Sunteți pe pagina 1din 39

IMT Nagpur

PGDM 2009-2011

Feasibility of a Tea Experience Retail in Nagpur

Final Report
Date of Submission: 26th March, 2010

Group: 5

Section: D

Submitted By:
Satyam Joshi 2009223
Rahul Thakur 2009206
Sarita Bhutani 2009222
Rani Treasa Joseph 2009209
Revati Naik 2009211
Sampath R 2009253

1 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


CONTENTS:

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….3
2. Research Methodology………………………………………………………………8
3. Questionnaire Design……………………………………………………………….12
4. Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………...16

Annexure 1……………………………………………………………………………….32
Annexure 2……………………………………………………………………………....35
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….38

2 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Introduction
Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Problem to be studied
3. Background of the problem
4. Research gap identified from past research
5. Relevance of the study – outcome of the research project
6. Limitations of the study

3 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


1. Introduction

The world's largest producer of tea, India is a country where tea is popular all over as a breakfast
and evening drink. It is often served with milk and sugar, and is sometimes even scented with
spices.

A research on the tea consumption behavior is highly significant since in a culture of mainstream
commercialism where a retail tea outlet has the scope of turning into the next “happening
teenage hangout”. A specific research on the attitudinal and perceptive study of a tea experience
provider in Nagpur provides a replicable model for many Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities. Further, the
concept of a tea experience stall or a tea hangout is not well conceived as of now, as compared
to that of Café Coffee day, Barista or any other café chains around the country - despite the fact
that India is the world's largest tea-drinking nation.

2. Problem to be studied

To check the feasibility of the idea of a tea junction that provides an exclusive tea experience in
Nagpur.

3. Background of the problem


3.1. Scope

The scope of the research will include identifying the feasibility of an exclusive tea
experience at a “tea junction”.

 The problem statement as mentioned above cites an opportunity that can be explored
successfully especially in an as yet untapped market like Nagpur. However for the
success of this Agro processing venture, extensive and systematic research regarding the
possible existence of a demand and the viability of the idea is a must. The process must
begin with the question: “is it feasible to make this product, will it possibly attract
repeated visits from a Customer, can we make money from such a venture and, if so,
how much?”
 Without market research there is a risk that consumers might not need or want the
product, or might not like it or the way it is packaged and presented.

4 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


3.2. Market Research

It will focus on the following aspects:

 Secondary research for retrieving the existing product details and consumer attitudes to
those products
 Primary research involving questions to identify the opinions and expectations which
would involve a perceptional and attitudinal study of the respondents regarding the
attractiveness of the idea among these prospective customers.

3.3. Market Trend


 The world's largest producer of tea, India is a country where tea is popular all over as a
breakfast and evening drink where per capita consumption of tea is almost 701 grams
(2008 – Tea Board of India) and is very popular amongst all sections of the Indian
society.
 Furthermore in a recent study commissioned by the Tea Board of India, Maharashtra has
emerged as the Indian state that consumes the most tea.
 In such a scenario of a definitive demand, research on the viability of setting up a “tea
junction” is worth an extensive study.

4. Research gap identified from past research

Existing Research data related to Tea retail were identified as following, quoting its major sources:

Source 1:

1. Yearly Production and area wise consumption of Tea

2. Tea and Health

3. National Tea Research Foundation (NTRF) on biotechnical aspects of tea

4. Tea Research Association on distribution channels

5. DTR & DC on Net work program on automation and integration in manufacture of tea.

6. Development of technology for product diversification and value added items in tea.
5 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11
Source 2

1. Database of tea types, qualities and content

2. Research on Development of technology for product diversification and value added


items of tea: namely, like: Tea tablets of different taste and flavor, canned tea (soft drinks)
from different sources developed for commercialization, flavored instant tea, Herbal tea,
decaffeinated tea, Confectionary items like tea toffee and candy, tea biscuits, tea cakes.

3. Categorization of tea on the basis of its flavor % by weight of Vanillin, Cardamom,


Ginger, Bergamot, Lemon, Cinnamon, Mixture of flavors.

Source 3:

1. Current Retail, Total, Food service Sales of Tea: by % Volume, Growth, by Sector,
Distribution Format and by Rural-Urban %.
2. Forecasted Retail, Total, Food service Sales of Tea: by % Volume, Growth, by Sector,
Distribution Format and by Rural-Urban %
3. Penetration of Private Label by Sector 2004-2008

Source 4:

1. Consumption growth, Tea drinking population growth, price, global demand, Domestic
demand-supply Per capita consumption growth.
2. Industry structure, Size of the industry, Industry segmentation, Industry characteristics,
Products and process, Product classification and Market classification.
3. Domestic branded tea market - Growth in the packaged tea market, Key brands, Player
market shares, Player strategies in the branded tea market.

