Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The research design of this study is a combination of exploratory and descriptive research; the
research looks to identify factors that affect brand switching in apparel industry along with
finding out relationship between various factors that affect brand switching. The study also looks
at brand loyalty aspects of consumer with an objective of presenting a brief understanding of
factors that lead to brand loyalty. This research looks to understand psyche that drives GenY
consumers’ brand preferences while buying clothes. This research would describe various
characteristics about the population in relation to their brand perception. In apparel industry,
major issue faced by brands is of consumer’s loyalty towards their brand. This research will
briefly provide findings which will help brands in understanding the aspect that creates loyalty
among consumers and thus facilitate them in implementing strategies that will help them create a
loyalty for their brand.
Sampling technique
Simple random sampling method was used to collect the data as questionnaire were administered
to the people chosen randomly such that each individual among the age group has the same
probability of being chosen.
• Ordinal scale
Statistical Tools:
• Factor Analysis
• Cross Tabulations
1
• Chi-Square Test
Reliability of Constructs:
In order to perform factor analysis on the data collected, the reliability of the collected data was
checked using KMO and Bartlett's Test (Table 1). Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy is greater than 0.6, hence we can conclude that the data is reliable.
2
Table 2: Total Variance Explained
Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Component Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 2.640 17.603 17.603 2.640 17.603 17.603 1.890 12.602 12.602
2 2.047 13.644 31.247 2.047 13.644 31.247 1.796 11.975 24.578
3 1.735 11.568 42.816 1.735 11.568 42.816 1.791 11.941 36.519
4 1.298 8.653 51.469 1.298 8.653 51.469 1.703 11.355 47.874
5 1.094 7.294 58.763 1.094 7.294 58.763 1.633 10.889 58.763
6 .968 6.451 65.214
7 .869 5.791 71.005
8 .795 5.303 76.308
9 .682 4.547 80.856
10 .666 4.441 85.296
11 .547 3.649 88.945
12 .480 3.202 92.147
13 .443 2.953 95.100
14 .386 2.575 97.675
15 .349 2.325 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
The first most important factor was called Quality Factor which included changes in quality,
prior satisfaction with purchases and variety-seeking behavior of the customer. The second
important factor was called Price Factor which included low prices and good discounts. The
third factor was called Styling Factor which included design, style and fit of apparels which
make people switch from one brand to another. The fourth factor was called Identity Factor
which included advertisements, ‘star’ brand ambassador and peer-pressure. The fifth factor was
called Retail Factor which included store-display, availability of a particular brand and
customer-service.
The above five factors are the major factors in order of importance that contribute to brand
switching in apparels for GenY, hence companies should focus on building upon these factors,
so that brand switching can be reduced in apparels industry.
3
Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix
Component
1 2 3 4 5
Low Prices .067 .795 -.077 .024 .074
Good Discounts .182 .782 -.095 .002 .021
Store Display -.140 -.026 .230 .237 .622
Design or Style .092 -.114 .788 -.042 .018
Fit .050 -.016 .785 .075 .290
Advertisements -.095 .286 .392 .491 .292
Brand Ambassador -.158 .077 .192 .762 .063
Peer-Pressure .065 -.193 -.173 .736 .076
Desire for novelty .439 .059 .420 .229 -.181
Accessibility / Availability -.040 -.011 .030 -.002 .823
To differentiate yourself .435 -.562 -.257 .184 .175
Changes in Quality .717 -.078 .059 -.224 -.269
Prior Satisfaction .630 .000 -.031 -.345 -.085
Customer Service .457 .235 .030 .074 .470
Variety-seeking behavior .529 .177 .133 .117 .140
After analyzing all the constraints and factors, we come to know that majority of the customers
switch between brands in today’s scenario and that is not because they seek thrill in doing so,
instead sometimes they suffer of not getting the expected quality or output from utilization of
the newly adopted or switched brand.
The main constraints behind brand switching are manufacturers who are not able to keep their
promise to deliver better product at competitive prices, marketers not able to put or expose their
product in a better way and producers who are not delivering quality product, which makes
customer look at other brands or adopt different brands to cater their needs.
