does an increase in tax on sugary drinks reduce
TRANSCRIPT
DOES AN INCREASE IN TAX ON SUGARY DRINKS
REDUCE MILLENNIALS SOFT DRINKS BUYING
INTENTION
BY
MR. SARUN SUBHAVAN
AN INDEPENDENT STUDY SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAM IN MARKETING
(INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM)
FACULTY OF COMMERCE AND ACCOUNTANCY
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2017
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
DOES AN INCREASE IN TAX ON SUGARY DRINKS
REDUCE MILLENNIALS SOFT DRINKS BUYING
INTENTION
BY
MR. SARUN SUBHAVAN
AN INDEPENDENT STUDY SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAM IN MARKETING
(INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM)
FACULTY OF COMMERCE AND ACCOUNTANCY
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2017
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
(1)
Independent Study Title DOES AN INCREASE IN TAX ON SUGARY
DRINKS REDUCE MILLENNIALS SOFT
DRINKS BUYING INTENTION
Author Mr. Sarun Subhavan
Degree Master of Science Program in Marketing
(International Program)
Major Field/Faculty/University Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy
Thammasat University
Independent Study Advisor Professor Malcolm C. Smith, Ph.D.
Academic Year 2017
ABSTRACT
This study is a contemporary topic in applied marketing on health, which
is focused on the consumers’ behavior in Thailand.
Having spent over 190 billion Baht yearly on imported medical services for
obesity and other weight related diseases, the Thai Government has announced a new
tax policy with the intention to reduce the sugar consumption rate among Thai people.
The new tax will not only increase the price of sugary products, but it will also reduce
the price of some products that are low in sugar content as well. Over consumption of
sugary drinks, specifically soft drinks, has been one of the most important topics in
society as it is strongly believed to be the major cause of obesity. Thailand is ranked as
the first runner-up for overweight population in Southeast Asia.
The methodology used in this study included both qualitative and
quantitative research methods. Secondary research and a focus group interview were
selected for the qualitative research. An online questionnaire was selected for the
quantitative research approach. Data were collected from 158 respondents from various
occupations. The data was analyzed using SPSS to obtain further key findings and
insights.
According to the analysis of this research, an increase in the retail price of a
single unit of soft drinks will affect consumers buying intention if it is greater than 5
baht. On the other hand, the buying intention for non-sugar alternatives will increase if
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
(2)
the price per unit has decreased. Apart from the price, other factors like nutritional
value, taste, and promotional campaigns are also strong influencing factors.
The results of this study will provide beneficial ideas and insights for both
the Thai Government as well as beverage companies, which can use these insights to
create effective campaigns and marketing strategies.
Keywords: Soft Drinks, No Sugar Alternatives, New Tax Policy, Impact, Millennials
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
(3)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Allow me to take this opportunity to express and extend my sincere
appreciation to my supportive advisor, Prof. Dr. Malcolm C. Smith, for his always
valuable feedback, comments, advice, and encouragement. It would never be such an
accomplishment on this independent study without his support and assistance. I also
would like to extend my appreciation to Asst. Prof. Pannapachr Itthiopassagul, MIM
Director, for the opportunity of being a part of this untradeable learning experience in
the MIM program. Furthermore, I would like to extend my appreciation to all of the
respondents, my family, and my friends who spent their valuable time responding to
both the focus group interview and the online questionnaires distributed.
Lastly, I would like to extend this special appreciation to my parents who
always understood and supported me throughout the entire program as well as my
personal life. Nothing here would have been so successful without their sincere
support.
Mr. Sarun Subhavan
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
(4)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT (1)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (3)
LIST OF TABLES (8)
LIST OF FIGURES (9)
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Research Objectives 2
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4
2.1 The Background 4
2.2 The Millennials 4
2.3 The Current Situation 5
2.4 The Solutions 6
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 8
3.1 Research Methodology 8
3.1.1 Exploratory Research Design 8
3.1.1.1 Observation 8
3.1.1.2 Secondary Data 8
3.1.1.3 Focus Group 8
3.1.2 Descriptive Research Design 9
3.2 Sampling Plan 9
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
(5)
3.3 Survey Recruitment Process 10
3.4 Data Analysis 10
3.4.1 Frequency Analysis 10
3.4.2 Cluster Analysis 10
3.4.3 Independence Sample T-test 10
3.4.4 ANOVA 11
3.4.5 Custom Tables 11
3.4.6 Correlation 11
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Exploratory 12
4.1.1 Observation 12
4.1.2 Secondary Data 12
4.1.3 Focus Group 12
4.2 Descriptive 13
4.2.1 The Respondents’ Profile 13
4.2.1.1 General 13
4.2.1.2 Cluster Analysis 15
4.3 Results for Research Objectives 16
4.3.1 Current Perception 16
4.3.1.1 Important Attributes 16
4.3.1.2 Turn-off Factors 17
4.3.2 Purchasing Behaviors 17
4.3.3 Influential Factors 18
4.3.3.1 The Effects of Price 18
4.3.4 Satisfactory Levels among Existing Brands 19
4.3.4.1 Pepsi 19
4.3.4.2 Pepsi Max 20
4.3.4.3 Coke 21
4.3.4.4 Diet Coke 22
4.3.4.5 Coke Zero 23
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
(6)
4.3.4.6 Unif 24
4.3.5 Advertising and Marketing Campaigns 25
4.3.5.1 Important Attributes 25
4.3.5.1.1 Frequent Travelers 25
4.3.5.1.2 Health Conscious 26
4.3.5.2 Attractive Campaigns 26
4.3.5.2.1 Frequent Travelers 26
4.3.5.2.2 Health Conscious 26
4.4 Relationship between Variables 27
4.4.1 Levels of Importance and Levels of Agreement on Turn-off 27
Attributes (Soft drinks)
4.4.1.1 Price 28
4.4.1.2 Package 28
4.4.1.3 Easy to Find 28
4.4.1.4 Variety of Flavors 28
4.4.1.5 Nutritional Facts 28
4.4.1.6 Brands 29
4.4.1.7 Promotional Campaigns 29
4.4.2 Levels of Importance and Levels of Agreement on Turn-off 29
Attributes (No sugar alternatives)
4.4.2.1 Price 29
4.4.2.2 Package 30
4.4.2.3 Easy to Find 30
4.4.2.4 Variety of Flavors 30
4.4.2.5 Nutritional Facts 30
4.4.2.6 Brands 30
4.4.2.7 Promotional Campaigns 30
4.4.3 Levels of Importance and Satisfactory Levels 32
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 33
5.1 Summary 33
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
(7)
5.2 Recommendations 34
5.3 Limitations 35
5.3.1 Area Selected 35
5.3.2 Time 35
5.3.3 Factor Analysis 35
5.3.4 Convenience Sampling 35
REFERENCES 36
APPENDICES 37
APPENDIX A: Questions and Objectives Linkage of the Focus Group 38
Interview
APPENDIX B: Online Questionnaires Deployed 40
APPENDIX C: Bangkok Research Area 49
APPENDIX D: Clusters’ Profile and T-test Results 50
APPENDIX E: Current Perception 52
APPENDIX F: Turn-off Factors 53
APPENDIX G: Purchasing Behaviors 54
APPENDIX H: Effects of Price 55
BIOGRAPHY 57
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
(8)
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
Table 3.1: Sampling Plan 9
Table 4.1: Clustered Groups’ Profile 15
Table 4.2: Pepsi Satisfactory Levels 20
Table 4.3: Pepsi Max Satisfactory Levels 21
Table 4.4: Coke Satisfactory Levels 22
Table 4.5: Diet Coke Satisfactory Levels 23
Table 4.6: Coke Zero Satisfactory Levels 24
Table 4.7: Unif Satisfactory Levels 25
Table 4.8: Marketing and Promotional Campaigns 27
Table 4.9: Relationship between Importance and Soft Drinks Turn-off 29
Attributes
Table 4.10: Relationship between Importance and No Sugar Alternatives 31
Turn-off Attributes
Table 4.11: Relationship between Importance and Satisfactory Levels 32
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
(9)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
Figures 2.1: Thai Population Pyramid 2017 5
Figures 2.2: Overweight Populations in Southeast Asia 6
Figures 4.1: Respondents’ Profile 14
Figures 4.2: Current Perception 16
Figures 4.3: Purchasing Behaviors 18
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Over consumption of sugary drinks, specifically soft drinks, has been one
of the most important topics in society as it is strongly believed to be the major cause
of obesity. According to the Thailand Business News, Thai people consume sugar
around 4 times more than the recommended amount, and most of the sugar consumed
is from beverages (Languepin, 2015). 32% of the Thai population is overweight and
will soon reach half of the total population with the current rate (Lalande, 2016). Having
spent over 190 billion Thai Baht yearly on imported medical services for obesity,
diabetes, and coronary artery diseases, the Thai Government has announced a new tax
policy with the intention to reduce the sugar consumption rate among Thai people. The
government is hoping that this will also lead to a reduced expenditure on those imported
medical services (Chantanusornsiri, 2017).
Yet, as will be discussed below in the literature review, the Thai
Government does not know exactly whether this new tax policy will do the job.
Therefore, this research aims to answer the following questions: 1) “What is the current
consumer perception towards traditional soft drinks and no sugar alternatives?” 2)
“What is the consumer purchasing decision making process?” 3) “What are the factors
that influence consumers to buy traditional soft drinks or no sugar alternatives?”, and
4) “What should be the most effective campaign for the Thai Government to reduce
soft drinks consumption by the Millennials?”
This research is a contemporary topic in applied marketing on health
focusing on consumers’ behavior toward sugary drinks in Thailand. The results of this
study are expected to provide a better understanding of target consumers, and it will help
to generate insights that can be implemented as marketing strategies.
Also, the results of this research are expected to provide more insights on
target consumers regarding their perceptions on soft drinks, and to identify factors that
lead to buying intention. The next section of this research will cover the research
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
2
objectives, which will be followed by the literature review, the research design, the data
analysis, the summary, the recommendations, and the references and appendices
respectively.
