CHAPTER NO 1: INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

1

1.1

Introduction & Background:

Consumers in urban areas drink carbonated drinks on a regular basis as they increasingly adopt Western lifestyles, especially the younger generation which is hugely influenced by the Western media. Younger consumers tend to follow Western eating and drinking habits. There was an increase in demand for carbonated drinks over the review period. However, some carbonated drinks are expensive compared to other drinks and are unaffordable for many consumers in rural areas. Soft drinks are very common in the world of today. People take soft drinks according to different events. Especially in summer, people always prefer to take soft drinks to chill out. Soft drinks give energy and pleasure. There are many factors which effects decision making process of choosing to take which drink. Why people prefer one drink over other? What are the factors which they consider while choosing soft drink? Now a day, there are many types of beverages available. Different tastes are available like Cola, Lemonade, Orange, Apple and twister etc. We have conducted this survey with the motive to check the brand preference of carbonated soft drinks offered by Pepsi, Coca Cola, Murree Brewery and Gourmet Bakers in Lahore. We will study what are the factors that effects people to select a brand over other? How much consumers are loyal to their brand? Increasing health and hygiene awareness among Pakistanis has greatly increased sales of fruit/vegetable juice products. Both the government and the media have started health awareness campaigns to make Pakistanis realize that consumption of fruit/vegetable juice is as essential as eating food. Fruit/vegetable juices are doing very well in both urban and rural areas. We have done basic research as it has been done to enhance the understanding of certain problems that commonly occur in organizational settings and seek methods to solve them. The results of this research can be presented to any organization and can be used by any organization to solve their problems. We tried to find out people preferences towards the carbonated soft drinks according to situation, flavor, favorite companies brand, gender, how advertisement and promotion influence their choices and perceptions, and what their monthly average expenditures on soft drinks are? We

2

also studied different factors like family preferences; friend’s advocacy, thirst elimination, fun, satisfaction and dependency affect their brand preferences.

3

CHAPTER NO 2: PROPOSAL 4 .

2. Frequency of usage 2. Packaging effect 7. Advocacy effect 2. Advertising effect 3. To find out ratings of different drinks To check the average monthly expenditure on soft drink of whole sample To study the impact of different factors in preferring a brand To study the effect of purchasing power (pocket money) on soft drink usage 2. Fun/ enjoyment 11. Taste effect 10. Price effect 9.4 Data Needs/Sources: Data will be collected using primary sources like questionnaires and personnel observation etc and secondary sources will be collected using literature review etc.2 Research Objectives: • • • • • • • • To study favorite soft drink brands based on different demographic factors like age. Flavors effect 8. 2. To study their drink choices based on different events and occasions. Family preference 5. 5 .3 Variables: 1.1 Problem Statement: To study brand preferences of carbonated soft drinks by people based on different events and occasions. To study awareness of injurious ingredients which are included in drinks? To study the impact of advertising on their perception in preferring a drink. Seasonal effect 4. Events effect 6. gender etc.

5 Sampling Design: We will categorize our respondents on the basis of gender and profession.2. Gender Categorization Female 32% Male Female Male 68% Figure 1 Gender Categorization Out of 250 of total respondents. Categorization on the basis of gender is given below. Professional Categorization Student Professionals Professionals 16% Student 84% Figure 2 Professional Categorization 6 . Categorization on the basis of profession is given in below. 170 will be male and rest of 80 will be female.

Mustafa Town. Iqbal Town. Also. characteristics of different drinks on whom we are going to perform survey and we will also make some specific prediction about our research. Also. Gulberg.7 Sampling Method: We will use clustering sampling method technique. Gulberg. Ichra and Shad Bagh etc.9 Sampling Unit: Our sampling unit for the said research will be markets located in major areas of Lahore like Johar Town. both male and female living in the major metropolitan areas of Lahore like Johar Town. Shad Bagh and Ichra etc. We will clearly describe our topic of research. 2. 2. 2. We will use single cross sectional design for our research as we will go to our respondent only once. Cantt.8 Sampling Size: Sample size will be 250 individuals.6 Population: We will choose teenagers between the age of 13 to 19 and youngsters from the age of 20 to 26.10 Sampling Elements: We will focus on students as our major sampling elements and some professionals as well. Cantt. Iqbal Town. We will use two major methods of conducting descriptive research. 2. we will visit some universities as well.11 Detail Of The Method: We will use descriptive research design approach. Shahdra. 2. we will clearly describe the objective and aim of our research. • • Survey methods Observation methods 7 . which is the major objective of descriptive research design. We will focus that our desired respondents should have an educated background so that they will be able to understand our questionnaire and answer them accordingly. which will include mostly students and some professionals. Model Town.2. we will visit some universities as well like Punjab University etc. Model Town. Shahdra.