Jack Trout and Al Ries have rightly said that it is all up to you what positioning and brand
image your products possess and that reasonably depends on how you segment your product for
varied market locations and core competency of product which only can repeat the consumer
buying process. So its always better that you keep eyeing the customer prospective need sets
and your competitors strategy, if you are successful in doing so, your set of potential customers
will be more and brand loyalty for your product will sustain long lasting.
After deriving at the five major factors affecting brand switching in apparels, their dependence
on factors like age, gender, income, profession, frequency of shopping and social
4
behavior/status was analysed. A cross tabulation was made for each of the factors and their
dependence was checked using chi-square test.
It can be seen from the above table that Quality affects the switching behavior of consumers of
apparels of different age groups differently. Greater percentage of consumers in the age group
20-29 lie in the 3-4 rating which simply shows that they are highly affected by quality while
young consumers in the age group of 10-14 do not pay much attention to quality of an apparel.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Quality Rating does not depend on age while the alternate
hypothesis (H1) was that the Quality Rating depends on age.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 32.961 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =9) = 16.92
χ2>Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was rejected with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Quality Rating depends on age. Not all age groups of GenY switch between
brands because of quality factor. Some age groups give more importance to quality as a factor
for switching between apparel brands, however some do not.
5
Gender and Quality Factor:
After seeing the dependence of the quality factor on age, we checked if quality affects male and
females differently. This was again done using crosstab (Table 5). Lower the rating/factor
loading, lesser does the quality factor affect the switching decisions of consumers of that
particular gender.
Table 5: Crosstab (Gender*Quality)
Quality
1 2 3 4 Total
Gender Female Count 1 11 58 26 96
% within Gender 1.0% 11.5% 60.4% 27.1% 100.0%
Male Count 3 21 87 43 154
% within Gender 1.9% 13.6% 56.5% 27.9% 100.0%
Total Count 4 32 145 69 250
% within Gender 1.6% 12.8% 58.0% 27.6% 100.0%
It can be seen from the above table that there is not much difference between importance of
Quality affecting switching behavior between males and females.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Quality Rating does not depend on gender while the
alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Quality Rating depends on gender.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 6.95 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =3) = 7.82
χ2 < Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Quality Rating does not depend on gender. Both males and females give high
importance to quality as a factor for their switching behavior in apparel brands.
It can be seen from the below table that there is not much difference across various professions
in quality affecting switching behavior.
6
Table 6: Crosstab (Profession*Quality)
Quality Factor
1 2 3 4 Total
Profession Salaried Count 1 10 60 22 93
% within Profession 1.1% 10.8% 64.5% 23.7% 100.0%
Self Employed Count 0 0 13 2 15
% within Profession .0% .0% 86.7% 13.3% 100.0%
Student Count 3 22 72 45 142
% within Profession 2.1% 15.5% 50.7% 31.7% 100.0%
Total Count 4 32 145 69 250
% within Profession 1.6% 12.8% 58.0% 27.6% 100.0%
7
Table 7: Crosstab (Income*Quality)
Quality Factor
1 2 3 4 Total
Monthly Income 0-15k Count 1 1 21 2 25
15001-30k Count 0 6 24 9 39
30001-45k Count 0 3 15 9 27
45001-60k Count 0 0 10 1 11
8
Table 8: Crosstab (Socially Engaged*Quality)
Quality Factor
1 2 3 4 Total
Socially Engaged No Count 1 9 21 9 40
% within Socially Engaged 2.5% 22.5% 52.5% 22.5% 100.0%
Yes Count 3 23 124 60 210
% within Socially Engaged 1.4% 11.0% 59.0% 28.6% 100.0%
Total Count 4 32 145 69 250
% within Socially Engaged 1.6% 12.8% 58.0% 27.6% 100.0%
It can be seen from the above table that socially engaged people have slightly more percentage of
people in quality rating 3 and 4 than non-socially engaged people. However, both kinds of
people react in a similar way to quality factor.
