POST GRADUATE DIPLOMA MANAGEMENT – FOOD PROCESSING AND

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

ON

FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMER BUYING BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS DAIRY MILK

COURSE: CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR AND RELATION MANAGEMENT

COURSE INSTRUCTOR: Dr K SHILPA (Assistant Professor)

SUBMITTED
BY
ANAND P M

1|Page
S. NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO

A. ABSTRACT 3

B. INTRODUCTION 4

C. OBJECTIVES 5

D. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 6

E. METHODOLOGY 8

F. ANALYSIS OF THE INFORMATION 10

G. INTERPRETATION 12

H. DISCUSSION 21

I. CONCLUSION 23

J. BIBLIOGRAPHY 24

2|Page
A. ABSTRACT

Consumer behavior analysis is based on consumer’s buying behaviour. It aims at improving

business performance through an understanding of customer’s preferences and desires. In
today’s world of growing competition where there are numerous brands selling the
same products, consumers have an abundant number of choices and many diverse factors
influence their buying behavior. In such a scenario, this analysis can help in structuring and
formulating different strategies for maximizing profit. This study made an attempt to find
the factors affecting consumer’s buying behaviour, with the focus on dairy milk chocolate.
These factors are based on certain variables used in the survey. The factors are based on the
price, packaging, income, brand image, influencing power, advertisement based on which the
buying behaviour of each consumer various and can be identified using the various factors.
The study is useful to the marketers as they can create various marketing programs that they
believe will be of
Interest to the consumers. It can also boost their marketing strategy.

3|Page
4|Page
B. INTRODUCTION

Consumer is a person who buys or uses things (goods) or services. Marketers are the persons
who provide these services. The most challenging questions for marketers are why buyers do
what they do (or don’t do). Such knowledge is critical for marketers, since having a strong
understanding of buyer’s behaviour of product (i.e chocolate) will shed light on what
is important for the consumer and also suggest the important influences on consumer
decision- making. Factors affecting consumers’ buying decisions are extremely complex. It is
deeply rooted in psychology with dashes of sociology thrown in just to make things more
interesting. It explains the influences on the consumer from groups such as family, friends
and society in general. Consumers’ buying behaviour result from deeply held values and
attitudes, their perception of the world, their place in it, from common sense, from impulse or
just plain take. Consumers mainly face two types of purchase decisions: ‘New Purchase’ -
these purchases are very difficult to be made by consumer due to lack of confidence in
decision-making; and
‘Repurchase’ - consumer feels confident in making these decisions since they have previous
experience in purchasing the product.

The importance of each step might vary depending on the circumstances surrounding
the purchase. Consumers’ decision-making process begins when buyer realizes his/her
unsatisfied need, want or desire. Needs may be functional or psychological in nature, and
retailers are often trying to satisfy psychological needs as much as functional ones (Babin et
al., 1994). Consumers are motivated to satisfy their needs, they will next undertake a
search for information on possible solutions. Consumers’ search efforts may result in a set of
options from which a choice can be made. There might be two levels to this stage. At level
one, the consumer may create a set of possible solutions to their needs (i.e., product types)
while at
second level the consumer may be evaluating particular products

5|Page
6|Page
C. OBJECTIVES

• To analyse the consumer perception towards Dairy Milk

• To find out various factors influencing consumer buying behaviour of Dairy Milk

