Section A- Group 7

Ashish

BINGO:FINGER SNACKS AND
POTATO CHIPS





AkanshaKumari 4A
Mohit Nigam 27A
Mohit Nigam 27A
Sahil Chhabra 39A
Shainky Govil 44A
Shubham Jain 49A

Introduction
ITC-Enduring Value
Bingo is a sub brand under umbrella brand ITC.
ITC Limited or ITC is an Indian conglomerate headquartered in Kolkata, West Bengal. Its diversified
business includes five segments: Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), Hotels, Paperboards,
Paper & Packaging and Agri Business. In 2012-13, ITC's annual turnover was over US$ 7 billion and
at the end of the same year, its market capitalization was US$ 45 billion. It employs over 25,000
people at more than 60 locations across India and is part of Forbes 2000 list.
ITC claims that it is the only company in the world of comparable dimensions to be Carbon Positive,
Water Positive and Solid Waste Recycling Positive.
ITC Limited completed 100 years on 24 August 2010.
Some of the key brands of ITC imited are
Foods: ITC is India's largest seller of branded foods with sales of over Rs. 4,600 crore in 2012-
13.It is present in 4 categories in Foods business: Staples, Snack Foods, Ready To Eat Foods
and Confectionery.
Its major food brands are Kitchens of India; Aashirvaad, Mint-o, Sunfeast
biscuits, Candyman, Bingo! chips, Yippee! and Sunfeast Pasta.
Lifestyle Apparel: Wills Lifestyle and John Players brands. Wills Lifestyle was accorded the
Superbrand status and John Players was included in the top 10 Most Trusted Apparel Brands
2012 by The Economic Times.
Personal Care: (Fiama Di Wills, Vivel, Essenza Di Wills, Superia and Engage brands in
perfumes, haircare and skincare)
Stationery: Classmate, PaperKraft and Colour Crew brands. Launched in
2003, Classmate became the largest notebook brand in India in 2007.
Safety Matches and Agarbattis: Ship,iKno and Aim brands of matches;Mangaldeep Incense
Sticks (agarbattis).
Hotels: ITC's hotels (under brands including WelcomHotel) have evolved into being India's
second largest hotel chain with over 90 hotels throughout India. ITC is also the exclusive
franchisee in India of two brands owned by Sheraton International Inc.- The Luxury Collection
and Sheraton which ITC uses in association with its own brands in the luxury 5 star segment.
Brands in the hospitality sector owned and operated by its subsidiaries include Fortune Park
Hotels and WelcomHeritage Hotels.
Paperboard, Specialty Paper, Graphic and other Paper;
Packaging and Printing for diverse international and Indian clientele.
Infotech (through its fully owned subsidiary ITC Infotech India Limited which is a SEI CMM Level
5 company)

Packaged Salted Snacks
Any time is snack time, seems to be the common catchphrase of Indians, especially the urban Indians
whether young or old for the last over half-a-decade. But their snacking preferences have changed,
over the last two decades.
While previously the snacks consumed in middle class Indian homes were mostly of homemade variety,
today the trend is to have packaged namkeens. And they are no longer limited to potato chips or potato
bites. Today there is a variety of over 1000 snacks to choose from in the Indian market. International
brands and Indian brands are vying with each other to cater to the consumers.
The snack manufacturers are of course aware of the changing scenario in the Indian snacks market and
the preference of the consumers for healthy snacks. Baked namkeens seem to be the new recipe for
success. But, Ashok Malkani avers, it does not end here. Many companies have also snacks from whole
grains with vitamins and fibre. So, these companies say, you can eat these snacks without fear of obesity
or heart problem as these are cholesterol free, trans fat free & are high-fibre health food.


Indias Snacks market pulled in US$1.4 billion in 2011 and is forecast to surge at 14%
CAGR(Compounded Annual Growth Rate)between 2011-2016, according to
Euromonitor data.
In India, Milk food drinks industry size is estimated around to be 2700 Crores. The
penetration of MFDs is low as compared with some of the other consumer goods in
ITC- Bingo

Bingo! was launched in March 2007 with a wide range of exciting packaged salted snacks. The range includes
multiple flavor variants of Potato Chips & Finger Snacks.
The brand is associated with youth, fun and excitement. It fulfils the consumers need for variety and novelty in
snacks. At present Bingo! has 4 sub-brands in its portfolio, each of which have unique values based on consumer
need differentiation.
Bingo! Yumitos - 'Take a Yumitos Break'
Bingo! Yumitos Potato Chips are the best partner for break. Bingo! Yumitos is very tempting and yummy account
the full bodied flavours. These flavors range from traditional favourites like Salted to innovative ones such as Red
Chilli. There are in total 7 exciting flavours.