Observation Methods Before developing the final structured questionnaire.Survey Methods We will develop a structured questionnaire that will be offered to respondents to get the specific information and feedback about brand preferences of carbonated soft drinks. we will use the Mall Intercept Surveys. we will execute an unstructured observation to record the behavioral patterns of teenagers and youngsters in events without specifying the details in advance about soft drink brands. 8 . We will focus on the questions and variables that have direct impact on the people perceptions. by visiting the markets and universities. Further.

CHAPTER NO 3: FINDINGS 9 .

3% 68.3% Female 18.9% 3. 7.5% of people in our total sample size are taking soft drinks on daily bases.0% 2.2% are males and rest 18.6% 4.8% are females.7% is males and rest 5. out of which 14.5% people say that they take soft drinks twice a week.0% This table shows the frequency of consumption of carbonated beverages by both male and female as daily.6% and 1.3% and 1.0% of total sample size out of them 5. Where division between male and female is 1.8% 5. 17.2% 14.5% 100.5% 17.6% 5.7% Total 56.1 Data Analysis: 3. People who tend to consume soft drinks on monthly.8% 1.2% 2.8% 7.5% respectively.2% monthly.5% 11. Similarly. 38. monthly.1 Favorite Soft Drink Brands Based On Gender: Soft Drinks Usage * Respondent Gender Cross tabulation % of Total Respondent Gender Male Soft Drinks Usage Daily Twice a week Weekly Monthly Occasionally Rarely Total 38.3% 1.7% 4. Here we found that about 56.3% 2.8% occasionally and 3. People who claim that they take soft drinks on weekly basis are 11.2% 31.3.2% rarely.6% are males and 2.3% are females. 10 . occasionally and rarely contain the weight age of 2.7% and 4.7% 1.9% and 2. 4. Out of this weight age. weekly.8%. occasionally and rarely bases.1.3% are females.

Respondent Gender This table represents the power of this regression model we created to test our hypothesis. (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 8.0%) have expected count less than 5. On the basis of this available result. We can interpret that this is weak regression model that does not give any accurate and reliable results since power of this model is 0.115 . 3 cells (25. So we can interpret that there is not any significant confliction in the consumption of carbonated soft drinks on the basis of different genders. Predictors: (Constant).311 246 df 5 5 1 sided) . 11 . Ho: There is no significant difference in the opinions of different genders about soft drink usage.220 .003 Std. Error of the Estimate 1.001.22. Sig.025. H1: There is significant difference in the opinions of different genders about soft drink usage.577 a. Model Summary Adjusted R Model 1 R .Chi-Square Tests Asymp.001 Square -. The minimum expected count is 2.036a R Square . we will accept Ho and reject Hi as P-value 0.115 is greater than confidence interval 0.488 a.101 .859a 9.