The historical research has the following gaps which this project proposes to address:

1. Taste preferences of the Indian consumer of Tea in a Tiered 2 city like Nagpur
2. Attitudinal and perceptive study of the Nagpur Respondent on the different flavors/
product varieties proposed to be offered
3. Attitudinal and perceptive study of the Nagpur Respondent on the tea experience
proposed to be offered

6 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


5. Relevance of the study – outcome of the research project

The main objective of the study is to gauge the feasibility of a tea boutique in Nagpur. The research
would concentrate on various aspects as listed below

 To identify the expectations of the Respondent s with regard to the product which would
give us a lead on the kind of products to develop
 To evaluate the different options available in developing the product.
 Data regarding the various segments of the market based on the demographic characteristics
 Establish the attitude of the Respondent s towards different varieties of tea across different
sectors of the Respondent s.

This research data can be used by the retailers to develop their products and position their products
across segments based on the demographics and various psychographic characteristics.

6. Limitations of the study

The following are the Limitations of the Study:

1. Lack of disciplinary knowledge:


The attitudinal and perception study which is proposed to be conducted would require high
level of disciplinary knowledge of the psychological aspects of human attitude and
perception
2. Time:
Considering the magnitude of the research which can be carried out in the project, a time
period of 3 months is considerably short for deriving an extensive study outcome.
3. Budgetary constraints:

Gathering and processing data can be very expensive.

4. Reliability of the data:

The value of any research findings depend critically on the accuracy of the data collected.
Data quality can be compromised via a number of potential routes, e.g., leading questions,
unrepresentative samples, biased interviewers etc.

7 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Research Methodology

Contents:
1. Research methods
2. Sampling plan
3. Measurement scales
4. Hypothesis

8 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


1. Research methods:

1.1. Exploratory Research Technique

Exploratory research is basically used when there is relatively limited amount of knowledge
about the given research topic. In this case, the introduction of a “tea junction” is a new
concept, hitherto unexplored in Nagpur. The data got will mostly be from secondary sources
regarding similar outlets in different parts of the country. Therefore the exploratory research will
aid in diagnosing the situation, screening product alternatives and go a long way in discovering
new ideas about people‟s perceptions regarding the “tea junction”.

The following are the exploratory research methods identified:

1.1.1. Primary Data Collection Technique:


i. Pilot Survey
This technique involves data collection in the form of a questionnaire from a pilot/small
group of respondents. The questionnaire includes both open-ended as well as close-
ended questions in order to glean/extract information regarding the respondent‟s
perception of a “tea experience”, their preferences, likes and dislikes with regard to the
topic under research.

Advantages of using Surveys:

i. They are relatively inexpensive (especially self-administered surveys)- Can be


carried out at different tea shops or in front of CCD‟s or coffee house.
ii. Consequently, very large samples are feasible, making the results statistically
significant even when analyzing multiple variables. – Like the attitude towards
the theme of opening such a tea junction, how they will like it to be etc.
iii. Standardized questions make accurate measurements possible
iv. Usually, high reliability is easy to obtain and relatively lower response error

1.1.2. Secondary Data Collection technique

9 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


The secondary data like the annual tea consumption, varieties of tea and their quality,
health benefits and the state wise production can be obtained from the website of Tea
Board of India. This is especially useful in clarifying issues in the early stages and
providing a platform for further research.

2. Sampling plan

Sampling Technique:

Convenience Sampling:

In Nagpur the nearby colleges or malls will give us a good amount of respondents. The
researcher using such a sample cannot scientifically make generalizations about the total
population from this sample because it would not be representative enough. However
this type of sampling is most useful for pilot testing where we can get good response
rates from individual passers-by and relatively more accurate and complete responses to
the questionnaire.

3. Measurement scales

Scaling Technique

- Nominal Scale
Nominal scale is used for the demographic and Hang out pattern questions
- Likert Scale
Here a statement is made and the respondents indicate their degree of agreement or
disagreement on a five point scale. Once the attributes have been identified a batch of
samples would be prepared and the group would be asked to rate the samples individually.
This method will help in identifying the attitude of the consumers towards the individual
samples and a balanced scale would be chosen for the group to rate the samples on.
Depending on the ratings we can identify those samples which are preferred the most. We
can also gauge the attitude towards the samples across different sectors which could be later
used to position the product across different segments. The likert scale is most effective in
extracting information related the respondent perceptions.