1.2 Research Objectives
Definitions:
Consumers mean Thai Millennials who regularly consume soft drinks on a
daily basis.
Sugary drinks and soft drinks mean sugar added beverages in forms of a can,
bottle, bag, etc.
No sugar alternatives mean beverages that contain sweetener instead of
sugar, for example Coke Zero, Diet Coke, Pepsi Max, etc.
There are three objectives that this research will focus on as follows;
1. To identify which consumer segment consumes the most amount of soft
drinks and at which price range of traditional soft drinks are mostly
consumed.
1.1. To identify the Millennial segments based on their lifestyle.
1.2. To identify the Millennial segments based on their demographics.
1.3. To identify how much of an increase in a single unit price of soft
drinks will reduce the consumption rate.
2. To determine the current perception of target consumers towards soft
drinks and no sugar alternatives.
2.1. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
price of soft drinks.
2.2. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
package of soft drinks.
2.3. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
availability of soft drinks.
2.4. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
flavors of soft drinks.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
3
2.5. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
nutritional facts of soft drinks.
2.6. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
brands of soft drinks
2.7. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
promotional campaigns of soft drinks.
3. To determine the factors that influence the target consumer consumption
choice to shift to no sugar alternatives.
3.1. To determine the decision making process of soft drinks among
Millennials.
3.2. To determine the key purchasing factors, such as product, price,
availability, promotion, brand, etc. as well as the satisfactory level
of each factors.
3.3. To determine the reasons why Millennials do not consume no sugar
alternatives.
3.4. To determine the most appropriate campaign that will influence
Millennials’ intention to buy.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
4
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 The Background
Traditional soft drinks have been one of the most consumed beverages in
Thailand. These sugary drinks come in various flavors, packages, and prices from various
brands. According to the industry study of the Siam Commercial Bank of Thailand,
traditional soft drinks account for more than 220 billion Thai Baht in market value, or over
65% of the overall market share. The soft drinks industry is expected to grow continuously
as there are more and more players penetrating into the market yearly (Industry Outlook,
2016). One of most well-known characteristics of soft drinks apart from refreshing and
sweetness is the variety of flavors each of the beverage brands provides in the market.
Research has shown that 86.4% of respondents claim that flavor is the key consideration
when buying soft drinks, while the price and availability also strongly affect the purchasing
intention (Soft drink, 2014).
2.2 The Millennials
The Thai Millennials are one of the biggest population groups in Thailand.
According to the 2017 population pyramid in Figure 2.1, the Millennials account roughly
over 30% of the total Thai population. This will lead to a huge increase in the aging segment
of the population pyramid in the near future (Population Pyramids, 2017). Focusing this
research on the Millennials will help in solving health issues for a huge portion of the aging
society in the future.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
5
Figure 2.1: Thai Population Pyramid 2017 (Population Pyramids, 2017)
2.3 The Current Situation
Sugar consumption has become one of the most common habits of Thai people.
People consume sugar daily with or without knowing the exact portion. The Thailand
Business News stated that Thai people consume sugar around 4 times more than the daily
recommended amount, and that most of the consumed sugar came from beverages. Also, as
referred to in Figure 2.2, among all the countries in the Southeast Asian region, Thailand
has been ranked as the first runner-up in the overweight population size after Malaysia
(Languepin, 2015).
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
6
Figure 2.2: Overweight Populations in Southeast Asia (Languepin, 2015)
The over consumption of sugar has not only an individual impact, but an impact
on the whole country. The over consumption of sugar is leading a huge portion of the Thai
populations to a health disaster. Yearly, the Thai Government is spending 2.2% of country’s
GDP, or 198.5 billion Baht on imported medical services for treating obesity, diabetes, and
coronary artery diseases (Chantanusornsiri, 2017).
2.4 The Solutions
Having spent a huge amount of money yearly, the Thai Government announced
a new tax policy with an intention to reduce sugar consumption among Thai people. The
Thai Government believes that the lower sugar consumption will lead to a decreasing
expenditure on imported medical services as well. According to the Straits Times (2017),
the new tax will not only increase the price of sugary products, but will also reduce the price
of some products as well. For example, while a traditional soft drink will be subjected to a
higher tax at 0.13 Baht – 0.50 Baht per bottle, a no sugar alternative or a sugar-free drink
will also be taxed lower by 0.28 Baht – 0.36 Baht. This policy is very similar to how the
Canadian and the U.S. Governments increased the tax on tobacco, where the retail price has
increased dramatically, to reduce the consumption rate.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
7
In conclusion, the literature review provides the information for this study in
three major topics which are:
The new tax policy has not only raised the price on soft drinks, but also has
reduced the price on no sugar alternatives.
1. Flavor is the key consideration when buying soft drinks, while the price
and availability also strongly affect the purchasing intention.
2. The Thai Government believes that the lower sugar consumption will lead
to a decreasing expenditure on imported medical services.
However, there are several questions listed below that the literature review
has not answered and this research aims to do that.
1. What is the current consumer perception towards soft drinks and no sugar
alternatives?
2. What is the consumer purchasing decision making process?
3. What are the factors that drive consumers to purchase and consume soft
drinks and no sugar alternatives?
4. What should be the most effective action for the Thai Government to
reduce soft drinks consumption by Millennials?
By capturing the information from the literature review stated above, this
study will be able to determine the correctness of the past studies as well as provide a
new understanding of the current market situation. Also, this study will provide a better
understanding of current consumers’ behavior as well as their perception towards
traditional soft drink and no sugar alternatives.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
8
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Methodology
The study was conducted using both exploratory research and descriptive
research methods to achieve the study objectives. The two research methods focused on
different purposes.
3.1.1 Exploratory research design
The research design was conducted to determine consumer perception
towards soft drinks, and to explore consumer opinions, the buying decision making
process, and crucial factors that make consumers decide to consume or not consume soft
drinks.
3.1.1.1 Observation
The study included an observation of product prices in various
channels in order to compare the price and indicate whether the new tax
system has had any impact on the product’s retail price.
3.1.1.2 Secondary data
Data and relevant information was collected from credible sources
such as online news, industry statistics, etc. These secondary data helped
provide further information, which was used in the designing process of the
questionnaire for collecting primary data.
3.1.1.3 Focus group
The study included one focus group. The focus group was conducted in
early January with 6 Thai Millennial participants with an equal amount of
males and females. The participants varied in terms of occupations, but all
were active soft drinks or no sugar alternatives consumers. This method
helped to explore consumers’ attitudes towards soft drinks and no sugar
alternatives, and pointed out what influences them to choose a particular
beverage among others. An experienced moderator was hired to run this
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
9
focus group interview with a well-structured questions guideline in order not
to turn off the participants. See Appendix A for questions and objectives
linkage for the focus group interview.
3.1.2 Descriptive research design
This study described the current market situation, which includes
consumers’ perceptions towards soft drinks attributes, such as price, taste, variety of
flavor, package design, etc. The research was conducted through online questionnaires,
which were completed by 158 respondents. All questionnaires were completely filled
without any respondents’ error. The data collected was then analyzed to identify the
current situation, and to identify the factors that affect consumers to shift from
consuming traditional soft drinks to consuming no sugar alternatives. See Appendix B
for the deployed questionnaire questions.
The duration required to finish the questionnaire did not exceed 15 minutes
per respondent in order to keep an effective response rate.
3.2 Sampling Plan
The study used a convenience sampling method to select the respondents.
Also, the target respondents for the qualitative and quantitative researches were screened
by the same criteria as follows:
1. The target respondent must be Thai Millennials
2. The target respondents must be those who consumed soft drinks or no
sugar alternatives more than 5 times per month.
The summary of the sampling plan is described in the Table 3.1 below:
Table 3.1: Sampling Plan
Type of Research Methodology Pre-test Pilot Sample Size
1. Qualitative Focus Group 1 Group (3 people) 1 Group (6 people)
2. Quantitative Online Questionnaire 10 People 150 People
Target Population : Millennials Male/Female who actively consumed either
soft drinks or no sugar alternatives.
Area : Bangkok (see Appendix C)
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
10
3.3 Survey Recruitment Process
Respondents were obtained through 2 channels as described below:
Focus Group: 6 respondents were recruited from personal contacts who are,
colleagues, friends, and friends of friends.
The online questionnaires: The respondents were recruited using LINE
Messenger and Facebook Post, which the questionnaires were separated into 3 sets where
each of the 3 sets of the questionnaires was distributed to at least 50 respondents. Each
of the 3 sets of the questionnaires measured respondents’ reactions towards a different
increase in the price of a single soft drink unit and a decrease in the price of a single no
sugar alternatives unit. Thus, one group was asked to react to a change of +-2 baht,
another was asked to react to a change of +-5 baht, and the final group was asked to react
to a change of +-10 baht. The online questionnaires were posted via Facebook Post,
which was distributed and shared through Line Messenger and Facebook Messenger.
3.4 Data Analysis
3.4.1 Frequency analysis
A frequency analysis was used to identify the overall respondents profile in
terms of demographics and purchasing behaviors.
3.4.2 Cluster analysis
A cluster analysis method was used to segment the respondents into groups
based on their similarity of demographics and lifestyle information. This helped the data
to become easier to process and analyze using other analyzing methods, such as
regression analysis and correlation.
3.4.3 Independence sample t-test
An independence sample t-test was used to check whether there is a significant
difference between the two clustered groups or not. This helped to see which lifestyle
and demographic attributes of the two clustered groups were different.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
11
3.4.4 ANOVA
The study used One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to identify the
differences in the mean value of the 3 scenarios of the pricing impact on soft drinks and
no sugar alternatives.
2.4.5 Custom tables
Customs tables were used to illustrate the distribution of results of various
variables given by the clustered groups. This helped to easily compare the mean and
percentage between the reaction towards each of the variables and the clustered groups.
