Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PROJECT
SUBMITTED BY SUBMITTED TO
Consumer behaviour towards single and multi-brand outlets depends not only
on the efforts made by retailers to offer as many as services, stores, offerings,
SKU’s, but also on perception, outlook of the target potential customers.
Moreover, with so many complexities of human behaviour, of economic
conditions and policies such as FDI, associating only a particular reason for
consumer’s preference of single brand over multiple or the other way round
would be unjustifiable.
Literature Review
Multi-brand or mono-brand?
http://www.channelbusiness.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=228&Itemid=78
Consumer behaviour is to change, many exclusive retailers will become
franchisees of the big names in multi-brand retailing and in the time to come.
The trend will be driven by the type of user - First-time buyers would prefer to
buy from multi-brand stores as they can compare different brands, while a
second-time buyer, if happy with his first brand experience, would prefer to
buy from an exclusive store.
Multi-Brand Benefits
http://www.franchiseindia.com/magazine/2013/July/OF-MULTI-BRANDS-BENEFITS.1071
Multi-brand outlets franchising has started gaining ground as consumers like to
pick from a wide option of brands with varied price points. Whereas in case of
Exclusive Brand Outlets, only one brand's offerings are retailed and it's meant
for only the brand's loyal customers who love to buy from that particular store
only.
What potential strategies for multi brand stores can countervail the
increasing competition from mono brand stores?
http://kennisbank.hva.nl/document/642209
The majority of the consumers prefer to shop at mono brand stores, because
of the streamlined brand image and shopping experience. When they shop in
brick-and-mortar stores they want to have a quality shopping experience,
where they are submerged in the brand’s image. When consumers aren’t
looking for a specific brand, but are making functional purchases, they do tend
to visit multi brand and department stores due to the product and price
offerings. Even though, the majority of the consumers have become more
brand-loyal. Adapting to the financial crisis has caused this.
Gap Area
The Literature review highlights that research scholars, experts,
researchers have not explored if the various factor that influence
consumer behaviour can be grouped on the basis of their similarity or
common characteristics and the magnitude or intensity of influence of
each of these if data collected facilitates analysis for the same.
Research Methodology
Our research would be a pure research and not applied since the aim is
not to identify certain decisions to be taken but to understand a
phenomenon and its underlying reasons. On another basis of
classification, the research we choose would be Descriptive since we
have no intentions to reach to conclusions for making decision making.
Also since the observation was not conducted over a span of time it
would be Cross Sectional. The questionnaire was designed with the help
of Google forms for ease of handling responses. The link to the
questionnaire was given out primarily to MBA students thus of the age
group 20 to 26 mostly studying in Delhi/NCR.
Sources of Information
Primary Data - Questionnaire containing 7 variables each in favour of
and against Multi-brand outlets.
Target Population
Age- 18-30yrs
Occupation - Students/Self-Employed
Location - Delhi/NCR
Sampling Techniques
Non- Probability Sampling- Due to unavailability of list of population,
probability sampling which is recommended over non probability
sampling could not be executed for the research,
Questionnaire Designing
VARIABLES AUTHORS YEAR
Diversity Hoch and Banerji 1993
Store Loyalty Quelch and Harding 1996
Price Narasimhan and Wilcox 1998
Product purchase parameter Miao 2003
Cost saving and Store loyalty Fernie et al 2003
Store choice attributes Alhemoud and Keller 2004
Search Experience Batra and Sinha 2000
Search Experience Swai 1998
Store choice attributes Ailawadi et al 2001
Store choice attributes Batra and Sinha 2000
Store choice attributes Alhemoud and Keller 2004
Price Quality association Lichtenstein et al 1993
Consumer satisfaction Thenmozhi and Dhanapal 2010
Convenience Chen 2005
Store Loyalty Gabrielsen and Sørgard 1999
Store Loyalty Thenmozhi and Dhanapal 2010
Data Analysis
Since responses showed strong preference towards Multi Brand outlets
over Single Brand Outlets as can be seen from the descriptive statistics
carried out, further testing was carried out on the data from responses of
those favouring Multi Brand outlets only. Since the GAP area highlighted
the need to understand whether factors that influence consumer
behaviour towards single and multi-brand outlets could be grouped on
the basis of some commonality among them or not, and since the crux of
the responses is derived from questions framed using a 5 point Likert
Scale, the factor analysis tests falls to be the most suitable test for this
research. The factor analysis test generates a number of tables depending
on the options chosen.
Preference
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Yes 125 80.6 80.6 80.6
Valid No 30 19.4 19.4 100.0
Total 155 100.0 100.0
The
factor
analysis test generates a number of tables depending on the options
chosen. The first table in the Output is a Correlation Matrix showing how
each of the 7 items is related with each of the other. The tables show that
some of the correlations are high (eg, + or - .60 or greater) and some are
low (i.e., near zero). The high correlation indicates that two items are
associated and will probably be grouped together by the factor analysis.
Correlation Matrix
QUANTITY
BUDGET SIZE IN STORE EASE OF LOYALTY SHOPPING
Correlation OF
FIT AVAILABILITY OFFERS LOCATION PLANS TIME
OPTIONS
QUANTITY OF
1.000 .558 .400 .216 .283 .074 .405
OPTIONS
EASE OF
.283 .289 .341 .261 1.000 .408 .339
LOCATION
The KMO should be greater than .60, and is inadequate if less than .50.
The KMO test value comes to .726 which indicates that factor analysis
may be considered an appropriate technique for analysing the correlation
matrix and that the sample is adequate. The Bartlett test should be
significant (i.e., significance less than .05). The Bartlett test significant
value is .000 which means the matric is not an identity matrix. The same
can be confirmed looking at the Component Transition Matrix.
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
.726
Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-
194.273
Sphericity Square
df 21
Sig. .000
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2
1 .793 .609
2 -.609 .793
The Total Variance Explained table shows how the variance is divided
among 7 possible components/factors. There are two factors that have
eigenvalues greater than 1.0, which is a common criterion for a factor to
be useful. As shown in Total Variance table, the cumulative variance is
57.325 which explain that nearly 58% of the variability is given by the
model. The cumulative variance should actually be above 60%.
The Component Plot also shows that variables Y6, Y5 and Y7 (which
correspond to Quantity of options, budget fit, size availability) , are grouped in one
component whereas Y1, Y2, Y3 (which correspond to Store Location and Loyalty
Plans) are grouped in another. Y4 which corresponds to In Store Offers is
on the margin between the two components which is again confirmed
looking at the significant values under Rotated Component Matrix which
are .474 and .374. Therefore we drop the In Store Offers variable.
Few researchers state that Scree plot is more reliable to show accurate
results as compared to Total Variance Explained. The Scree plot shows
that component 1 and 2 have value more than 1.0.
Looking at the variables that fall under the two components the ones in
component 1 can be grouped under “Product specific factors” whereas
those in component 2 can be grouped under “Store specific factors”.
Conclusion
Majority of the target population have shown preference to Multi-Brand
Outlets over Single Brand Outlets.
In Store Offers and Shopping Time are not significant variables and thus
they do not influence the behaviour under study.
Limitations
The cumulative variance obtained is slightly below the required
minimum of 60%.
Managerial Implications