cb group 5

8/8/2019 cb group 5

1/31

PRESENTED TO:DR.URVASHI MAKKAR

PRESENTED BY:GROUP-5

8/8/2019 cb group 5

2/31

India is worlds second largest producer of food afterChina and has the potential of being the biggest withFood & gricultural sector.

he total food production in India is likely to be double innext ten years & there is an opportunity for largeinvestments in food industry especially in ackagedFoods, everages & oft rinks.

ealth food & supplements is another rapidly risingsegment of industry that is gaining vast popularityamongst health conscious people.

8/8/2019 cb group 5

3/31

8/8/2019 cb group 5

4/31

Growth in package food industry - 8% - 9%.

Demand of Packaged Food in India In

India the demand for packaging goods hasbeen increased immensely, it is just becauseof: -

Increase in per capita income. Standard of living.

Purchasing power & Consumer Expenditure.

Source of Income of the family has beenincreased mainl in urban areas.

8/8/2019 cb group 5

5/31

Size - he size of packaged food market inIndia is estimated at $10 billion & is expected

to reach at $ 20 billion by 2014. roduct coverage - ready to eat products,

aby food, akeryproducts,Snacks/confectionary food etc

8/8/2019 cb group 5

6/31

Some of the key players in this industry are

L(tea, instant coffee,biscuits),

I C

STL (ready to eat product, instant coffee)

epsiCo & aldiram (sweets, namkeens,snacks).

8/8/2019 cb group 5

7/31

To determine the consumer preference

towards packaged food.

arious factor affecting consumer perception

towards packaged food.

8/8/2019 cb group 5

8/31

Research esign - escriptive research. Sample design is divided into four categories: - Sample nit - The sample unit of our study is all those

persons who are coming to retail stores, people whobuy package foods in CRregion.

Sample size - The sample size for the study is fifty. Sampling area - elhi, oida & Ghaziabad. Sampling Technique - Convenience sampling.

8/8/2019 cb group 5

9/31

Data Collection - There are 2 sources for data

collection : -

Primary source.

Secondary source.

The primary data was collected throughstructured questionnaire. s per our research

study we have collected primary data.

8/8/2019 cb group 5

10/31

8/8/2019 cb group 5

11/31

Interpretations

The person for whom the respondants buy came out to be-

Myself-44% ,Family-5%,children-25%,Institutional

purposes/Social occasions-26%.

The type of packaged food genrealy bought.

Ready to cook food Bakery products-15%,Dairy products-

35%, Staples-36.5,Fruit drinks -13.5%etc.

8/8/2019 cb group 5

12/31

Interpretations

The store they preferred was

Kirana store-42.5%,organized retailsstore-57.5%.

8/8/2019 cb group 5

13/31

Crosstabulation age and categories to packaged foods..

Nutritional value.

Ready to c Bakery products

Dairy

products Stapels

Fruit

drinks.

Count 1 4 0 1 1017-21

Expecte

Count

11. 2. 2.9 2 4.1

Count 2 0 0 7 321-24

Expecte

Count

3.9 1. 1.0 2.7 1.4

Count 0 0 1

8

125-28

Expecte

Count

2.7 .7 .7 1.9 1.0

Count 18 4 4 9 4

age

>31

Expecte

Count

1.6 .4 .4 41.1 .5

Higher income groups buy most from staples and

dairy category,and lower in ready to eat and drinks

8/8/2019 cb group 5

14/31

8/8/2019 cb group 5

15/31

8/8/2019 cb group 5

16/31

Chi- r t

Value df

symp.Sig.(2-

sided)

earson Chi-S uare 79.84a 9 .01

ikelihoodRatio 66.8 9 .00

inear-by- inear

ssociation

.86 1 .35

N of Valid Cases 5

a. 12 cells (75.0) have expectedcountlessthan5.Theminimum

expectedcountis .04.

Monthly income and attitude for which we buying

At 5 level of significance Ho rejected hence there is

association between monthly income and attitude reflection.

8/8/2019 cb group 5

17/31

monthly incom * tt it d Cro t b l tion

attitude

strongly

agree agree neutra l disagree

storngly

dissagre

e

Count 0 0 3 2 0>10,000

Expecte

d Count

1.9 2.4 .3 .2 .1

Count 0 22 0 0 110,000-50,000 Expecte

d Count

8.9 11.3 1.4 .9 .5

Count 0 1 0 0 050,000-

100000 Expecte

d Count

.4 .5 .1 .0 .0

Count 17 1 0 2 0

monthly

income

100000-

500000 Expected Count

7.8 9.8 1.2 .8 .4

Count 19 24 3 2 1Total

Expecte

d Count

19.0 24.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

Crosstabulation-Monthly income & Attitude

8/8/2019 cb group 5

18/31

Ch Squa eTes s

Value df

A p.Sig.(2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 93.788a 12 .02

Li elihoodRatio 84.70 12 .00 Linear-by-Linear

Association

31.80 1 .00

N ofValid Cases 49

a. 16 cells (80.0%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimum

expectedcountis .02.

Chi square -Age & nutritional value

At 5 level of significance Ho rejected hence there is

Association between age group and nutrients re uired.