• To find out the association among the various factors

• To analyse the preference for Dairy Milk among different demographic group

• To determine market potential of new product from Dairy Milk

7|Page
D. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

When they buy a product, whether it is a good or a service, they buy a cluster of product
features, but may want only one or two of these features. The main reason behind consumer’s
search is uncertainty. Consumer information search has been the focus of many articles
studying consumer behavior during the last 30 years (Bettman, 1979). Various studies have
provided information about the measures of compulsivity, which helps in analyzing
compulsive buying tendencies of consumers. Faber and O’Guinn T C (1992) reported a
seven-items scale and assessed its reliability and validity. An earlier version of this scale
used a subset of three items (Faber and O’Guinn, 1989b) while, Faber and O’Guinn
(1989a) used a superset of 15 items to operational compulsivity. The second approach (Youn
and Faber, 2000) mainly used a nine-item scale, earlier developed by Rook and Fisher (1995).
Thus, compulsive buying is a very important aspect in consumer’s behavior research. It has
been defined as “chronic, repetitive purchasing, that becomes a primary response to negative
events or feeling” (Faber and O’Guinn, 1992). Previous studies in this area have highlighted
the fact that compulsive buyers tend to have a lower self-esteem, a higher level of tendency to
fantasize, and a higher level of depression anxiety, and obsession, as compared to
other consumers (Faber and O’Guinn, 1989b). Furst et al. (1996) reported human food choice
as one of the basic and common components among consumers but is also one of the most
complex function having multitude of influences. Consumers appear to have much
more pragmatic considerations in mind when making their food choice decisions. These
considerations include sensory aspects of food (e.g., taste and quality) (Powell et al., 2003)
along with the influence of non-food effects (e.g., cognitive information, the physical
environment, social factors) (Rozin and Tuorila, 1993; and Bell and Meiselman, 1995).
Quality and safety are thus two very important elements in consumer’s food perception and
decision-making associated with food choice (Grunert, 2005). Consumers’ purchasing
decisions are normally based on their own perception and representations of quality and
safety. However, quality and safety are the concepts that cannot be easily defined, because
they are classified as credence attributes (i.e., product attributes that cannot be verified by
the consumer). Consumers are most likely to derive quality or safety perceptions from
other product cues, either intrinsic (e.g., appearance
of the product) or extrinsic cues (e.g., a quality label) (Nelson, 1970). Hence, it is quite
difficult

8|Page
to analyze and discuss all the potential determinants of food choice, because food choice is a
very complex issue in which many factors play a role, including biological, psychological and
cultural (Frewer and van Trijp, 2007; and Rozin, 2007). In fact, perceptions of food quality
and safety are likely to be influenced by such psychological and cultural factors rather than
physiological product experiences alone. Many quantitative and qualitative researches have
addressed issues associated with cultural determinants of food choice (Shepherd and Raats,
2007). It is quite evident from such studies that while analyzing factors that influence food
choice, it is important to consider consumer’s cultural background (Overby et al., 2004; and
Hoogland et al., 2005). It is believed that people from different cultural backgrounds have
different perceptions and experiences related to food (Lennernas et al., 1997). Hence it can be
noticed that some consumers are more oriented towards food quality, whereas for others food
safety is a primary concern.

Observing the purchase behavior of unknown or known consumers (Park and Lessig, 1977) is
one such readily apparent heuristic. This helps in simplifying consumer’s decision-
making process by providing information that provides a source for consumer’s
“evaluations, aspirations, and behavior” (Park and Lessig, 1977). They have explained that
consumers are influenced by “others” mainly because of three reasons— informational,
utilitarian and value
expressiveness.

9|Page
 E. METHODOLOGY

The investigation used was qualitative method. The initial quantitative study was
questionnaire
55 respondents were surveyed, aimed at identifying the important variables that affect the
purchasing behaviour of dairy milk.

The main research instrument used was a well-structured questionnaire (Google forms) that
was administrated among the respondents mainly through personal contacts. Sampling
population included the general public, people from all age groups and different
financial backgrounds.

A total of statements regarding selection of a product based on various factors were rated by
respondents according category questions to likert type scale anchored at each end
with, “minimum agreement” (valued at 5) “maximum agreement” (valued at 1).

The statements used in the questionnaire and the different variables taken in accordance to the
statements were:

Common statements in the questionnaire

o Working
o E Mail
o Earnings
o How did you come to know about Dairy Milk?
o How frequently you purchase Dairy Milk?
o What factors makes you to buy Dairy Milk?
o What is your favorite flavor of Dairy Milk and Why?
o When there is new attraction in dairy milk will you be happy to taste it?
o Will you influence others to buy Dairy Milk?

Different statements in the questionnaire

What occasion makes you to purchase Dairy Milk?

Has any promotion/advertisement of Dairy milk has attracted you to buy?
Since how long you are purchasing Dairy milk?
Is the price of Dairy milk suitable for you?

10 | P a g e
 11

In order to conduct the data analysis excel was used and the main tools used for analysis were:

‘Correlation Test’ in order to analyse the association among different factors.