0.6% 21.1% tend to take drinks daily. 9.6% like to consume drinks rarely.6% 52.4% consume drinks rarely.7% 17.3% 1.4% 2. 0. monthly. The overall consumption criteria is same that we explored in last table as far as daily.2% 1.4% occasionally and only 0. 12 .6% 11.2% weekly and monthly.8% 6.9% . 6.4% 17-20 13. 1. Here we noticed that the 2.4% weekly.4% 20.4% 7.1.8% twice a week.4% 1.6% consume drinks rarely. 3.5% take drinks daily.5% 2. 2% twice a week.3% twice a week.3% 1.8% take them rarely.0% . occasionally and rarely incidents are concerned.8% 5.2 Favorite Soft Drink Brands Based On Age: Soft Drinks Usage * Respondent Age Cross tabulation % of Total Respondent Age 13-16 Soft Drinks Usage Daily Twice a week Weekly Monthly Occasionally Rarely Total .8% 9.3% occasionally and only 1. 0. Second age range is between 17-20.1% 3.0% This table vaunts the frequency of consumption of both males and females as far as the element of age is concerned.8% occasionally and 1.0% 2.2% .8% 4. Fourth and final age category is in between the age of 24-26.4% . 0. here 27. 5. 1.5% 100. here we found that 13.4% 2.4% twice a week and weekly. 2.4% of people between the age ranges of 13-16 tend to consume soft drinks in daily basis.1% 2.2% .4% 21-23 27.2% 24-26 13.8% monthly. Third age range is between 21-23. 0. weekly. here we explored that 13.4% .8% take drinks daily.9% weekly.2% occasionally and only 0.2% Total 56.8% 1.4% monthly.8% 6.3.

002 245 df 15 15 1 sided) .272 .894 .962 a.829a 16.3 Favorite Soft Drink Brands Based On Education: 13 . 12 cells (50.1. 3.0%) have expected count less than 5.025. Sig. The minimum expected count is .325 .37.272 is greater than confidence interval 0. So we can interpret that there not significant confliction in the consumption patrons of carbonated soft drinks among the respondents who belong to different age groups. H1: There is significant difference in the opinions of different people of different age groups about soft drink usage. On the basis of this available result. (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 17. we will accept Ho and reject Hi as P-value 0. Ho: There is no significant difference in the opinions of different people of different age groups about soft drink usage.Chi-Square Tests Asymp.

1% twice a week. In the same way.9% 2. Last category is masters.4% 10. 1.7% 2.1% say that they take drinks daily. Here we can observe that our respondents who are under matriculation. 6.2% Intermediate 7.4% monthly.0% weekly. 0.8% weekly.6% 36.2% of them consume drinks daily and weekly. where 25.0% 1.0% 42. 2.4% of respondents say that they use drinks rarely. 0.8% Total 56. 1.4% monthly.0% 2.7% say that they take drinks daily. respondents who are in matriculation.4% .7% 17. both male and female under the category of their current educational status. monthly and occasionally and only 0.7% 4.1% say that they take drinks daily.6% . 1.4% 3.9% 4. 2.4% 1.0% This table displays the usage patron of people.6% claims that they take drinks rarely.Soft Drinks Usage * Respondent Education Cross tabulation % of Total Respondent Education Under Matric Soft Drinks Usage Daily Twice a week Weekly Monthly Occasionally Rarely Total . Third education category is intermediate.0% 2.1% 4.4% 2. 2.8% 7. 6.8% .8% . where 21. 14 .0% monthly and occasionally as well only and 1.4% occasionally and rarely as well. no one is agree that he takes soft drinks weekly and monthly.2% 14.0% .0% 2.1% 6.0% weekly.1% 6.5% 100.2% Graduation 25.5% Masters 21.4% 2. no one is agree that he takes soft drinks weekly.4% 4.4% twice a week. where 7.9% twice a week.2% occasionally and 2% rarely. Fourth category is graduation.8% Matriculation 1. 0.2% 1.6% of them consume soft drinks daily. 4.6% 1. 4% occasionally and 2% claims that they take drinks rarely. 4. 0. The aggregate percentage of consumption based on incidents is still same as shown in last two tables.8% twice a week.

Ho: There is no significant difference in the opinions of different people of different educational background about soft drink usage.136 247 df 20 20 1 sided) . 20 cells (66.589a 19. Sig.7%) have expected count less than 5.20. we will accept Ho and reject Hi as P-value 0. H1: There is significant difference in the opinions of different people of different educational background about soft drink usage.712 a. Chi-Square Tests Asymp. we can assert that respondents belong to graduation and masters are tend to consume carbonated soft drinks very much higher than others categories of education we choose to conduct this survey.In the end.025.614 .883 . (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 17. The minimum expected count is . 15 .465 .614 is greater than confidence interval 0. So we can interpret that there is not significant confliction in the consumption patrons of carbonated soft drinks among the respondents who belong to different educational backgrounds. On the basis of this available result.

