Consumer Bheaviour Packaged Drinking Water

CHAPTER IV
CONSUMERS' PERCEPTION ON
PACKAGED DRINKING WATER
Introduction
Consumer behaviour is the study of when, why, how, and where people do or do
not buy a product. It blends elements from psychology, sociology, social anthropology
and economics. It attempts to understand the buyer decision making process, both
individually and in groups. It studies characteristics of individual consumers such as
demographics and behavioural variables in an attempt to understand people's wants.
It also tries to assess influences on the consumer from groups such as family, friends,
reference groups, and society in general.1
Consumers Behaviour
Consumers are growing more health-conscious and are more careful of their
drinking habits. Brand loyalty is very high as all the products differ in taste. So they can
buy product which is on the shelf, same as that of soft drink and fruit beverage.
Availability in the chilled form and brand awareness plays a crucial role in purchase
decisions. Availability is another factor that should be taken care of by the companies as
consumers depend on availability of the products.
Consumers often drink packaged drinking water as an alternative to tap water.

They think it tastes better (no chlorine taste) and perceive it to be safer and of better
quality. They also look for security. Food scandals in industrialized countries and
waterborne diseases in developing countries greatly influence consumers‟ attitudes.
It is perceived as a healthy alternative to other beverages.
Higher living standards and auto usage enable people to easily bring home more and
heavier packaged drinking water. At the office, packaged drinking water is now a common
1
J. Scott Armstrong (1991). "Prediction of Consumer Behavior by Experts and Novices", Journal of
Consumer Research Inc. pp. 251–256
103
Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

sight on the desk next to the computer and the telephone. Drinking packaged drinking water
is a sign in the social scale. Above all, it has become a huge marketing success.
Model followed for the study
The black box model shows the interaction of stimuli, consumer characteristics, and
decision process and consumer responses.2 It can be distinguished between interpersonal
stimuli (between people) or intrapersonal stimuli (within people). The black box model is
related to the black box theory of behaviourism, where the focus is not set on the processes
inside a consumer, but the relation between the stimuli and the response of the consumer. The
marketing stimuli are planned and processed by the companies, whereas the environmental
stimuli are given by social factors, based on the economical, political and cultural
circumstances of a society.3 The buyers‟ black box contains the buyer characteristics and the
decision process, which determines the buyers‟ response. The black box model considers the
buyers response as a result of a conscious, rational decision process, in which it is assumed
that the buyer has recognized the problem. However, in reality many decisions are not made
in awareness of a determined problem by the consumer.
Figure - 4.1
Black Box Model (OR) Stimulus Response Model
ENVIRONMENTAL
BUYER'S BLACK BOX
FACTORS BUYER'S
Marketing Environmental Buyer Decision RESPONSE
Stimuli Stimuli Characteristics Process
Product Economic Attitudes Problem recognition Product choice
Price Technological Motivation Information search Brand choice
Place Political Perceptions Alternative Dealer choice
Promotion Cultural Personality evaluation Purchase
Demographic Lifestyle Purchase decision timing
Natural Knowledge Post-purchase Purchase
behaviour amount
2
J. Scott Armstrong (1991). "Prediction of Consumer Behavior by Experts and Novices". Journal of
Consumer Research, Inc.pp. 251–256
3
J. Scott Armstrong and Terry Overton (1971). "Brief vs. Comprehensive Descriptions in Measuring
Intentions to Purchase". 114-117
104

History
The modern term "black box" seems to have entered the English language around
1945. The process of network synthesis from the transfer functions of black boxes can be
traced to Wilhelm Cauer who published his ideas in their most developed form in 1941.4
Although Cauer did not himself use the term, others who followed him certainly did
describe the method as black-box analysis.5 Vitold Belevitch6 puts the concept of
black-boxes even earlier, attributing the explicit use of two-port networks as black boxes
to Franz Breisig in 1921 and argues that 2-terminal components were implicitly treated as
black-boxes before that.7
This Model also called the Stimulus Response Model is based on the Phylosofical
Theory of Behaviourism, which uses a metaphor of a black box to represent the human
mind, the internal processes that are unknown, and learning happens when a correct
response is demonstrated following the presentation of a specific environmental stimulus.
Emphasis is put on external, environmental variables and behaviour, where those are
observable and measureable.
The Black Box model shows the interaction between Marketing stimuli,
Environmental stimuli, buyer characteristics, the decision process and the outputs or
consumer responses. Marketing stimuli comprises all its 4 P's while the environmental
stimulus is composed of social, economical, technological and political variables. All of
these stimuli have a direct effect on the consumer's "black box" where the buyer's
characteristic such has attitudes, perception or personality and decision process will
produce an adequate response. By this model the consumer behaviour is dictated and
inferred directly from the response to the stimuli, in the form of retailer choice, brand
choice or for example purchase frequency has shown in the figure above.
4
W. Cauer. Theorie der linearen Wechselstromschaltungen, Vol.I. Akad. Verlags-Gesellschaft Becker und
Erler, Leipzig, 1941
5
E. Cauer, W. Mathis, and R. Pauli, "Life and Work of Wilhelm Cauer (1900 – 1945)", Proceedings of the
Fourteenth International Symposium of Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems (MTNS2000),
p4, Perpignan, June, 2000. Retrieved online 19th September 2008
6
Belevitch, V, "Summary of the history of circuit theory", Proceedings of the IRE, Vol. 50, Issue 5,
pp.848-855, May 1962
7
Boris, Beizer (1995). “Black-Box Testing: Techniques for Functional Testing of Software and Systems”,.
ISBN. 0471120944
105

The black box has a place of rational decision making where the decision process is
carried out in its full extension. But we now know that irrational decisions are made, and
this is a decisive critique to the model. As an extension of Behaviourism this knowledge
is based mainly on philosophical research and thought and not in science. All the
variables shown are accepted in most models but the core of this theory the black box has
been broken down today and it is no more a dark place. In recent neuroscience advances
and research we know what physiological processes are involved in decision making and
how they affect and influence our responses.
Figure - 4.2
Conceptual Model for Consumer
 Gender
 Age
 Education
Demographic factors
 Marital status
(Independent variables)
 Nature of house
 Occupation
 Monthly income
 Number of earning
members in family
Consumer
perception
 Product choice
(Dependent
 Brand choice
variable)
 Dealer choice
 Knowledge Psychological factors
 Purchase timing (Independent variables)
 Purchase amount
 Alternative
Source: developed for this research based on black box model
106

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Demographic Details of the Respondents
The demographic details of the respondents were collected to examine the

purchase behaviour of packaged drinking water. An effort has been made to study the
usage of the packaged drinking water among the consumers based on their physiological
and psychological needs and depending on their social-cultural role. Hence, the present
study considers gender, age, and education as an important demographic factor. Table 4.1
describes the distribution of respondents with reference to gender, age and education.
Table - 4.1
Demographic Details of the Respondents
Gender of the Respondents Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Male 364 63.0
Female 214 37.0
Age of the Respondents
18-27 years 117 20.2
28-37 years 244 42.2
38- 47 years 114 19.7
48- 57 years 71 12.3
Above 57 years 32 5.6
Education of the Respondents
School 57 9.9
Diploma 144 24.8
College 246 42.6
Professional 131 22.7
It is inferred from table 4.1 that out of 578 total respondents 63 per cent of the
respondents were males and 37 per cent of them were females. More than three - fifth of
the total respondents were male.
107