‘ANNOVA Test’ is a used to analyse the differences among group means.

11 | P a g e
 12

F. ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION

The questionnaire was created and circulated among students, relatives and other friends. On
the random survey, approximately 210 respondents replied for the questionnaire and
were examined using statistical tools like Chi Square test, Annova and correlation.

The tools were used for analyzing various factor affecting consumer buying behaviour
towards dairy milk, perception towards dairy milk, motivational factors influencing the
consumer in the current scenario.

Some of the findings of the survey:

1. There is no much gender
difference for preference
towards the dairy
milk (Figure 1)
2. The perception of the
consumer towards the dairy
milk was mostly based
on taste and quality (Figure
2)
3. The students are more
attracted towards the
dairy milk than the
working Figure 1

group (Figure 3)
4. The consumer has come to know about dairy milk mostly through Display in retail
stores, Peer group followed by relatives (Figure 4)
5. Most of the consumer will be very happy in tasting the new attraction of the dairy milk
(Figure 5)

12 | P a g e
13

Figure 2

13 | P a g e
 14

Figure 4

F
1
1

14 | P a g e
2

2|P age
3

3|P age
 4

G. INTERPRETATION

ANOVA

Is the price of Dairy milk suitable for you?

Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares

Between Groups 4.823 3 1.608 .996 .396

Within Groups 308.377 191 1.615

Total 313.200 194

Table 4

Table 4 - From the value *0.396 i.e >0.05 indicates there is no significance difference between income
level and the buying behaviour of the individual.

13

4|P age
 5

5) Income* How frequently you purchase Dairy milk? and What do you feel about the
taste of Dairy milk?

Descriptives

Std.
N Mean Std. Error
Deviation

<20000 14 3.4286 1.08941 .29116

20000 – 30000 7 3.0000 1.00000 .37796
How frequently you
>30000 32 2.5313 1.31944 .23325
purchase Dairy Milk
Nil 142 3.4014 1.28857 .10813

Total 195 3.2462 1.30460 .09342

<20000 14 1.4286 .64621 .17271

20000 – 30000 7 1.7143 .48795 .18443
What do you feel
about the taste of >30000 32 1.7188 .63421 .11211
Dairy milk?
Nil 142 1.6338 .62432 .05239

Total 195 1.6359 .62239 .04457

ANOVA

Sig.

Between Groups
How frequently you purchase Dairy Milk Within Groups .006*

Total
Between Groups .529*
What do you feel about the taste of Dairy
Within Groups
milk?
Total

Table
18 5

5|P age
 6

Table 5 - From the value *0.006 i.e <0.05 indicates there is significance difference between income level of
the people who frequently purchase dairy milk

Table 5 - From the value *0.529 i.e >0.05 indicates there is no significance difference between income level
of the people who feel the taste about the dairy milk

6|P age
 7

19

7|P age
 8

CORRELATION

S.NO QUESTIONS CORRELATION RESULT

There is no relationship as
Gender & When there is new attraction in
1 0.00644 the correlation value is less
Dairy milk will you be happy to taste it?
than 0.1
There is no relationship as
Working & Since how long you are
2 0.09806 the correlation value is less
purchasing Dairy milk?
than 0.1

8|P age
 9

H. DISCUSSION
From the survey conducted among different demographic group, various factors which
affected consumer behaviour were as follows;

There is no much gender difference for preference towards the dairy milk
The perception of the consumer towards the dairy milk was mostly based on taste and
quality
The students are more attracted towards the dairy milk than the working group
The consumer has come to know about dairy milk mostly through Display in retail
stores, Peer group followed by relatives
Most of the consumer will be very happy in tasting the new attraction of the dairy milk

Another major factor that affects consumer’s buying behavior according to our study is the
attractive look of the product which particularly attracts student, and the attributes of
chocolate. Vrontis and Vignali (2001) reported a very interesting study related to Cadbury
Dairy Milk, UK which revealed that based on the report, analysis and market analysis of
PEST (Political, Economic, Social, and Technological), it has been established that
‘chocolate taste’ and
‘chocolate cost’ are among the major consideration factors for consumer, before
buying
chocolate.

