A STUDY ON CONSUMER AWARENESS AND PREFERENCE ON

NATURAL INGREDIENTS IN FOOD PRODUCTS

By
YOGESH KUMAR MS 18MBA151
LAKSHMITHA KRISHNAN 18MBA156
NITHYAPRAKASH K 18MBA166

Under the guidance of

Dr.S. Jai Sankar
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
KCT Business School

A PROJECT REPORT
Submitted
In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the
Degree of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Kumaraguru College of Technology
(An autonomous institution affiliated to Anna University, Chennai)
Coimbatore - 641 049
April 2019

1
 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report titled “consumer awareness and preference on natural
ingredients in food products” is for course completion of Research Methodology,
P17BACP201 is the bonafide work of YOGESH KUMAR MS, LAKSHMITHA
KRISHNAN, NITHYAPRAKASH K, who carried out the project under my supervision.
Certified further, that to the best of my knowledge the work reported herein does not form
part of any other project report or dissertation on the basis of which a degree or award was
conferred on an earlier occasion on this or any other candidate.

Faculty guide Head of the

Department
Dr.Jai Sankar Dr.Nedunchezhain V. R
Associate Professor KCTBS
KCTBS

Hard and Soft copy Submitted for the Project Viva-Voce examination held on
________________

Internal Examiner External Examiner

(Signature with date) (Signature with date)

2
 DECLARATION

I, hereby declare that this Research project report entitled as, “ A study on consumer

awareness and preference on natural ingredients in food products .” has

been undertaken for academic purpose for the course submitted to Anna University in
partial fulfilment of requirement for the award of degree of Master of Business
Administration. The project report is the record of the original work done by me under
the guidance of ( Dr.S. JAI SANKAR, Associate Professor) KCT-BS during the
academic year 2019.

I, also declare hereby, that the information given in this report is correct to the best of my
Knowledge and behalf.

Place: Coimbatore Name and Signature

M.S. Yogesh kumar

Date: Lakshmitha Krishnan
K. Nithyaprakash

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my sincere and heart-felt gratitude the Management of KCT Business

School, for their prime guidance.

I express my thanks to Dr. Nedunchezhain V. R, Head of the department, KCTBS

for implementing this project and providing under the supervision in its execution. I am

indebted to my Institution and my faculty members without whom this project would have

been a distant reality.

I also would like to give my sincere thanks to my Project guide Dr.S. Jai Sankar,

Associate Professor for giving me support and guidance for this project from inception to

closure.

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE NO CONTENTS PAGE NO
Abstract 1