20.2 per cent of the respondents belonged to 18-27 years age group. 42.2 per cent
belonged to the age group of 28-37. Respondents belonging to the age group of 38-47
and 48- 57 years amount to 19.7 and 12.3 per cent respectively and 5.6 per cent of the
total respondents belonged to the age group of above 57 years. Majority of (42.2 %) the
respondents belonged to age group of 28-37 years.
It is also understood from the table 4.1 that 9.9 per cent of the respondents had
School education. 24.8 per cent of the respondents were Diploma holders. 42.6 per cent
had college education and 22.7 of the respondents have Professional education. Majority
(42.6%) of the respondents had college education.
Family Profile of the Respondents
Marital status and size of the family of the respondent will influence the buying of
packaged drinking water when the respondent is married; the decision on usage depends
upon the number of family members based on marital status. Table 4.2 illustrates the
information about the personal profile of the respondents such as marital status, nature of
house, type of family, and number of family members of the respondents.
Table - 4.2
Family Profile of the Respondents
Marital Status Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Married 355 61.4
Unmarried 223 38.6
Nature of House
Rented house 398 68.9
Own house 180 31.1
Size of Family Members
Up to 4 members 429 74.2
Above 4 members 149 25.8
Table 4.2 reveals that 61.4 per cent of total respondents were married and 38.6 per cent
of the respondents were unmarried. Majority (61.4%) of the respondents were married.
108

68.9 per cent of the respondents are residents in the rented houses and 31.1 per cent
of the respondents were residents of own house. Majority (68.9 %) of the respondents
were residents in rented house.
While considering the size of the family of the respondents , it was found that the
families of 74.2 per cent of the respondents had up to 4 members and 25.8 per cent of the
respondents‟ families had more than 4 members. Maximum (74.2%) of the respondents
had less than 4 members in their family.
Income Profile of the Respondents
Occupation tends to differentiate potential buyers in terms of their interest and

capacity to pursue their desires. Table 4.3 demonstrates information about the income of
the respondents such as occupation and monthly income of the family of the respondents.
Table - 4.3
Income Profile of the Respondents
Occupation of the Respondents Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Business 42 7.3
Private Employee 143 24.7
Marketing executive 157 27.2
Government Employee 52 9.0
Professional 54 9.3
Homemaker 82 14.2
Student 48 8.3
Monthly Income of the Family
Below Rs.10, 000 66 11.4
Rs.10,001-15,000 158 27.3
Rs. 15,001-20,000 199 34.4
Rs.20,001- 25,000 116 20.1
Above 25,000 39 6.9
109

It is known from Table 4.3 that 7.3 per cent of total respondents run business.
24.7 per cent of the respondents work in private sector, 27.2 per cent of the respondents were
marketing executives. 9.0 per cent and 9.3 per cent were government employee and
professionals, respectively 14.2 were homemakers and the remaining 8.3 per cent of the
respondents were student. The majority of (27.2%) the respondents were marketing executives.
It also reveals that 11.4 per cent of the total respondents come under the income
group less than 10,000 per month. 27.3 per cent of the respondents come under the
income group between Rs.10, 001-15,000. 34.4 per cent of the respondents come under
the income group of 15,001-20,000. 20.1 per cent of the respondents belonged to
Rs.20, 000- Rs.25, 000 and the remaining 6.9 per cent of the respondents come under the
income group of above Rs. 25,000 per month. Majority (34.4%) of the respondents come
under the income group of 15,001-20,000.
Sources of Knowledge about Packaged Drinking Water
Brand name plays a vital role in marketing of products. It tells about the quality, taste,
price and maintenance of standard. People get knowledge about the product on the basis of
advertisement in different sources. Table 4.4 exhibits the information about the brand
awareness and sources of knowledge about packaged drinking water of the respondents.
Table - 4.4
Sources of Knowledge about Packaged Drinking Water
Awareness of Packaged Drinking Water Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Yes 578 100
No Nil Nil
Sources about Packaged Drinking Water
Advertisement 43 7.4
Shopkeeper 26 4.5
Neighbour 101 17.5
Friends and relatives 133 23.0
Salesman 245 42.4
All 30 5.2
110

Table 4.4 implies that 100 per cent of total respondents were aware of the
packaged drinking water. It is also observed that 7.4 per cent of the respondents came to
know about packaged drinking water through advertisements, 4.5 per cent of the
respondents got knowledge about packaged drinking water through shopkeepers, 17.5 of
the respondents were introduced to packaged drinking water by neighbours, 23 per cent
of the respondents came to know about packaged drinking water through friends and
relatives, 42.4 per cent of the respondents became aware of the packaged drinking water
through salesmen and 5.2 per cent of the respondents came to know about packaged
drinking water through all the above mentioned sources. Majority (42.4 %) of the
respondents got knowledge about packaged drinking water through salesman.
Awareness through Media of advertisement

Advertising is a form of communication used to encourage or persuade an audience
(viewers, readers or listeners; sometimes a specific group of people) to continue or take
some new action. The purpose of advertising may also be to reassure employees or
shareholders that a company is viable or successful. Advertising messages are usually
paid for by sponsors and viewed via various traditional media; including mass media
such as newspaper, magazine, television commercial, radio advertisement, outdoor
advertising or direct mail; or new media such as blogs, websites or text messages.
Table 4.5 describes information about the awareness through media of advertisement
about packaged drinking water among the respondents.
Table - 4.5
Awareness through Media of Advertisement
Media of Advertisement Frequency Percentage

Newspaper and Magazine 1 2.3
Banners and Hoarding 4 9.3
Pamphlets and notice 5 11.6
Television 7 16.3
Radio 5 11.6
Window display 12 28.0
All 9 20.9
Total 43 100
111

It is observed from Table 4.5 that 2.3 per cent of respondents out of 43 total
respondents had the awareness of the packaged drinking water through newspaper and
magazine, 9.3 per cent and 11.6 per cent of the respondents had awareness through
banners and hoarding, pamphlets and notice. It also observed that 16.3 per cent and
28 per cent of the respondents came to know through television and radio, 11.6 per cent
and 20.9 per cent of the respondents got knowledge about packaged drinking water
through window display and all the sources respectively. Majority of (28.0%) the
respondents had awareness through media of advertisement by window display.
Purchase Time of Packaged Drinking Water
Packaged drinking water may be very useful and handy in times or place where tap
water is unavailable or of bad quality. Yet in most developed countries, as well as many
developing countries there is a good market for packaged drinking water of good quality.
Table 4.6 exhibits the information about the purchase time of packaged drinking water
among the respondents.
Table - 4.6
Purchase Time of Packaged Drinking Water
Purchase Time Frequency Percentage

Travel alone 34 5.9
Travel and Domestic use 147 25.4
Party time 79 13.7
Scarcity of water 77 13.3
Contamination in tap water 85 14.7
All 156 27.0
Total 578 100.0
Table 4.6 shows that 5.9 per cent of the total respondents purchased the packaged
drinking water at the time of travelling alone. 25.4 of the respondents purchased
packaged drinking water at time of travel and for domestic use. 13.7 per cent of the
respondents bought for party time, 13.3 per cent and 14.7 per cent of the respondents
112

bought when there was scarcity and contamination in tap water respectively. It was also
observed that 27 per cent of the respondents bought packaged drinking water all the time.
Majority of (27%) the respondents consumed packaged drinking water all the time.
Preference of Package by the Respondents

Consumers‟ preference of packaged drinking water depends on brand name, nature
of package and period of purchase. These factors play a vital role in marketing of
products. Hence these factors are examined in this present study. Table 4.7 explains the
preference of package by the respondents.
Table - 4.7
Preference of Package by the Respondents
Type of Packaged Drinking Water Frequency(N=578) Percentage
Branded 501 86.7
Branded and Non-Branded 77 13.3
Nature of package
Polyethylene pouch 43 7.4
PET Bottle 446 77.2
Both 89 15.4
It is clear from Table 4.7 that 86.7 per cent of respondents prefered branded
packaged drinking water. 13.3 per cent of the respondents prefered branded and also non-
branded. It also reveals that 7.4 per cent of the respondents prefered drinking water
packaged in Polyethylene pouches, 77.2 per cent of the respondents prefered drinking
water packaged in PET bottle and 15.4 of the respondents prefered both. Majority of
(86.7) the respondents prefered branded packaged drinking water.
Purchase Period of Packaged Drinking Water
Table 4.8 shows the distribution of the respondents‟ purchase period of packaged
drinking water such as Less than a year, 1-3 years, more than 3 years - 5 years, more than
5 years -7 years, more than 7-10 years, above 10 years.
113