9
Table 9: Crosstab (Age*Price)
Price Factor
1 2 3 4 Total
Age 10-14 Count 3 6 5 0 14
% within Age 21.4% 42.9% 35.7% .0% 100.0%
15-19 Count 1 7 20 8 36
% within Age 2.8% 19.4% 55.6% 22.2% 100.0%
20-24 Count 5 27 59 24 115
% within Age 4.3% 23.5% 51.3% 20.9% 100.0%
25-29 Count 6 17 36 26 85
% within Age 7.1% 20.0% 42.4% 30.6% 100.0%
Total Count 15 57 120 58 250
% within Age 6.0% 22.8% 48.0% 23.2% 100.0%
It can be seen from the above table that Price affects the switching behavior of consumers of
apparels of different age groups differently. Greater percentage of consumers in the age group
15-29 lie in the 3-4 rating which simply shows that they are highly affected by price while
young consumers in the age group of 10-14 do not pay much attention to price of an apparel.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Price Rating does not depend on age while the alternate
hypothesis (H1) was that the Price Rating depends on age.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 17.049 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =9) = 16.92
χ2>Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was rejected with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Price Rating depends on age. Not all age groups of GenY switch between
brands because of price factor. Some age groups give more importance to price as a factor for
switching between apparel brands, however some do not.
10
Table 10: Crosstab (Gender*Price)
Price Factor
1 2 3 4 Total
Gender Female Count 4 10 50 32 96
% within Gender 4.2% 10.4% 52.1% 33.3% 100.0%
Male Count 11 47 70 26 154
% within Gender 7.1% 30.5% 45.5% 16.9% 100.0%
Total Count 15 57 120 58 250
% within Gender 6.0% 22.8% 48.0% 23.2% 100.0%
In the above table, Females have more percentage in rating 3 and 4 than males implying that
price is dearer to them when it comes to shopping for apparels.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Price Rating does not depend on gender while the
alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Price Rating depends on gender.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 18.794 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =3) = 7.82
χ2>Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was rejected with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Price Rating depends on gender. Females switch between brands because of
price while males don’t.
Profession and Price Factor:
To check if there is any dependence of price rating on one’s profession, a crosstab was used
(Table 11). Lower the rating/factor loading, lesser does the price factor affect the switching
decisions of consumers in that particular gender.
Table 11: Crosstab (Profession*Price)
Price Factor
1 2 3 4 Total
Profession Salaried Count 6 21 40 26 93
% within Profession 6.5% 22.6% 43.0% 28.0% 100.0%
Self Employed Count 2 5 8 0 15
% within Profession 13.3% 33.3% 53.3% .0% 100.0%
Student Count 7 31 72 32 142
% within Profession 4.9% 21.8% 50.7% 22.5% 100.0%
Total Count 15 57 120 58 250
% within Profession 6.0% 22.8% 48.0% 23.2% 100.0%
11
It can be seen from the above table that there is not much difference across various professions
in price affecting switching behavior. However, students and salaried people seem to be a little
more affected by price than self employed people. Therefore, little variation is there between
various professions, but not to an extent like seen in various age groups.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Price Rating does not depend on profession while the
alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Price Rating depends on profession.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 7.639 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =6) = 12.59
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Price Rating does not depend on profession.
In the above table, low income groups have more percentage of people in higher price ratings,
while people with more than Rs. 60K per month, price is not an important factor affecting brand
switching in apparels. Therefore, price as a factor affecting brand switching behavior, varies
across income groups.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
12
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Price Rating does not depend on income while the
alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Price Rating depends on income.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 30.274 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =12) = 21.03
χ2>Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was rejected with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Price Rating depends on income. Consumers with lower income switch
between brands because of price while high income consumers don’t.
It can be seen from the above table that there is not much difference across various frequencies
of shopping in price affecting switching behavior. However, consumers who go less frequently
for shopping seem to be a little more affected by price than frequent shoppers. Therefore, little
variation is there between various levels of frequency of shopping, but not to an extent like seen
in various age groups.
