DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
EXPERIMENTAL SOURCE
Table 4.10
Experimental Source of Information
S.No Experimental Source Frequency Percent
1 Handling 50 41.7
2 Examining 36 30.0
3 Using the product 34 28.3
4 Total 120 100.0
The Table 4.10 shows that the majority of 41.7% of respondents obtain information about the brand by handling the product and the minority 28.3% obtain by using the product. This suggests that the Experimental Source of Information about the brand is higher with the person who handles the product prior to the purchase.
Figure 4.8
Percentage of Experimental Source of Information
4.3 Influence of Communication Medium
Table 4.11
Medium of Communication that influences the Brand Preference
S.No Communication Medium Frequency Percent
1 Print Media 12 10.0
2 Electronic Media 21 17.5
3 Word of Mouth 77 64.2
4 Sales Promotion 10 8.3
5 Total 120 100.0
The above Table 4.11 shows that the majority 64.2% of respondents got influenced towards the Bajaj brand through the medium of Word of Mouth Communication and the minority 8.3% of respondents influenced through Sales Promotion. It suggests that the Word of Mouth communication medium influences the Brand Preference much higher than the other medium of communication.
Figure 4.9
Percentage of Influence of Communication Medium
4.4 Purchase Mode
Table 4.12 Mode of Purchase
S.No Purchase Mode Frequency Percent
1 By Full Cash 62 51.7
2 EMI 58 48.3
3 Total 120 100.0
The Table 4.12 shows that the majority 51.7% of respondents preferred to buy the bike by full cash and the minority 48.3% of respondents preferred EMI. It suggests that the majority of the customer preferred to buy the bike by paying full cash rather than going for EMI.
4.5 Major Role Player in Decision Making
Table 4.13
Role in Decision Making
S.No Decision Maker Frequency Percent
1 Father 19 15.8
2 Mother 1 .8
3 Friends 8 6.7
4 Self 90 75.0
5 Others 2 1.7
6 Total 120 100.0
The Table 4.13 shows that the majority 75% of respondents was the final decision maker for purchasing the bike and the minority 0.8% of respondents’ opinion was Mother. It suggests that the respondents are the ultimate decision maker in buying the bike.
4.6 Period took to choose the Bajaj Brand
Table 4.14
Period took to choose the Bajaj Brand
S.No Period Frequency Percent
1 One week 44 36.7
2 One month 32 26.7
3 Two months 26 21.7
4 More than 2 months 18 15.0
5 Total 120 100.0
The Table 4.14 shows that the majority 36.7% of respondents took only one week to choose the Bajaj brand to buy the bike and the minority 15% of respondents took more than two months to choose the Bajaj brand.
Figure 4.10
Percentage of Period took to choose the Bajaj Brand
4.7 Reason for preferring the Bajaj Brand
Table 4.15
Frequency Table Showing the Reason for preferring the Bajaj Brand
S.No Reason Frequency Percent
1 Quality 83 69.2
2 Availability 20 16.7
3 Price 15 12.5
4 Service 2 1.7
5 Total 120 100.0
The Table 4.15 shows that the Quality plays the major reason in preferring the Bajaj brand for 69.2% of customers followed by the Availability of the product (16.7%).
Figure 4.11
Percentage of Preference Reason
4.8 Satisfaction towards the Product Features
Table 4.16
Percentage of Product Features
S.No Points Price Style Color Mileage Less
Maintenance Power Performance Technology
1 1 point 2.5 3.3 0 0.8 2.5 0 0.8 3.3
2 2 points 6.7 5.0 3.3 4.2 10.0 12.5 11.7 18.3
3 3 points 34.2 28.3 35.8 34.2 37.5 35.0 35.8 35.0
4 4 points 43.3 35.0 37.5 45.0 33.3 37.5 38.3 32.5
5 5 points 13.3 28.3 23.3 15.8 16.7 15.0 13.3 10.8
6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Note:
1 point refers to Highly Dissatisfied 2 points refers to Dissatisfied 3 points refers to Neutral 4 points refers to Satisfied
5 points refers to Highly Satisfied
The Table 4.16 shows that the majority 43.3%, 35%, 37.5%, 45%, 37.5% and 38.3% of respondents are satisfied with the price, style, color, mileage, power and performance of their bike respectively. The table also shows that the majority 37.5% and 35% of respondents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the less maintenance and technology of their bike respectively.