Table - 4.8
Purchase Period of Packaged Drinking Water
Purchase Period of Packaged

Frequency(N=578) Percentage
Drinking water
Less than a year 22 3.8
1-3 years 81 14.0
More than 3 years - 5 years 206 35.6
More than 5 years -7 years 158 27.3
More than 7-10 years 55 9.6
Above 10 years 56 9.7
Table 4.8 reveals that 3.8 per cent of the respondents had been buying packaged
drinking water for less than a year. 14.0 per cent and 35.6 of the respondents had been
purchasing packaged drinking water for 1 year to 3 years and more than 3 years to 5
years respectively. 27.3 per cent and 9.6 per cent of the respondents had been purchasing
packaged drinking water for 5 years to 7 years and 7 years to 10 years respectively and
the remaining 9.7 per cent of the respondents had been purchasing packaged drinking
water for over 10 years. Majority (35.6%) of the respondents had been consuming
packaged drinking water for more than 3 years to 5 years.
Quantum of Purchase of Packaged Drinking Water at a Time
The quantity of monthly consumption of packaged drinking water differs.

It depends upon the need of the family. Table 4.9 indicates the quantum of packaged
drinking by a family in a month.
114

Table - 4.9
Quantum of Purchase of Packaged Drinking Water at a Time
Quantum of Purchase of Packaged

Frequency Percentage
Drinking Water at a Time
1 litre PET bottle 48 8.3
2 litre PET bottles 108 18.7
5 litre cans 66 11.4
20 litre cans 356 61.6
Total 578 100.0
It is confirmed from Table 4.9 that 8.3 per cent of respondents out of total
respondents purchased 1 litre packaged drinking water at a time. 18.7 per cent of the
respondents bought 2 litres at a time. 11.4 per cent of the respondents bought 5 litres at a
time and the remaining 61.6 per cent of the respondents purchased 20 litres at a time.
Majority of (61.6%) the respondents purchased 20 litre can at a time.
Purchase Point of Packaged Drinking Water
Packaged drinking water is available in all places throughout the city. People buy
packaged drinking water according to their needs. Table 4.10 shows the purchase point of
packaged drinking water, it is important to know from which place the consumers are
buying packaged drinking water such as from dealer point, medical shop, nearby place,
restaurant, grocery shop, soft drink shop, vendors in bus stand and railway, bakery and
from any place.
115

Table - 4.10
Purchase Point of Packaged Drinking Water
Purchase Point of Packaged Drinking Water Frequency Percentage
Dealer point 49 8.5
Medical Shop 47 8.1
Nearby place 68 11.8
Restaurant 58 10.0
Grocery Shop 40 6.9
Soft Drink Shop 86 14.9
Vendors in Bus Stand and Railway Station 56 9.7
Bakery 47 8.1
Any place 127 22.0
Total 578 100.0
It is known from table 4.10 that 8.5 per cent of respondents purchased packaged
drinking water from dealer point, 8.1 per cent and 11.8 per cent of the respondents
purchased packaged drinking water from medical shop and nearby place. 10.0 per cent
and 6.9 per cent of the respondents bought packaged drinking water from restaurant and
grocery shop respectively. 14.9 per cent and 9.7 per cent of the respondents bought
packaged drinking water from soft drink shop and vendors in bus stand and railway
station and the remaining 22.0 per cent of the respondents purchased packaged drinking
water from any place. Majority (22.0%) of the respondents purchased packaged drinking
water at any place.
116

Amount Spent for Purchasing of Packaged Drinking Water in a Month
Table 4.11 exhibits the distribution of respondents on the amount spent in a month
for packaged drinking water.
Table - 4.11
Amount Spent for Purchasing of Packaged Drinking Water in a Month
Amount Spent for Packaged

Drinking Water
Less than Rs.200 23 4.0
Rs.201-Rs.400 85 14.7
Rs.401- Rs.600 133 23.0
Above Rs.600 337 58.3
Total 578 100.0
It is clear from table 4.11 that 4.0 per cent of respondents spent less than
Rs. 100 per month for buying packaged drinking water. 14.7 per cent of the respondents
spent Rs. 201 – Rs. 400. 23.0 per cent of the respondents spent Rs.401 – Rs.600 and
58.3 per cent of the respondents spent above Rs. 600 per month. Majority of (58.0%) the
respondents spent above Rs. 600 in a month for packaged drinking water.
Checking the Content in the Label of Packaged Drinking Water
Consumer of any product should be careful while buying a packed product.

They should verify the expiry date, price etc. Table 4.12 explains whether the customer
check the information about packaged drinking water printed on the label and what are
the specific information they check.
117

Table - 4.12
Checking the information in the Label on Packaged Drinking Water
Checking the information in the Label on

Packaged Drinking Water
Yes 135 23.4
No 443 76.6
Total 578 100.0
Items Checked in the Label
Manufacture Date only 13 9.7
Price only 60 44.4
Both 62 45.9
Total 135 100.0
It is evident from the table 4.12 that out of 578 respondents 23.4 per cent of the
respondents did not check the information on the label of packaged drinking water and
76.6 per cent of the respondents checked the information in the label. Table 5.12 also
reveals that out of 135 respondents 9.7 per cent of the respondents checked manufacture
date only. 44.4 per cent of the respondent checked price only and the remaining 45.9 of
the respondents checked both. Majority (76.6%) of the respondents do not check the
information printed in the label.
Paying More than Maximum Retail Price for Packaged Drinking Water
Sometimes, consumers are forced to pay more than the maximum retail price for
the products which they purchase. Table 4.13 represents the distribution of respondents
who paid more than the maximum retail price and it also indicates the place where the
respondents paid more than the maximum retail price for packaged drinking water.
118

Table - 4.13
Paying More than Maximum Retail Price for Packaged Drinking Water
Paying More than Maximum Retail Price Frequency Percentage
Yes 93 76.2
No 29 23.8
Total 122 100.0
Place Paid More than Maximum Retail Place
Restaurant 10 10.8
Soft Drink Shop 21 22.6
Medical shop 14 15.0
Bus Stand and Railway station 48 51.6
Total 93 100.0
It is obvious from the table 4.13 that out of 122 respondents 76.23 per cent of them
paid more than the maximum retail price for packaged drinking water and 23.77 per cent of
the respondents did not pay more than maximum retail price for packaged drinking water.
Maximum (76.2%) of the respondents had paid more than the maximum retail price for
packaged drinking water.
Table 4.13 also exposes that 10.8 per cent of the respondents paid more than the
maximum retail price at restaurants. 22.6 and 15.0 per cent of the respondents paid more
than the maximum retail price at soft drink shops and medical shops respectively and the
remaining 51.6 of the respondents paid more than the maximum retail price at bus
stands and railway stations. Majority (51.6%) of the respondents paid more than the
maximum retail price at bus stands and railway stations.
Complaints against Packaged Drinking Water
Table 4.14 signifies the distribution of respondents regarding complaints made on