3.4.6 Correlation
The study used a correlation method in order to investigate if there was a
relationship among various variables. This identified whether the variables have any
positive or negative relationship to one another.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
12
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Exploratory
4.1.1 Observation
Observation was conducted to investigate the product prices in various
channels in order to compare the price and indicate whether the new tax implementation
has had any impact on the product’s retail price. There were three venues where the
observation took place which were Tops supermarket, Tesco Lotus, and 7-11. So far, there
is no significant change in the price of retail soft drinks and no sugar alternatives on any
size and package. For example, the price on a slim can of Coke and Diet Coke remains at
12 Baht per can, while the price on a 600ml bottle of Coke Zero and Pepsi Max remains at
17 Baht.
4.1.2 Secondary data
The key findings and insights of the secondary data research are described in
the literature review section.
4.1.3 Focus group
The focus group was conducted with 6 participants, including 3 females and 3
males. The participants came from different backgrounds in which 2 are students, 2 are
doctors, 1 is an employee, and another one has their own business. The focus group took
approximately 1:30 hours (from 16:00-17:30 hour) at the restaurant called the Summer
House in Ayutthaya province. The participants were asked several questions regarding their
perceptions, behaviors, and influencing factors. The key insights gained from this focus
group were that 1) 4 of 6 participants mentioned that the price is not the main factor when
buying soft drinks or no sugar alternatives, 2) the only 2 persons who mentioned that price
is the key consideration when buying soft drinks were the 2 students, 3) the price will be the
main consideration if it increases over 5 baht per unit, and 4) there were only 3 brands
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
13
recognized within the focus group when asked about soft drinks and no sugar alternatives,
which were Pepsi, Coke, and Unif.
The information gained, in terms of insights and variables, were analyzed and
used to develop the contents and questions of the online questionnaire.
4.2 Descriptive
4.2.1 The respondents’ profile
4.2.1.1 General
As shown in Figure 4.1, 62.7% of respondents were male and 37.3% were
female. The majority were 24-31 years old, which accounts 73.4% of the total
respondents. Around 60% of the respondents work between 8-10 hours a day
and more than 50% have a yearly household income of more than 600,000 Baht.
The occupations of these respondents were classified into students, freelancers,
employees, business owners, government sectors, and others, which represented
6.3%, 12.7%, 63.9%, 7%, 6.3%, and 3.8% respectively. 63.6% of these
respondents were those with Bachelor’s Degree, 32.3% were Master’s and
Doctoral Degrees, and 4.4% were below Bachelor’s Degree.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
14
Figure 4.1: Respondents’ Profile (N=158)
62%
38%
GENDER
Male
Female
46%
27%
19%
8%
AGE
24-27
28-31
32-35
36-39
25%
59%
16%
WORK HOURS
< 8 hrs
8-10 hrs
> 10 hrs
5%
63%29%
3%
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL
<Bachelor's
Bachelor's
Master's
Doctoral
6%
13%
64%
7%
6%4%
OCCUPATION
Student
Freelance
Employee
OwnBusinessGovernment Sector
5%
25%
19%
51%
YEARLY INCOME
≤200k
200k-400k
400k-600k
>600k
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
15
4.2.1.2 Cluster Analysis
The 158 respondents were then clustered into 2 different segments based on
their demographic characteristics and lifestyle. Each of the clustered groups
contained 70 and 88 populations respectively. As shown in Table 4.1, 30% of
the populations of the first clustered group are male and 70% are female, and
the average weight ranges from less than 50 kilograms to 65 kilograms, where
the average height ranges from less than 150 centimeters to 175 centimeters. On
the other hand, 88.6% of the second clustered group are male and 11.4% are
female, and the average weight ranges from 61 kilograms to more than 80
kilograms, where the average height ranges from 156 centimeters to more than
180 centimeters.
Table 4.1: Clustered Groups’ Profile
Characteristics Frequent Travelers Health Conscious
Sample Size 70 88
Gender Male: 30%, Female: 70% Male: 88.6%, Female: 11.4%
Weight Range 50kg-65kg 61kg-80kg
Height Range 150cm-175cm 156cm-180cm
Regarding the lifestyle, the respondents in the first clustered group are those
who love traveling to new places, love shopping, and love trying new food.
However, they tend to consume less healthy food than the second clustered
group. Thus, the first clustered group is named the “Frequent Travelers”
segment. The respondents in the second clustered group are those with the
ultimate goal of living a healthy life. They love to play sports, and are consuming
more healthy food than the first clustered group. Thus, the second clustered
group is named the “Health Conscious Consumers” segment. A t-test was used
to see if there were differences in the mean values of the lifestyle and
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
16
demographic variables of the 2 segments. (See Appendix D for Clustered
Groups’ Profile)
4.3 Results for Research Objectives
4.3.1 Current perception
4.3.1.1 Important attributes:
Regarding the current perception of the population towards soft drinks
and no sugar alternatives described in Figure 4.2, the Frequent Travelers
think that the availability, brands, variety of flavors, and package are the
most important attributes, while the nutritional fact is the least important
attribute. On the other hand, the Health Conscious Consumers think that
the two most important attributes are availability and variety of flavors,
while the price is the least important attribute. (See Appendix E for Current
Perception)
Figure 4.2: Current Perception (N=158)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Price Package Availability Variety ofFlavors
NutritionalFacts
Brands PromotionalCampaigns
Frequent Travelers (N=70) Health Conscious (N=88)
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
17
4.3.1.2 Turn-off factors:
When comparing the mean scores of the level of agreement on reasons
why people are choosing to drink one item over another, it is clearly
illustrated that the reasons between the 2 segments are different.
From the analysis, the Frequent Travelers segment mentioned that they
are choosing soft drinks over no sugar alternatives as they perceived that no
sugar alternatives have a high price and that they dislike the taste with given
mean scores of 5.35 (t-value = 7.069) and 5.31 (t-value = -0.938)
respectively. On the other hand, those who are choosing no sugar
alternatives over soft drinks perceived that soft drinks look unhealthy with
a mean score of 5.00 (t-value = 0.59).
For the Health Conscious Consumers segment, those who are choosing
soft drinks over no sugar alternatives agreed that they dislike the taste of no
sugar alternatives with a mean score of 5.65 (t-value = -0.938) On the other
hand, with a mean score of 5.70 (t-value = -4.235), those who are choosing
no sugar alternatives over soft drinks agreed that the low nutritional values
factor of soft drinks is the let-down.
On the awareness side, both drinker groups do not have an issue with
either the brand reputation or the package attractiveness. (See Appendix F
for Turn-off Factors)
4.3.2 Purchasing behaviors
According to Figure 4.3, regarding the purchasing behaviors, about 80% of all
respondents purchase soft drinks or no sugar alternatives alone, while about 13% purchase
with friends. When it comes to consuming, 68.4% of the respondents mentioned that they
consume soft drinks or no sugar alternatives alone, while about 24% mentioned that they
consume with friends. When it comes to how they consume soft drinks or no sugar
alternatives, 43% of the respondents mentioned that they consume them with a major meal,
26.6% consume them with snacks, 27.8% consume them as they are, and 2.5% consume
them as a mixture to other drinks.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
18
Figure 4.3: Purchasing Behaviors (N=158)
When it comes to purchasing and consuming behaviors, both the
Frequent Travelers and the Health Conscious segments have a similar
distribution percentage in each of the aspects. (See Appendix G for
Purchasing Behaviors)
4.3.3 Influential factors
4.3.3.1 The effects of price
From the total 158 respondents, 50 respondents were asked their
reaction to an increase of 2 baht on soft drinks and a decrease of 2 baht on
no sugar alternatives, 52 were asked the same question, but with a 5 baht
difference, and 56 were asked with a 10 baht difference. After comparing
the means, there is a significant difference for those who were asked about
a 10 baht increase on a single unit price of soft drinks (F=7.16, P=0.01).
80%
13%
2% 5%
Purchase With
Alone
Friends
Family
Others68%
24%
8%
Consume With
Alone
Friends
Family
43%
27%
2%
28%
How You Consume
W/Meal
W/Snacks
W/Other Drinks
As it is
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
19
In this group 35 of 56 respondents are those who mostly consume soft
drinks and had a mean score of 3.3, which indicates that they will buy fewer
soft drinks if the price is increased by 10 baht. On the other hand, 21 of 56
respondents are those who mostly consume no sugar alternatives and had a
mean score of 3.7, which indicates that they will either buy fewer soft drinks
if the price is increased by 10 baht or not buy at all.
On the price decrease aspects on the no sugar alternatives, there is no
difference between the 3 mentioned groups of respondents, where the
average mean scores are 1.68, 1.82, and 1.58 respectively. This indicates
that they will either consume the same amount, or consume more no sugar
alternatives if the price is decreased. (See Appendix H for the Effects of
Price)
4.3.4 Satisfactory levels among existing brands
After running a custom table to compare the mean of the satisfactory score given
by the Frequent Travelers and the Health Conscious segments on each attribute of the
existing brands, the study is able to identify which attribute of which brand that needs special
focus on in terms of a push forward or an improvement.