Premium Salted

International Cream & Onion

Red Chilli Bijli

Masala Remix

Juicy Tomato Ketchup

Fiery Red Tomato

OyePudina

Bingo! Mad Angles - "Har Angle se Mmmm..."
One of the biggest successes from the Bingo! Portfolio, Bingo! Mad Angles has carved a niche for itself in the
consumers mind and is synonymous with the perfect triangular snack.
A combination of innovative flavours on a traditional khakra base, Mad Angles is a snack that is true to taste with
perfect flavour delivery as well as shape, making it a snack that's truly "Har Angle se Mmmm ..."

Mad Angles Tomato Mischief

Mad Angles Chilli Dhamaka

Mad Angles AchaariMasti

Mad Angles MastiChaat

Bingo! TedheMedhe - "Har Stick meinalag twist..."
Bingo! TedheMedhe is the popular spindle shaped format from Bingo! that is a delicious blend of handpicked
spices with an aroma that makes one crave for more. The taste of fiery sparks which masalas leave on ones
tongue is an experience with savouring!
Just like no two things in life are the same, Bingo! TedheMedhe provides a unique experience to the consumer
each time he consumes it from the pack, making him go beyond stereotypes and celebrating the eccentricities in
life!

Bingo! TedheMedhe
Bingo! Tangles - "Khaoge to Khilaoge..."
Bingo! Tangles is one of the most innovative snacks available in the market. Each piece of this innovative
crunchy snack is made out of strands loaded with lip smacking masala or tantalizing tomato or simply salted
flavours. Once bitten, they break into many more delicious strands in the mouth. It is so tasty that you cant resist
sharing it with others.

Masala Tangle Salted Tangle


Reason for doing this project
Bingo has used the distribution network of ITC to the fullest. It has also brought in
various unheard of varieties and ventured into the niche market of finger snacks with
Tangles and Mad Angles. The varieties and flavours offered are unique in their Indian-
ness.
However in India Bingo still occupies a position much behind the Pepsico Brand, Lays.
Also, the most sold variant of Bingo, Mad Angles has highest recall value because of its
shape. Now this is an attribute that can easily be copied and thus has a threat from the
competitors
The Company is therefore in need of understanding the differentiation that makes the
consumers choose Lays over Bingo. If they found significant differences in the reasons
for buying and eatingLays and Bingo, they will resolve those issues. This is a live case
and we take research to understand what Bingo will do to increase their market share
Management Decision problem
ITC Bingo wants to garner better Market share by increasing recall value and trial
generation for its variants.
Marketing Research Problem
Identify the factors that can set Bingo as the Market Leader replacing Lays.

Sub Problem/ Research Problem 1
Sub Problem
Visibility of Bingo among the target group .
Research Problem
Identifying what are the factors that helps in increasing visibility and recall value of
Bingo .


Sub Problem/ Research Problem 2
Sub Problem
To identify what are the major attitudinal , perceptional and other factors that prompt a
user to buy fried snacks .
Research Problem
To identify the key factors that leads to the purchase of fried snacks .
Sub Problem/ Research Problem 3
Sub Problem
To analyse why somebody prefers Lays to Bingo or vice versa .
Research Problem
To identify the key factors that would help differentiate between the core customers of
Bingo from Lays .

Scope of the Project
This research project is designed to read the perception of consumers about Bingo, and
how it should be positioned to garner greater market share.
1. To find what are the key factors that determine the sales of fried snacks .
2. To find what are the factors that help predict the reasons why Bingo lags
behind Lays .
3. To find the best promotion strategy as well?
Sources of Data
Secondary source:
1) Reading comments and suggestions for the existing Bingo Products
2) Studying data available on the internet/ literature review
Primary Data source:
1) For exploratory phase, the shopkeepers/retail shops staff, the sales
representatives & stalwarts customers of Salted Snacksare to be contacted
2) For descriptive phase, getting the questionnaire data, being filled by target
customers and regular Snack Consumers

Research Design
Phase I
Exploratory research: Initial research was conducted with the internal staff and
management of the Bingo and few shopkeepers and consumers, in order to completely
identify the list of variables which build up the fried snacks consumers perception by
Focus group interviews and in depth interviews
Phase 2
Descriptive research: The second phase is a quantitative and is a descriptive research
phase where the structured questionnaire is prepared to measure the factors which
would go in to distinguish various target segments and factors responsible for the
purchase of fried snacks.
Sampling Design
For Exploratory Phase
Target population: Internal sales team, shopkeepers selling fried snacks and few
consumers
Sampling Framework: Staff at Food Bazaar(Big bazaar), Shopkeepers in Munrika
market
Sampling method: Non-probability method (Judgement Sampling) taking a
sample from all types of customer
Sample Size: Small sample < 30 (a mix of all respondents mentioned above).


For Descriptive Phase
Target population: Regular branded snack consumers
Sampling Framework: Customers who buy either Bingo or lays or both
Sampling method: Targeted sampling
Sample Size: Large sample 80



Designing the questionnaire :
1) To answer the first subproblem regarding visibility we have resorted to
two different perspectives . One to capture responses from retailers point
of view and the other from end customers point of view .
Below are the sample questions to see how visible are Bingo products to the
customers .