packaged drinking water regarding packing, quality, price and taste.
119

Table - 4.14
Complaints against Packaged Drinking Water
Have Complaints on Packaged Drinking Water Frequency Percentage
Yes 251 43.4
No 327 56.6
Total 578 100
If yes, the Complaint in the Nature
Packing 44 17.5
Quality 55 21.9
Price 72 28.7
Taste 80 31.9
Total 251 100
It is observed from the table 4.14 that out of 578 respondents who used packaged
drinking water, 43.4 per cent of the respondents had different kinds of complaints and
56.6 per cent of the respondents do not have any complaints on packaged drinking water.
Majority of (56.6%) of the respondents did not have any complaints on packaged
drinking water.
Table 4.14 also exposes that 17.5 per cent of the respondents have complaints on
packing; 21.9 per cent and 31.9 per cent of the respondents had complaints on quality and
price, the remaining 28.7 of the respondents had complaints on the taste of the packaged
drinking water. Majority (31.9%) of the respondents had complaints on the taste of the
Complaints made Regarding Packaged Drinking Water
Table 4.15 indicates the distribution of respondents who made complaints on

packaged drinking water to concerned seller or not.
120

Table - 4.15
Complaints Made Regarding Packaged Drinking Water
The Complainant Frequency Percentage
Seller 82 32.7
None 169 67.3
Total 251 100.0
It is evident from the table 4.15 that out of 251 respondents who had complaints
about packaged drinking water 32.7 per cent of the respondents had made complaints to
the seller and 67.3 per cent of the respondents did not make any complaints on packaged
drinking water. A majority (67.3%) of the respondents did not made complaint on
packaged drinking water to anyone.
Awareness about the Environment Impact of Packaged Drinking Water
The improper disposal of single-serving PET bottles used for bottled water can
cause a heavy burden on the environment. Although PET bottles recycling rate is
unknown at a global level, it is estimated to be very low. Data for the United States, the
leading country of bottled water consumption in the world, might roughly reflect the
global PET bottles recycling rate. There are real environmental impacts of extracting
large volumes of water from local aquifers and of producing and disposing of plastic
containers. It is estimated that $100 billion are conservatively annually spent to purchase
bottled water worldwide. It is the failure to meet basic human needs for water should not
open the door to replacing a public good with a private commodity, but rather should
motivate to spend the same resources to produce a more widely available, and far less
costly, public product. Table 4.16 shows the awareness about the environment impact of
packaged drinking water among the respondents.
121

Table - 4.16
Awareness about the Environment Impact of Packaged Drinking Water
Awareness about the Environment Impact Frequency Percentage

Yes 255 44.1
No 323 55.9
Total 578 100.0
If yes, the Nature of Impact on Environment known
Ground water exploitation 21 8.2
Usage of plastic for packing water 141 55.3
Both 93 36.5
Total 255 100.0
It is obvious from the table 4.16 that 44.1 per cent of the respondents were a
aware of the environment impact of packaged drinking water and 55.9 per cent of the
respondents were not aware of the environment impact of packaged drinking water.
Majority of (55.9%) of the respondents were not aware of the environment impact of
It also implies that 8.2 per cent of the respondents were aware of ground water
exploitation. 55.3 per cent of the respondents had awareness regarding usage of plastic
for packing water and 36.5 per cent of the respondents were aware of ground water
exploitation and usage of plastic for packing water. More than five-tenth of the
respondents were aware that usage of plastic will affect the environment.
Disposal of Non-Returnable Bottles by the Respondents
In terms of manufacturing costs, the Earth Policy Institute estimates that around
1.5 million tons of plastic are used globally each year in water bottles, Instead of relying
on a mostly pre-existing infrastructure of underground pipes and plumbing, delivering
bottled water to North America from far-off places such as Italy, France, Iceland, and the
islands of southern Pacific burns fossil fuels and results in the release of thousands of
tons of harmful emissions and pollutants. Table 4.17 indicates the disposing pattern of
non returnable bottle by the respondents.
122

Table - 4.17
Disposal of Non-Returnable Cans by the Respondents
After using the Non returnable Cane Frequency Percentage
Crush 494 85.5
Re-use 84 14.5
Total 578 100.0
If Crushed the Place of Disposal
Dustbin 150 30.4
Any place 344 69.6
Total 494 100.0
It is inferred from table 4.17 that 85.5 per cent of the respondents used to crush
the non-returnable bottles after using and 14.5 per cent of the respondents re-used the
non-returnable can. Majority of (85.5%) the respondents crushed the non-returnable
bottles after use.
It also reveals that out of 494 respondents, 30.4 per cent of the respondents
disposed the crushed cans in a dustbin properly. Whereas the remaining 69.6 per cent of
the respondents disposed the crushed cans at any place. Majority (69.6 %) of the
respondents disposed PET bottles at any place.
Re-Use of Non-Returnable Can and Awareness of Health Issues by the Respondents
Table 4.18 shows the reuse pattern of non-returnable bottle and awareness that re-
use of PET bottles will affect the health.
123

Table - 4.18
Re-Use of PET Bottles and Awareness of Health Issues by the Respondents
If re-use, Period of usage of the PET Bottle Frequency Percentage
1 Week 23 27.4
1 Month 51 60.7
More than 1 month 10 11.9
Total 84 100.0
Awareness that re-use of PET Bottle will Affect the

Health
Yes 38 45.2
No 46 54.8
Total 84 100.0
Table 4.18 reveals that out of 84 respondents 27.4 per cent of the respondents re-used
the PET bottle for one week, 60.7 per cent of the respondents re-used the PET bottle for
one month and 11.9 per cent of the respondents re-used the PET bottle for more than one
month. Majority of (60.7%) the respondents were re-using the PET bottle for one month.
It is also observed that 45.2 per cent of the respondents had the awareness that
re-use of can will affect the health and the remaining 54.8 per cent of the respondents
were not aware of the fact that the re-use of PET bottle will affect the health. Majority
(54.8 %) of the respondents did not have the awareness about the re-use of PET bottle
will affect the health.
Preference of Brand of Packaged Drinking Water by the Respondents
Brand personality is defined formally as the set of human characteristics

associated with a brand. Human personality perceptions are the basis of individual`s
behaviour, attitudes and beliefs, physical characteristics and demographic characteristics.
Table 4.19 illustrates which brand of packaged drinking water is preferred by the respondents.
124

Table - 4.19
Preference of Brand of Packaged Drinking Water by the Respondents
Brand Preference Frequency Percentage
Bisleri 94 16.3
Sabols 78 13.5
Kinley 70 12.1
Aqua sure 59 10.2
Kingfisher 43 7.4
Aquafina 102 17.6
Siruvani 48 8.3
Season 24 4.2
All 60 10.4
Total 578 100.0
Table 4.19 exhibits that out of 578 respondents 16.3 per cent of the respondents
preferred Bisleri, 13.5 percent of the respondents preferred Sabols, 12.1 percent of the
respondents preferred Kinley, 10.2 per cent of the respondents preferred Aquasure,
7.4 per cent of the respondents preferred Kingfisher, 17.6 per cent of the respondents
preferred Aquafina, 8.3 per cent of the respondents preferred Siruvani, 4.2 per cent of the
respondents preferred Season and the remaining 10.4 per cent of the respondent preferred
all brands. Majority (17.6%) of the respondents preferred Aquafina.
Reasons for Preferring a Specific Brand
Common characteristics or traits represented includes: uniqueness, sincerity,

intellectualism, competence, excitement and sophistication. The brand personality gives
consumers something with which they can relate, effectively increasing brand awareness
and popularity. Table 4.20 shows the distribution of respondents by the reason for
preferring the specific brand.
125