4.9 Test of Finding the Significant Difference
To test the significant difference between age group with regard to the satisfaction with the total features of the bike, one way ANOVA test also known as F test was used.
H0: There is no significant difference between age group with regard to the satisfaction with the total features of the bike
H1: There is a significant difference between age group with regard to the satisfaction with the total features of the bike
The result of the ANOVA analysis is given in Table 4.17 Table 4.17
ANOVA – Total Features
S.No Groups Sum of Squares df Mean Square F value P value
1 Between Groups 368.572 2 184.286
10.844 .000**
2 Within Groups 1988.353 117 16.994
3 Total 2356.925 119
Note: ** denotes significance at 1% level
Since P value is less than 0.01 the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance on age group. Hence, there is a significant difference between age group with regard to the satisfaction with the total features of the bike. Hence, descriptive statistics was used to find
the age group who are more satisfied with the bike features. The Table 4.18 shows the Descriptive Statistics.
Table 4.18 Descriptive Statistics
S.No Age Group N Mean Std. Deviation
1 18 – 30 81 28.21 4.309
2 31 – 43 21 27.43 3.641
3 44 & above 18 32.89 3.740
4 Total 120 28.78 4.450
The Table 4.18 indicates that the variable ’44 & above’ has the highest mean value of 32.89.
This suggests that the respondents under the age group 44 and above are more satisfied with the features of the bike than the other age group respondents.
4.10 Rating of Showroom Attributes
Table 4.19
Percentage of Showroom Attributes
S.No Rating Infrastructure Availability Response Knowledge Service
1 Excellent 3.3 4.2 3.3 5.0 10.0
2 Good 50.0 50.8 24.2 38.3 28.3
3 Average 42.5 32.5 55.0 45.8 41.7
4 Poor 3.3 11.7 16.7 9.2 15.8
5 Worse .8 0.8 0.8 1.7 4.2
6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
The Table 4.19 shows that the majority 50% and 50.8% of respondents rated the infrastructure of the showroom and the product availability in the showroom was good respectively. The table also shows that the majority 55%, 45.8% and 41.7% of respondents rated the after sales response of the dealer, knowledge of the salesman and the service of the dealer was average respectively.
4.11 Test of Difference between the Recommendation of Dealer and Showroom Satisfaction
H0: There is no significant difference between levels of recommendation of dealer with regard to the satisfaction with the total showroom attributes
H1: There is a significant difference between levels of recommendation of dealer with regard to the satisfaction with the total showroom attributes
The result of the ANOVA analysis is given in Table 4.20
Table 4.20 ANOVA – Total Showroom Attributes
S.No Groups Sum of Squares df Mean Square F value P value
1 Between Groups 257.100 4 64.275
12.526 .000**
2 Within Groups 590.100 115 5.131
3 Total 847.200 119
Note: ** denotes significance at 1% level
Since P value is less than 0.01 the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance on level of recommendation of dealer. Hence, there is a significant difference between levels of recommendation of dealer with regard to the satisfaction with the total showroom attributes.
Hence, descriptive statistics was used to find the level of recommendation best described by the respondents. The Table 4.21 shows the Descriptive Statistics.
Table 4.21 Descriptive Statistics
S.No Level of Recommendation N Mean Std. Deviation
1 Highly Recommend 13 10.9231 3.27774
2 Recommend 31 12.5806 1.91092
3 Neutral 57 13.4211 2.22765
4 Not Recommend 15 14.8667 2.26358
5 Highly Not Recommend 4 19.0000 .81650
6 Total 120 13.3000 2.66821
The Table 4.21 indicates that the variable ‘Highly Recommend’ has the least mean value of 10.9. This suggests that the respondents highly recommend the showroom because of their satisfaction with the attributes of the showroom.