1 Introduction 2

1.1 About the study 2

2 Review of literature 4

3 Research Methodology 10

3.1 Objective of the study 10

3.2 Need for the study 10

3.3 Limitation of the Study 10

3.4 Research question 10

3.5 Research Methodology 11

3.6 Data collection 11

3.7 Tools Used 11

4 Demographic profiling and mean interpretation 12

4.1 Reliability 16

4.2 Descriptive statistics 16

4.3 Correlation 18

4.3.1 Correlation between awareness and resonance 18

4.3.2 Correlation between resonance and preference 19

4.3.3 Correlation between resonance and positive opinion 19

4.3.4 Correlation between Awareness and negative opinion 20

4.3.5 Correlation Between Resonance and influence factor 20

4.3.6 Correlation between influence factor and preference 21

4.3.7 Correlation between preference and positive opinion 21

4.3.8 Correlation between preference and negative opinion 22

4.3.9 Correlation between negative opinion and influence factor 22

4.3.10 Correlation between influence factor and positive opinion 23

4.4 Regression 23

4.5 T- test 25

5
4.5.1 T-Test table results exhibiting the means for the study 25

constructs with respect to gender

4.5.2 T-Test table results exhibiting the means for the study 27

constructs with respect to marital status

4.6 Anova 30

4.6.1 Anova table results exhibiting the means for the study 30

constructs with respect to age

4.6.2 Anova table results exhibiting the means for the study 31

constructs with respect to income

4.6.3 Anova table results exhibiting the means for the study 32

constructs with respect to education

4.6.4 Anova table results exhibiting the means for the study 33

constructs with respect to occupation

5 Results and discussion 35

6 Conclusion and suggestion 39

7 Bibliography 40

6
 ABSTRACT

The goal of this paper is to give a comprehension of the customer mindfulness and inclination
on natural ingredients in food products and how the change is towards it. In the course of the
most recent decade the wellbeing cognizance of buyers has turned into a significant factor
driving the agri-nourishment advertise. More beneficial food products have entered the
worldwide markets with power in the previous years and quickly picked up piece of the pie.
The sustenance business has responded to this pattern by building up a developing assortment
of new items with wellbeing related cases and pictures, including natural and practical
nourishments that are chosen by purchasers for their wellbeing advancing properties. As of
now, the food products claiming natural ingredients is performing admirably, regarding
advancement and market entrance. Different examinations have inferred that better
comprehension of buyer view of sound sustenance’s and its determinants are key
achievement factors for market introduction and advancement and for effectively arranging
business sector openings.

In our examination, we overviewed 196 purchasers of Coimbatore district of Tamilnadu in

India. The overview results uncover an uplifting standpoint for development of natural
ingredients in food products which are picking up. In a similar time, respondents gripe about
a specific trouble in recognizing natural and useful and ordinary sustenance’s and express a
negative feeling towards the present dimension of data accessible available.

7
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1ABOUT THE STUDY

Natural ingredients-based food products are growing rapidly in the Global food market
and also in the Indian food market where agriculture is considered a major occupation.
Natural ingredients in food products are seemingly becoming popular and widely
attracting the consumers every-day because of the benefits they offer to the consumers.
The change is food industry is one major reason for this buying behaviour because the
industry changes accordingly with the economic structure change and also the wide
choices people have got because of the recent trends. The Indian food industry is
changing but the choices are becoming more dangerous when considered with safety and
quality ingredients. The food products are dumped with chemicals, pesticides and
artificial ingredients to create better taste and varieties. That is the reason why more
people are affected with health issues than any time in the history in almost all the parts
of the world. Thus, people are becoming more health conscious and look for natural
foods.

Also, those who are environment conscious look for foods which are bio-degradable and
natural foods satisfy all these aspects in one shot. Thus, people are willing to go for
natural food products but the problem identified is that the awareness level is not
sufficient and also there are trust issues when it comes to natural products that if the
products are really natural or contains natural ingredients or not. This creates more
challenges though the marketers have got opportunities with the same. Consumers look
for these kinds of products not only for a better physical health but also the mental well-
being and also to prevent certain diseases. Thus, back to the base is the mantra nowadays.
That is, moving backwards our base Ayurveda. Thus, the near future is the best
opportunity for marketers to fill the gap, create an awareness by knowing the preferences
of the consumers and make it a profitable business.

Natural ingredients-based food product doesn’t contain artificial ingredients or

preservatives and the ingredients are only minimally processed. However, they may

8
contain antibiotics, growth hormones and other similar chemicals. Regulations are fairly
lenient for food labelled “natural”.

Natural Ingredients include plant, animal, mineral or microbial ingredients present in or

produced by nature. They are produced using minimal physical processing directly
extracted using simple methods, simple chemical reactions or resulting from naturally
occurring biological processes.
Natural ingredients are grown, harvested, raised and processed in an ecological manner
not produced synthetically, free of all petrochemicals not extracted or processed using
petrochemicals, not extracted or processed using anything other than natural ingredients
as solvents, not exposed to irradiation or not genetically engineered.

Food products we have considered items like bakery and bread, meat and seafood, pasta and
rice, oils, sauces, salad dressings and condiments, cereals and breakfast foods, soups and
canned goods, frozen foods, dairy, cheese and eggs, snacks and crackers, fruits & vegetables
and drinks respectively.

9
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

(Marvin T. Batte, Jeremy Beaverson, Neal H. Hooker, and Tim Haab – 2004)

Customer Willingness to Pay for Multi-Ingredient, Processed Natural Food Products. This
paper was selected by the American Agricultural Economics Association. This is a report of a
customer intercept survey of customers in seven central Ohio grocery stores. Six were
conventional stores of a national grocery chain (Traditional Grocery); of these, two were
suburban, two were city central, and two were in predominately rural locations. The seventh
store was a health/whole foods store (Specialty Grocery). The Major part of this survey was
to address the customer willingness to pay for alternative levels of natural content in
breakfast cereals, customer purchase patterns for natural foods, and customer opinions about
the benefits of natural and other food characteristics. More than 42%traditional grocery
shoppers reported purchases of natural foods, the majority purchasing at least twice monthly.
Shoppers in the specialty grocery were much more likely to purchase natural foods (92
percent). Consumers indicated a willingness to pay higher prices for processed foods with
natural content. This willingness to pay varied with income and demographic characteristics
of the households.