Table - 4.20
Reasons for Preferring a Specific Brand
Reason Mean scores Rank
Good taste 6.56 I
Easy availability 2.72 V
Best quality 3.45 III
Convenient package 3.11 IV
Brand loyalty 4.32 II
Table 4.20 indicates the preference of the respondents for a particular brand. It is
because of various reasons like good taste, easy availability etc. “Good taste” is the first
reason followed by the brand loyalty , best quality , convenient package and easy availability
are third, fourth and fifth reasons for preferring a specific brand of packaged drinking water.
The higher the mean scores the higher the rank. Majority (with the highest mean score of
6.56) of the respondents prefered a particular brand because of the good taste.
Effect of Increase in Price on the Favourite Brand
Table 4.21 indicates the effect of price increment on the favourite brand concern
with percentage of increment of packaged drinking water.
Table - 4.21
Effect of Increase in Price on the Favourite Brand
Definitely Definitely not

Percentage of increase May buy Not sure
buy buy
in Price
Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage
10 83 17 Nil Nil
20 76 24 Nil Nil
30 Nil Nil 47 53
40 Nil Nil Nil 100
126

It is made known from table 4.21 that 83 per cent of the respondents opined that
they will definitely buy and the remaining 17 per cent of the respondent may buy when
there is 10 per cent of rise in price in their favourite brand. 76 per cent of the respondents said
they will definitely buy and the remaining 24 per cent of the respondents said that they may
buy when there is 20 per cent of rise in price in their favourite brand. 47 per cent of the
respondents were not sure whether they will buy or not sure and the remaining 53 per cent
of the respondents were sure that they definitely will not buy when there is 30 per cent of rise
in price in their favourite brand. 100 per cent of the respondents said that they will definitely
not buy when there is 40 per cent of rise in price in their favourite brand.
Shifted to Other Brand and Reason for Shifted
The consumer has power in the purchase chain, the consumer has the power in the
consumption and media and message chain. The consumers have a lot more choices.
Table 4.22 exhibits the distribution of respondents on shifting to other brands and the
reasons for shifting to other brands.
Table - 4.22
Shifting to Other Brands and Reasons for Shifting
Shifting to other Brands Frequency Percent
Yes 109 18.9
No 469 81.1
Total 578 100.0
Reasons for Shifting
Non-availability 51 46.8
Change in taste 39 35.8
Presence of fungus/dust/worms 19 17.4
Total 109 100.0
127

It is obvious from the table 4.22 that 18.9 per cent of the respondents had shifted
to other brands of packaged drinking water and 81.1 per cent of the respondents did not
shift to other brands of packaged drinking water. It also shows that 46.8 per cent of the
respondents had shifted to other brands because of Non- availability, 35.8 per cent of the
respondents had shifted due to change in taste and 17.4 per cent of the respondents had
shifted because of Presence of fungus/dust/worms in packaged drinking water. Majority
of (81.1%) the respondents did not shift to other brands of packaged drinking water.
More than four-tenth of the respondents shifted to other brands due to change in taste.
Water Purifier at Home
Water purifier is one of the threats for marketing of packaged drinking water.
The consumers are ready to purchase packaged drinking water even though the
respondents have water purifiers at home. Table 4.23 shows the distribution of
respondents having water purifiers at home.
Table - 4.23
Water Purifier at Home
Water Purifier at Home Frequency Percentage
Yes 173 29.9
No 405 70.1
Total 578 100.0
It is observed from the table 4.23 that out of 578 respondents 43.4 per cent of the
respondents had water purifiers at home and 70.1 per cent of the respondents did not have
water purifiers at home. Seven-tenth of the respondents did not have water purifiers at home.
Plan to buy Water Purifier in Future
Table 4.24 indicates whether respondents have plans to buy water purifier
in future.
128

Table - 4.24
Plans to buy Water Purifier in Future
Plans to Buy a Water Purifier Frequency Percentage
Yes 164 40.5
No 241 59.5
Total 405 100.0
It is known from the table 4.24 that out of 578 respondents, 40.5 per cent of the
respondents were planning to buy water purifier in future and the remaining 59.5 per cent
of the respondents did not have any plan to buy purifier in future. Nearly six-tenth of the
respondents did not have any plans to buy purifier in future.
Opinion about Water Purifier
Table 4.25 explains the opinion about water purifier by the respondents regarding
cost aspects that water purifier is cost-saving than packaged drinking water in four point
Likert scale: strongly disagree, disagree, agree and strongly agree.
Table - 4.25
Opinion about Water Purifier
Water purifier is Cost Saving than Packaged

Drinking Water
Strongly disagree 4 2.3
Disagree 32 18.5
Agree 82 47.4
Strongly agree 55 31.8
Total 173 100.0
It is obvious from table 4.25 that 2.3 per cent of the respondents strongly
disagreed with the statement that water purifier is more cost-saving than packaged
drinking water. 18.5 per cent of the respondents disagreed with the statement that water
purifier is more cost-saving than packaged drinking water. 47.4 per cent of the
129

respondents agreed to the statement that water purifier is more cost-saving than packaged
drinking water. 31.8 per cent of the respondents strongly agreed the statement that water
purifier is cost saving than packaged drinking water. Majority of 47.4 per cent of the
respondents agreed that water purifier is cost saving than packaged drinking water.
ASSOCIATE STATISTICS
Age and the Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water
H0: There is no significant difference in the mean value of the age and level of
satisfaction on packaged drinking water among the respondents.
Table - 4.26
ANOVA - Age and the Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water
Sum of Mean Null

Sources of Variance Df F Sig.
Squares Square Hypothesis
Quality Between Groups 1.481 4 .370 .698 .594 Accepted
Within Groups 303.988 573 .531
Total 305.469 577
Price Between Groups .331 4 .083 .329 .858 Accepted
Total 144.360 577
Package Between Groups 2.164 4 .541 1.355 .248 Accepted

Total 230.867 577
Taste Between Groups 1.960 4 .490 1.567 .182 Accepted

Total 181.151 577
Reliability of Between Groups 3.345 4 .836 1.584 .177 Accepted

advertisement Within Groups 302.544 573 .528
Total 305.889 577
Availability Between Groups 5.637 4 1.409 3.370 .010 Rejected

Total 245.239 577
130

It is inferred from Table 4.26 that the probability value for age and the level of
satisfaction by respondents in quality, price, package, taste, reliability of advertisement
and availability (.594, .858, .248, .182, and .177) is higher than the 0.05 critical level of
significance at 95 per cent confidence level which means that there is no statistically
significant difference between these variables. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted.
So it is concluded that there is no statistically significant difference in the mean value of
age and level of satisfaction of respondents in quality, price, package, taste and reliability
of advertisement of packaged drinking water.
It is also observed that the probability value (.010) for age and availability of
packaged drinking water is lower than the 0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent
level of confidence. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected in this case. So it is concluded
that there is a statistically significant difference in the mean value of the age and
availability of packaged drinking water.
Education and the Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water
H0: There is no significant difference in the mean value of education and level of
satisfaction among the respondents on packaged drinking water.
Table - 4.27
ANOVA - Education and the Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water
Sum of Mean Null

Quality Between Groups 2.501 3 .834 1.579 .193 Accepted

Total 305.469 577
Price Between Groups .247 3 .082 .328 .805 Accepted

Total 144.360 577
131

Sum of Mean Null
Package Between Groups 1.307 3 .436 1.089 .353 Accepted

Total 230.867 577
Taste Between Groups .953 3 .318 1.012 .387 Accepted

Total 181.151 577
Reliability of Between Groups 1.953 3 .651 1.230 .298 Accepted

advertisement
Total 305.889 577
Availability Between Groups 1.340 3 .447 1.051 .369 Accepted

Total 245.239 577
It is revealed from Table 4.27 that the probability value for education and the
level of satisfaction by respondents in quality, price, package, taste, reliability of
advertisement and availability (.193, .805, .353, .387, .298 and .369) are higher than the
0.05 critical level of significance at 95% level of confidence. This shows that the
difference if any is not statistically significant. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So
it is concluded that there is no statistically significant difference in the mean value of
education and level of satisfaction of respondents in quality, price, package, taste,
reliability of advertisement and availability of packaged drinking water.
Monthly Income and Amount Spent on Packaged Drinking Water
H0: There is no significant difference in the mean value of monthly income and amount
spent for purchasing of packaged drinking water by the respondents.
132