Out of rest 140 respondents. acids and sugar. The respondent’s positive or negative comments about the opinion that most of carbonated drinks are filled with ingredients that are injuries for health can be displayed with the help of this diagram too.6 100.2 99.0 Valid Percent 44.3. From this table we can interpret that out of 250 respondents.1. carbonated gas. Injuries ingredients they mentioned are Caffeine. They also contain 44.4 55.0 Percent 44. Here it is essential to tell that 2 respondents did not inform us about their point view regarding this problem.0 55. They contain about 55.2% of total sample size.4 Awareness Of Injurious Ingredients Which Are Included In Drinks: Soft Drink Contains Injurious ingredients Cumulative Frequency Valid Yes No Total Missing Total System 110 138 248 2 250 Percent 44.2 . 16 .0 This table shows the results of our investigative question either carbonated soft drinks contain the ingredients that are injurious for health or not? We also requested the respondents to mention the name of that ingredient in case of positive response.8 100.4% of total sample size. 138 claim that soft drinks do not contain any injuries ingredients for health and they are not inhibited at all while drinking them. 110 agrees that these most of carbonated drinks contain ingredients that are injurious for human body and health as well.4 100.

3.5 22.6 . 20.0 Percent 50.6% of respondents say that they prefer cola flavor in parties.1.2 100.0 We asked from 250 respondents that which flavor they prefer in a party.4 20.4 22.1% respondents say that they prefer orange flavor in parties.8% of respondents prefer twister flavor in parties.0 Valid Percent 50. 22.0 6. 50.8 99.4 100.1 6.6 20.5% of respondents say that they prefer lemonade flavor in parties. 6. From pie chart 17 .8 100.6 71.1 93.5 Drink Preference Based On Different Events And Occasions: Flavor Preference In a party Cumulative Frequency Valid Cola Lemonade Orange Twister Total Missing Total System 126 51 55 17 249 1 250 Percent 50.

9% 1.0% 4.4% 21-23 8.9% 20.2% 4. 3.9% respondents. Now we are studying the effect of advertisement to taste a new drink with respect to the age of respondent.9% 2.which is given below.0% We took 250 respondents from these respondents 6. on other hand.8% 5.1% 1. twister is the flavor which is least used in parties.2% 6.4% are from age of 17-21.9% 46. 8.0% 9. Results shows that out of 250 respondents 13.1.9% 52.1%are from age of 13-16 and 20.7% 24-26 3.6% 100.9% 4.1% 17-20 2.5% 9. 52.6% 9.1% 19.9 % agree that advertisement always influence to taste a brand.6 Impact Of Advertising On Their Perception In Preferring A Drink: Advertisement Influence To Test Drink * Respondent Age Cross tabulation % of Total Respondent Age 13-16 Advertisement Influence To Test Drink Always Sometimes Often Rare Never Total 3.4% 1.7% . we can conclude that most of the people prefer cola in parties.7% 6.8% 10.8% .8% Total 13. From these 13.7% are from age of 21-23 and respondents are from age of 24-26 are 20.3% 2.2% 26.6% 20.8%.2% 18 .