4.3.4.1 Pepsi:
According to Table 4.2, both the Frequent Travelers and the Health
Conscious segments were very satisfied on the availability and the taste
attributes of Pepsi, where the mean scores given were 6.54 and 6.13 for the
availability attribute, 6.21 and 5.86 for the taste attribute. Also, the two
segments do have the same dissatisfied attribute, which is the nutritional
values, where the scores given were 3.8 and 2.72 respectively. According
to the results from the t-test, all of the attributes except the promotional
campaigns are statistically different.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
20
Table 4.2: Pepsi Satisfactory Levels
Attributes/Satisfactory
Frequent
Travelers
(N=70)
Health
Conscious
(N=88)
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
F-Value T-Value
Package Design 5.56 5.00 0.005 0.066 2.863
Package Size 5.53 5.02 0.002 12.242 3.118
Price 5.29 4.90 0.045 0.419 2.020
Availability 6.54 6.13 0.002 15.458 3.096
Taste 6.21 5.86 0.031 9.525 2.173
Nutritional Values 3.80 2.72 0.000 4.366 5.271
Brand Reputation 5.91 5.41 0.002 7.383 3.151
Promotional
Campaigns 5.16 4.82 0.073 3.247 1.806
4.3.4.2 Pepsi Max:
As described in Table 4.3, both the Frequent Travelers and the Health
Conscious segments were very satisfied with the brand reputation of Pepsi
Max, which the given mean scores were 5.49 and 5.19. Price was another
strong satisfactory attribute for both segments, where the given mean scores
were 5.09 and 5.28. On the other hand, the least satisfied attribute for both
segments were, again, the nutritional values, where the given mean scores
were 4.19 and 3.82. According to the results from the t-test, the mean scores
given by the 2 segments have no differences in all attributes.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
21
Table 4.3: Pepsi Max Satisfactory Levels
Attributes/Satisfactory
Frequent
Travelers
(N=70)
Health
Conscious
(N=88)
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
F-Value T-Value
Package Design 5.01 5.08 0.748 19.372 -0.322
Package Size 4.96 5.14 0.374 16.628 -0.892
Price 5.09 5.28 0.351 0.266 -0.936
Availability 4.83 4.91 0.758 0.004 -0.309
Taste 4.71 4.18 0.071 5.837 1.821
Nutritional Values 4.19 3.82 0.194 12.393 1.305
Brand Reputation 5.49 5.19 0.180 0.046 1.346
Promotional Campaigns 4.24 4.56 0.130 0.283 -1.523
4.3.4.3 Coke:
According to Table 4.4, Coke scored highly on the availability attribute
for both segments with given mean scores of 6.46 and 6.11, and also on the
brand reputation attribute for the Frequent Travelers segment with a given
mean score of 5.96. For the Health Conscious segment, Coke scored highly
on the taste attribute with a given mean score of 5.72. On the other hand,
similar to Pepsi and Pepsi Max, Coke scored poorly on the nutritional values
attributes for both segments, where the given mean scores were 3.83 and
2.66. According to the results from the t-test, there is a difference in the
mean scores of the nutritional values attribute given by the 2 segments.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
22
Table 4.4: Coke Satisfactory Levels
Attributes/Satisfactory
Frequent
Travelers
(N=70)
Health
Conscious
(N=88)
Sig.
(2-tailed)
F-Value T-Value
Package Design 5.49 5.47 0.925 2.747 0.094
Package Size 5.49 5.47 0.928 6.768 0.090
Price 5.37 5.30 0.701 8.396 0.385
Availability 6.46 6.11 0.076 0.172 1.789
Taste 5.64 5.72 0.760 0.005 -0.305
Nutritional Values 3.83 2.66 0.000 15.199 6.351
Brand Reputation 5.96 5.55 0.055 0.321 1.930
Promotional
Campaigns 4.81 4.69 0.544 0.327 0.611
4.3.4.4 Diet Coke:
As illustrated in Table 4.5, Diet Coke has 3 stand out attributes scored
by the Frequent Travelers, which were the brand reputation, the package
size, and the package design, where the given mean scores were 5.5, 5.26,
and 5.2 respectively. The lowest scored attribute for Diet Coke for this
segment was the promotional campaign with a score of 4.36.
On the other hand, the top three attributes for the Health Conscious
segment were the package design, the price, and the brand reputation with
the mean scores of 5.53, 5.38. and 5.32 respectively. However, Diet Coke
scored poorly on the promotional campaign, the availability, and the
nutritional values on this segment with the mean scores of 3.63, 3.65, and
4.19 respectively. According to the results from the t-test, the mean scores
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
23
of the price, availability, nutritional values, and promotional campaigns
are statistically different.
Table 4.5: Diet Coke Satisfactory Levels
Attributes/Satisfactory
Frequent
Travelers
(N=70)
Health
Conscious
(N=88)
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
F-Value T-Value
Package Design 5.20 5.53 0.091 9.545 -1.703
Package Size 5.26 5.10 0.439 51.527 0.776
Price 4.94 5.38 0.034 2.458 -2.138
Availability 4.66 3.65 0.000 0.108 3.806
Taste 4.60 4.30 0.333 13.022 0.971
Nutritional Values 4.71 4.19 0.038 24.777 2.089
Brand Reputation 5.50 5.32 0.410 2.280 0.826
Promotional
Campaigns 4.36 3.63 0.001 4.704 3.387
4.3.4.5 Coke Zero:
As illustrated in Table 4.6, similar to Diet Coke, the 3 most satisfied
attributes of Coke Zero for the Frequent Travelers segment were the
package design, the brand reputation, and the package size, where the
mean scores were 5.4, 5.37, and 5.36. However, Coke Zero scored poorly
on the taste attribute with a mean score of 3.97.
On the other hand, for the Health Conscious segment, the two
strongest attributes of Coke Zero were the brand reputation and the
availability with mean scores of 5.36 and 5.27, while, the taste and the
nutritional values were the weakest attributes with mean scores of 2.88 and
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
24
3.98. According to the results from the t-test, the mean scores of the taste
and nutritional values are statistically different.
Table 4.6: Coke Zero Satisfactory Levels
Attributes/Satisfactory
Frequent
Travelers
(N=70)
Health
Conscious
(N=88)
Sig.
(2-tailed)
F-Value T-Value
Package Design 5.40 5.22 0.373 3.897 0.894
Package Size 5.36 5.26 0.633 15.815 0.479
Price 5.21 5.22 0.993 6.053 -0.008
Availability 4.97 5.27 0.212 1.435 -1.253
Taste 3.97 2.88 0.000 3.787 3.857
Nutritional Values 4.69 3.98 0.018 4.069 2.392
Brand Reputation 5.37 5.36 0.972 2.386 0.036
Promotional Campaigns 4.24 4.39 0.478 0.628 -0.711
4.3.4.6 Unif:
As the only fruit juice brand mentioned, as illustrated in Table 4.7,
Unif had three strongest attributes to the Frequent Travelers, which were
the nutritional values, the brand reputation, and the availability with mean
scores of 5.99, 5.71, and 5.61.
On the other hand, for the Health Conscious segment, Unif scored
highly on three attributes, which were the nutritional values, the taste, and
the brand reputation with scores of 5.6, 5.52, and 5.47.
However, Unif was the only brand of this study that received the
lowest score for the taste attribute from both segments with given mean
scores of 4.56 and 4.08. Also, Unif scored on 4.28 on the promotional
campaign attribute for the Health Conscious segment. According to the
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
25
results from the t-test, the mean scores of the price and promotional
campaigns are statistically different.
Table 4.7: Unif Satisfactory Levels
Attributes/Satisfactory
Frequent
Travelers
(N=70)
Health
Conscious
(N=88)
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
F-Value T-Value
Package Design 4.90 4.64 0.244 10.277 1.169
Package Size 5.03 4.69 0.119 8.283 1.567
Price 4.56 4.08 0.034 6.942 2.142
Availability 5.61 5.25 0.052 7.694 1.954
Taste 5.37 5.52 0.548 1.408 -0.602
Nutritional Values 5.99 5.60 0.058 11.793 1.913
Brand Reputation 5.71 5.47 0.137 3.642 1.494
Promotional Campaigns 4.80 4.28 0.014 0.435 2.480
4.3.5 Advertisement and marketing campaigns
4.3.5.1 Important attributes:
4.3.5.1.1 Frequent Travelers:
According to Table 4.8, for the Frequent Travelers who mostly
consume soft drinks over no sugar alternatives, the two most
important attributes when considering an advertisement were the
contents and the color tones. On the other hand, those who mostly
consume no sugar alternatives mentioned that the products, the
contents, and the nutritional facts were the most important attributes
when considering an advertisement.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
26
4.3.5.1.2 Health Conscious:
According to Table 4.8, the Health Conscious people who mostly
consume soft drinks mentioned that the contents and the products
were the most important attributes when considering an
advertisement. On the other hand, similar to the Frequent Travelers
segment, those who mostly consume no sugar alternatives mentioned
that the nutritional facts, the contents, and the products in the
advertisement were the most important attributes, but with higher
mean scores.
4.3.5.2 Attractive campaigns:
4.3.5.2.1 Frequent Travelers:
As described in Table 4.8, Frequent Travelers who mostly
consume soft drinks preferred free taste, premium gifts, and discounts as
promotional campaigns, while those who mostly consume no sugar
alternatives had no most preferred campaigns.
4.3.5.2.2 Frequent Health Conscious:
As described in Table 4.8, Health Conscious consumers who
mostly consume soft drinks preferred free taste as a promotional
campaign, while those who mostly consume no sugar alternatives
preferred premium gifts and discounts as promotional campaigns.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
27
Table 4.8: Marketing and Promotional Campaigns
Attributes Frequent Travelers (N=70) Health Conscious (N=88)
Advertisement Soft Drinks No Sugar
Alternatives
Soft
Drinks
No Sugar
Alternatives
Products 4.86 5.38 5.75 5.45
Theme Songs 4.92 4.95 4.69 4.43
Color Tones 5.06 4.86 5.23 4.63
Contents 5.18 5.19 5.60 5.58
Presenters 4.45 4.48 4.73 4.23
Nutritional Facts 4.59 5.19 4.56 5.75
Promotional
Campaigns Soft Drinks
No Sugar
Alternatives
Soft
Drinks
No Sugar
Alternatives
Discounts 5.61 5.10 4.56 5.43
Free Taste 5.69 5.05 5.13 5.03
Points Collection 4.98 4.95 4.56 4.90
Premium 5.69 5.14 4.67 5.73
4.4 Relationship between Variables
4.4.1 Levels of importance and levels of agreement on turn-off attributes
(Soft drinks)
The relationship between the levels of importance of product attributes and the
levels of agreement of soft drinks turn-off attributes are shown in Table 4.9.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
28
4.4.1.1 Price
There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the
price of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the “Hard to find”, “Less
Flavor Selections”, and “Less Package Selections” attributes.