Table - 4.28
ANOVA - Monthly Income and Amount Spent on Packaged Drinking Water
Sources of Sum of Mean Null

Df F Sig.
Variance Squares Square hypothesis
Between Groups 20.919 4 5.230 7.140 .000 Rejected
Total 440.581 577
It is clear from table 4.28 that the probability value (.000) is less than the 0.01
critical level of significance at 99 per cent level of confidence. This means that the
difference is statistically significant. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected. So it is
concluded that there is statistically significant difference in the mean value of monthly
income and amount spent for purchasing of packaged drinking water by the respondents.
Education of the Respondents and checking information in the Label on Packaged

Drinking
H0: There is no significant difference in the mean value of education of the respondents
and checking the content in the label of packaged drinking water.
Table - 4.29
ANOVA - Education of the Respondents and checking the
information in the Label on Packaged Drinking Water
Sources of Sum of Mean Null

Df F Sig.
Variance Squares Square Hypothesis
Between Groups .658 3 .219 1.225 .300 Accepted

Total 103.469 577
Table 4.29 indicates that the probability value (.300) is higher than the 0.05 critical
level of significance at 95 per cent level of confidence i.e. the difference does not have any
statistical significance. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So it is concluded that there is
no statistically significant difference in the mean value of education of the respondents and
checking the information in the label of packaged drinking water.
133

Gender and level of satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water
H0: There is no significant difference in the mean value of gender and level of
satisfaction of respondents.
Table - 4.30
Z – Test (Gender and Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water)
Degree P
Std. Z Null
Factors Gender N Mean of
Deviation value value Hypothesis
freedom
Quality Male 364 4.2500 .72395 .708 576 .932 Accepted

Female 214 4.2056 .73463 .705 441.252
Price Male 364 2.4615 .49920 -1.436 576 .520 Accepted

Female 214 2.5234 .50062 -1.435 445.490
Package Male 364 4.3819 .61640 1.177 576 .405 Accepted

Female 214 4.3178 .65861 1.157 423.033
Taste Male 364 4.5659 .57356 -.570 576 .164 Accepted

Female 214 4.5935 .53791 -.579 469.761
Reliability of Male 364 1.9863 .71376 .004 576 .183 Accepted

advertisement
Female 214 1.9860 .75358 .004 427.204
Availability Male 364 4.4615 .63952 .397 576 .284 Accepted

Female 214 4.4393 .67382 .391 427.916
It is observed from Table 4.30 that the probability values for gender and the level
of satisfaction by respondents in quality, price, package, taste, reliability of advertisement
and availability (.932, .520, .405, .164, .183 and .284) are higher than the 0.05 critical
level of significance at 95 per cent level of confidence, which means there is no
statistically significant difference. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So it is
concluded that there is no statistically significant difference in the mean value of gender
and level of satisfaction of respondents regarding quality, price, package, taste, reliability
of advertisement and availability of packaged drinking water.
134

Marital status and Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water
H0: There is no significant difference in the mean value of marital status and level of
satisfaction of respondents.
Table - 4.31
Z –Test (Marital status and Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water)
Degree
Marital Std. Z P Null
Factors N Mean of
status Deviation value value hypothesis
freedom
Quality Married 355 4.2338 .73951 .010 576 .288 Accepted

Unmarried 223 4.2332 .70989 .010 486.157
Price Married 355 2.4732 .49999 -.678 576 .429 Accepted

Unmarried 223 2.5022 .50112 -.678 470.965
Package Married 355 4.3408 .64606 -.829 576 .418 Accepted

Unmarried 223 4.3857 .61084 -.839 491.438
Taste Married 355 4.5746 .55431 -.080 576 .722 Accepted

Unmarried 223 4.5785 .57098 -.079 461.281
Reliability of Married 355 1.9972 .72290 .459 576 .427 Accepted

advertisement
Unmarried 223 1.9686 .73760 .457 464.642
Availability Married 355 4.4873 .62593 1.586 576 .039 Rejected

Unmarried 223 4.3991 .68930 1.551 437.870
It is observed from table 4.31 that the probability value for marital status and the
level of satisfaction by respondents in quality, price, package, taste, reliability of
advertisement and availability (.288, .429, .418, .722 and .427) are higher than the
0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent level of confidence this proves no
statistically significant difference. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So it is
concluded that there is no statistically significant difference in the mean value of gender
and level of satisfaction of respondents regarding quality, price, package, taste and
reliability of advertisement towards packaged drinking water.
135

But it is observed that the probability value for marital status and the level of
satisfaction by respondents in availability (0.39) is lower than the 0.05 level of
significance and 95 per cent level of confidence. This proves the statistical significance.
Hence the null hypothesis is rejected. So it is concluded that there is a statistically
significant difference in the mean value of marital status and level of satisfaction of
respondents regarding availability of packaged drinking water.
Nature of House and having a Water Purifier at Home
H0: There is no significant association between type of house and water purifier at home.
Table - 4.32
Chi – square Test (Nature of house and having a water purifier at home)
Significant/Not
Chi-square Value P value Null Hypothesis
Significant
194.610 .000 Significant Rejected
Table 4.32 indicates that the probability value (.000) is lower than the 0.01 critical
level of significance at 99 per cent level of confidence. Hence the null hypothesis is
rejected. So it is concluded that there is a statistically significant association between the
type of house and having a water purifier at home.
Age and Percentage of Increment rise in price on Favourite Brand of Packaged

Drinking Water
H0: There is no significant association between age and rise in price on favourite brand
of packaged drinking water.
136

Table - 4.33
Chi – square Test (Age and Percentage of rise in Price on (Favourite Brand of
Packaged Drinking Water)
Percentage of Chi-square P value Significant/Not Null

Increment value Significant Hypothesis
10 194.610 .026 Significant Rejected
20 4.120 .846 Not significant Accepted
It is derived from table 4.33 that the probability value (.026) for 10% price
increment is lower than 0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent level of
confidence. This proves the existence of significance. Hence the null hypothesis is
rejected. So it is concluded that there is statistically significant association between age
and 10 per cent rise in price on favourite brand of packaged drinking water.
The probability values (.846, .768, and .713) for 20, 30 and 40% price increments
are higher than 0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent level of confidence. This
shows that there is no statistical significance. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So it
is concluded that there is no statistically significant association between age and 20, 30
and 40 per cent rise in price on favourite brand of packaged drinking water.
Occupation and Percentage of rise in Price on Favourite Brand of Packaged

Drinking Water
H0: There is no significant association between occupation and price increment on

favourite brand of packaged drinking water.
137

Table - 4.34
Chi – square Test (Occupation and Percentage of Increment of Price on Favourite
Brand of Packaged Drinking Water)
Percentage of Chi-square Significant/Not Null