4.12 Role of Availability of Product during Purchase in the Selection of Brand
Table 4.22
Role of availability in the selection of brand
S.No Role of availability Frequency Percent
1 Very High 25 20.8
2 High 62 51.7
3 Average 33 27.5
4 Low 0 0
5 Very Low 0 0
6 Total 120 100.0
The Table 4.22 shows that the majority 51.7% of respondents’ opinions was high about the role of availability of product in the selection of brand and the no response in the last two rating shows that the importance of availability is always higher in the selection of brand.
4.13 Trust Level on the Bajaj Brand
Table 4.23
Trust Level on the Bajaj Brand
S.No Trust Level Frequency Percent
1 Very High 23 19.2
2 High 49 40.8
3 Average 46 38.3
4 Low 2 1.7
5 Very Low 0 0
6 Total 120 100.0
The Table 4.23 shows that the majority 40.8% of respondents’ opinions was high about their trust level on the Bajaj brand and the no response on the ‘Very Low’ rating of the Trust Level shows that all the respondents possess atleast some Trust on the Bajaj Brand.
4.14 Customer Reaction during the Unavailability of Product during Purchase
Table 4.24
Reaction of customer when Bajaj brand is not available during the purchase
S.No Reaction of the customer Frequency Percent
1 Wait for sometime 37 30.8
2 Going to the other dealer in another region 49 40.8
3 Choosing the other product category under Bajaj 19 15.8 4 Choosing other brand with the same features of the product 15 12.5
5 Total 120 100.0
The Table 4.24 shows that the majority 40.8% of respondents will go to the other dealer in another region for buying the Bajaj bike if the required brand is not available during the purchase with a particular dealer and only the 12.5% of respondents agreed that they will change the brand if the brand is not available during the purchase.
4.15 Satisfaction towards Some Significant Attributes
Table 4.25
Percentage of Satisfaction on the given Attributes
S.No Satisfaction Level Safety Comfort Availability Product Price
Spare Parts Price
1 Highly Satisfied 8.3 7.5 6.7 1.7 5.0
2 Satisfied 63.3 68.3 29.2 45.0 27.5
3 Neutral 27.5 24.2 58.3 41.7 53.3
4 Dissatisfied .8 0 5.8 11.7 14.2
5 Highly Dissatisfied 0 0 0 0 0
6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
The Table 4.25 shows that the majority 63.3%, 68.3% and 45% of respondents were satisfied with the safety, comfort and the price of their bike respectively. The table also shows that the majority 58.3% and 53.3% of respondents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the availability of the spare parts and the price of the spare parts of their bike respectively.
4.16 Test of Significant Relationship between Satisfaction on Safety and Comfort
To test the relationship between the level of satisfaction with regard to safety and comfort of the bike, Correlation test was used. So, the test variables were the level of satisfaction on safety and the level of satisfaction on comfort. Correlation test was applied to establish the qualitative relationship between these two variables and thereby it is possible to find the direction of relationship between the variables.
H0: There is no relationship between the level of satisfaction with regard to safety and comfort of the bike
H1: There is a relationship between the level of satisfaction with regard to safety and comfort of the bike
The result of Correlation Analysis is given in Table 4.26
Table 4.26
Correlation between Level of Satisfaction of Safety and Comfort
S.No Variable Correlation Value (Pearson Correlation) P value 1 Safety
0.521** 0.000
2 Comfort
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Since p value is less than 0.01, the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance.
Hence, there is a relationship between the level of satisfaction with regard to safety and comfort of the bike. The Correlation square between the safety and comfort satisfaction level is 0.521 which indicates 52% positive relationship between them.
4.17 One Way ANOVA Test for Finding the Significant Difference between the Variables
To test the significant difference between age group with regard to the satisfaction with the total price of the bike and its spare parts, one way ANOVA test also known as F test was used.