10 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


4. Hypothesis

The following is the Hypothesis to be studied:

Hypothesis: There exists a significant positive attitude and perception for the Respondent s of
Nagpur towards the idea of an exclusive tea experience.

Significance: Will Prove/disprove that the consumers of Nagpur favor the idea of a tea
junction provide an exclusive tea experience.

11 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Questionnaire Design

Contents:

1. Preliminary Decisions
2. Design
3. Response format
4. Question Sequence

12 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Questionnaire Design

The questions emphasized on the feasibility, and being an exploratory pilot survey, it had to
accommodate a considerable number of descriptive questions.

1. Preliminary Decisions:
a. Objectives: The questionnaire is framed around 4 sub- objectives of the main feasibility
objective, which are:
1. To obtain the demographics to obtain the respondent profiling
2. To obtain the current „Hangout Place‟ pattern of the respondents
3. To obtain the Attitude towards the different features offered at the tea junction
4. To obtain the perceptions about the exclusive tea experience
b. Target respondents: College students and Mall goers
c. Method of communication: Email survey, Personal: Mall Intercept
2. Design:
a. Question Content

Part 1: Demographics

S. No. Question Significance(s)


1 Name Identification of the respondent
2 Gender Demographics of the respondent
3 Income Demographics of the respondent
4 Profession Demographics of the respondent
5 Marital Status Demographics of the respondent
Part 2: Hang-Out pattern

S. No. Question Significance(s)


Awareness of the The Profile of respondent
concept - Whether aware of the concept
1
-Whether has a preconception of the idea
-Whether has experienced the concept previously
Time spend in a tea Hangout pattern of the respondent
2
hangout venue

13 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Amount spend in a Hangout pattern of the respondent
3
tea hangout venue
With whom the visit Hangout pattern of the respondent
4
happens

Part 3: Attitude towards the features offered

S. No. Question Significance(s)


Importance of 12 Provides the attitude of the respondents towards the
4
listed feature importance of the features mentioned
Importance of 4 add- Provides the attitude of the respondents towards the
5
on features importance of the features mentioned
Amount spend in a Hangout pattern of the respondent
6
tea hangout venue

Part 4: Perceptions about the exclusive tea experience

S. No. Question Significance(s)


Chances that the The overall perception of the customers about the new
7 respondent becomes idea
a regular visitor
Few words that occur Direct Perception evaluation.
at the thought of an Thoughts and different perceptions created in the mind
8
exclusive tea of the Respondent
experience
Difference of the new Direct Perception evaluation.
concept from the Thoughts and different perceptions created in the mind
9
previously existing of the Respondent
ones Expectations of the Respondent
Least favored aspect Direct Perception evaluation.
10
about the concept Thoughts and negative perceptions created in the mind

14 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


of the Respondent
Most favored aspect Direct Perception evaluation.
11 about the concept Thoughts and Positive perceptions created in the mind
of the Respondent
Adjectives on Perception about specific products
12
Different Tea Types

3. Response format

Part 1: Demographics – Fill in the blanks/ Multiple Choice

Part 2: Hang-Out pattern - Multiple Choice

Part 4: Perceptions about the exclusive tea experience – Likert Rating Scale

Part 3: Attitude towards the features offered – Descriptive

4. Question Sequence

The sequence of the questions is in the order of increasing complication.

Demographics (direct answers) > Hang out pattern (current information) > Perceptions (Thought
creating, but rating scale) > Attitude (Full thought mapping through Descriptive questions)

15 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Data Analysis

Content:

1. Current Hang out Pattern Analysis


2. Perception Analysis: Feasibility of the New Idea
3. Perception Analysis: Significant Features(factors) of the New idea
4. Attitude Analysis : General
5. Attitude Towards The Kind Of Items Planned To Offer

16 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


1. Current Hang out Pattern Analysis

Cross Tab Analysis

Correspondence analysis is a descriptive/exploratory technique designed to analyze simple two-


way and multi-way tables containing some measure of correspondence between the rows and
columns.
The cross tab is evaluated on the basis of:: Pearson Chi-square. This tests the statistical
significance. A chi-square probability of .05 or less is interpreted as a justification for rejecting
the null hypothesis that the row variable is unrelated to the column variable.
In all the following tables, we see that the value of Pearson‟s coefficient is high, the value of df
(degree of freedom) low and the 2-sided significance level below 0.05.
This implies that there is a high association between the following survey items.
(The below given test results are the ones where the significance has been tested and has come p > 0.05)

