of_
Brand_Awareness_on_Brand_Loyalty_Mediating_Role_of_Brand
_Commitment
 https://www.ubereats.com/
 https://www.businessinsider.in/advertising/brands/article/what-
went-wrong-with-uber eats/articleshow/73511465.cms
 Kevin Lane Keller, Strategic Brand Management 4th Edition (Pearson
Publication)

26 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 12
QUESTIONNAIRE

27 | P a g e
28 | P a g e
29 | P a g e
30 | P a g e
31 | P a g e