We now extend this questionnaire to include the retailers perspective to see what
efforts does s/he puts in to make the products visible to the end customers.







We conducted another survey to address the second sub problem i.e to see what
factors prompt a consumer to make a purchase .
Thus the major variables effecting the buying decision we considered in the survey
were as follows
1. Advertisement of the Brand in various forms
2. Flavours available
3. Brand availibility
4. Value for money proposition
5. Innovativeness
6. Word of mouth

The questionnaire of the survey are as follows :






We then conducted a third survey to identify what are the key features i.e those buying
decision variables that would explain what makes someone purchase a particular brand
between Bingo and Lays .






We also added a few questions in the survey to capture the demographice of those
surveyed to identify the target group of Bingo / Lays .


The response to the Survey
About 80 respondents in all age groups responded to our survey. Some of the surveyed
had never consumed Bingo or Lays and hence their response was not considered. Out of
these people about 75 responded positively to having tried the aforementioned
products and hence their response for various variables was recorded.
Interpreting the results of the survey
As already stated we have conducted three different surveys to address three
different sub problems. Let us discuss how meaningful results can be obtained
from these surveys .
Survey 1: To explore the factors that prompt the sales of
fried snacks
We conducted a factor analysis on the raw data of survey to identify key
variables that influence the sales of fried snacks . The result of the analysis is as
follows :


Factor Analysis


Notes
Output Created 2014-01-10T14:47:41.884
Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Mast\Documents\brmsurv2.sav
Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 60
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing MISSING=EXCLUDE: User-defined
missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used LISTWISE: Statistics are based on cases
with no missing values for any variable
used.
Syntax FACTOR
/VARIABLES Advertisments
Recommendation ValueForMoney
Availibility Visibility Packaging Celebrity
Innovative Flavours
/MISSING LISTWISE
/ANALYSIS Advertisments
Recommendation ValueForMoney
Availibility Visibility Packaging Celebrity
Innovative Flavours
/PRINT UNIVARIATE INITIAL
CORRELATION SIG DET KMO INV REPR
AIC EXTRACTION ROTATION
/PLOT EIGEN
/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(1000)
/EXTRACTION PC
/CRITERIA ITERATE(25)
/ROTATION VARIMAX
/METHOD=COVARIANCE.

Resources Processor Time 0:00:01.077
Elapsed Time 0:00:01.310
Maximum Memory Required 11172 (10.910K) bytes


[DataSet1] C:\Users\Mast\Documents\brmsurv2.sav


Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N
Advertisments 3.84 1.005 56
Recommendation 3.82 1.266 56
ValueForMoney 5.16 .930 56
Availibility 4.23 .831 56
Visibility 4.41 1.092 56
Packaging 4.41 1.092 56
Celebrity 3.64 1.017 56
Innovative 4.39 1.073 56
Flavours 4.39 1.073 56


Correlation Matrix

Advertisme
nts
Recommend
ation
ValueForMo
ney
Availibil
ity
Visibili
ty
Packagi
ng
Celebr
ity
Innovati
ve
Flavou
rs
Correlati
on
Advertisment
s
1.000 -.080 -.225 .154 .161 -.005 .708 -.244 -.008
Recommend
ation
-.080 1.000 .133 .006 -.025 -.209 -.036 -.148 -.188
ValueForMon
ey
-.225 .133 1.000 -.002 -.156 .059 -.207 -.010 .063
Availibility .154 .006 -.002 1.000 .113 -.127 .121 -.308 -.145
Visibility .161 -.025 -.156 .113 1.000 -.266 .151 -.125 -.280
Packaging -.005 -.209 .059 -.127 -.266 1.000 .118 .139 .993
Celebrity .708 -.036 -.207 .121 .151 .118 1.000 -.019 .114
Innovative -.244 -.148 -.010 -.308 -.125 .139 -.019 1.000 .148
Flavours -.008 -.188 .063 -.145 -.280 .993 .114 .148 1.000
Sig. (1-
tailed)
Advertisment
s

.279 .048 .128 .118 .485 .000 .035 .477
Recommend
ation
.279

.164 .484 .428 .061 .395 .138 .082
ValueForMon
ey
.048 .164

.494 .126 .332 .063 .472 .322
Availibility .128 .484 .494

.203 .175 .186 .010 .143
Visibility .118 .428 .126 .203

.024 .133 .180 .018
Packaging .485 .061 .332 .175 .024

.193 .153 .000
Celebrity .000 .395 .063 .186 .133 .193

.445 .201
Innovative .035 .138 .472 .010 .180 .153 .445

.139
Flavours .477 .082 .322 .143 .018 .000 .201 .139






KMO and Bartlett's Test
a

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .531
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 284.567
df 36.000
Sig. .000
a. Based on correlations





Communalities

Raw Rescaled

Initial Extraction Initial Extraction
Advertisments 1.010 .802 1.000 .794
Recommendation 1.604 1.554 1.000 .969
ValueForMoney .865 .242 1.000 .280
Availibility .691 .222 1.000 .322
Visibility 1.192 .474 1.000 .398
Packaging 1.192 1.127 1.000 .946
Celebrity 1.034 .868 1.000 .839
Innovative 1.152 1.044 1.000 .906
Flavours 1.152 1.092 1.000 .948
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.