6 cells (30.633 . Sig. 19 . 9. 2.1% respondents are from age of 24-26 .and response of age range from 13-16 is 0.2% respondents are from age of 24-26 .9% respondents are from age of 24-26 . 5.959a 22.1 % agree that advertisement sometimes influence to taste a brand.8% respondents.and response of age range from 13-16 is 1.6 % agree that advertisement often influence to taste a brand.038 .0%) have expected count less than 5.6 % respondents are from age of 17-20 and 4.8 % about often influence of advertisement to taste a new brand. Results show that out of 250 respondents 9. From these 10.8 % agree that advertisement rare influence to taste a brand.respondents are from age of 21-23 and 3.and response of age range from 13-16 is 0.9% respondents are from age of 21-23 and 1.9% respondents are from age of 24-26 .and response of age range from 13-16 is 3.4 % about Rare influence of advertisement to taste a new brand.7 % about sometimes influence of advertisement to taste a new brand. Results shows that out of 250 respondents 19.6% respondents.47.3% respondents are from age of 21-23 and 2.6% respondents. From these 19. Chi-Square Tests Asymp.8% respondents are from age of 21-23 and 4.9% respondents are from age of 17-20 and 1.2% about never influence of advertisement to taste a new brand. Results shows that out of 250 respondents 46. 26.9% respondents are from age of 17-20 and 4. Results shows that out of 250 respondents 10.0% respondents are from age of 17-20 while age range of 13-16 agree that advertisement not influence to taste a brand.1% respondents. (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 21.7% respondents are from age of 24-26 and 2.969 a.031 . From these 9.5% respondents are from age of 21-23 and 9. The minimum expected count is 1.6 % agree that advertisement never influence to taste a brand.002 245 df 12 12 1 sided) . From these 46.0% respondents are from age of 17-20 and 6.

Out of 45.3% 67.5% 19.1% 14.2% 11. based on our sample with 95% confidence level. 45.Ho = There is no significant difference in the opinion of advertisement influence to test drink by different age groups. 19.1% females are agrees that Advertisement always influence to taste a brand. From these 13.9% Female 4.5% 12.1% are female respondents. 3.0% This table shows the relationship between the advertisement influence and the gender of the respondent. Since.038 < 0.5% respondents are agrees that advertisement often influence.05.05 so reject Ho and results are significant. 0. we can say that there is significant difference in the opinion of advertisement influence to test drink by different age groups.7 Advertisement Influence And Gender: Advertisement Influence To Test Drink * Respondent Gender Cross tabulation % of Total Respondent Gender Male Advertisement Influence To Test Drink Always Sometimes Often Rare Never Total 9.6% 7. So.038 in chi-square test which is less than alpha i-e 0.8% 3.9% are male respondents and 32. As p value is 0.1% Total 13.6% 6.5% 10.8% 45.9% are male and 14.6% females. Out of 250 respondents 67.5% respondents are agrees that advertisement sometimes influence.9% 12.8% agrees that Advertisement always influence to taste a brand. 30. Out of 19. 4.8% males are more prominent with 9.5%. From 100 % respondents 13. Hi = There is significant difference in the opinion of advertisement influence to test drink by different age groups.9% 2.9% females.0% 100.3% 7.1.8% 30.8%.6% are male and 6. 20 .7% 32.

0 Valid Percent 77.2% of total agree on 21 .966 .8% females.3% are male and 2.05 so accept Ho and results are insignificant. As p value is 0. Chi-Square Tests Asymp. From the sample of 250 Respondents 193 respondents that are the 77. H1 = There is significant difference in the opinion of advertisement influence to test drink by different genders.569 . The minimum expected count is 8. Since.567a . based on our sample with 95% confidence level.8 100. 0 cells (.2 100.0% respondents are agrees that advertisement Never influence.8 100. Sig.0%) have expected count less than 5. we can say that there is no significant difference in the opinion of advertisement influence to test drink by different genders. Out of 11.2% 7.868 a. H0 = There is no significant difference in the opinion of advertisement influence to test drink by different genders.3% are male and 3. 0.1.0 Percent 77.2 22.0% 7. 3.028 246 df 4 4 1 sided) . (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases .0 In this section we are studying the influence of advertisement to select a brand.967 > 0.7% females.03. So.2% respondents are agrees that advertisement rare influence.8 Advertisement Role In Selecting A Drink: Advertisement Role in Selecting Drink Cumulative Frequency Valid Yes No Total 193 57 250 Percent 77. 11. Out of 10.967 in chi-square test which is greater than alpha i-e 0.10.05.967 .2 22.

8% of total said that advertisement not influence to select a brand. We take “1” for Yes and “2” for No and the results shows the mean of data is 1. 22 .23 which is most near to the 1 its means the most of the respondents agree on that the advertisement influence to select a brand.that the advertisement influence to select a brand while 57 respondents those are the 22.