H0: There is no significant difference between age group with regard to the satisfaction with the total price of the bike and its spare parts
H1: There is a significant difference between age group with regard to the satisfaction with the total price of the bike and its spare parts
The result of the ANOVA analysis is given in Table 4.27 Table 4.27 ANOVA – Total Price
S.No Groups Sum of Squares df Mean Square F value P value
1 Between Groups 15.484 2 7.742
5.109 .007**
2 Within Groups 177.316 117 1.516
3 Total 192.800 119
Note: ** denotes significance at 1% level
Since P value is less than 0.01 the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance on age group. Hence, there is a significant difference between age group with regard to the satisfaction with the total price of the bike and its spare parts. Hence, descriptive statistics was used to find the satisfaction of total price and its spare parts best described by the respondents. The Table 4.28 shows the Descriptive Statistics.
Table 4.28 Descriptive Statistics
S.No Age Group N Mean Std. Deviation
1 18 – 30 81 5.5802 1.12765
2 31 – 43 21 5.4286 1.43427
3 44 & above 18 4.5556 1.42343
4 Total 120 5.4000 1.27286
The Table 4.28 indicates that the variable ’44 & above’ has the least mean value of 4.55. This suggests that the respondents of age group 44 and above are satisfied with the total price of the bike and its spare parts than other age group respondents.
4.18 Overall Service Experience of Respondents
Table 4.29
Rating of overall service experience
S.No Rating Frequency Percent
1 Excellent 5 4.2
2 Very Good 16 13.3
3 Good 62 51.7
4 Okay 31 25.8
5 Poor 6 5.0
6 Total 120 100.0
The Table 4.35 shows that the majority 51.7% of respondents rated their overall service experience with regards to their bike was Good and the minority 4.2% of respondents rated their overall service experience with regard to their bike was Excellent.
4.19 Overall Satisfaction of the Bajaj bike of the Respondents
Table 4.30
Overall satisfaction level with regards to the Bajaj bike
S.No Satisfaction Level Frequency Percent
1 Highly Satisfied 15 12.5
2 Satisfied 62 51.7
3 Neutral 40 33.3
4 Dissatisfied 3 2.5
5 Highly Dissatisfied 0 0
6 Total 120 100.0
The Table 4.30 shows that the majority 51.7% of respondents were satisfied with their Bajaj bike after purchase. This suggests that the majority of the customers don’t experience the post-purchase dissonance (after-sale discomfort). It is because of the marketer’s after-sale communications which provide evidence and support to help customers feel good about their brand choices.
4.20 Test of Significant Relationship between the Satisfaction of Bike and the Service Experience
To test the relationship between the overall satisfaction with regard to the Bajaj bike and the overall service experience of the bike, Correlation test was used. So, the test variables were the overall satisfaction and the service experience. Correlation test was applied to establish the qualitative relationship between these two variables and thereby it is possible to find the direction of relationship between the variables.
H0: There is no relationship between the overall satisfaction with regard to the Bajaj bike and the overall service experience of the bike
H1: There is a relationship between the overall satisfaction with regard to the Bajaj bike and the overall service experience of the bike
The result of Correlation Analysis is given in Table 4.31
Table 4.31
Correlation between Overall Satisfaction and Service Experience
S.No Variable Correlation Value (Pearson Correlation) P value 1 Overall Satisfaction
0.285** 0.002
2 Service Experience
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Since p value is less than 0.01, the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance.
Hence, there is a relationship between the overall satisfaction with regard to the Bajaj bike and the overall service experience of the bike. The Correlation square between the overall
satisfaction with regard to the Bajaj bike and the overall service experience of the bike is 0.285 which indicates 28% positive relationship between them.
Since the relationship is positive, if the Overall Satisfaction of the Bajaj bike increases then the Satisfaction in the Service Experience of the bike also increases.
4.21 Decision regarding Buying One More Bike
Table 4.32
Future Purchase Decision
S.No Future Purchase Decision Frequency Percent 1 Choosing the same Bajaj brand 77 64.2
2 Choosing the other brand 43 35.8
3 Total 120 100.0
The decision regarding buying one more bike was depicted in the Table 4.32. It shows that 64.2% of respondents will buy the same Bajaj brand. This suggests that the maximum of current Bajaj customers are showing the Brand Loyalty and the remaining 35.8% of respondents are tend to possess the variety seeking buying behavior. So, this brand switching may occurs among the customers for the sake of variety rather than because of dissatisfaction.