Total Variance Explained

Component
Initial Eigenvalues
a

Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings

Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
% Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
% Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Raw 1 2.726 27.562 27.562 2.726 27.562 27.562 2.515 25.432 25.432
2 2.054 20.767 48.329 2.054 20.767 48.329 1.890 19.111 44.543
3 1.539 15.557 63.886 1.539 15.557 63.886 1.368 13.835 58.378
4 1.107 11.188 75.073 1.107 11.188 75.073 1.651 16.695 75.073
5 .922 9.318 84.392

6 .732 7.406 91.797

7 .556 5.623 97.421

8 .247 2.496 99.917

9 .008 .083 100.000

Rescaled 1 2.726 27.562 27.562 2.286 25.402 25.402 2.151 23.900 23.900
2 2.054 20.767 48.329 1.960 21.783 47.185 1.859 20.659 44.559
3 1.539 15.557 63.886 1.126 12.507 59.692 1.320 14.672 59.230
4 1.107 11.188 75.073 1.029 11.438 71.131 1.071 11.900 71.131
5 .922 9.318 84.392

6 .732 7.406 91.797

7 .556 5.623 97.421

8 .247 2.496 99.917

9 .008 .083 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. When analyzing a covariance matrix, the initial eigenvalues are the same
across the raw and rescaled solution.






Component Matrix
a


Raw Rescaled

Component Component

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Advertisments -.077 .855 .234 .098 -.077 .851 .233 .098
Recommendation -.530 -.420 .983 .362 -.419 -.331 .776 .286
ValueForMoney .062 -.389 .196 -.221 .067 -.418 .210 -.238
Availibility -.198 .215 .098 -.356 -.238 .259 .118 -.429
Visibility -.469 .434 -.256 .019 -.430 .397 -.234 .017
Packaging 1.017 .090 .275 -.095 .932 .082 .252 -.087
Celebrity .064 .819 .264 .351 .063 .806 .259 .345
Innovative .371 -.276 -.421 .808 .346 -.257 -.393 .752
Flavours 1.000 .073 .286 -.074 .931 .068 .267 -.069
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. 4 components extracted.





Rotated Component Matrix
a


Raw Rescaled

Component Component

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Advertisments .019 .850 .280 -.004 .019 .846 .279 -.004
Recommendation -.157 -.065 .038 1.234 -.124 -.051 .030 .975
ValueForMoney .158 -.409 .115 .191 .170 -.440 .124 .206
Availibility -.090 .072 .456 -.036 -.108 .087 .548 -.043
Visibility -.523 .368 .162 -.197 -.479 .337 .149 -.180
Packaging 1.048 .065 -.081 -.137 .960 .060 -.075 -.125
Celebrity .123 .920 .026 .070 .121 .905 .025 .069
Innovative .058 -.003 -1.012 -.126 .054 -.003 -.943 -.117
Flavours 1.033 .060 -.096 -.110 .963 .056 -.089 -.102
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.



Interpreting the output
For these data, the value of the discriminant is 0.01 i.e. it is greater
than 0.00001. Therefore,
multicollinearity is not a problem for these data. All questions in the
questionnaire correlate
fairly well and none of the correlation coefficients are particularly large (i.e. >
0.9). Therefore,there is no need to consider eliminating any question at this
stage .
Bartletts test of sphericity tests whether the correlation matrix is an
identity matrix,
which would indicate that the factor model is inappropriate. As we see the
significance level is coming out to be .000 which means the null hypothesis is
rejected. Thus in our model there exists correlation among the variables.
KMO the measure of sampling adequacy is an index used to examine
the appropriateness of factor analysis. High values (between 0.5 and
1.0) indicate factor analysis is appropriate. In this case, the value is
0.531 which shows that the results of factor analysis are appropriate.
As per the rotated component matrix, we find that Factor 1 can be
classified as perception about visual appeal. Factor 2 can be classified
as perception about PG visibility 3 can be classified as perception
about advertisment. Factor 4 can be classified
as perception about word of mouth .