8/8/2019 cb group 5

19/31

Nutritional value.

strongly agree agree neutral dissagre

strongly

dissagre

Count 1 1 0 117-21

Expecte

Count

11. 2.9 2.9 8.2 4.1

Count 2 0 0 7 321-24Expecte

Count

3.9 1.0 1.0 2.7 1.4

Count 0 0 1 3 125-28

Expecte

Count

2.7 .7 .7 1.9 1.0

Count 18 4 4 3 2

age

>31

ExpecteCount

1.6 .4 .4 1.1 .5


Expecte

Count

20. 5.0 5.0 14. 7.0

Cross tabulation Age vs Nutritonal value requirement

Hence, we can see that higher income groups stress mor

On nutritional value.

8/8/2019 cb group 5

20/31

Chi- r t

Value df

Asymp.Sig.(2-

sided)

earson Chi-S uare 61.74a 1 .00

ikelihoodRatio 60.8 1 .00inear-by- inear

Association

15.9 1 .00

N of Valid Cases 4

a. 16 cells (80.0 )have expectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis .02.

Chi square-Monthly income vs brand value

At 5 level of significance Ho rejected ,hence there is

association between Brand value re uirement and

income group

8/8/2019 cb group 5

21/31

monthly incom * br nd v l Cro t b l tion

brand value

strongly

agree agree neutral disagree

strongly

disagree

Count 0 1 3 2 0>10,000

Expected

Count

1.8 2.0 .9 .1 .1

Count 1 18 3 1 010,000-

50,000 Expected

Count

8.4 9.4 4.2 .5 .5

Count 0 1 0 0 050,000-

100000 Expected

Count

.4 .4 .2 .0 .0

Count 17 1 1 0 1

monthly

income

100000-

500000 Expected

Count

7.3 8.2 3.7 .4 .4


Expected

Count

18.0 20.0 9.0 1.0 1.0

Cross tabulation-Monthly income vs Brand value.

Hence,we can see higher income group strongly agree

they prefer packaged foods with high brand value or nam

8/8/2019 cb group 5

22/31

8/8/2019 cb group 5

23/31

8/8/2019 cb group 5

24/31

visulappeal

stronglyagree agree neutral dissagre

strongly

dissagre

Count 18 4 4 3 117-21

xpecte

Count

11. 2.9 2.9 8.2 4.1

Count 0 0 0 7 321-24xpecte

Count

3.9 1.0 1.0 2.7 1.4

Count 2 0 1 3 125-28

xpecte

Count

2.7 .7 .7 1.9 1.0

Count 0 1 0 1 2

age

31

xpecte

Count

1.6 .4 .4 1.1 .5


xpecte

Count

20. 5.0 5.0 14. 7.0

Crosstabulation:Age & Visual appeal

8/8/2019 cb group 5

25/31

8/8/2019 cb group 5

26/31

Total Variance Ex la ined

Initial igenva lues

xtract ion Sums of

Squared L oad ings

Rotat ion Sums ofSquared

Load ings

l

% of

Var iance

Cumulat

ive % Tota l

% of

Var ianc

e

Cumulat

ive % Tota l

% of

Var ianc

e

Cumulat ive

%

79 40.661 40.661 4.879 40.661 40.661 4.669 38.911 38.911

53 17.110 57.771 2.053 17.110 57.771 2.151 17.923 56.833

82 9.851 67.622 1.182 9.851 67.622 1.295 10.789 67.622

49 7.909 75.531

68 7.230 82.761

26 6.880 89.642

71 5.591 95.233

63 2.188 97.421

40 1.166 98.587

04 .868 99.455

35 .295 99.750

30 .250 100.00 0

ethod: Principal Component Ana lysis.

Factor analysis

8/8/2019 cb group 5

27/31

Rotated Component Matrix

a

Component

1 2 3

taste .910

variety .855

availability .787

cleanless -.456 .461

manufacturingdate .867 .182

advertisment .927brandambassador .965

nutritional value . .624

brandva lue .932

skuun it .466

promotional schemes .860

visual appeal .953

xtraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax ith KaiserNormalization.

a. Rotation converged in4 iterations.

Rotated Component matrix

8/8/2019 cb group 5

28/31

INTERPRETATION:-

67.622 of the total variance is explained by first three factors o

Hence decomposing all the factors into further sub headings.

F

actor 1(Brand Awareness)

Advertisment, Brand ambassdor,brand value, promotional

Schemes,visual appeal.

Factor 2(Product characterstics)

Taste,Variety, cleanliness

Factor 3(product Quality)

Product availability, manufacturing date, sku unit, nutritional valu

8/8/2019 cb group 5

29/31

Interpretations

Similarly there was found to be association between Gender and price . o

was rejected and hence association was there between gender and

pricing,Females were more price conscious.

There was no association between gender,income groups ,age groups and

variety,availability,cleanliness that is all of our respondents considered

variety,cleanliness and availability as an important factor for their buying of

packaged foods.

There came out to be no association between promotional schemes and age. ll

respondents buying was dependent on promotional schemes adopted bycompanies.

8/8/2019 cb group 5

30/31

The scope of research is confined only inghaziabad.

Sample size to be small.The limitation of time of the project this is

minimum.

The respondent always to hurry fill up thequestionnaire that can may be biased.

8/8/2019 cb group 5

31/31

Packaged food company should makeattractive packaging of the product.

Packaged food company need to choosefamous brand ambassador foradvertisement of the product.

xtra nutritional value should be added forconsumer attraction.

ostly target lower age group consumerwho are want to changed.

Recommendation

cb group 5

Documents