4.22 Respondents’ Level of Promoting the Bajaj Brand to Others
Table 4.33
Level of promoting the Bajaj brand
S.No Level of Promotion Frequency Percent
1 Very High 15 12.5
2 High 40 33.3
3 Average 58 48.3
4 Low 4 3.3
5 Very Low 3 2.5
6 Total 120 100.0
The Table 4.33 shows that on an average 48.3% of respondents will promote the Bajaj brand to others and the minority 2.5% of respondents will never promote the brand to others. This result not only shows the Brand Loyalty of the customers but also shows the impact in the word of mouth communication medium.
4.23 Test of Level of Promotion of Bajaj Brand to Others
To test the level of promoting the Bajaj brand to others is above average level at 1% level of significance, T-Test for Single Mean was applied.
H0: The level of promoting the Bajaj brand to others is equal to average level H1: The level of promoting the Bajaj brand to others is not equal to average level
The result of T-Test is given in Table 4.34
Table 4.34
One Sample T-Test for the level of promotion at 1% level
Test value = 3
S.No Test Variable N Mean Std. Deviation T value df P value 1 Level of Promotion 120 2.50 .850 -6.443 119 .000**
Note: ** denotes significance at 1% level
Since P value is less than 0.01, the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance.
Hence it is concluded that the level of promoting the Bajaj brand to others is not equal to average level. The Table 4.34 indicates the mean value for the variable ‘Level of Promotion’
is 2.5. It suggests that the respondent’s level of promoting the Bajaj brand is higher.
4.24 Respondents’ Level of Recommendation of Dealer to Others
Table 4.35
Level of recommendation of dealer to others
S.No Level of Recommendation Frequency Percent
1 Highly Recommend 13 10.8
2 Recommend 31 25.8
3 Neutral 57 47.5
4 Not Recommend 15 12.5
5 Highly Not Recommend 4 3.3
6 Total 120 100.0
The Table 4.35 shows that the majority 47.5% of respondents remains neutral in recommending their dealer to others and the minority 3.3% of respondents will never ever recommend the dealer to others.
4.25 Level of Brand Preference with respect to Educational Qualification
To test the association between the educational qualification and the level of brand preference, Chi-Square test was applied.
H0: There is no significant association between the Educational Qualification and the Level of Brand Preference
H1: There is a significant association between the Educational Qualification and the Level of Brand Preference
The result of the Chi-Square Cross tabulation Analysis is given in Table 4.36
Table 4.36
Crosstabs between Educational Qualification and Brand Preference Level
S.No Educational
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.25.
Since p value is greater than 0.05 the null hypothesis is accepted at 5% level of significance.
Hence, there is no significant association between the Educational Qualification and the
Level of Brand Preference.
4.26 Level of Brand Preference with respect to the Adulthood
To test the significant difference between the adulthood with regard to the level of Brand Preference, t-test for difference of two mean was applied. The Hypothesis was set as follows.
H0: There is no significant difference between the adulthood with regard to the level of Brand Preference
H1: There is a significant difference between the adulthood with regard to the level of Brand Preference
The result of Independent Sample t-Test is given in Table 4.37
Table 4.37
t-Test for Level of Brand Pref and adulthood
S.No Adulthood N Mean Std. Deviation t value p value
1 Young Adult 103 14.28 2.475
3.143 .002**
2 Older Adult 17 12.24 2.562
Note: ** denotes significance at 1% level
Since p value is less than 0.01 the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance on adulthood. Hence, there is a significant difference between the adulthood with regard to the level of Brand Preference.
The Table 4.37 indicates that the mean value of the variable ‘Older Adult’ 12.24 is the least value. It suggests that the Brand Preference towards the Bajaj is higher with the Older Adults than the Younger Adults.