So we can conclude that there are four major factors
that help promp sales . These are :
1) Visual appeal
2) Advertisment
3) Availibility
4) Word of mouth


Survey 2: To identify key factors that help identify the
reasons why Bingo lags behind Lays
We conducted a discriminant analysis to identify the key factors that may help
determine the factors that determine the sales of Bingo vis a vis Lays .
The output is as follows :

Discriminant


Notes
Output Created 2014-01-10T14:56:26.272
Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Mast\Documents\BingoLays.sav
Active Dataset DataSet2
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 60
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as
missing in the analysis phase.
Cases Used In the analysis phase, cases with no user-
or system-missing values for any predictor
variable are used. Cases with user-,
system-missing, or out-of-range values for
the grouping variable are always excluded.
Syntax DISCRIMINANT
/GROUPS=BINGOorLAYS(0 1)
/VARIABLES=Packaging WordOfMouth
Advertisement Flavours Calories availibility
visibility ValueForMoney EatForFun
TraditionalFlavours
/ANALYSIS ALL
/PRIORS EQUAL
/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV UNIVF
BOXM COEFF RAW CORR COV
/CLASSIFY=NONMISSING POOLED.

Resources Processor Time 0:00:00.094
Elapsed Time 0:00:00.093


[DataSet2] C:\Users\Mast\Documents\BingoLays.sav


Analysis Case Processing Summary
Unweighted Cases N Percent
Valid 59 98.3
Excluded Missing or out-of-range group
codes
0 .0
At least one missing
discriminating variable
1 1.7
Both missing or out-of-range
group codes and at least one
missing discriminating variable
0 .0
Total 1 1.7
Total 60 100.0


Group Statistics
BINGOorLAYS Mean Std. Deviation
Valid N (listwise)
Unweighted Weighted
0 Packaging 2.33 1.341 24 24.000
WordOfMouth 2.21 1.179 24 24.000
Advertisement 1.92 1.100 24 24.000
Flavours 1.58 .776 24 24.000
Calories 3.46 1.560 24 24.000
availibility 1.62 .770 24 24.000
visibility 1.62 .770 24 24.000
ValueForMoney 1.75 .897 24 24.000
EatForFun 2.00 1.142 24 24.000
TraditionalFlavours 1.96 1.233 24 24.000
1 Packaging 2.54 1.172 35 35.000
WordOfMouth 2.66 1.187 35 35.000
Advertisement 2.97 1.294 35 35.000
Flavours 1.40 .553 35 35.000
Calories 3.31 1.491 35 35.000
availibility 2.57 1.037 35 35.000
visibility 2.57 1.037 35 35.000
ValueForMoney 2.54 1.172 35 35.000
EatForFun 2.66 1.392 35 35.000
TraditionalFlavours 2.43 1.357 35 35.000
Total Packaging 2.46 1.236 59 59.000
WordOfMouth 2.47 1.194 59 59.000
Advertisement 2.54 1.317 59 59.000
Flavours 1.47 .653 59 59.000
Calories 3.37 1.507 59 59.000
availibility 2.19 1.042 59 59.000
visibility 2.19 1.042 59 59.000
ValueForMoney 2.22 1.131 59 59.000
EatForFun 2.39 1.326 59 59.000
TraditionalFlavours 2.24 1.318 59 59.000


Tests of Equality of Group Means

Wilks' Lambda F df1 df2 Sig.
Packaging .993 .405 1 57 .527
WordOfMouth .965 2.047 1 57 .158
Advertisement .843 10.646 1 57 .002
Flavours .981 1.126 1 57 .293
Calories .998 .128 1 57 .722
availibility .797 14.481 1 57 .000
visibility .797 14.481 1 57 .000
ValueForMoney .879 7.826 1 57 .007
EatForFun .940 3.655 1 57 .061
TraditionalFlavours .969 1.840 1 57 .180


Pooled Within-Groups Matrices
a


Packa
ging
WordOfM
outh
Advertise
ment
Flavo
urs
Calor
ies
availib
ility
visibi
lity
ValueForM
oney
EatFor
Fun
TraditionalFl
avours
Covaria
nce
Packaging 1.544 .576 .653 .206 .006 .459 .459 .486 .904 .565
WordOfMout
h
.576 1.401 .510 .296 -.202 .451 .451 .206 .331 .866
Advertiseme
nt
.653 .510 1.488 .027 -.592 .471 .471 .720 .959 .690
Flavours .206 .296 .027 .425 .126 .039 .039 -.054 .102 .080
Calories .006 -.202 -.592 .126 2.307 -.389 -.389 -.671 -.513 -.759
availibility .459 .451 .471 .039 -.389 .881 .881 .384 .717 .492
visibility .459 .451 .471 .039 -.389 .881 .881 .384 .717 .492
ValueForMo
ney
.486 .206 .720 -.054 -.671 .384 .384 1.144 .939 .677
EatForFun .904 .331 .959 .102 -.513 .717 .717 .939 1.682 .459
TraditionalFl
avours
.565 .866 .690 .080 -.759 .492 .492 .677 .459 1.711
Correla
tion
Packaging 1.000 .392 .431 .254 .003 .393 .393 .366 .561 .347
WordOfMout
h
.392 1.000 .353 .384 -.112 .406 .406 .163 .216 .559
Advertiseme
nt
.431 .353 1.000 .035 -.320 .411 .411 .552 .606 .433
Flavours .254 .384 .035 1.000 .127 .065 .065 -.078 .120 .094
Calories .003 -.112 -.320 .127 1.000 -.273 -.273 -.413 -.260 -.382
availibility
.393 .406 .411 .065 -.273 1.000
1.00
0
.383 .589 .401
visibility
.393 .406 .411 .065 -.273 1.000
1.00
0
.383 .589 .401
ValueForMo
ney
.366 .163 .552 -.078 -.413 .383 .383 1.000 .677 .484
EatForFun .561 .216 .606 .120 -.260 .589 .589 .677 1.000 .270
TraditionalFl
avours
.347 .559 .433 .094 -.382 .401 .401 .484 .270 1.000
a. The covariance matrix has 57
degrees of freedom.