4.4.1.2 Package
There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the
package of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the “Looks
Unhealthy” and “Unattractive Package” attributes. One the other hand,
there is a negative relationship between the levels of importance on the
package of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the “Hard to find”,
“Less Flavor Selections”, and “Less Package Selections” attributes.
4.4.1.3 Easy to find
There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the
easy to find and the levels of agreement on the “Looks Unhealthy” and
“Less Flavor Selections” attributes. One the other hand, there is a negative
relationship between the levels of importance on the easy to find of soft
drinks and the levels of agreement on the “Dislike the Brand” attributes.
4.4.1.4 Variety of flavors
There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the
variety of flavors of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the “High
Price” “Looks Unhealthy”, “Less Flavor Selections”, and “Unattractive
Promotional Campaigns” attributes.
4.4.1.5 Nutritional facts
There is a negative relationship between the levels of importance on
the nutritional facts of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the “Less
Package Selections”, “Dislike the Taste”, and “Dislike the Brand”
attributes.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
29
4.4.1.6 Brands
There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the
brands of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the “Looks Unhealthy”
and “Unattractive Package” attributes.
4.4.1.7 Promotional campaigns
There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the
promotional campaigns of soft drinks and the levels of agreement on the
“Looks Unhealthy”, “Low Nutritional Values” and “Unattractive
Promotional Campaigns” attributes.
Table 4.9: Relationship between Importance and Soft Drinks Turn-off Attributes
4.4.2 Levels of importance and levels of agreement on turn-off attributes
(No sugar alternatives)
The relationship between the levels of importance of product attributes and the
levels of agreement of no sugar alternatives turn-off attributes are shown in Table 4.10.
4.4.2.1 Price
There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the
price of no sugar alternatives and every attribute of the levels of agreement
except the “Dislike the Taste” attribute.
Importance -
Price
Importance -
Package
Importance -
Easy to Find
Importance - Variety of
Flavors
Importance -
Nutritional Facts
Importance -
Brands
Importance -
Promotional
Campaigns
Pearson Correlation -.109 -.101 .215 .275* -.222 .002 -.167
Sig. (2-tailed) .402 .439 .097 .032 .086 .986 .199
Pearson Correlation -.160 .510**
.476**
.643** .056 .362
**.434
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .217 .000 .000 .000 .667 .004 .000
Pearson Correlation -.119 .353** -.007 .203 -.031 .408
** .028
Sig. (2-tailed) .361 .005 .956 .117 .815 .001 .831
Pearson Correlation .280*
-.420** .234 .149 -.099 -.191 -.076
Sig. (2-tailed) .029 .001 .069 .253 .448 .140 .560
Pearson Correlation .310*
-.341**
.285* .212 -.115 -.177 .014
Sig. (2-tailed) .015 .007 .026 .101 .379 .173 .915
Pearson Correlation .421**
-.280* .062 .324
*-.286
* -.106 .177
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .029 .633 .011 .025 .418 .172
Pearson Correlation .129 -.160 .193 .211 -.304* -.012 -.005
Sig. (2-tailed) .322 .217 .137 .102 .017 .926 .972
Pearson Correlation .234 .144 -.028 -.088 .060 -.124 .532**
Sig. (2-tailed) .069 .270 .831 .502 .644 .340 .000
Pearson Correlation -.024 -.030 -.459** -.099 -.269
* .169 -.027
Sig. (2-tailed) .852 .817 .000 .449 .036 .193 .835
Pearson Correlation .039 .176 .160 .507** -.179 .047 .460
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .768 .175 .217 .000 .168 .718 .000
SDAgree - Less
Package Selections
SDAgree - Dislike the
Taste
SDAgree - Low
Nutritional Values
SDAgree - Dislike the
Brand
SDAgree - Unattractive
Promotional Campaign
SDAgree - High Price
SDAgree - Looks
Unhealthy
SDAgree - Unattractive
Package
SDAgree - Hard to Find
SDAgree - Less Flavor
Selections
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlations: Importance vs. Turn-off Attributes (Soft Drinks)
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
30
4.4.2.2 Package
There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the
package of no sugar alternatives and the levels of agreement on the “High
Price”, “Looks Unhealthy”, “Unattractive Package”, “Hard to find”, “Less
Flavor Selections”, and “Unattractive Promotional Campaigns” attributes.
4.4.2.3 Easy to find
There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the
easy to find and the levels of agreement on the “High Price”, “Unattractive
Package”, “Hard to find”, and “Less Flavor Selections” attributes.
4.4.2.4 Variety of flavors
There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the
variety of flavors of no sugar alternatives and the levels of agreement on the
“Unattractive Package”, “Less Package Selections”, “Less Nutritional
Values”, “Dislike the Brand”, and “Unattractive Promotional Campaigns”
attributes.
4.4.2.5 Nutritional facts
There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the
nutritional facts of no sugar alternatives and the levels of agreement on the
“High Price”, “Looks Unhealthy”, “Hard to find”, “Less Flavor Selections”,
“Less Package Selections”, and “Unattractive Promotional Campaigns”
attributes.
4.4.2.6 Brands
There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the
brands of no sugar alternatives and the levels of agreement on the “Dislike
the Brand” attribute.
4.4.2.7 Promotional campaigns
There is a positive relationship between the levels of importance on the
promotional campaigns of no sugar alternatives and the levels of agreement
on the “Unattractive Package”, “Less Package Selections”, “Low
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
31
Nutritional Values”, “Dislike the Brand”, and “Unattractive Promotional
Campaigns” attributes.
Table 4.10: Relationship between Importance and No Sugar Alternatives Turn-off
Attributes
Importance -
Price
Importance -
Package
Importance -
Easy to Find
Importance - Variety of
Flavors
Importance -
Nutritional Facts
Importance -
Brands
Importance -
Promotional
Campaigns
Pearson Correlation .492**
.323**
.307** -.015 .368
** -.128 .115
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .002 .885 .000 .212 .262
Pearson Correlation .242*
.359** .137 .021 .271
** .171 .166
Sig. (2-tailed) .017 .000 .182 .839 .007 .094 .105
Pearson Correlation .577**
.326**
.300**
.309** .100 .160 .407
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .003 .002 .330 .118 .000
Pearson Correlation .371**
.203*
.290** .100 .340
** -.074 -.025
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .046 .004 .332 .001 .469 .805
Pearson Correlation .424**
.259*
.269** .178 .293
** -.047 .083
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .010 .008 .082 .004 .649 .417
Pearson Correlation .527** .022 .073 .344
**.412
** -.163 .298**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .833 .479 .001 .000 .110 .003
Pearson Correlation .094 -.131 .108 .047 -.049 .100 .191
Sig. (2-tailed) .359 .200 .294 .649 .634 .329 .061
Pearson Correlation .460** .127 .034 .368
** .199 .053 .411**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .214 .738 .000 .051 .603 .000
Pearson Correlation .384** .052 .140 .200
* -.121 .213*
.234*
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .614 .170 .049 .240 .036 .021
Pearson Correlation .527**
.282** .155 .475
**.260
* -.108 .559**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .005 .130 .000 .010 .291 .000
NSAgree - Less
Package Selections
NSAgree - Dislike the
Taste
NSAgree - Low
Nutritional Values
NSAgree - Dislike the
Brand
NSAgree - Unattractive
Promotional Campaign
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlations: Importance vs. Turn-off Attributes (No Sugar Alternatives)
NSAgree - High Price
NSAgree - Looks
Unhealthy
NSAgree - Unattractive
Package
NSAgree - Hard to Find
NSAgree - Less Flavor
Selections
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
32
4.4.3 Levels of importance and satisfactory levels
The relationship between the levels of importance of the product attributes and
the satisfactory levels on soft drinks and no sugar alternative brands are shown in Table
4.11.