13
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Price Rating does not depend on frequency of shopping
while the alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Price Rating depends on frequency of shopping.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 18.183 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =12) = 21.03
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Price Rating does not depend on frequency of shopping.
It can be seen from the above table that there is not much difference between socially engaged
and non-socially engaged people in price affecting switching behavior. However, consumers
who are socially engaged seem to be a little more affected by price than non-socially engaged
consumers.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Price Rating does not depend on social behavior/status
while the alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Price Rating depends on social behavior/status.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 4.033 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =3) = 7.82
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Price Rating does not depend on social behavior/status.
14
Another important factor is the styling factor which is majorly responsible for the brand
switching of consumers especially in young consumers. To see the dependence of style ratings
on age, cross tabs were used (Table 15). Styling ratings 1-4 are given for factor loadings
derived from factor analysis. Factor loadings in the range of -3.64 – -2.17 have been given 1,
factor loadings in the range of -2.17 – -0.69 have been given 2, factor loadings in the range of
-0.69–0.79 have been given 3 and factor loadings in the range of 0.79–2.26 have been given 4.
Lower the rating/factor loading, lesser does the styling factor affect the switching decisions of
consumers in that particular age group.
Table 15: Crosstab (Age*Styling)
Styling Factor
1 2 3 4 Total
Age 10-14 Count 0 3 8 3 14
% within Age .0% 21.4% 57.1% 21.4% 100.0%
15-19 Count 1 5 23 7 36
% within Age 2.8% 13.9% 63.9% 19.4% 100.0%
20-24 Count 4 18 73 20 115
% within Age 3.5% 15.7% 63.5% 17.4% 100.0%
25-29 Count 3 12 49 21 85
% within Age 3.5% 14.1% 57.6% 24.7% 100.0%
Total Count 8 38 153 51 250
% within Age 3.2% 15.2% 61.2% 20.4% 100.0%
It can be seen from the above table that there is not much difference across various age groups
of GenY in styling affecting switching behavior.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Styling Rating does not depend on age while the alternate
hypothesis (H1) was that the Styling Rating depends on age.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 2.663 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =9) = 16.92
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Styling Rating does not depend on age. Therefore, design, style and fit affect
switching behavior of consumers but similarly across all age groups.
15
Table 16: Crosstab (Gender*Styling)
Styling Factor
1 2 3 4 Total
Gender Female Count 3 11 60 22 96
% within Gender 3.1% 11.5% 62.5% 22.9% 100.0%
Male Count 5 27 93 29 154
% within Gender 3.2% 17.5% 60.4% 18.8% 100.0%
Total Count 8 38 153 51 250
% within Gender 3.2% 15.2% 61.2% 20.4% 100.0%
It can be seen from the above table that there is not much difference between males and females
of GenY in styling affecting switching behavior. However, females seem to be slightly more
affected by styling factor.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Styling Rating does not depend on gender while the
alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Styling Rating depends on gender.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 1.965 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =3) = 7.82
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Styling Rating does not depend on gender. Therefore, design, style and fit
affect switching behavior of consumers but similarly across both males and females.
16
It can be seen from the above table that there is not much difference between various
professions in styling affecting switching behavior.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Styling Rating does not depend on profession while the
alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Styling Rating depends on profession.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 6.718 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =6) = 12.59
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Styling Rating does not depend on profession. Therefore, design, style and fit
affect switching behavior of consumers but similarly across all professions.
It can be seen from the above table that there is not much difference between various income
groups in styling affecting switching behavior. However, higher income people seem to be
slightly more affected by styling as a factor affecting brand switching behaviour.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Styling Rating does not depend on income while the
alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Styling Rating depends on income.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 13.283 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =12) = 21.03
17
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Styling Rating does not depend on income.
It can be seen from the above table that there is not much difference between more frequent and
less frequent shoppers in styling affecting switching behavior.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Styling Rating does not depend on frequency of shopping
while the alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Styling Rating depends on frequency of
shopping
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 17.940 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =12) = 21.03
18
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Styling Rating does not depend on frequency of shopping.