9|P age
10

10 | P a g e
 11

There are also some suggestions given by various respondents about dairy milk

11 | P a g e
 12

I. CONCULSION

It can be concluded from the study that among various reported common factors of Dairy
Milk which influence a consumer’s mind like income, occasion, product packaging, price,
quality, influencing power, advertisement, availability, etc., there are few which are
significantly more critical like composition of the product, attractive packaging style
and overall look of the product. We assume that these factors may be the secondary
determinant factors which may influence the choice of a brand from among those in the
consideration list in consumer’s mind but may not be the most important and primary
determinants for short listing brands. It can be suggested that media publicity, particularly in
the electronic media, availability of the product in the market place plays a significant role in
influencing consumer’s mind. It is also being found out that Dairy Milk possess a group of
loyal consumers who are eager to accept new
product from Dairy Milk.

12 | P a g e
13

13 | P a g e
 14

J. BIBLIOGRAHPY

1. Aaker D A (1996), “Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets”,

California
Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 102-120.
2. Babin B J, Darden W R and Griffin M (1994), “Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic
and
Utilitarian Shopping Value”, The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 644-656.
3. Bell R and Meiselman H (1995), “The Role of Eating Environments in Determining Food
Choice”,
in Marshall D W (Ed.), Food Choice and the Consumer, pp. 292-310, Chapman and Hall, London.
4. Bettman J R (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, Massachusetts.
5. Daniel S J, Reitsperger W D and Gregson T (1995), “Quality Consciousness in Japanese and US
Electronics Manufacturers: An Examination of the Impact of Quality Strategy and Management
Control Systems on Perceptions of the Importance of Quality to Expected Management
Rewards”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 367-382.
6. Dhar R (1997), “Consumer Preferencefor a No-Choice Option”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 215-31.
Dibb S, Simkin L, Pride W M and Ferrell O C (1994), Marketing Concepts and Strategies, 2nd
7.
European Edition, Houghton Mifflin, Boston and London.
8. Doherty B and Tranchell S (2007),“‘Radical Mainstreaming’ of Fairtrade: The Case of The Day
Chocolate Company”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 26, No. 7, pp. 693-711.
9. Faber R J and O’Guinn T C (1989a),“Classifying Compulsive Consumers: Advances in the
Development of a Diagnostic Tool”, in Srull T K (Ed.), Advances in Consumers Research, Vol.
16, pp. 738-744, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, Utah, USA.
10. Faber R J and O’Guinn T C (1989b),“Methodological Considerations of the Clinical Depth
Interview”, Paper Presented at the American Marketing Association Winter Educators’
Conference, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA.
11. Faber R J and O’Guinn T C (1992),“A Clinical Screener for Compulsive Buying”, Journal
of
Consumer Research, Vol. 19, December, pp. 459-69.
12. Flynn B B, Schroeder R G and Sakakibara S (1994), “A Framework for Quality Management
Research and an Associated Measurement Instrument”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.
11, No. 4, pp. 339-366.
13. Flynn B B, Schroeder R G and Sakakibara S (1995), “The Impact of Quality Management
Practices
on Performance and Competitive Advantage”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 659-691.
14. Frewer L J and van Trijp H (Eds.) (2007), Understanding Consumers of Food Products, Woodhead
Publishing, CRC Press, Cambridge.
15. Furst T, Connors M, Bisogni C A et al. (1996), “Food Choice: A Conceptual Model of the
Process”,
Appetite, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 247-266.

14 | P a g e
 15

16. Grunert K G (2005), “Food Qualityand Safety: Consumer Perception and Demand”, European
Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 369-391.

15 | P a g e
 16

18. Hoogland C T, de Boer J and BoersemaJ J (2005), “Transparency of the Meat Chain in Light of
Food Culture and History”, Appetite, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 15-23.
19. Johansson J K and Moinpour R(1977), “Objective and Perceived Similarity of Pacific Rim
Countries”, Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 11, Winter, pp. 65-76.
20. Kim J-O, Forsythe S, Gu Q and MoonS J (2002), “Cross-Cultural Consumers Values Need and
Purchase Behavior”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 481-502.

16 | P a g e