1.1. Analysis of Cross Tabulation


a. Gender – Time
Count
Time
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Total
Gender Male 6 30 27 6 69
Female 6 9 21 9 45
Total 12 39 48 15 114

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.958a 3 .047
Likelihood Ratio 8.195 3 .042
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.448 1 .118
N of Valid Cases 114
Here, we observe that majority of males(30) would like to spend 15-30
minutes while majority of females(21) would like to spend 30-60 minutes
at a tea junction.

17 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


b. Rs Spent – Time
Count
Time
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Total
RsSpent 1.00 12 18 6 3 39
2.00 0 18 24 12 54
3.00 0 3 18 0 21
Total 12 39 48 15 114

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 50.341a 6 .000
Likelihood Ratio 55.810 6 .000
Linear-by-Linear 19.525 1 .000
Association
N of Valid Cases 114
People willing to spend up to Rs 50 per visit, would stay for 15-30
minutes. People willing to spend send above Rs 50 would stay for 30-60
minutes. This probably implies that the duration of time spent is
positively related to the amount of money people will spend.

c. RsSpent – PrevAwareness
Count
PrevAwareness
1.00 2.00 Total
RsSpent 1.00 15 24 39
2.00 33 21 54
3.00 18 3 21
Total 66 48 114

Chi-Square Tests

18 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 12.938a 2 .002
Likelihood Ratio 13.818 2 .001
Linear-by-Linear Association 12.814 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 114
Here we see that people who are previously aware of a similar concept are willing to
spend more.

2. Perception Analysis: Feasibility of the New Idea

One-Way ANOVA

Descriptive Statistics of the Total Data:

95% Confidence
Std. Std. Interval for Mean
Age N Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound
<20 12 3.8333 0.93744 0.27061 3.2377 4.4290 3.00 5.00
21-25 59 3.5085 0.93538 0.12178 3.2647 3.7522 1.00 5.00
26-35 13 3.1538 1.28103 0.35529 2.3797 3.9280 1.00 5.00
36-50 14 4.1429 1.16732 0.31198 3.4689 4.8168 1.00 5.00
>50 16 3.1250 1.02470 0.25617 2.5790 3.6710 1.00 5.00
Total 114 3.5263 1.04932 0.09828 3.3316 3.7210 1.00 5.00

This table shows the age of the respondents and their perceptions about importance of menu
pricing, the number of respondents corresponding to the age, the mean and standard deviation of
the responses. The responses range from a value of 1-5, where 1-least important; 2-not so
important; 3-neutral; 4- important; 5-most important. This table shows that the age-group 36-50
considers the menu pricing as least important and the age group greater than 50 years

a. ANOVA

Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between Groups 10.852 4 2.713 2.604 0.040

19 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Within Groups 113.569 109 1.042
Total 124.421 113

The Sig value or P-value less than 0.05 signify that the Null hypothesis is rejected in this case again
and hence the factor or independent variable Age has significant impact on the dependent variable
Importance of Menu pricing.

b. MANOVA

Independent Variable: Question 7, Probability of becoming a regular customer

Dependent variables: Question 8, Ratings of the features

Table: Feasibility (factor) – Other variables (dependent variable)

Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig. Interpretation
Importance Between
19.934 4 4.984 8.726 0.000
of Service Groups Sig<0.05, hence
Within the feasibility
62.250 109 0.571
Groups influences the
Total 82.184 113 Imp of service
Importance Between
14.117 4 3.529 4.557 0.002
of Hygiene Groups Sig<0.05, hence
Within the feasibility
84.409 109 0.774
Groups influences the
Total 98.526 113 Imp of Hygiene
Importance Between Sig<0.05, hence
11.140 4 2.785 2.763 0.031
of Prompt Groups the feasibility
Service Within influences the
109.886 109 1.008
Groups Imp of Prompt
Total 121.026 113 Service
Good staff Between Sig>0.05, hence
6.016 4 1.504 1.803 0.133
Groups the feasibility
Within does not
90.932 109 0.834
Groups influence Good
Total Staff
96.947 113
requirements
Quality of Between
6.249 4 1.562 2.876 0.026
food Groups Sig<0.05, hence
Within the feasibility
59.199 109 0.543
Groups influences the
Total 65.447 113 Quality of food