Table 4.11: Relationship between Importance and Satisfactory Levels
Importance -
Price
Importance -
Package
Importance -
Easy to Find
Importance - Variety of
Flavors
Importance -
Nutritional Facts
Importance -
Brands
Importance -
Promotional
Campaigns
Pearson Correlation .247**
.236**
.311**
.253** .008 .191
*.283
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .003 .000 .001 .925 .016 .000
Pearson Correlation .081 .320**
.308**
.229** -.089 .403
**.213
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .313 .000 .000 .004 .269 .000 .007
Pearson Correlation .201*
.163*
.165*
.281** -.123 .245
**.313
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .041 .038 .000 .124 .002 .000
Pearson Correlation .043 .058 .292** .050 .212
** .088 -.016
Sig. (2-tailed) .590 .467 .000 .533 .008 .272 .844
Pearson Correlation .206**
.229**
.271**
.423**
.176*
.337**
.273**
Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .004 .001 .000 .027 .000 .001
Pearson Correlation .329** .000 -.015 .351
** -.148 .126 .251**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .998 .852 .000 .064 .116 .001
Pearson Correlation .131 .149 .263** .124 .008 .338
**.271
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .100 .061 .001 .119 .923 .000 .001
Pearson Correlation .467** -.004 .061 .289
**.181
* .090 .486**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .958 .443 .000 .023 .260 .000
Importance -
Price
Importance -
Package
Importance -
Easy to Find
Importance - Variety of
Flavors
Importance -
Nutritional Facts
Importance -
Brands
Importance -
Promotional
Campaigns
Pearson Correlation .106 .115 .218**
.261** .056 .088 .403
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .184 .150 .006 .001 .484 .272 .000
Pearson Correlation .152 .052 .209**
.254** .037 .194
*.275
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .057 .518 .008 .001 .640 .015 .000
Pearson Correlation .176* .030 .122 .161
* .087 -.001 .240**
Sig. (2-tailed) .027 .706 .127 .043 .278 .986 .002
Pearson Correlation -.033 -.004 .124 -.046 .119 .036 .134
Sig. (2-tailed) .679 .958 .121 .568 .135 .654 .094
Pearson Correlation .251**
.293**
.273**
.166* .139 .226
**.310
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .001 .038 .082 .004 .000
Pearson Correlation .162*
.215** .127 .032 .359
** .023 .298**
Sig. (2-tailed) .043 .007 .112 .691 .000 .778 .000
Pearson Correlation .076 .168*
.239** -.045 .147 -.013 -.046
Sig. (2-tailed) .343 .035 .003 .575 .065 .869 .567
Pearson Correlation .372** -.147 .014 .027 .212
** .020 .266**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .065 .858 .732 .008 .803 .001
Pepsi - Nutritional
Values
Pepsi - Brand
Reputation
Pepsi - Promotional
Campaign
Correlations: Importance vs Satisfactory (Soft Drinks)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlations: Importance vs Satisfactory (No Sugar Alternatives)
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Pepsi Max -
Promotional Campaign
Pepsi Max - Brand
Reputation
Pepsi Max - Package
Design
Pepsi Max - Package
Size
Pepsi Max - Price
Pepsi Max - Availability
Pepsi Max - Taste
Pepsi Max - Nutritional
Values
Pepsi - Package
Design
Pepsi - Package Size
Pepsi - Price
Pepsi - Availability
Pepsi - Taste
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
33
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
In conclusion, the key findings show that the Thai Government’s idea of
trying to increase the price of soft drinks and decreasing the price of no sugar
alternatives through a new tax policy can be an effective action if; 1) The increase in a
single unit price of soft drinks is greater than 5 baht, and 2) there is actually a decrease
in a single unit price of no sugar alternatives. However, when it comes to the two
clustered groups, the availability of the products and the variety of flavors are the most
importance attributes. When talking about soft drinks, as people are becoming more
health conscious, the most important attribute would be the nutritional values as the
majority of the respondents perceived that soft drinks are very unhealthy. On the other
hand, the most important attribute for no sugar alternatives would be the taste as well
as the promotional campaigns. As no sugar alternatives could not provide the natural
sugary flavor that sugar offered, this becomes a turn-down in the taste attribute where
people prefer the taste of natural sugar more than the artificial substitute. Also, the
promotional campaigns might not be so attractive to these segments.
This research classified consumers into two segments, which were the Frequent
Travelers and the Health Conscious consumers. The Frequent Travelers segment loves
traveling to new places, trying new food as well as love shopping, but tends to consume
less healthy choices of food. The soft drinks consumers of this segment tends to be very
satisfied with the availability and the taste of the existing soft drinks in the market, while
they do not seem to be satisfied with the nutritional values the products have offered. For
no sugar alternatives consumers, they are very satisfied with the brand reputation and the
package of the existing products; however, the taste becomes the let-down. This
consumer segment admires promotional campaigns over advertising. On the other hand,
the Health Conscious consumers segment loves to play sports and consuming healthy
products is their ultimate goal to live a healthy life. The factors that influence this
consumer segment to consume soft drinks or no sugar alternatives are the brand
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
34
reputation and the design of the package, while the nutritional values, same as the
Frequent Travelers, are not well perceived or admired. In contrast to the first segment,
this consumer segment prefers advertising over promotional campaigns.
5.2 Recommendations
The results from this research can help those marketers of beverage
companies to create the most attractive marketing approach for each of the consumer
segments. This will also indicate what are key points those marketers need to focus on
in order to effectively reach out with their marketing activities to each of the segments.
To increase the sales volume of soft drinks, a beverage company should be focusing on
the distribution channel of each product, and the main target segment of the soft drinks
would be the Frequent Travelers segment. The easier consumers can access to the
purchase channel, the higher the chance they are going to buy the products. In order to
raise awareness of soft drinks in this segment, a beverage company should be focusing
on the attractive promotional campaigns such as giving discounts, offering premium
gifts, or offering a free taste in new products. This will attract more consumers into the
distribution channels, and will increase sales volume.
On the other hand, to increase the sales volume of no sugar alternatives
products, a beverage company should be focusing on how to communicate the nutritional
values to educate the target segment. The main target for no sugar alternatives products
would be the Health Conscious consumers segment. Since the nutritional values attribute
is not well perceived by no sugar alternatives consumers, when they come across the
product, they might not buy it. The marketer should consider publishing an
advertisement rather than choosing to go for a promotional campaign as this consumer
segment preferred advertising. Also, in order to grab the attention from the Health
Conscious consumers, the marketer should be seriously focus on highlighting the product
and its nutritional facts, while delivering great advertising content as these are the factors
that this segment considers to be most important.
For the Government, in order to effectively reduce the consumption rate of
soft drinks of the Thai Millennials, they should increase the tax on sugary drinks at least
50% similar to what they had done to the tax on tobacco. On the other hand, if the
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
35
Government would like to shift the consumption rate of soft drinks to no sugar
alternatives, they should decrease the tax on no sugary drinks. This will decrease a single
unit price of the product, which will increase the overall buying intention of the Thai
Millennials.
5.3 Limitations
5.3.1 Area selected
The respondents were only from Bangkok. Thus, the respondents might not
represent the entire millennial population of Thailand as no sugar alternatives are harder
to find in some other provinces that are flooded with mom and pop shops rather than 7-
11 or big convenient stores.
5.3.2 Time
Due to the time constraint of this research the actual sample size collected
was small Thus, the insights gained from the analysis of this research might not be able
to represent the entire millennial population.
5.3.3 Factor analysis
Due to the limited variations of the lifestyle choices asked in the
questionnaires, the dimension reduction tool on factors could not be implemented. Thus,
the only method used to classify the respondents was the cluster analysis.
5.3.4 Convenience sampling
Due to convenience sampling was used for this study, the results should
not be generalized to the entire population.
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
36
REFERENCES
Articles
Chantanusornsiri, W. (2017), the Bangkok Post, “Sugar drinks: New tax, higher prices &
social engineering”, accessed on 1st November, 2017 at
https://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/ advanced/1269713/sugar-drinks-new-tax-
higher-prices-social-engineering
Lalande, G. (2016), The Nation, “Thailand and The Obesity Epidemic”, accessed 4th
October, 2017 at http://www.nationmultimedia.com/life/Thailand-and-the-obesity-
epidemic-30290296.html
Languepin, O. (2015), Thailand Business News, “Thailand’s Dangerous Sugar Addiction”,
accessed 4th October, 2017 at https://www.thailand-business-
news.com/news/headline/51508-thailands-dangerous-sugar-addiction.html
Straits Times, (2017), the Straits Times, “Cigarettes, alcohol and sugary drinks to cost more
in Thailand”, accessed on 31st October, 2017 at
http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/cigarettes-alcohol-and-sugary-drinks-to-
cost-more-in-thailand
Industry Outlook, (2016), “Carbonates are the most popular non-alcoholic drink in
Thailand”, accessed on 20th November, 2017 at
https://www.scbeic.com/th/events_calendar/file/14489424
17159/e9luzo613s/Industry%20outlook%202016_FB_Tuna_fruitsandveggies_20
151127_final.pdf
Population Pyramids, (2017), “Population Pyramids of the World from 1950-2100”,
accessed 1st January, 2017 at https://www.populationpyramid.net/thailand/2017/
Soft drink, (2014), “Soft drink market studies in Thailand”, accessed 1st December, 2017
at
http://yimresearch.com/upload/userfiles/files/Voluntary%20Report_Thailand/Soft
_Drink_Market_Studies_Thailand.pdf
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
37
APPENDICES
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
38
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES LINKAGE OF THE FOUCS GROUP
INTERVIEW
Objectives and Focus Group Questions
1. To identify which consumer segment consumes the most amount
of soft drinks and at which price range of traditional soft drinks
are mostly consumed
1.1. To identify the Millennial segments based on their lifestyle.
What do you usually do on your weekends?
1.2. To identify the Millennial segments based on their demographics
If you are to identify the income range of 4 different groups of people,
what should they be?
Could you please tell us about your work?
1.3. To identify which how much on an increase in a single unit price of
soft drinks will reduce the consumption rate.
How much do you think an increase in the price of soft drinks will
become unreasonable?
2. To determine the current perception of target consumers towards
soft drinks and no sugar alternatives
2.1. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
price of soft drinks.
What should be the most appropriate price for a can of soft drinks?
2.2. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
package of soft drinks.
Do you have any special preference on beverage packaging?
In your opinion, what does package say about the product?
2.3. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
availability of soft drinks.
Have you ever buy alternative drinks when the usual one is sold out?
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
39
2.3. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
flavors of soft drinks.
Do you think you can identify the taste of each soft drink flavor under a
blind taste test?
2.5. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
nutritional facts of soft drinks.
Do you ever pay attention to the soft drink package label? Why?
2.6. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
brands of soft drinks.
What are the brands that come up into your mind when talking about
soft drinks?
How are they different in your opinion?
2.7. To determine the current perception of the Millennials towards the
promotional campaigns of soft drinks.
What is your most favorite TV commercial on soft drinks? Why?
3. To determine the factors that influence the target consumer
consumption choice to shift to no sugar alternatives
3.1. To determine the decision making process of soft drinks among
Millennials.
Can you share with us your story where a consumption of soft drinks
was involved?
3.2. To determine the key purchasing factors, such as product, price,
availability, promotion, brand, etc. as well as the satisfactory level of
each factors.
What are the 3 top of mind words for your favorite soft drink?
3.3. To determine the reasons why Millennials do not consume no sugar
alternatives.
What do you think about no sugar alternatives? Why?
3.4. To determine the most appropriate campaign that influences
Millennials on their intention to buy.
What type of TV commercial you enjoy watching the most? Why?
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
40
APPENDIX B
ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRES DEPLOYED
A questionnaire for evaluating consumer’s behavior towards soft drinks
and no sugar alternatives
Screening Questions
S1 Were you born between the years 1980-2000?