P value
Increment value Significant Hypothesis
10 15.842 .015 Significant Rejected
The test result shows in table 4.34 that the probability value (.015) for 10% price
increment, is lower than 0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent level of
confidence i.e. there is a statistical significance. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected. So
it is concluded that there is statistically significant association between occupation and 10
per cent rise in price on favourite brand towards packaged drinking water.
But the probability values (.520, .170, and .857) for 20, 30 and 40% price
increment are higher than 0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent level of
confidence. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So it is concluded that there is no
statistically significant association between occupation and 20, 30 and 40 per cent rise
in price on favourite brand towards packaged drinking water.
Education and Awareness of the Environment Impact of Packaged Drinking Water
H0: There is no significant association between educational qualifications and awareness

of the environment impact of packaged drinking water among respondents.
138

Table - 4.35
Chi – square Test (Education and Awareness of the Environment Impact of
Packaged Drinking Water)
Significant/Not
Chi-square Value P value Null Hypothesis
Significant
6.308 .098 Not Significant Accepted
Table 4.35 points out that the probability value (.098) is higher than the
0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent level of confidence. This means there is
no statistical significance Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So it is concluded that
there is no statistically significant association between educational qualifications and
awareness of the environment impact of packaged drinking water among the respondents.
Consumer Perception on Packaged Drinking Water
Table 4.36 explains the principal component analysis. Before the principal
component analysis Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett's
Test of Sphericity was performed through the SPSS. The K-M-O test and Bartlett's Test
of Sphericity found that all extraction values are as per the expected values, therefore all
items were used to further analysis. Item communalities also found to be good in the data
set. Item communalities are considered “high” if they are all .8 or greater although this is
unlikely to occur in the social sciences therefore low to moderate communalities of more
than .50 is acceptable.
Consumer Perception on Packaged Drinking Water

Principal Component Analysis:
Table - 4.36
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .505
Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 312.158
Sphericity
Df 253
Sig. .007
139

Table 4.36 indicates (K-M-O test is significant because test value is greater than
.500 at .505) this shows a Factor Analysis is possible and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity also
found significant χ =312.158, P < .01). It indicates that there is relationship between the
variables influencing consumer perception on packaged drinking water and data set was
adequate to perform factor analysis. In the process of factor analysis of the scale, the
Varimax Rotation technique was employed to examine the obtained factors and all items
with loadings above .40.
Table - 4.37
Extraction Sums of Rotation Sums of

Initial Eigenvalues
Squared Loadings Squared Loadings
Total Variance
ExplainedCompone % of % of % of
nt Tota Cumulativ Tota Cumulativ Tota Cumulativ
Varianc Varianc Varianc
l e% l e% l e%
e e e
1 1.43 6.254 6.254 1.43 6.254 6.254 1.27 5.530 5.530

8 8 2
2 1.35 5.881 12.136 1.35 5.881 12.136 1.25 5.476 11.006

3 3 9
3 1.33 5.790 17.925 1.33 5.790 17.925 1.21 5.280 16.286

2 2 4
4 1.26 5.491 23.416 1.26 5.491 23.416 1.20 5.233 21.520

3 3 4
5 1.25 5.453 28.870 1.25 5.453 28.870 1.19 5.197 26.716

4 4 5
6 1.17 5.112 33.982 1.17 5.112 33.982 1.18 5.165 31.882

6 6 8
7 1.10 4.820 38.802 1.10 4.820 38.802 1.17 5.106 36.988

9 9 4
8 1.07 4.663 43.466 1.07 4.663 43.466 1.16 5.077 42.065

3 3 8
9 1.05 4.599 48.065 1.05 4.599 48.065 1.14 4.984 47.049

8 8 6
10 1.04 4.539 52.604 1.04 4.539 52.604 1.14 4.981 52.030

4 4 6
140

11 1.00 4.382 56.986 1.00 4.382 56.986 1.14 4.956 56.986
8 8 0
12 .983 4.273 61.260
13 .956 4.155 65.414
14 .942 4.095 69.510
15 .888 3.860 73.369
Extraction Sums of Rotation Sums of

Initial Eigenvalues
Squared Loadings Squared Loadings
Component
% of % of % of
Tota Cumulativ Tota Cumulativ Tota Cumulativ
Varianc Varianc Varianc
l e% l e% l e%
e e e
16 .861 3.745 77.114
17 .820 3.567 80.681
18 .804 3.495 84.176
19 .788 3.428 87.604
20 .749 3.258 90.863
21 .728 3.166 94.029
22 .711 3.092 97.121
23 .662 2.879 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
141

Table 4.37, labeled “Total Variance Explained,” shows that total variance of the
observed variables is explained by each of the principal components. The first principal
component explains the largest part of the total variance, this accounts to 5.53% of the
total variance, second component explains 5.47% of the total variance, third component
explains 5.28% of the total variance, fourth component explains 5.23% of the total
variance, fifth component explains 5.19% of the total variance, sixth component explains
5.16 %, seventh components explains 5.10%, eighth components explains 5.07% , ninth
component explains 4.98%, tenth components explains 4.98% and the eleventh
components explains 4.96% of the total variance. A component that displays an
eigenvalue greater than 1.00 is accounting for a greater amount of variance. Therefore,
only those components which are considered as principal components have eigenvalue
greater than 1.00. Here, eleven components having eigenvalue more than 1.0 explain 57%
of the total variance and the remaining components explain 43% of the total variance.
Figure 2 demonstrates this distribution of variance among the components graphically.
142

Downward slope after the fourth or fifth principal component imply that out of twenty-
three variables by the first ten or eleven are principal components.
Table - 4.38
Rotated Component Matrix
Component
Issues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Boiled water is better
than packaged
drinking water .779
Plastic Packing of .479

water will affect the
environment
I can get packaged -.493
drinking water
everywhere
Commercialization
Packaged drinking -.592
water becomes the
commercial business
Packaged drinking .683
water is consumed
when respondent
stayed in other places
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
water is safer for
children when they
stayed out of station
Luxury
water is a luxury item
Quality concept
water is safer than tap
water
Packaged drinking -
water is refreshing .660
and thirst quenching
Brand value
I am very conscious .825
of brand in 20 litre can
Hygienic aspect
143

water is hygienic
There is no problem .654
in using packaged
drinking water
Taste consideration
The advertisement for -.680
packaged drinking
water is less effective
Boiled water is less .646
tasty than packaged
drinking water
Image
water is a status
symbol
I trust Packaged .514
drinking water
Alternative drinks
Carbonate drinks (soft .476
drinks) are good
alternative for
packaged drinking
water
144

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Appearance of .530
package is attractive
I prefer packaged -711
drinking water due to
waterborne diseases
Convenient aspect
Packaged drinking -.638
water is purchased at
the time of travel
I am satisfied with the .713
taste of tap water
rather than packaged
drinking water
Occasion usage
water is suitable for
special occasions in
family
% of variance 5.53 5.47 5.28 5.23 5.19 5.16 5.10 5.07 4.98 4.98 4.95
Cumulative % 5.53 11.0 16.3 21.5 26.7 31.9 36.9 42.0 47.0 52.0 57.0
Extraction method: Principal component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with

Kaiser Normalisation.
Table 4.38 rotated solutions is shows rescaled factor loadings (correlations) to

evaluate which variables load on each factor. Which indicates that, Issues was the first
factor (loading .779, .479 and -.493), Benefits was the second factor (loading -.592, .683
and .447), Luxury was the third factor (loading .751), Quality concept was the fourth
factor (loading .659, -.660) Brand value was the fifth factor (loading .825), Hygienic
aspect was the sixth factor (loading .500,.654), Taste consideration was the seventh
factor (loading -.680 and .648), Image was the eighth factor (loading .748 and .514),
Alternative drinks was the ninth factor (loading .476,.530 and -.711), Convenient
aspect was the tenth factor (loading-.638 and .713) and Occasion usage was the
eleventh factor (loading .810).
145

Gender and Belief on Packaged Drinking Water
Table 4.39 explains the significant discriminant between gender and belief on
H0: There is no significant discriminant between gender and belief on packaged drinking
water.
Discriminant analysis (Gender and Belief on Packaged Drinking Water)

Table - 4.39
Tests of Equality of Group Means
Belief on packaged Wilks'

F df1 df2 Sig.
drinking water Lambda
Packaged drinking water

1.000 .013 1 576 .909
is safer than tap water

1.000 .017 1 576 .897
is status symbol

.999 .828 1 576 .363
is hygienic

is safer for children when 1.000 .000 1 576 .986
stayed in out station
I prefer packaged
drinking water to avoid .999 .309 1 576 .578
water borne diseases
I trust packaged drinking