20 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Good Between
14.481 4 3.620 3.925 0.005
Ambience Groups Sig<0.05, hence
Within the feasibility
100.545 109 0.922
Groups influences Good
Total 115.026 113 Ambience
Spacious Between Sig<0.05, hence
9.836 4 2.459 2.558 0.043
Seating Groups the feasibility
Within influences
104.795 109 0.961
Groups Seating
Total 114.632 113 Arrangements
Reasonable Between Sig<0.05, hence
11.876 4 2.969 2.875 0.026
Menu Groups the feasibility
Pricing Within influences
112.545 109 1.033
Groups Reasonable
Total 124.421 113 Pricing
Varieties of Between Sig<0.05, hence
14.197 4 3.549 3.139 0.017
Tea Groups the feasibility
Within influences the
123.250 109 1.131
Groups different
Total Varieties of tea
137.447 113
available
Varieties of Between Sig>0.05, hence
4.785 4 1.196 1.211 0.310
Snacks Groups the feasibility
Within does not
107.636 109 0.987
Groups influence Variety
Total 112.421 113 of snacks
Importance Between Sig>0.05, hence
4.275 4 1.069 1.080 0.370
of Groups the feasibility
Location Within does not
107.909 109 0.990
Groups influence
Total Location
112.184 113
Importance
Importance Between Sig>0.05, hence
1.421 4 0.355 0.228 0.922
of Add-ons Groups the feasibility
Within does not
169.500 109 1.555
Groups influence
Total Importance of
170.921 113
Add-ons

This table shows the impact of the factor variable, Feasibility on dependent variables which the
respondents were asked to rate in a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the most important and 1 being the
least important. It shows that the factor variables influences most of these variables except three of
them viz Importance of Add-ons, location and good-staff.

21 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


3. Perception Analysis: Significant Features(factors) of the New idea

Factor Analysis

Factor Analysis: Round 1

(Note: NOT using Communalities to select Factors, using component Matrix)

Variable Key

Variable Name Variable Description


ImpQofServ Importance of Quality of Service
ImpHygiene Importance of Hygiene
ImpPromptServ Importance of Promptness of Service
ImpStaff Importance of Professionalism and friendliness of Staff
ImpQofFood Importance of the Quality of Food
ImpAmbience Importance of the Ambience
ImpSeating Importance of the Interiors and seating
ImpMenupricing Importance of Menu Pricing
ImpVarietyTea Importance of Variety of Tea
ImpVarietySnacks Importance of Variety of Snacks
ImpLocation Importance of Location
ImpAddOns Importance of Add-ons

Analysis Table 1: Descriptive Statistics


Variable Name Mean Std. Dev N Interpretation
ImpQofServ 4.4474 .85282 114 Mean is Close to Important
ImpHygiene 4.6316 .93376 114 Mean is Close to Very Important
ImpPromptServ 3.8684 1.03491 114 Mean is Close to Important
ImpStaff 3.7895 .92625 114 Mean is Close to Important
ImpQofFood 4.7105 .76104 114 Mean is Close to Very Important
ImpAmbience 3.8684 1.00893 114 Mean is Close to Important
ImpSeating 3.6842 1.00719 114 Mean is Close to Important
ImpMenupricing 3.5263 1.04932 114 Mean is Close to No difference
ImpVarietyTea 3.7105 1.10288 114 Mean is Close to Important
ImpVarietySnacks 3.4737 .99743 114 Mean is Close to No difference

22 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


ImpLocation 3.4474 .99638 114 Mean is Close to No difference
ImpAddOns 2.9737 1.22987 114 Mean is Close to No difference

Analysis Table 2: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Interpretation
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .782 >than 0.5, sample adequate
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 825.914
Sphericity Df 66
Sig. .000 <0.0.5 Data set Significantly
correlated

Analysis Table 3: Communalities

Initial Extraction Interpretation


ImpQofServ 1.000 .710 Close to 1, implies High Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpHygiene 1.000 .778 Close to 1, implies High Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpPromptServ 1.000 .517 Not Close to 1, implies Low Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpStaff 1.000 .706 Close to 1, implies High Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpQofFood 1.000 .818 Close to 1, implies High Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpAmbience 1.000 .736 Close to 1, implies High Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpSeating 1.000 .678 Not Close to 1, implies Low Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpMenupricing 1.000 .515 Not Close to 1, implies Low Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpVarietyTea 1.000 .624 Not Close to 1, implies Low Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpVarietySnacks 1.000 .728 Close to 1, implies High Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpLocation 1.000 .634 Not Close to 1, implies Low Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpAddOns 1.000 .778 Close to 1, implies High Communality/ imp of Factor