9 92.500Rs.200 And 74 respondents they are the 29.0 Valid Percent 23.750Rs.1.8 29.4 100.4% of total are spending between Rs.6% of total are spending between Rs.0 From our 250 respondents the 57 respondents 22.4 7.2 % of total are spending More Rs.8 7.9 Average Monthly Expenditure On Soft Drink Of Whole Sample: Personal Monthly Average Expenditure Cumulative Frequency Valid Up to 200 200 to 500 500 to 750 750 to 1000 More than 1000 Total Missing Total System 57 74 59 36 18 244 6 250 Percent 22.6 100.1000 and 18 respondents they are the 7.6 2.2 97.Six respondent never gave the answer of this question they are only the 2. 23 .4 % of total.3.1000.4 30.750 and 36 respondents they are the 14.0 Percent 23.6% of total are spending between Rs200Rs.2 14.4 53.7 77.4 100.3 24.500 And 59 respondents they are the 23.6 14.6 23.8% of total are spending up to Rs.

2 6.4 100.2 14.8 100.2 37.0 Valid Percent 7.52 almost between the 2 and 3 which means the average monthly expenditure of the people on soft drink beverages is almost between the 500 to 750.9 22.3 62.6 36. 3.2 2.8 11.6 21.1.0 14.6 100.0 24 .4 13.0 Percent 7.4 40.We took “1” for up to 200 “2” for 200-500 “3” for 500-750 “4” for 750-1000 “5” for more then 1000 And the results shows that the mean of the data is 2.6 28.4 97.4 11.4 6.10 Impact Of Different Factors In Preferring A Brand: Advertisement Effect On Brand Preference Cumulative Frequency Valid Low 1 2 3 4 High Total Missing Total System 18 15 36 29 54 91 243 7 250 Percent 7.

6. We also interpreted that majority of respondents rated 5 that shows the advertisement effect on brand preference is liked up to highest level. 14. 11.2% rated 1.We asked the people to rate the advertisement effect on brand preference from a scale of 0 to 5 according to their own perception.2% rated 4 and 37.4% rated 5 highest likeness. Here we found that out of total sample size of 250 respondents. 25 . 22. 7.8% rated 2.9% rated 3.4% rated 0. where 0 represents lowest and 5 for highest likeness.

10.4 16.0 100.9% rated 2.0 10.3 21.0 We asked the people to rate the Family effect on brand preference from a scale of 0 to 5 according to their own perception.9 55.2 2.0 Valid Percent 10.6 15.Family Effect On Brand Preference Cumulative Frequency Valid Low 1 2 3 4 High Total Missing Total System 25 26 29 55 69 39 243 7 250 Percent 10. 28. 10.0 Percent 10.9 22. 11.6 97. where 0 represents lowest and 5 for highest likeness.7 11.8 100.6% rated 3.7% rated 1.3 10.4 11. Here we found that out of total sample size of 250 respondents.6 84.6 22.0 100.3% rated 0.6 28. 22.4% rated 4 and 16% rated 5 highest 26 .0 32.0 27.

5 27.7 81.3 6.2 6. We also interpreted that majority of respondents rated 4 that shows the family effect on brand preference is liked up to high level.8 3. Friend Effect On Brand Preference Cumulative Frequency Valid Low 1 2 3 4 High Total Missing Total System 8 15 23 67 85 44 242 8 250 Percent 3.0 17.7 35.2 100.2 26.0 46.8 100.2 100.2 9.3 9.0 Percent 3.0 9.1 18.6 96.0 Valid Percent 3.8 34.likeness.5 19.0 27 .

0 28 .6 16. Thirst Elimination Effect On Brand Preference Cumulative Frequency Valid Low 1 2 3 4 High Total Missing Total System 13 23 42 60 59 41 238 12 250 Percent 5. 6.5 9. where 0 represents lowest and 5 for highest likeness.2 4. 3.1% rated 4 and 18.2 9. We also interpreted that majority of respondents rated 4 that shows the friend effect on brand preference is liked up to high level.8 17.7% rated 3.2% rated 5 highest likeness.8 100. 35.2 16.6 25.We asked the people to rate the friend effect on brand preference from a scale of 0 to 5 according to their own perception.3% rated 0. 27.8 58.2 100.2 24.7 17.0 82. Here we found that out of total sample size of 250 respondents.5 15. 9.8 100.0 Valid Percent 5.1 32.2% rated 1.8 24.0 23.5% rated 2.4 95.0 Percent 5.