1.000 .001 1 576 .973
water
There is no problem in
using packaged drinking .999 .609 1 576 .435
water
In the table 4.39 test of equality of group means the result of univariate ANOVA
carried out for each independent variables are presented here in that there is no significant
difference in between male and female towards belief on packaged drinking water at
(0.05) level of significant.
146

Box's Test of Equality of Co-variance Matrices
Log Determinants
Gender Rank Log Determinant
Male 7 -2.801
Female 7 -2.812
Pooled within-groups 7 -2.754
The ranks and natural logarithms of determinants printed are those of the group
covariance matrices.
Test Results
Box's M 29.295
F Approx. 1.031
df1 28
df2 709832.897
Sig. .419
Tests null hypothesis of equal population co-variance matrices.
The significance value of .419 indicates that the data do not significant
multivariate normal. This means one can proceed with analysis.
Summary of Canonical Discriminant Functions

Eigenvalues
Function Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Canonical Correlation
1 .003(a) 100.0 100.0 .057
a ) First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.
An Eigen value indicates the proportion of variance explained (between groups

sum of squares divided by within group sum of squares). A smaller Eigen value is
associated within a function. The canonical relation is no correlation between the
147

discriminant scores and the levels of dependent variables. A low correlation indicates a
function that does not discriminate well. The present correlation of .057 is not extremely
high (1.00 is perfect).
Wilks' Lambda
Test of Function(s) Wilks' Lambda Chi-square df Sig.
1 .997 1.881 7 .966
Wilk‟s Lambda is the ratio of within groups sum of squares to the between sum of
the square. This is the proportion of the total variance in the discriminant scores not
explained by differences among groups. A Lambda of 1.00 occurs when observed group
means are equal (all the variance is explained by factors other than difference between
than means) while a small lambda occurs when within groups variability is small
compared to total variability. A high lambda indicates that group means appear the same.
The associated significance value indicates whether the difference is significant. Here the
lambda of .997 has no significant value (.966) thus the group appear to same.
Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients
Belief on packaged drinking water Function

1
Packaged drinking water is safer than tap water -.080
Packaged drinking water is status symbol .083
Packaged drinking water is hygienic -.820
Packaged drinking water is safer for children when they stay in out of
.071
station
I prefer packaged drinking water to avoid waterborne diseases .445
I trust packaged drinking water -.062

There is no problem in using packaged drinking water .841
(Constant) -1.993
Unstandardized coefficients
148

The canonical discriminant function coefficient indicates the unstandardised scores
concerning the independent variables. It is the list of coefficient of the unstandardised scores
concerning the independent variables. It is the list of coefficient of the unstandardised
discriminant equation. Each subject discriminant scores would be computed by entering his
(or) her variables (raw data) for each of the variables in the equation.
Functions at Group Centroids
Gender Function
1
Male -.044
Female .075
Unstandardized canonical discriminant functions evaluated at group means
A function at group centroids indicates that not having average discriminant score
of subjects in the two groups. More variable means (rather than individual values for each
subject) are entered into the discriminant equation. Note that the two scores are not equal
in value having opposite signs.
Classification Results (a,b,c)

Predicted Group
Gender Membership
Male Female Total
Original Count Male 200 164 364
Female 94 120 214
% Male 54.9 45.1 100.0
Female 43.9 56.1 100.0
Cross-validated(a) Count Male 178 186 364
Female 121 93 214
% Male 48.9 51.1 100.0
Female 56.5 43.5 100.0
a) Cross validation is done only for those cases in the analysis. In cross validation, each
case is classified by the functions derived from all cases other than that case.
b) 55.4% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
c ) 46.9% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.
149

“Classification result” is a simple summary of member and percent of subjects
classified correctly and incorrectly. The “leave-one-out classification” is a cross
validation method of which the results are also presented.
Discriminant analysis was conducted to assess whether the gender could

distinguish. Wilks' lambda was not significant at .997, chi- square value= .966, p > .001,
which indicates that the model including these variables was not able to significantly
discriminate the two groups. The classification results show that the model correctly
predicts 55.4% of male having belief on packaged drinking water and 46.9% of female
having belief on packaged drinking water. The correlation coefficients in the table
indicate the extent to which each variable correlates with the resulting discriminant
function. Note that even though mosaic did contribute weakly to the discriminant
function, it is moderately (negatively) correlated with the overall discriminant function.
Hence the hypothesis is accepted that there is no significant discriminant between gender
and belief on packaged drinking water.
Correlations among Belief, Perception and Buying Behaviour of Packaged Drinking

Water
H0: There is no correlation between beliefs and packaged drinking water buying behaviour.
H1: There is no correlation between perception and packaged drinking water buying behaviour.
Table - 4.40
Correlations among Belief Perception and Buying Behaviour of
Packaged Drinking Water
Belief Perception Buying behavior

Belief Pearson Correlation 1
Perception Pearson Correlation -.077(*) 1
Buying behaviour Pearson Correlation -.043 .374(**) 1

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
150

From the table 4.40 it is understood that r-value (Pearson correlation) of -.043 of
the variable „beliefs‟ indicates that there is no relationship between „beliefs‟ and „buying
behavior‟. Hence, the beliefs of bottled water have no influence on the buying behavior.
Here null hypothesis is accepted. It also indicates that „perception‟ and „belief‟ are
negatively correlated and significant at 0.05 level (r = -.077, Sig = .033), also „buying
behaviour‟ and „perception‟ are positively correlated and significant at 0.01 level (r =
.374, Sig = .374). There is correlation between „perception‟ and buying behaviour.
Hence the null hypothesis is rejected.
151

Consumer Bheaviour Packaged Drinking Water

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Bheaviour Packaged Drinking Water

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER IV

Consumers often drink packaged drinking water as an alternative to tap water.

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Model followed for the study

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Source: developed for this research based on black box model

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Demographic Details of the Respondents

The demographic details of the respondents were collected to examine the

Gender of the Respondents Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Family Profile of the Respondents

Marital Status Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Income Profile of the Respondents

Occupation tends to differentiate potential buyers in terms of their interest and

Occupation of the Respondents Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Sources of Knowledge about Packaged Drinking Water

Awareness of Packaged Drinking Water Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Awareness through Media of advertisement

Media of Advertisement Frequency Percentage

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Purchase Time of Packaged Drinking Water

Purchase Time Frequency Percentage

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Preference of Package by the Respondents

Type of Packaged Drinking Water Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Branded 501 86.7

Branded and Non-Branded 77 13.3

Polyethylene pouch 43 7.4

PET Bottle 446 77.2

Purchase Period of Packaged Drinking Water

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Purchase Period of Packaged

Less than a year 22 3.8

1-3 years 81 14.0

More than 3 years - 5 years 206 35.6

More than 5 years -7 years 158 27.3

More than 7-10 years 55 9.6

Above 10 years 56 9.7

Quantum of Purchase of Packaged Drinking Water at a Time

The quantity of monthly consumption of packaged drinking water differs.

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Quantum of Purchase of Packaged Drinking Water at a Time

Quantum of Purchase of Packaged

1 litre PET bottle 48 8.3

2 litre PET bottles 108 18.7

5 litre cans 66 11.4

20 litre cans 356 61.6

Total 578 100.0

Purchase Point of Packaged Drinking Water

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Purchase Point of Packaged Drinking Water Frequency Percentage

Dealer point 49 8.5

Medical Shop 47 8.1

Nearby place 68 11.8

Grocery Shop 40 6.9

Soft Drink Shop 86 14.9

Vendors in Bus Stand and Railway Station 56 9.7

Any place 127 22.0

Total 578 100.0