Analysis 1


Variables Failing Tolerance Test
a


Within-Groups
Variance Tolerance
Minimum
Tolerance
visibility .881 .000 .000
All variables passing the tolerance criteria are entered
simultaneously.
a. Minimum tolerance level is .001.


Standardized Canonical Discriminant
Function Coefficients

Function

1
Packaging -.257
WordOfMouth .092
Advertisement .611
Flavours -.127
Calories .378
availibility .886
ValueForMoney .668
EatForFun -.671
TraditionalFlavours -.320


Structure Matrix

Function

1
availibility .694
visibility
a
.694
Advertisement .595
ValueForMoney .510
EatForFun .349
WordOfMouth .261
TraditionalFlavours .247
Flavours -.193
Packaging .116
Calories -.065
Pooled within-groups correlations
between discriminating variables and
standardized canonical discriminant
functions
Variables ordered by absolute size of
correlation within function.
a. This variable not used in the analysis.


Canonical Discriminant Function
Coefficients

Function

1
Packaging -.207
WordOfMouth .078
Advertisement .501
Flavours -.194
Calories .249
availibility .944
ValueForMoney .625
EatForFun -.517
TraditionalFlavours -.244
(Constant) -3.177
Unstandardized coefficients


Functions at Group
Centroids
BINGOo
rLAYS
Function
1
0 -.862
1 .591
Unstandardized canonical
discriminant functions
evaluated at group means


Classification Statistics


Prior Probabilities for Groups
BINGOo
rLAYS Prior
Cases Used in Analysis
Unweighted Weighted
0 .500 24 24.000
1 .500 35 35.000
Total 1.000 59 59.000


Classification Function Coefficients

BINGOorLAYS

0 1
Packaging -.343 -.644
WordOfMouth -.117 -.004
Advertisement .939 1.666
Flavours 3.408 3.126
Calories 2.605 2.967
availibility 1.893 3.264
ValueForMoney 2.588 3.496
EatForFun -.972 -1.724
TraditionalFlavours .625 .270
(Constant) -11.709 -16.129
Fisher's linear discriminant functions


Summary of Canonical Discriminant Functions


Eigenvalues
Function Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative %
Canonical
Correlation
1 .527
a
100.0 100.0 .588
a. First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.


Wilks' Lambda
Test of
Function
(s) Wilks' Lambda Chi-square df Sig.
1 .655 22.239 9 .008


Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices


Log Determinants
BINGOorLAYS Rank Log Determinant
0 9 -4.095
1 9 -2.078
Pooled within-groups 9 -1.508
The ranks and natural logarithms of determinants printed are
those of the group covariance matrices.


Test Results
Box's M 78.882
F Approx. 1.439
df1 45.000
df2 8069.102
Sig. .029
Tests null hypothesis of equal
population covariance matrices.


Factor Analysis


Notes
Output Created 2014-01-10T14:47:41.884
Comments

Input Data C:\Users\Mast\Documents\brmsurv2.sav
Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 60
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing MISSING=EXCLUDE: User-defined
missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used LISTWISE: Statistics are based on cases
with no missing values for any variable
used.
Syntax FACTOR
/VARIABLES Advertisments
Recommendation ValueForMoney
Availibility Visibility Packaging Celebrity
Innovative Flavours
/MISSING LISTWISE
/ANALYSIS Advertisments
Recommendation ValueForMoney
Availibility Visibility Packaging Celebrity
Innovative Flavours
/PRINT UNIVARIATE INITIAL
CORRELATION SIG DET KMO INV REPR
AIC EXTRACTION ROTATION
/PLOT EIGEN
/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(1000)
/EXTRACTION PC
/CRITERIA ITERATE(25)
/ROTATION VARIMAX
/METHOD=COVARIANCE.