Analysis Table 4: Total Variance Explained


Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 5.705 47.544 47.544 5.705 47.544 47.544

23 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


2 1.447 12.061 59.605 1.447 12.061 59.605
3 1.070 8.920 68.525 1.070 8.920 68.525
4 .896 7.469 75.995
5 .756 6.297 82.292 Interpretation:
6 .548 4.570 86.861 „3
7 .476 3.968 90.829 Components
8 .327 2.725 93.554 For Factors
9 .285 2.375 95.929 Generated‟
10 .226 1.887 97.817
11 .181 1.510 99.327
12 .081 .673 100.000

Analysis Table 4: Component Matrix


Component
Selection of Factors
1 2 3
ImpQofServ .728 -.174 .387 Component> .7, Selected
ImpHygiene .771 -.405 .139 Component> .7, Selected
ImpPromptServ .573 -.412 -.140 Component<.7, Not Selected
ImpStaff .803 .091 -.231 Component> .7, Selected
ImpQofFood .808 -.268 .305 Component> .7, Selected
ImpAmbience .775 .103 -.354 Component> .7, Selected
ImpSeating .771 .112 -.266 Component> .7, Selected
ImpMenupricing .468 -.409 -.359 Component<.7, Not Selected
ImpVarietyTea .491 .026 .618 Component<.7, Not Selected
ImpVarietySnacks .606 .595 .074 Component<.7, Not Selected
ImpLocation .776 .112 -.139 Component> .7, Selected
ImpAddOns .573 .667 .065 Component<.7, Not Selected

Factor Analysis: Round 2, with the selected variables

(Note: NOT using Communalities to select Factors, using component Matrix)

Eliminated Factors: ImpPromptServ, ImpMenupricing, ImpVarietyTea, ImpVarietySnacks,


ImpAddOns.

24 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Analysis Table 1: KMO and Bartlett's Test
Interpretation
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .850 >than 0.5, sample adequate
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 513.137
Df 21
Sig. .000 <0.0.5 Data set Significantly
correlated

Analysis Table 2: Communalities

Initial Extraction Interpretation


ImpQofServ 1.000 .596 Not Close to 1, implies Low Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpHygiene 1.000 .698 Close to 1, implies High Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpStaff 1.000 .655 Close to 1, implies High Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpQofFood 1.000 .694 Close to 1, implies High Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpAmbience 1.000 .630 Close to 1, implies High Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpSeating 1.000 .597 Not Close to 1, implies Low Communality/ imp of Factor
ImpLocation 1.000 .550 Not Close to 1, implies Low Communality/ imp of Factor

Analysis Table 3: Total Variance Explained


Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 4.420 63.138 63.138 4.420 63.138 63.138
2 .927 13.247 76.385
3 .506 7.227 83.612 Interpretation:
4 .456 6.515 90.127 „1
5 .310 4.432 94.559 Component
6 .257 3.665 98.225 For Factors
7 .124 1.775 100.000 Generated‟

Analysis Table 4: Component Matrix


Interpretation
Component One component : all the Factors can be categorized into a

25 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


1 single component
ImpQofServ .772 Component value> .7, Selected
ImpHygiene .835 Component value> .7, Selected
ImpStaff .809 Component value> .7, Selected
ImpQofFood .833 Component value> .7, Selected
ImpAmbience .794 Component value> .7, Selected
ImpSeating .773 Component value> .7, Selected
ImpLocation .741 Component value> .7, Selected
All the factors selected for Significance.

4. Attitude Analysis:

Analyzing the descriptive questions:

Technique used: Language Processing Technique

The most repeated ideas/ perceptions are plotted on a Pareto chart to quantify the
importance of that particular attitude towards the new concept.

Question 8: Write down a few words that occur to you when you think of an exclusive tea experience?

Frequencyof the Word/ Idea: Question 8


30 28

25

20 17 16 15
15
11
10 9 8 8 7 7
5 4 4 4 4 4
5

The most import Overall perception of the customers: ‘Different Experience’

26 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Question 9: How will an exclusive tea experience be different from the current hangout venues?

Frequencyof the Word/ Idea: Question 9


25

20
20

15 14
13
10
10 9 9
7
6
5 5 5
5 4 4

Most important differences: Unique and Cheaper Prices

27 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Question 10: What did you like the least about the concept?