A. Yes B. No (Terminate)
S2 Do you live in Bangkok?
A. Yes B. No (Terminate)
S3 How many times per month that you consume soft drinks or no sugar
alternatives?
A. Less than 5 times (Terminate) B. 5 times or more
Part A In this part of the questionnaire, you will be asked several questions regarding your
perceptions toward soft drinks, which will take no longer than 5 minutes.
A1 Please rate the level of importance of each of the given attributes when buying
soft drinks in a 1-7 scale [1=least important & 7=most important]
Attributes
Level of Importance
1 Not
important 2 3
4
Neutral 5 6
7
Extremely
Important
Price
Packaging
Availability
Variety of
Flavors
Nutritional
Facts
Brands
Promotional
Campaigns
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
41
A2 You mostly drink………
A. Soft drinks (Fill A3 and skip A4) B. No sugar alternatives (Skip A3 and fill
A4)
A3 Please rate the level of agreement of each of the given factors when choosing not
to buy no sugar alternatives in a 1-7 scale [1=strongly disagreed & 7=strongly
agreed]
Attributes
Level of Agreement
1
strongly
disagreed
2 3 4
Neutral 5 6
7
strongly
agreed
Price is Too
Expensive
The Product
Looks
Unhealthy
Package is
Not
Attractive
Hard to
Find
Less
Variety of
Flavor
Less
Variety of
Package
Size
Dislike the
Taste
Poor
Nutritional
Facts
Dislike the
Brand
Unattractive
Promotional
Campaigns
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
42
A4 Please rate the level of agreement of each of the given factors when choosing not
to buy soft drinks in a 1-7 scale [1=strongly disagreed & 7=strongly agreed]
Attributes
Level of Agreement
1
strongly
disagree
2 3 4
Neutral 5 6
7
strongly
agree
Price is Too
Expensive
The Product
Looks
Unhealthy
Package is
Not
Attractive
Hard to
Find
Less
Variety of
Flavor
Less
Variety of
Package
Size
Dislike the
Taste
Poor
Nutritional
Facts
Dislike the
Brand
Unattractive
Promotional
Campaigns
A5 What would be your action if the price of a single unit of soft drinks are to
increase by 2 baht? (The other 2 questionnaires were asked with 5 and 10 baht
respectively)
A. Consume more
B. Consume the same amount
C. Consume less
D. Not consume at all
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
43
A6 What would be your action if the price of a single unit of no sugar alternatives are
to decrease by 2 baht? (The other 2 questionnaires were asked with 5 and 10 baht
respectively)
A. Consume more
B. Consume the same amount
C. Consume less
D. Not consume at all
Part B In this part of the questionnaire, you will be asked several questions regarding your
decision making process and satisfactory level, which will take no longer than 5
minutes.
B1 Normally, who do you buy soft drinks or no sugar alternatives with?
A. Alone B. With friends C. With family D.
With others
B2 Normally, who do you drink soft drinks or no sugar alternatives with?
A. Alone B. With friends C. With family D.
With others
B3 Normally, how do you consume soft drinks or no sugar alternative?
A. With meal B. With snacks C. As mixture D. Only drink
soft drinks or no sugar alternatives
B4 Please indicate your satisfactory level on a 1-7 scale on the following attributes of
Pepsi [1=least satisfy & 7=most satisfy]
Attributes
Satisfactory Level
1 Least
satisfy 2 3
4
Neutral 5 6
7 Most
satisfy
Package
Design
Package
Sizes
Price
Availability
Taste
Nutritional
Facts
Brand
Reputation
Promotional
Campaigns
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
44
B5 Please indicate your satisfactory level on a 1-7 scale on the following attributes of
Pepsi Max [1=least satisfy & 7=most satisfy]
Attributes
Satisfactory Level
1 Least
satisfy 2 3
4
Neutral 5 6
7 Most
satisfy
Package
Design
Package
Sizes
Price
Availability
Taste
Nutritional
Facts
Brand
Reputation
Promotional
Campaigns
B6 Please indicate your satisfactory level on a 1-7 scale on the following attributes of
Coke [1=least satisfy & 7=most satisfy]
Attributes
Satisfactory Level
1 Least
satisfy 2 3
4
Neutral 5 6
7 Most
satisfy
Package
Design
Package
Sizes
Price
Availability
Taste
Nutritional
Facts
Brand
Reputation
Promotional
Campaigns
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
45
B7 Please indicate your satisfactory level on a 1-7 scale on the following attributes of
Diet Coke [1=least satisfy & 7=most satisfy]
Attributes
Satisfactory Level
1 Least
satisfy 2 3
4
Neutral 5 6
7 Most
satisfy
Package
Design
Package
Sizes
Price
Availability
Taste
Nutritional
Facts
Brand
Reputation
Promotional
Campaigns
B8 Please indicate your satisfactory level on a 1-7 scale on the following attributes of
Coke Zero [1=least satisfy & 7=most satisfy]
Attributes
Satisfactory Level
1 Least
satisfy 2 3
4
Neutral 5 6
7 Most
satisfy
Package
Design
Package
Sizes
Price
Availability
Taste
Nutritional
Facts
Brand
Reputation
Promotional
Campaigns
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
46
B9 Please indicate your satisfactory level on a 1-7 scale on the following attributes of
Unif 100% Fruit Juice [1=least satisfy & 7=most satisfy]
Attributes
Satisfactory Level
1 Least
satisfy 2 3
4
Neutral 5 6
7 Most
satisfy
Package
Design
Package
Sizes
Price
Availability
Taste
Nutritional
Facts
Brand
Reputation
Promotional
Campaigns
Part C In this part of the questionnaire, you will be asked several questions regarding your
preferences toward the promotional campaigns of soft drinks and no sugar
alternatives, which will take no longer than 2 minutes.
C1 Please indicate the level of importance of these attributes on advertisement
[1=Extremely important & 7=Not important]
Attributes 1 Extremely Important
2 3 4
Neutral 5 6
7 Not Important
Product
Theme
Music
Color
Tones
Content
Presenter
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
47
C2 Please rank, in order, your most preferred promotional campaigns for soft drinks
and no sugar alternatives [1=Most preferred & 7=Not preferred]
Attributes 1 Most Preferred
2 3 4
Neutral 5 6
7 Not Preferred
Discounts
Free Taste
Points
Collection
Premium
Gifts
Part D (Last Part) In this part of the questionnaire, you will be asked several questions regarding your
lifestyle and demographic information, which will take no longer than 3 minutes.
D1 Please select one of the statements below that best describes you;
1. I leave home early to work and arrive home late.
2. I have a great work life balance.
3. Staying fit is my ultimate goal.
4. I love exploring and traveling to new places.
5. I live a life with a slower pace.
6. I love shopping.
7. I love trying new food.
D2 What in your hobby?
____________.
D3 How many hours you work in a day?
1. Less than 8 hours
2. Between 8-10 hours
3. More than 10 hours
D4 What is your household income per year?
1. Below 200,000 B
2. 200,001 – 400,000 B
3. 400,001 – 600,000 B
4. Above 600,000 B
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
48
D5 What is your occupation?
1. Student
2. Freelance
3. Employee
4. Own Business
5. Government Sector
6. Others
D6 Please indicate your level of education
1. Below Bachelor’s Degree
2. Bachelor’s Degree
3. Master’s Degree
4. Doctoral Degree
D7 What is your age?
___________
D8 What is your weight range?
1. 50kg or lower
2. 51-55kg
3. 56-60kg
4. 61-65kg
5. 66-70kg
6. 71-75kg
7. 76-80kg
8. More than 80kg
D9 What is your height range?
1. 150cm or lower
2. 151-155cm
3. 156-160cm
4. 161-165cm
5. 166-170cm
6. 171-175cm
7. 176-180cm
8. More than 180cm
D10 What is gender?
