Presented by

Suchitra Chan-o

Major Advisor

Dr.Siripong Preutthipan

ThesisThesis

AgendaAgenda

Introduction Conceptual ModelResearch ObjectivesResearch QuestionsHypothesesMethodologyResults and DiscussionsRecommendationsConclusions

IntroductionIntroduction

Features of Soap :- Bar Soap Liquid Soap

Brand Selection:-Brand name: Lux, Shokubutsu, Protex,

Palmolive, and Johnson’s pH5.5Type: Beauty, Anti-bacterial, Baby

Conceptual ModelConceptual Model

BrandSelection Brand name Type

Marketing mix factorsProductPricePlacePromotion

Social factorsFamilyFriends

Demographic factorsGenderMarital statusAgeEducationOccupationIncome

SubculturalfactorsReligionGeographical area

Skin type factor

Research ObjectivesResearch Objectives

To investigate the relationship between:- Marketing mix factors and brand selection Social factors and brand selection Demographic factors and brand selection Subcultural factors and brand selection Skin type factor and brand selection

Research QuestionsResearch Questions

1. Which factors have a relationship with brand name selection of liquid soap?

2. Which factors have a relationship with type selection of liquid soap?

HypothesesHypotheses

H1: Marketing mix factors have relationship with brand name selection of liquid soap.

H2: Marketing mix factors have relationship with type selection of liquid soap.

H3: Social factors have relationship with brand name selection of liquid soap.

H4: Social factors have relationship with type selection of liquid soap.

H5: Demographic factors have relationship with brand name selection of liquid soap.

HypothesesHypotheses

H6: Demographic factors have relationship with type selection of liquid soap.

H7: Subcultural factors have relationship with brand name selection of liquid soap.

H8: Subcultural factors have relationship with type selection of liquid soap.

H9: Skin type factor has relationship with brand name selection of liquid soap.

H10:Skin type factor has relationship with type selection of liquid soap.

Research MethodologyResearch Methodology

Population: Bangkok people who usually apply liquid soap

Sample Size: calculated from unknown population formula

n = p ( 1-p ) Z2

E2

n = 0.5 ( 1 - 0.5 ) 1.962

0.052

n = 384

1. n = sample size2. The allowable error E is 0.05 or 5 percentage points3. The level of confidence is set at 95%. Then the standard score of Z associated with a confidence level equal to 1.964. The population proportion (p) for this research is calculated by the percentage of consumers who are currently applying liquid soap used as a population proportion so the entire probability of liquid soap purchasing is 0.5.

Research MethodologyResearch Methodology

Sampling Method: Quota sampling throughout Bangkok covering 5 district administration areas.

The number of questionnaire in each area was distributed based on the proportion of number of population:-

Number of Percentage of SampleAreas population total population sizeUrbanized 2,521,815 44.54 171Eastern urban fringe 1,641,866 29.00 111Western urban fringe 932,154 16.46 64Eastern suburban 388,322 6.86 26Western suburban 178,342 3.15 12Total 5,662,499 100 384

Research MethodologyResearch Methodology

Data analysis : analyzed by Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program:-

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for hypothesis no.1-4 because:-

* The questionnaire designed this independent variable in form of interval variable.

* The questionnaire designed this dependent variable in form of nominal variable. Chi-square was used to test for hypothesis no.5-10

because:-* The questionnaire designed both independent and

dependent variables in form of nominal variable.

Results and Discussions Results and Discussions Hypotheses Testing Result : H1Hypotheses Testing Result : H1

*Significant differences by LSD test at 0.05 level

Marketing Mix Lux Shokubutsu Protex Palmolive Johnson's pH5.5 Significant

Factors 1 2 3 4 5 differences(LSD)*

Product (total) 3.96 3.93 3.78 4.02 3.90 3<1,4 Good brand image 3.86 3.74 3.78 3.59 4.19 2,4<5 Attractive package 3.10 3.41 3.07 3.41 3.19 1,3<2 Imported 2.29 2.64 2.04 2.32 2.33 1,3<2 Ingredients 3.81 3.64 3.82 4.09 3.81 2<4 Scent 4.22 4.08 3.78 4.18 4.00 3<1,2 Added moisturizers 4.37 4.07 4.20 4.68 4.52 2<1,4,5; 3<4 Anti-bacterial 3.90 3.60 4.16 4.14 3.52 2<3,4; 5<3 Non-irritating 4.51 4.56 4.13 4.50 4.38 3<1,2,4 Non-skin drying 4.48 4.51 4.07 4.64 4.43 3<1,2,4 Easy to wash off 4.29 4.34 4.00 4.41 4.19 3<1,2Promotion (total) 3.47 3.43 3.47 3.48 3.65 Newspapers 2.90 2.66 3.04 3.36 3.05 2<4 Billboard 2.87 2.53 2.80 3.23 2.48 2<1,4; 5<4

Mean of the factor influencing on liquid soap purchasing among brands

Marketing mix factors have relationship with brand name selection of liquid soap.

Product factor has a statistically significant relationship with brand name selection.

Promotional factor has a statistically significant relationship with brand name selection.

Results and DiscussionsResults and DiscussionsHypotheses Testing Result : H1Hypotheses Testing Result : H1

Results and Discussions Results and Discussions Hypotheses Testing Result : H2Hypotheses Testing Result : H2

*Significant differences by LSD test at 0.05 level

Significant

1.Beauty 2.Anti-bacterial 3.Baby differences (LSD)*

Imported 2.37 2.38 2.69 1<3

Available of various sizes 3.95 3.99 3.64 3<1,2

Anti-bacterial 3.66 4.28 3.44 3,1<2

Non-irritating 4.5 4.3 4.44 2<1

Easy to wash off 4.26 4.21 3.96 3<1

Product Factors

Type

Marketing mix factors have relationship with brand name selection of liquid soap. Product factor has a statistically significant relationship with type selection.

Mean of the factor influencing on liquid soap purchasing among types

Demographic factors have relationship with brand name selection of liquid soap.

Age variable has a statistically significant relationship with brand name selection (at the significant level of 0.021).

Monthly income variable has a statistically significant relationship with brand name selection (at the significant level of 0.005).

Results and DiscussionsResults and DiscussionsHypotheses Testing Result : H5Hypotheses Testing Result : H5

Result sand DiscussionsResult sand DiscussionsHypotheses Testing Result: H6Hypotheses Testing Result: H6

Demographic factors have relationship with type selection of liquid soap.

Education variable has a statistically significant relationship with type selection (at the significant level of 0.006).

Results and Discussions Results and Discussions Hypotheses Testing Result: H7Hypotheses Testing Result: H7

Subcultural factors have relationship with brand name selection of liquid soap.

Geographical area variable has a statistically significant relationship with brand name selection (at the significant level of 0).

Results and DiscussionsResults and Discussions Hypotheses Testing Result: H9Hypotheses Testing Result: H9

Skin type has a statistically significant relationship with brand name selection (at the significant level of 0.003).

Hypotheses Testing Result:Hypotheses Testing Result: H10H10

Skin type has a statistically significant relationship with type selection (at the significant level of 0.028).

RecommendationsRecommendations

Set brand value related to benefit of type

Clearly segment target group on the basis of age or income

Pay attention to the advertising on billboard

ConclusionsConclusions

1.There are 4 factors that have a statistically significant relationship with brand name selection.

Marketing mix (product and promotion)Demographic (age and income)Subculture (geographical area)Skin type

2.There are 3 factors that have a statistically significant relationship with type selection.

Marketing mix (product)Demographic (education)Skin type