Frequency of the Word/ Idea: Question 10


25
21
20

15
15

10
10 9
8 8
6 6
5 5 5
5 4

Most important Negative perceptions:

1. The concept does not have a „wow‟ factor


2. It is same as the CCD concept
3. Youngsters preferring Coffee over Tea

28 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Question 11: What did you like the most about the concept?

Frequency of the Word/ Idea: Question 11


30
27

25

20
20
17

15
11
10 9
7
6
5 4

0
Variety of Good One more Low risk Can't say Exclusive Interesting New
tea Ambience hangout experience concept
place added

Most important Positive perceptions:

1. The expectation of Variety of Tea


2. Expectation of Good Ambience

29 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


5. Attitude Towards The Kind Of Items Planned To Offer

Question 12:

„Write an adjective that you relate to the tea beverage that is described below:‟

1. Niche Category Items:


 Amaretto Tea
 Tangerine Tea
 Darjeeling Black Tea
 White tea

Adjective Frequency using, Language Processing Technique:

Frequency of the Word/ Idea: Question 12


40
35
35

30 27
25
21
19 18
20

15 12 11 11
9
10 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 4
5

Positive adjectives, like Delicious, exotic, refreshing contribute maximum to the total frequency.

An overall Positive Attitude can be perceived in the responses.

2. Natural/ Refreshment items:


 Moroccan mint tea
 Green Tea
 Jasmine Tea

30 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Adjective Frequency using, Language Processing Technique:

Frequency of the Word/ Idea: Question 12


45
40
40

35 32
30
24
25

20
14 13
15
11
10
6 6 5 5 5 4
5

Positive adjectives, like Healthy, refreshing, exotic, contribute maximum to the total frequency.

A High degree of Positive Attitude can be perceived in the responses.

31 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Annexure 1: Code Book

Sl Name of the Missing Measur


Type Width
Variable Description Values
No Variable Values ement
1 Name String 16 Name of the Respondent None -
2 Gender Numeric 8 Gender {1.00, Male}, {2.00, Female} None Nominal
{1.00, <20 years}, {2.00, 20 - 25}, {3.00, Nominal
3 Age Numeric 8 Age 26 - 35 years}, {4.00, 36 - 50 years}, None
{5.00, > 50 years}
{1.00, <2 lakhs}, {2.00, 2.5 - 3.5 lakhs}, Nominal
4 Family Income Numeric 8 Family Income {3.00, 3.5 - 12 lakhs}, {4.00, 12 - 50 None
lakhs}, {5.00, > 50 lakhs}
5 Profession String 17 Profession None None
{1.00, Unmarried}, {2.00, Married Nominal
6 MaritalStatus Numeric 8 Marital Status without Children}, {3.00, Married with None
Children}
Nominal
7 PrevAwareness Numeric 8 Previous Awareness of the Idea {1.00, Yes}, {2.00, No} None
Time liked to be spent in a Tea {1.00, <15 mins}, {2.00, 16-30 mins}, Nominal
8 Time Numeric 8 None
boutique {3.00, 30 - 60 mins}, {4.00, > 60 mins}
{1.00, <50 Rs.}, {2.00, 50 - 150 Rs}, Nominal
9 RsSpent Numeric 8 Rupees spent in a Tea boutique None
{3.00, 150 - 250 Rs.}, {4.00, > 250 Rs.}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less
Importance of the Quality of Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
10 ImpQofServ Numeric 8 None Ordinal
Service {4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
11 ImpHygiene Numeric 8 Importance of Hygiene None
{4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
12 ImpPromptServ Numeric 8 Importance of Prompt Service None
{4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}

32 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
13 ImpStaff Numeric 8 Importance of Staff None
{4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
14 ImpQofFood Numeric 8 Importance of the Quality of Food None
{4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
15 ImpAmbience Numeric 8 Importance of the Ambience None
{4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance of the Interiors and Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
16 ImpSeating Numeric 8 None
Seating {4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
17 ImpMenupricing Numeric 8 Importance of the Menupricing None
{4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance of the Variety of Tea Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
18 ImpVarietyTea Numeric 8 None
available {4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance of the Variety of Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
19 ImpVarietySnacks Numeric 8 None
Snacks {4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
20 ImpLocation Numeric 8 Importance of the Location None
{4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
21 ImpAddOns Numeric 8 Importance of Add-ons None
{4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}