1. Male
2. Female
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
49
APPENDIX C
BANGKOK RESEARCH AREA
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
50
APPENDIX D
CLUSTERS’ PROFILE AND T-TEST RESULTS
General Profile
Count Column N % Count Column N %
Less than 8 hours 17 24.3% 22 25.0%
Between 8-10 hours 48 68.6% 45 51.1%
More than 10 hours 5 7.1% 21 23.9%
Less than 200K Baht 6 8.6% 2 2.3%
200001-400K Baht 12 17.1% 27 30.7%
400001-600K Baht 9 12.9% 21 23.9%
More than 600k Baht 43 61.4% 38 43.2%
Student 2 2.9% 8 9.1%
Freelance 12 17.1% 8 9.1%
Employee 49 70.0% 52 59.1%
Own Business 4 5.7% 7 8.0%
Government Sector 3 4.3% 7 8.0%
Other 0 0.0% 6 6.8%
Lower than Bachelor's Degree 6 8.6% 1 1.1%
Bachelor's Degree 42 60.0% 58 65.9%
Master's Degree 22 31.4% 24 27.3%
Doctoral Degree 0 0.0% 5 5.7%
17-19 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
20-23 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
24-27 31 44.3% 42 47.7%
28-31 20 28.6% 23 26.1%
32-35 14 20.0% 15 17.0%
36-39 5 7.1% 8 9.1%
50Kg or Less 26 37.1% 0 0.0%
51-55Kg 15 21.4% 0 0.0%
56-60Kg 24 34.3% 0 0.0%
61-65Kg 5 7.1% 13 14.8%
66-70Kg 0 0.0% 25 28.4%
71-75Kg 0 0.0% 21 23.9%
76-80Kg 0 0.0% 8 9.1%
More than 80Kg 0 0.0% 21 23.9%
150cm or Less 8 11.4% 0 0.0%
151-155cm 6 8.6% 0 0.0%
156-160cm 10 14.3% 4 4.5%
161-165cm 21 30.0% 16 18.2%
166-170cm 13 18.6% 29 33.0%
171-175cm 12 17.1% 16 18.2%
176-180cm 0 0.0% 16 18.2%
More than 180cm 0 0.0% 7 8.0%
Male 21 30.0% 78 88.6%
Female 49 70.0% 10 11.4%
Work Hours
Frequent Travelers Health Conscious Consumers
Yearly Household Income
Occupation
Educational Level
Age
Weight Range
Height Range
Gender
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
51
Independence Sample T-test: Lifestyle and Demographic Attributes of 2 Segments
Equal variances
assumed13.777 .000 1.515 156 .132 .44545
Equal variances not
assumed1.474 128.623 .143 .44545
Equal variances
assumed4.335 .039 .461 156 .645 .13182
Equal variances not
assumed.452 134.547 .652 .13182
Equal variances
assumed8.010 .005 -.345 156 .731 -.06753
Equal variances not
assumed-.336 129.391 .738 -.06753
Equal variances
assumed14.300 .000 3.275 156 .001 .71169
Equal variances not
assumed3.415 152.664 .001 .71169
Equal variances
assumed4.463 .036 .205 156 .838 .03929
Equal variances not
assumed.205 148.798 .838 .03929
Equal variances
assumed1.496 .223 3.961 156 .000 .82630
Equal variances not
assumed3.921 141.754 .000 .82630
Equal variances
assumed.364 .547 3.749 156 .000 .55942
Equal variances not
assumed3.805 154.454 .000 .55942
Equal variances
assumed2.423 .122 -4.614 156 .000 -1.15227
Equal variances not
assumed-4.582 143.839 .000 -1.15227
Equal variances
assumed9.536 .002 -.590 156 .556 -.10195
Equal variances not
assumed-.600 154.821 .550 -.10195
Equal variances
assumed6.136 .014 2.786 156 .006 .36688
Equal variances not
assumed2.887 154.829 .004 .36688
Equal variances
assumed.204 .652 -.005 156 .996 -.00162
Equal variances not
assumed-.005 145.583 .996 -.00162
Equal variances
assumed.553 .458 -2.773 156 .006 -.74481
Equal variances not
assumed-2.737 139.638 .007 -.74481
Equal variances
assumed1.440 .232 -1.646 156 .102 -.47013
Equal variances not
assumed-1.618 136.563 .108 -.47013
Equal variances
assumed1.706 .193 -1.574 156 .118 -.16006
Equal variances not
assumed-1.622 155.782 .107 -.16006
Equal variances
assumed1.764 .186 1.237 156 .218 .19188
Equal variances not
assumed1.220 138.703 .225 .19188
Equal variances
assumed9.869 .002 -1.570 156 .118 -.25617
Equal variances not
assumed-1.658 145.353 .099 -.25617
Equal variances
assumed.621 .432 -1.513 156 .132 -.14643
Equal variances not
assumed-1.518 149.975 .131 -.14643
Equal variances
assumed.192 .662 .158 156 .875 .02500
Equal variances not
assumed.159 150.449 .874 .02500
Equal variances
assumed6.640 .011 -19.582 156 .000 -3.87435
Equal variances not
assumed-20.314 154.490 .000 -3.87435
Equal variances
assumed.729 .395 -7.174 156 .000 -1.63994
Equal variances not
assumed-7.045 135.840 .000 -1.63994
Equal variances
assumed38.003 .000 9.420 156 .000 .58636
Equal variances not
assumed9.046 117.944 .000 .58636
Gender
Yearly Household Income
Occupation
Educational Level
Age
Weight Range
Height Range
Work Hours
Liftstyle - Live Healthy
Liftstyle - Seek New Places
Liftstyle - Live Slow Pace
Liftstyle - Love Shopping
Liftstyle - Love Trying New Food
Liftstyle - Love Playing Sports
Liftstyle - Love Music
Liftstyle - Mostly Communicate
through Mobile Phone
Liftstyle - 3 Meals a Day
Liftstyle - 5 Food Groups
Liftstyle - Sleep and wake up on time
Liftstyle - Good work life balance
Independent Samples TestLevene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
Liftstyle - Go to work fast come home
late
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
52
APPENDIX E
CURRENT PERCEPTION
Mean Count Column N % Mean Count Column N %
Importance - Price 4.33 70 100.0% 4.10 88 100.0% 0.798 1.209Importance - Package 5.29 70 100.0% 4.36 88 100.0% 4.355 6.256Importance - Easy to Find 6.14 70 100.0% 5.78 88 100.0% 1.744 2.528Importance - Variety of Flavors 5.47 70 100.0% 5.10 88 100.0% 1.527 2.535Importance - Nutritional Facts
4.30 70 100.0% 4.48 88 100.0%-0.672 0.44
Importance - Brands 5.71 70 100.0% 4.86 88 100.0% 3.659 5.113Importance - Promotional Campaigns 4.96 70 100.0% 4.76 88 100.0% 0.808 9.529
T-Value F-ValueFrequent Travels Health Conscious Consumers
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
53
APPENDIX F
TURN-OFF FACTORS
Mean
Column N
% Mean
Column N
%
NSAgree - High Price 5.35 100.0% 2.96 100.0% 7.069 0.026NSAgree - Looks Unhealthy 4.88 100.0% 3.75 100.0% 2.875 3.156NSAgree - Unattractive Package 4.10 100.0% 3.10 100.0% 3.179 0.449NSAgree - Hard to Find 4.65 100.0% 3.88 100.0% 1.852 7.916NSAgree - Less Flavor Selections 4.61 100.0% 3.60 100.0% 2.845 2.795NSAgree - Less Package Selections 4.16 100.0% 3.40 100.0% 2.449 1.275NSAgree - Dislike the Taste 5.31 100.0% 5.65 100.0% -0.939 0.735NSAgree - Low Nutritional Values 4.02 100.0% 3.73 100.0% 0.866 3.187NSAgree - Dislike the Brand 4.08 100.0% 3.13 100.0% 2.985 15.9NSAgree - Unattractive Promotional Campaign 4.86 100.0% 3.27 100.0% 4.92 0.052SDAgree - High Price 3.86 100.0% 3.53 100.0% 0.787 0.02SDAgree - Looks Unhealthy 5.00 100.0% 4.98 100.0% 0.065 13.798SDAgree - Unattractive Package 3.38 100.0% 2.55 100.0% 2.458 0.365SDAgree - Hard to Find 3.38 100.0% 2.78 100.0% 1.097 3.779SDAgree - Less Flavor Selections 3.19 100.0% 2.68 100.0% 1.049 3.045SDAgree - Less Package Selections 3.71 100.0% 2.53 100.0% 2.598 0.564SDAgree - Dislike the Taste 4.24 100.0% 2.80 100.0% 2.575 10.893SDAgree - Low Nutritional Values 3.95 100.0% 5.70 100.0% -3.874 1.285SDAgree - Dislike the Brand 3.24 100.0% 2.78 100.0% 1.182 3.746SDAgree - Unattractive Promotional Campaign 3.52 100.0% 3.65 100.0% -0.306 21.878
Cluster Number of Case
Frequent Travelers Health Conscious Consumers
T-Value P-Value
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
54
APPENDIX G
PURCHASING BEHAVIORS
Count Column N % Count Column N %
Alone 54 77.1% 73 83.0%
With Friends 5 7.1% 15 17.0%
With Family 3 4.3% 0 0.0%
Others 8 11.4% 0 0.0%
Alone 44 62.9% 64 72.7%
With Friends 19 27.1% 19 21.6%
With Family 7 10.0% 5 5.7%
Others 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
With Major Meal 34 48.6% 34 38.6%
With Snacks 14 20.0% 28 31.8%
With Other Drinks 0 0.0% 4 4.5%
As It Is 22 31.4% 22 25.0%
Frequent Travelers Health Conscious Consumers
Buy With Whom
Consume With Whom
How You Consume
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
55
APPENDIX H
EFFECTS OF PRICE
Descriptive
N Mean
Reaction - Increased 2 Baht Soft Drink 30 2.2667
No Sugar Alternatives 20 2.5000
Total 50 2.3600
Reaction - Increased 5 Baht Soft Drink 32 2.5625
No Sugar Alternatives 20 2.4500
Total 52 2.5192
Reaction - Increased 10 Baht Soft Drink 35 3.3143
No Sugar Alternatives 21 3.7143
Total 56 3.4643
Reaction - Decreased 2 Baht Soft Drink 30 1.6000
No Sugar Alternatives 20 1.8000
Total 50 1.6800
Reaction - Decreased 5 Baht Soft Drink 32 1.7188
No Sugar Alternatives 20 2.0000
Total 52 1.8269
Reaction - Decreased 10 Baht Soft Drink 35 1.5143
No Sugar Alternatives 21 1.7143
Total 56 1.5893
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
56
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df F Sig.
Between Groups .653 1 2.437 .125
Within Groups 12.867 48
Total 13.520 49
Between Groups .156 1 .414 .523
Within Groups 18.825 50
Total 18.981 51
Between Groups 2.100 1 7.164 .010
Within Groups 15.829 54
Total 17.929 55
Between Groups .480 1 1.029 .316
Within Groups 22.400 48
Total 22.880 49
Between Groups .974 1 2.378 .129
Within Groups 20.469 50
Total 21.442 51
Between Groups .525 1 1.348 .251
Within Groups 21.029 54
Total 21.554 55
Reaction - Decreased 2 Baht
Reaction - Increased 2 Baht
Reaction - Increased 5 Baht
Reaction - Increased 10 Baht
Reaction - Decreased 5 Baht
Reaction - Decreased 10 Baht
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ
57
BIOGRAPHY
Name Mr. Sarun Subhavan
Date of Birth January 7, 1989
Educational Attainment
2012: Bachelor’s Degree in Business and
Administration
Work Position Marketing Executive
Retailing Technology Company Limited
Work Experiences 2015 – Present: Marketing Executive
Retailing Technology Company Limited
2012 – 2015: Group Coordinator
Plaza Athenee A Royal Meridien Hotel
Ref. code: 25605902040897REJ