19
It can be seen in the table below that young consumers have more percentage of people in higher
identity ratings, while for consumers in the age group of 20-29, identity is not an important factor
affecting brand switching in apparels. Therefore, identity as a factor affecting brand switching
behavior varies across age groups. It is generally seen that children get influenced by peers and
brand ambassadors. Therefore, it affects their purchasing of brands.
20
Table 22: Crosstab (Gender*Identity)
Identity Factor
1 2 3 4 Total
Gender Female Count 17 41 35 3 96
% within Gender 17.7% 42.7% 36.5% 3.1% 100.0%
Male Count 25 85 35 9 154
% within Gender 16.2% 55.2% 22.7% 5.8% 100.0%
Total Count 42 126 70 12 250
% within Gender 16.8% 50.4% 28.0% 4.8% 100.0%
It can be seen from the above table that there is not much difference between males and females
of GenY in identity affecting switching behavior. However, females seem to be slightly more
affected by identity factor.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Identity Rating does not depend on gender while the
alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Identity Rating depends on gender.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 6.799 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =3) = 7.82
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Identity Rating does not depend on gender. Therefore, peer pressure,
advertisements and star brand ambassadors affect switching behavior of consumers but
similarly across both males and females.
21
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Identity Rating does not depend on profession. Therefore, peer pressure,
advertisements and star brand ambassadors affect switching behavior of consumers but
similarly across all professions.
Table 23: Crosstab (Profession*Identity)
Identity Factor
1 2 3 4 Total
Profession Salaried Count 19 50 23 1 93
% within Profession 20.4% 53.8% 24.7% 1.1% 100.0%
Self Employed Count 4 9 2 0 15
% within Profession 26.7% 60.0% 13.3% .0% 100.0%
Student Count 19 67 45 11 142
% within Profession 13.4% 47.2% 31.7% 7.7% 100.0%
Total Count 42 126 70 12 250
% within Profession 16.8% 50.4% 28.0% 4.8% 100.0%
It can be seen from the above table that more percentage of people fall in the rating 2. However,
consumers with a low income have high dependency on Identity factor.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
22
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Identity Rating does not depend on income while the
alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Identity Rating depends on income.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 25.332 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =12) = 21.03
χ2>Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was rejected with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Identity Rating depends on income. Therefore, peer pressure, advertisements
and star brand ambassadors affect switching behavior of low income consumers which is a
strange phenomenon. We can attribute this probably to their fan following behavior etc.
It can be seen from the above table that people who hardly go for shopping are affected by
identity factors for switching between apparel brands. However, consumers who are quite
frequent shoppers are slightly affected by identity factor.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
23
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Identity Rating does not depend on frequency of
shopping while the alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Identity Rating depends on frequency
of shopping.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 17.940 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =12) = 21.03
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Identity Rating does not depend on frequency of shopping. Therefore, peer
pressure, advertisements and star brand ambassadors affect switching behavior of consumers
but similarly across all frequencies of shopping.
It can be seen from the above table that identity is not a very important factor affecting brand
switching behavior of both socially engaged and non-socially engaged people.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Identity Rating does not depend on Social
Behaviour/Status while the alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Identity Rating depends on
Social Behaviour/Status.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 5.102 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =3) = 7.82
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Identity Rating does not depend on Social Behaviour/Status.
24
age, cross tabs were used (Table 27). Retail ratings 1-4 are given for factor loadings derived
from factor analysis. Factor loadings in the range of -3.05 – -1.77 have been given 1, factor
loadings in the range of -1.77 –0.49 have been given 2, factor loadings in the range of -0.49–
0.80 have been given 3 and factor loadings in the range of 0.80–2.08 have been given 4. Lower
the rating/factor loading, lesser does the retail factor affect the switching decisions of
consumers in that particular age group.
The below table shows that retail factor is important to all age groups in a similar way. All age
groups react in a similar fashion when it comes to service, Store display etc.