(Dr. Roshni Rawal 1, Prof. Bhavika Ganatra2, Prof. Dr. S.G. Desai3 – 2017)

Natural Products: Change in the Consumer Buying Behaviour and Its Sustainability in the
Market (Through Distributor’s point of view). In recent years the interest in the natural
farming industry has increased due to health scares, rampant obesity, and the spread of
disease throughout the world. Naturalally grown health food has created a solid niche for
itself. Indeed, with the growth of farmers, markets and an increased concern over the effects
of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, natural food is the beginning to make a serious bid for
control of the food industry. An natural brand like NUTRILITE- promoted by Amway is
different from the other business, which has been developed through Multi-Level Marketing
(MLM). Indian brands like Patanjali, Eco Farms, and 24 Mantra naturals are using other
channels for marketing and distributing. Natural marketing is growing rapidly and consumers
are willing to pay for natural products. Companies that integrate natural strategies into
product development, operational process and marketing activities find new opportunities for
competitive advantages. This study will cover points like: factor consideration for selling of

10
natural products, awareness level for natural products and reasons for change in the buying
behaviour. Efforts are being made to understand how natural marketing as a strategic tool
will survive in a globalized market.

(H. Stolz a, M. Stolzea, U. Hammb, M. Janssenb, E. Rutoc – 2009 attributes)

Consumer attitudes towards natural versus conventional food with specific quality.

This current paper's Main target was to portion periodic normal shoppers as to their
inclinations for common, ordinary and traditional in addition to items, i.e., regular items with
a particular ascribe that additionally applies to characteristic items. At the end of the day,
these regular in addition to items are put among normal and ordinary food products. Also, we
went for investigating contrasts between purchaser fragments with respect to their value
affectability and frames of mind towards nourishment. Two portions of periodic regular
purchasers were recognized. Purchasers in fragment 1 emphatically favored common items
and were less value touchy. Moreover, customers in this fragment demonstrated a
fundamentally larger amount of concurrence with the greater part of the examined disposition
factors than buyers in portion 2. The last comprised of buyers who were fundamentally more
value delicate and favored traditional in addition to and ordinary items instead of regular
items. The cost affectability of parts of intermittent characteristic customers recommends that
the apparent cost execution proportion of common items should be expanded by focused
valuing and correspondence methodologies coordinating item significant data. If not,
ordinary in addition to items, speaking to a less expensive option, may be favored by parts of
the incidental characteristic purchasers.

(Su-Huey Quah and Andrew K. G. Tan – 2009)

Shopper Purchase Decisions of Natural Food Products: An Ethnic Analysis. Regular

nourishment item (OFG) OFP buys by shoppers of different ethnicities are influenced by
comparable and divergent socio demographical and attitudinal variables. In particular, Malay
buy choices are propelled by females, urbanites, and those with higher salary levels.
Moreover, attitudinal qualities for Malays incorporate those with sanitation concerns,
debilitated companions/family, wellbeing supplement uses, and the individuals who believe
cost or accessibility to be significant properties. In the interim, the Chinese market comprises

11
of more established female customers with less kids, who are worried about sanitation and
who procure wellbeing supplements normally. Ultimately, buyers of Indian/other ethnicity
are exclusively inspired by being clients of wellbeing supplements

(Nihan Ozguven)

Regular nourishments inspirations factors for customers: The reason for this paper is to break
down the inspirations components of purchasing characteristic sustenances in buyers. Buyers
were incorporated into various criteria that impact customers when purchasing sustenance.
Information is dissected with SPSS to clarify milk, foods grown from the ground with normal
items. The basic leadership process is perplexing and the thought processes elements may
influence vegetables. Information were gathered in Izmir. Thus, look into is spoken to just
research tests. This isn't summed up. Research results are significant for organization and
customers. Since these discoveries have suggestions for future area based interchanges to
buyers. Be that as it may, they advise organization for item improvement and shopper
conduct.