9.6% rated 2. 24. 25.8% rated 4 and 17.7% rated 1. We also interpreted that majority of respondents rated 3 that shows the thirst elimination effect on brand preference is liked up to moderate level.2% rated 3. 5.2% rated 5 highest likeness. where 0 represents lowest and 5 for highest likeness.5% rated 0.We asked the people to rate the thirst elimination effect on brand preference from a scale of 0 to 5 according to their own perception. 17. Here we found that out of total sample size of 250 respondents. 29 .

Fun Effect on brand preference Cumulative Frequency Valid Low 1 2 3 4 High Total Missing Total System 20 15 43 53 57 54 242 8 250 Percent 8.0 17.3 100.8 21.8 21.2 54.5 32.7 100.2 22.8 3.2 17.6 22.9 23.2 21.3 6.3 14.0 Percent 8.2 100.0 Valid Percent 8.6 96.0 30 .0 6.1 77.

6.7 31. Here we found that out of total sample size of 250 respondents.6 11.5 44.8% rated 2.6% rated 4 and 22.5 100. Satisfaction Effect on brand preference Cumulative Frequency Valid Low 1 2 3 4 High Total Missing Total System 14 28 29 37 57 76 241 9 250 Percent 5.4 23.We asked the people to rate the fun effect on brand preference from a scale of 0 to 5 according to their own perception.6 14. 8.6 12. We also interpreted that majority of respondents rated 4 that shows the fun effect on brand preference is liked up to high level.2 11.0 31 .8 30.4 3.3% rated 0.0 15.8 68.8 11.0 Percent 5.6 100.8 22.2% rated 1. where 0 represents lowest and 5 for highest likeness.4 29. 23.0 Valid Percent 5. 17.9% rated 3. 21.3% rated 5 highest likeness.5 100.4 96.8 17.

We asked the people to rate the satisfaction effect on brand preference from a scale of 0 to 5 according to their own perception. 5. 11. 32 . 23. where 0 represents lowest and 5 for highest likeness.8% rated 0.6% rated 1. Here we found that out of total sample size of 250 respondents. 15.5% rated 5 highest likeness. 12% rated 2.7% rated 4 and 31.4% rated 3. We also interpreted that majority of respondents rated 5 that shows the satisfaction effect on brand preference is liked up to highest level.

2 16.1 26.8 12.6 4.4 89.9 100.4 95.0 10.1 100.6 13.8 14.0 46.7 10.0 Percent 17.0 33 .4 25.6 31.0 Valid Percent 17.4 100.Dependency Effect on brand preference Cumulative Frequency Valid Low 1 2 3 4 HIgh Total Missing Total System 42 32 36 63 40 26 239 11 250 Percent 16.4 16.0 72.4 15.

4% rated 1.4% 11.6% More than 6000 21.11 Effect Of Purchasing Power (Pocket Money) On Soft Drink Usage: Soft Drinks Usage * Respondent Pocket Money Cross tabulation % of Total Respondent Pocket Money Up to 500 Soft Drinks Usage Daily Twice a week Weekly Monthly Occasionall y Rarely Total . 17. Out of those 57.2% of respondents are those who have pocket money from 1500 to 3000m 17.9% 1.0% .8% 2.3% 4.0% 2.8% 3000 .1.4% 2.6% .1%.1500 5.8% 500 .1% 4.2% 4.2% of respondents are those who have pocket money up to 500.7% . 13.1% respondents told us that their usage of soft drink is on daily basis.4% 34.2% 3.4% 1.2% 1.1% respondents are those who have pocket money from 3000 to 6000 and 21. where 0 represents lowest and 5 for highest likeness. 3.9% rated 5 highest likeness.1% 17. 1.1% 11.6% 2.7% rated 4 and 10.We asked the people to rate the dependency effect on brand preference from a scale of 0 to 5 according to their own perception.0% .0% 1500 .7% 1.6000 17.8% .6% . 57.3% 2. 15.3% of respondents are those who have pocket money from 500 to 1500. Out of those 17.1%.9% 2. 26. 1.6% of respondents are those who have pocket money up to 500. 2% of 34 .0% Above table shows the effect of respondent pocket money on soft drink usage. 12.9% 7.0% 2.4% 20.1% rated 2. We also interpreted that majority of respondents rated 3 that shows the dependency effect on brand preference is liked up to moderate level.4% 4.6% . 16.9% 3.2% of respondents are those who have pocket money more than 6000.8% 28.3000 12. Here we found that out of total sample size of 250 respondents.3% Total 57.2% 1.5% 100. 5. 17.6% rated 0.1% respondents told us that their usage of soft drink is twice a week.4% rated 3.5% 1.