Resources Processor Time 0:00:01.077
Elapsed Time 0:00:01.310
Maximum Memory Required 11172 (10.910K) bytes


[DataSet1] C:\Users\Mast\Documents\brmsurv2.sav


Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N
Advertisments 3.84 1.005 56
Recommendation 3.82 1.266 56
ValueForMoney 5.16 .930 56
Availibility 4.23 .831 56
Visibility 4.41 1.092 56
Packaging 4.41 1.092 56
Celebrity 3.64 1.017 56
Innovative 4.39 1.073 56
Flavours 4.39 1.073 56


Correlation Matrix

Advertisme
nts
Recommend
ation
ValueForMo
ney
Availibil
ity
Visibili
ty
Packagi
ng
Celebr
ity
Innovati
ve
Flavou
rs
Correlati
on
Advertisment
s
1.000 -.080 -.225 .154 .161 -.005 .708 -.244 -.008
Recommend
ation
-.080 1.000 .133 .006 -.025 -.209 -.036 -.148 -.188
ValueForMon
ey
-.225 .133 1.000 -.002 -.156 .059 -.207 -.010 .063
Availibility .154 .006 -.002 1.000 .113 -.127 .121 -.308 -.145
Visibility .161 -.025 -.156 .113 1.000 -.266 .151 -.125 -.280
Packaging -.005 -.209 .059 -.127 -.266 1.000 .118 .139 .993
Celebrity .708 -.036 -.207 .121 .151 .118 1.000 -.019 .114
Innovative -.244 -.148 -.010 -.308 -.125 .139 -.019 1.000 .148
Flavours -.008 -.188 .063 -.145 -.280 .993 .114 .148 1.000
Sig. (1-
tailed)
Advertisment
s

.279 .048 .128 .118 .485 .000 .035 .477
Recommend
ation
.279

.164 .484 .428 .061 .395 .138 .082
ValueForMon
ey
.048 .164

.494 .126 .332 .063 .472 .322
Availibility .128 .484 .494

.203 .175 .186 .010 .143
Visibility .118 .428 .126 .203

.024 .133 .180 .018
Packaging .485 .061 .332 .175 .024

.193 .153 .000
Celebrity .000 .395 .063 .186 .133 .193

.445 .201
Innovative .035 .138 .472 .010 .180 .153 .445

.139
Flavours .477 .082 .322 .143 .018 .000 .201 .139




Inverse of Covariance Matrix

Advertisme
nts
Recommendati
on
ValueForMon
ey
Availibili
ty
Visibilit
y
Packagi
ng
Celebri
ty
Innovati
ve
Flavour
s
Advertisments 2.319 .187 .166 .024 .004 .676 -1.596 .524 -.533
Recommendati
on
.187 .716 -.117 .047 .051 1.231 -.158 .164 -1.063
ValueForMone
y
.166 -.117 1.272 -.060 .110 -.026 .120 .043 -.062
Availibility .024 .047 -.060 1.679 -.025 -1.111 -.195 .375 1.282
Visibility .004 .051 .110 -.025 .975 -.542 -.165 .079 .833
Packaging
.676 1.231 -.026 -1.111 -.542 60.110 -.521 .486
-
60.701
Celebrity -1.596 -.158 .120 -.195 -.165 -.521 2.178 -.379 .224
Innovative .524 .164 .043 .375 .079 .486 -.379 1.116 -.512
Flavours -.533 -1.063 -.062 1.282 .833 -60.701 .224 -.512 62.346


KMO and Bartlett's Test
a

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .531
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 284.567
df 36.000
Sig. .000
a. Based on correlations





Communalities

Raw Rescaled

Initial Extraction Initial Extraction
Advertisments 1.010 .802 1.000 .794
Recommendation 1.604 1.554 1.000 .969
ValueForMoney .865 .242 1.000 .280
Availibility .691 .222 1.000 .322
Visibility 1.192 .474 1.000 .398
Packaging 1.192 1.127 1.000 .946
Celebrity 1.034 .868 1.000 .839
Innovative 1.152 1.044 1.000 .906
Flavours 1.152 1.092 1.000 .948
Communalities

Raw Rescaled

Initial Extraction Initial Extraction
Advertisments 1.010 .802 1.000 .794
Recommendation 1.604 1.554 1.000 .969
ValueForMoney .865 .242 1.000 .280
Availibility .691 .222 1.000 .322
Visibility 1.192 .474 1.000 .398
Packaging 1.192 1.127 1.000 .946
Celebrity 1.034 .868 1.000 .839
Innovative 1.152 1.044 1.000 .906
Flavours 1.152 1.092 1.000 .948
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.