(Pittawat Ueasangkomsatea*, Salinee Santiteerakulb)

An investigation of buyers' frames of mind and expectation to purchase regular sustenances

for manageability: In this examination, we contemplated shoppers' demeanors and aim to
purchase characteristic nourishments under the guideline of economical improvement. We
utilized surveys to gather the information with 316 respondents in Thailand. For
dependability examination of surveys, the Cronbach's Alpha came to at 0.964. The
consequences of study demonstrated that buyers' frames of mind about common sustenances
are identified with wellbeing at the first position. Thus, purchasers' frames of mind with
neighborhood starting point, condition, and sanitation are at the second, third and fourth
individually. Creature welfare is the most recent property that purchasers perceived. The
exploration connected the Pearson relationship to discover the relationship among five credits
and expectation to purchase characteristic nourishments. The yield uncovered that
neighborhood birthplace quality is the most critical to correspond emphatically with the goal
to purchase altogether. At that point, creature welfare characteristic and condition credit

12
relate decidedly to buy expectation. Therefore, wellbeing and sanitation are the last two
angles to relate with the purchasing goal impressively.

(Farah Ayuni Shafiea*and Denise Rennie)

Buyer Perceptions towards Natural Food: Food security, human wellbeing and ecological
worry alongside tactile properties, for example, nutritive esteem, taste, freshness and
appearance impact common nourishment purchaser inclinations. Statistic factors may
characterize characteristic buyers yet the relationship isn't extremely huge. Buyers likewise
partner regular nourishment with characteristic procedure, care for nature and creature
welfare and the non-utilization of pesticides and manures. Premium value keeps on
smothering regular nourishment utilization. Understanding the grounds of expanding
dimension of common nourishment utilization, for example, inspiration are most basic in
understanding the capability of the normal sustenance to turn into a really standard market.

(Mohamed Bilal Bashaa, Cordelia Masonb, Mohd Farid Shamsudinc*, Hafezali Iqbal
Hussainc, Milad Abdelnabi Salemc)

Purchasers Attitude Towards Natural Food: The mindfulness on the unsafe impacts of
synthetic substances present in sustenance is expanding among the buyers. The pattern
towards acquiring regular sustenance is developing among individuals. An examination to
distinguish what really prompts customers to turn towards common sustenance is significant.
A portion of the conspicuous propelling variables to buy characteristic sustenances
incorporate ecological concern, wellbeing concern and way of life, item quality and abstract
standards. This exact investigation is gone for recognizing the buy aim of customers towards
normal nourishments. The examination predicts the buy expectation of purchasers dependent
on the impacts of elements like ecological concern, wellbeing concern and way of life, item
quality and abstract standards on the frame of mind towards regular nourishments. The
aftereffects of the investigation demonstrate that nature of items, ecological concern,
wellbeing concern and way of life are the most usually expressed intentions in acquiring
characteristic nourishments.

13
(Dr. Roshni Rawal 1, Prof. Bhavika Ganatra2, Prof. Dr. S.G. Desai3)

Normal Products: Change in the Consumer Buying Behavior and Its Sustainability in the
Market (Through Distributor's perspective): Natural cultivating and the creation of all-
common wellbeing sustenance isn't new wonders. Be that as it may, amid ongoing years
enthusiasm for the common cultivating industry has expanded because of wellbeing alarms,
widespread corpulence, and the spread of malady all through the world. Naturalally
developed wellbeing nourishment has made a strong specialty for itself. To be sure, with the
development of ranchers, markets and an expanded worry over the impacts of counterfeit
manures and pesticides, common nourishment is the start to make a genuine offer for control
of the sustenance business. Be that as it may, in its initial years, naturalally developed
wellbeing nourishment was just a genuinely dark, radical portion of the market. A common
brand like NUTRILITE-advanced by Amway is unique in relation to the next business, which
has been created through Multilevel Marketing (MLM). Indian brands like Patanjali, Eco
Farms, and 24 Mantra naturals are utilizing different channels for advertising and dispersing.
Normal advertising is developing quickly and buyers are happy to pay for regular items.
Organizations that incorporate normal procedures into item advancement, operational
procedure and showcasing exercises find new open doors for upper hands. Characteristic
items are progressively favored in the market today due to natural ingredients and procedure
utilized for making item. Regular sustenance has drawn consideration of an ever increasing
number of shoppers. Accordingly, numerous scientists have endeavored to clarify the
inspirations and promoting issues applicable to the subject This investigation will cover
focuses like: factor thought for selling of regular items, mindfulness level for characteristic
items and purposes behind change in the purchasing conduct. Endeavors are being made to
see how normal showcasing as a vital apparatus will get by in a globalized market.