33 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance of the Add-on, Back Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
22 AddonImpBGMusic Numeric 8 None
Ground Music {4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance of the Add-on, Live Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
23 AddonImpLivePerf Numeric 8 None
Music Performance {4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
24 AddonImpLib Numeric 8 Importance of the Add-on, Library None
{4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
Importance of the Add- Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
25 AddonImpWLIC Numeric 8 None
on,Wireless Internet conectivity {4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}
{1.00, Least Important.}, {2.00, Less Ordinal
AddonImpPartyRoo Importance of the Add-on, Party Importance}, {3.00, Unimportant},
26 Numeric 8 None
ms Rooms {4.00, Important}, {5.00, Very
Important}

34 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Annexure 2: Questionnaire

Dear Respondent,
Thank you for choosing to fill in this survey!
This survey intends to gather your opinion on the idea of an exclusive tea experience outlet.
It will provide you numerous tea variants and an elite ambience that will allow you to
indulge in the tea experience.
With warm regards,
Team 6D
IMT Nagpur.

Name:

Gender: Male/ Female


Income:  <1.5 lakhs
 1.5 to 3.5 lakhs
 3.5 to 5 lakhs
 >5 lakhs
Profession:
Marital Status:

Question 1

Are you aware of a similar concept (tea experience) from before? Yes/No

Question 2

How much time would you like to spend in a tea boutique?

 < 15 minutes
 16-30 minutes
 30-60 minutes
 More than an hour.

Question 3

How much would you spend in a tea boutique?

 <50
 50 -150
 150 – 250
 >250

35 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Question 4

With whom would you prefer to visit such a place?

 Friends
 Family
 Colleagues
 Girlfriend/Boyfriend

Question 5

How much importance do you assign to the following features (Tick beneath the rating, 5 – Most
important, 1–Least important)?

1 –Least 5- Most
Rating 2 3 4
important Important
a. Quality of service
b. Hygiene
c. Promptness of service
d. Professionalism and friendliness
of staff
e. Freshness/quality of food
f. Ambience/Décor
g. Seating arrangement and Lighting
h. Menu pricing
i. Variety of tea
j. Variety of Snacks
k. Location
l. Quality of service
m. Add –ons

Question 6

Rate the following Add-ons according to the importance assigned to them

1 –Least 5- Most
Rating 2 3 4
important Important
a. Background music
b. Mini – Library
c. Wireless Internet connectivity
d. Party room/ arrangements

36 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


Question 7

If an Exclusive tea outlet opens up at Nagpur, what are the chances that you will become a regular
visitor of the place?

 Highly Probable
 Mostly Probable
 Probable
 Mostly Improbable
 Highly Improbable

Question 8

Write down a few words that occur to you when you think of an exclusive tea experience?

_________________

_________________

_________________

_________________

_________________

Question 9

How will an exclusive tea experience be different from the current hangout venues?

_________________

_________________

_________________

_________________

_________________

Question 10

What did you like the least about the concept?

__________________________________

__________________________________

37 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

Question 11

What did you like the most about the concept?

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

Question 12

Write an adjective that you relate to the tea beverage that is described below:

1. Amaretto Tea contains Added Almond liqueur to hot tea and topping with whipped cream
______________
2. Tangerine Tea Made with black or orange pekoe tea and freshly squeezed juice with
optional addition of peach brandy or peach schnapps
______________
3. Jasmine Tea Enjoy this very floral Green Tea and experience why it is China‟s favorite and
most consumed exotic tea. Jasmine is harvested in the afternoon and stored until evening
when its fragrance is at its fullest.
______________
4. Green tea The freshness of tea with all possible health benefits
______________
5. Moroccan mint tea This exotic tea consists of Chinese Gunpowder tea (high quality Green
Tea hand rolled into small pellets) and the flavors of Spearmint and Peppermint.
______________
6. White tea The combination of White Tea‟s Yin Zhen buds and Ginger Root produces a
delicate aromatic exotic tea with zest. White tea and Ginger is a wonderful combination and
this tea is often called “The Pleasure of the Orient”.
______________
7. Darjeeling Black tea Darjeeling Black Tea is considered the champagne of teas. Light in
color and thin-bodied this gourmet tea has a muscatel flavor and a slightly astringent after
taste. There are seasonal differences to note.
______________

38 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11


BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Tea Board of India


- 54th ANNUAL REPORT 2007-2008, www.tocklai.net
- A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers for IBEF
- Fast Moving Consumer Goods – CRISIL (A-Ii CRISIL RESEARCH TEA ANNUAL
REVIEW)

39 Group 5/BRM/ Final Report/ Section D/IMT-N/2009-11