Total Variance Explained

Component
Initial Eigenvalues
a

Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings

Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
% Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
% Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Raw 1 2.726 27.562 27.562 2.726 27.562 27.562 2.515 25.432 25.432
2 2.054 20.767 48.329 2.054 20.767 48.329 1.890 19.111 44.543
3 1.539 15.557 63.886 1.539 15.557 63.886 1.368 13.835 58.378
4 1.107 11.188 75.073 1.107 11.188 75.073 1.651 16.695 75.073
5 .922 9.318 84.392

6 .732 7.406 91.797

7 .556 5.623 97.421

8 .247 2.496 99.917

9 .008 .083 100.000

Rescaled 1 2.726 27.562 27.562 2.286 25.402 25.402 2.151 23.900 23.900
2 2.054 20.767 48.329 1.960 21.783 47.185 1.859 20.659 44.559
3 1.539 15.557 63.886 1.126 12.507 59.692 1.320 14.672 59.230
4 1.107 11.188 75.073 1.029 11.438 71.131 1.071 11.900 71.131
5 .922 9.318 84.392

6 .732 7.406 91.797

7 .556 5.623 97.421

8 .247 2.496 99.917

9 .008 .083 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. When analyzing a covariance matrix, the initial eigenvalues are the same
across the raw and rescaled solution.






Component Matrix
a


Raw Rescaled

Component Component

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Advertisments -.077 .855 .234 .098 -.077 .851 .233 .098
Recommendation -.530 -.420 .983 .362 -.419 -.331 .776 .286
ValueForMoney .062 -.389 .196 -.221 .067 -.418 .210 -.238
Availibility -.198 .215 .098 -.356 -.238 .259 .118 -.429
Visibility -.469 .434 -.256 .019 -.430 .397 -.234 .017
Packaging 1.017 .090 .275 -.095 .932 .082 .252 -.087
Celebrity .064 .819 .264 .351 .063 .806 .259 .345
Innovative .371 -.276 -.421 .808 .346 -.257 -.393 .752
Flavours 1.000 .073 .286 -.074 .931 .068 .267 -.069
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. 4 components extracted.





Rotated Component Matrix
a


Raw Rescaled

Component Component

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Advertisments .019 .850 .280 -.004 .019 .846 .279 -.004
Recommendation -.157 -.065 .038 1.234 -.124 -.051 .030 .975
ValueForMoney .158 -.409 .115 .191 .170 -.440 .124 .206
Availibility -.090 .072 .456 -.036 -.108 .087 .548 -.043
Visibility -.523 .368 .162 -.197 -.479 .337 .149 -.180
Packaging 1.048 .065 -.081 -.137 .960 .060 -.075 -.125
Celebrity .123 .920 .026 .070 .121 .905 .025 .069
Innovative .058 -.003 -1.012 -.126 .054 -.003 -.943 -.117
Flavours 1.033 .060 -.096 -.110 .963 .056 -.089 -.102
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.



Interpreting the results .
In the table Tests of Equality of Group Means the results of univariate
ANOVAs, carried for each independent variable, are presented. The key
discriminating actors are those whose sig <0.05 . the factors are :
Advertisments
Availibility
Visibility
Value for money
An eigenvalue indicates the proportion of variance explained. (Between-
groups sums of squares divided by within-groups sums of squares). A large
eigenvalue is associated with a strong function.
The canonical relation is a correlation between the discriminant scores and
the levels of the dependent variable. A high correlation indicates a function
that discriminates well. The present correlation of 0.588 is not extremely high
(1.00 is perfect).
Wilks Lambda is the ratio of within-groups sums of squares to the total sums of
squares. This is the proportion of the total variance in the discriminant scores not
explained by differences among groups. A lambda of 1.00 occurs when observed
group means are equal (all the variance is explained by factors other than difference
between those means), while a small lambda occurs when within-groups variability is
small compared to the total variability. A small lambda indicates that group means
appear to differ. The associated significance value indicates whether the difference
is significant. Here, the Lambda of 0.655 has a significant value (Sig. = 0.008);
thus,the group means appear to differ.




Surgvey 3 : To understand the target group of Bingo
products
We conducted some basic statistical methods to better understand the
current market breakup of Bingo consumers .




<18
35%
18 -25
30%
25 - 40
24%
>40
11%
Bingo's consumer profile
Bingo
48%
Lays
52%

0%

0%
Consumer preference in the age group <25






As is clear from these charts that Bingo has a neck to neck fight with Lays in
age segment <25 but seems to be losing out to Lays in other agre groups . Also
a huge majority of customers are in the age group of <25 , a total of 65% .

Recommendations :
As per the analysis of the output we can observe that the reasons why
bingo is losing ground is mainly due to its lack of visibility and it being
perciebved as not value for money . On rest of the parameters there are no
significant differences .
Increase expenditure on advertisements .
Ask retailers to engage in In store promotional activities
Churn out a Bingo Loyalty program because Word of mouth appears to
be a significant factor that influence purchase decisions
Increase grammage or reduce the price to break the perception of its
being not value for money .
Consumer preference in the age group above
25
Biungo
Lays
Try to gain market share in age group above 25 by introducing healthier
and low calorie versions .
































THANK
YOU