Table 27: Crosstab (Age*Retail)
Retail Factor
1 2 3 4 Total
Age 10-14 Count 1 4 8 1 14
% within Age 7.1% 28.6% 57.1% 7.1% 100.0%
15-19 Count 2 3 29 2 36
% within Age 5.6% 8.3% 80.6% 5.6% 100.0%
20-24 Count 13 17 64 21 115
% within Age 11.3% 14.8% 55.7% 18.3% 100.0%
25-29 Count 6 14 44 21 85
% within Age 7.1% 16.5% 51.8% 24.7% 100.0%
Total Count 22 38 145 45 250
% within Age 8.8% 15.2% 58.0% 18.0% 100.0%
25
Table 28: Crosstab (Gender*Retail)
Retail Factor
1 2 3 4 Total
Gender Female Count 8 14 58 16 96
% within Gender 8.3% 14.6% 60.4% 16.7% 100.0%
Male Count 14 24 87 29 154
% within Gender 9.1% 15.6% 56.5% 18.8% 100.0%
Total Count 22 38 145 45 250
% within Gender 8.8% 15.2% 58.0% 18.0% 100.0%
After analyzing the table above, we see that both males and females react in a similar way to
retail factor. Therefore, there is no dependence either way.
To check this, a chi square test was performed at 5% level of significance.
The null hypothesis (Ho) was that the Retail Rating does not depend on gender while the
alternate hypothesis (H1) was that the Retail Rating depends on gender.
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 0.388 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =3) = 7.82
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Retail Rating does not depend on gender of the consumer.
26
Pearson Chi Square (χ2) = 4.744 while the Table Value (los=0.05, d.f =6) = 12.59
χ2<Table Value, therefore null hypothesis was accepted with 95% confidence. Hence, we can
conclude that the Retail Rating does not depend on the profession of the consumer.
Retail Factor
1 2 3 4 Total
Monthly Income 0-15k Count 2 3 16 4 25
% within Monthly Income 8.0% 12.0% 64.0% 16.0% 100.0%
15001-30k Count 5 8 20 6 39
% within Monthly Income 12.8% 20.5% 51.3% 15.4% 100.0%
30001-45k Count 1 4 12 10 27
% within Monthly Income 3.7% 14.8% 44.4% 37.0% 100.0%
45001-60k Count 2 1 7 1 11
% within Monthly Income 18.2% 9.1% 63.6% 9.1% 100.0%
More than 60k Count 1 1 4 0 6
% within Monthly Income 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% .0% 100.0%
Total Count 11 17 59 21 108
% within Monthly Income 10.2% 15.7% 54.6% 19.4% 100.0%
27
The dependence of Retail factor on frequency of shopping was checked using cross tab (Table
31). The table clearly shows that there is no dependence of retail factor on frequency of shopping
like age, profession and gender.
28
The dependence of Retail factor on Social Behaviour/Status was checked using cross tab (Table
32). The table clearly shows that there is no dependence of retail factor on Social
Behaviour/Status like frequency of shopping, age, profession and gender.
29
Price Dependent Dependent Independent Dependent Independent Independent
Styling Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent
Identity Dependent Independent Independent Dependent Independent Independent
Retail Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent Independent
The analysis done can be used by different apparel brands in forming their overall brand
strategy like children apparel brands can give more importance to identity factor and less
importance to quality and price factor, i.e., they can have more attractive advertisements, have
better brand ambassadors to attract children to their brand. However, brands catering to adults
should focus on price and quality.
Also, brands catering to females should focus more on price and discounts as compared to
brands catering to males. Smaller brands which cater to the low income or middle income group
should also focus on price and discounts and identity factors like brand ambassadors and
attractive advertisements much more than high-end brands.
Further from our market research, we found that 50.4 percent people hold a loyalty card of a
particular brand and usually redeem points through it. However we also found that among those
50.4% people, only 16.7 percent people go back to the same brand to shop because they hold its
loyalty card. Therefore, the analysis can be extended to design loyalty programs like giving more
discounts, good customer services etc. differently to various demographics which will help them
retain their customers.
30