Out of those 11%.8% of respondents are those who have pocket money up to 500. 7.9% of respondents are those who have pocket money more than 6000.respondents are those who have pocket money from 500 to 1500. 1. 4.4% of respondents are those who have pocket money up to 500. 0% of respondents are those who have pocket money from 500 to 1500.4% of respondents are those who have pocket money from 500 to 1500. 0.4% of respondents are those who have pocket money up to 500. 3. 1. 2% of respondents are those who have pocket money from 500 to 1500.7% of respondents are those who have pocket money from 1500 to 3000.2% of respondents are those who have pocket money more than 6000.6% of respondents are those who have pocket money more than 6000. 0.0% of respondents are those who have pocket money up to 500.3%. 4. .4% of respondents are those who have pocket money more than 6000.6% of respondents are those who have pocket money from 1500 to 3000. 35 . Out of those 7. 3.8% respondents are those who have pocket money from 3000 to 6000 and 2. . 11% respondents told us that their usage of soft drink is on weekly basis. .9% of respondents are those who have pocket money more than 6000.9%.4% of respondents are those who have pocket money from 1500 to 3000.6% respondents are those who have pocket money from 3000 to 6000 and 1.4% respondents are those who have pocket money from 3000 to 6000 and 1.7% respondents are those who have pocket money from 3000 to 6000 and 2. 0. . 2% of respondents are those who have pocket money from 1500 to 3000.5% respondents told us that their usage of soft drink is rarely.9% respondents told us that their usage of soft drink is on monthly basis. 0.8% of respondents are those who have pocket money from 1500 to 3000.3% respondents told us that their usage of soft drink is occasionally. Out of those 2. . 2. 2% of respondents are those who have pocket money from 500 to 1500.5%.9% respondents are those who have pocket money from 3000 to 6000 and 4. Out of those 4.

31. 17 cells (56.05 so accept Ho and results are insignificant.408 > 0.820a 20. based on our sample with 95% confidence level we can say that there is no significant influence of pocket money on soft drink usage.475 a.004 Std. (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 20.008 Square . Ho: There is no significant influence of pocket money on soft drink usage.169 a. Error of the Estimate 1.408 in chi-square test which is greater than alpha i-e 0. Predictors: (Constant). Respondent Pocket Money As value of r square is 0.711 1. The minimum expected count is .888 245 df 20 20 1 sided) . so correlation of coefficient is weak. Also. 0. 36 .008.Chi-Square Tests Asymp. As p value is 0. we will submit data file of SPSS. Sig.414 . Model Summary Adjusted R Model 1 R . 3.408 .7%) have expected count less than 5. So.05.2 Coding scheme We have used SPSS for data analysis. HA: There is significant influence of pocket money on soft drink usage. Since.088a R Square .

CHAPTER NO 4: TIMEFRAME & BUDGET 37 .

1 Time frame 38 .4.

ncbi.3 References • • http://www.org/content/5/1/60 39 .nih.ijbnpa.2 Budget Detail Transportation Charges Photo Copy Charges Printing Charges Total Amount (Rs) 900 1000 100 2000 4.gov/pubmed/15281041 http://www.nlm.4.