(Annunziata Azzurra, Agovino Massimiliano, Mariani Angela)

Estimating maintainable sustenance utilization: A contextual investigation on regular

nourishment: This examination expects to add to the discussion on buyers' sustenance
purchasing rehearses as to continue capacity issues, and explicitly to inclinations for
common. So as to dissect characteristic nourishment purchasing rehearses top to bottom, this
paper proposes a philosophy of examination dependent on two stages. Firs to fall, a fluffy
rationale has been utilized for the development of composite record. Specifically, we propose

14
three files that abridge a lot of factors for estimating normal utilization power (OCI), the level
of both nourishment supportability concerns (FSCI) and manageability in customers' way of
life (SLI). The relapse has been actualized to break down if regular utilization force is
influenced by the other two recently referenced lists (FSCI and SLI), and by other chose
covariates. As contextual investigation, study information on as plentiful of shoppers
inhabitant in Campania (an area in south of Italy) have been utilized. From our outcomes it
develops that shoppers with a high OCI demonstrate a more elevated amount of
maintainability worry in their general sustenance decisions and have an increasingly
supportable way of life. Besides, nourishment unnerves and worries over sanitation are solid
indicators of normal utilization power. In conclusion, ladies and youngsters demonstrate a
higher power of regular sustenance utilization. By and large, these experimental discoveries
propose to industry experts and arrangement creators that to expand normal nourishment
utilization endeavours ought to be made, to convey wellbeing, just as natural and social
advantages identified with the generation and utilization of such sustenance, concentrating on
more youthful customers as keys take holders in the progress towards increasingly feasible
sustenance frameworks.

15
 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:

 To understand the awareness among the consumers about the natural ingredients in
food products.
 To understand the consumer’s preference of the natural ingredients in the food
products.
 To understand if they would like to pay an amount higher than ordinary for the food
products containing natural ingredients in it.
 To understand why consumers, prefer food products containing natural ingredients
over ordinary food products.
 To understand in what products the consumers prefers natural ingredients and are
willing to adapt.

3.2 NEED FOR THE STUDY

 The outcome of this study will deliver a clear insight about the transformation of
preferences of the consumers with respect to the food products.
 It will also help marketers to discover the aspects consumers consider in
purchasing food products that has natural ingredients in it.

3.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

We have limited our study to the food products and with the people of Coimbatore for a
narrow and clear perception which may not help as a whole with the perception on global
population.

3.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

Questions regarding natural ingredients in consumer’s products and how they use in
their daily life and what is their preference on natural ingredients in products in the near
future.

16
3.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

 Sampling method
Non-Probability based simple convenient sampling method is the sampling method
we are planning to use.
 Population
The population is the people of Coimbatore of all age groups and occupations.
 Sampling frame

The sampling data is collected from customers by through Google forms.

 Sample size

The total sample size will be 196 respondents covering the people of Coimbatore

3.6 DATA COLLECTION

 Primary data

Primary data includes information collected through questionnaire based on attitude

and perception of customers.

3.7 TOOLS USED

 T -test
 Correlation
 Regression
 Descriptive analysis
 Anova

17
 CHAPTER 4

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILING & MEAN INTERPRETATION

This chapter deals with the analysis of demographic profile of the respondents, exploring the
study constructs and exploring the domains which were taken for the study using statically
tools. The analysis is done for one hundred and ninety-six people in and around Coimbatore.
The significance of analysis is to assess the Perceived Perceptions of consumer awareness
and preference on natural ingredients in food products.

The study constructs are:

 AWARENESS
 PREFERENCE
 POSITIVE OPINION
 NEGATIVE OPINION
 INFLUENCE FACTOR
 RESONANCE

Based on the analysis result, the factors which are highly influencing Consumer Engagement will be
found out. The analysis chart indicates the less influencing and high influencing dimensions which
were taken for study. The less influencing dimension may be due the difference in Perceptions of
consumer awareness and preference on natural ingredients in food products. More focus on
altering the Perceptions of the customers in a positive way would help in high Engagement level

Of the customers.

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILING:

With the help of percentage analysis, demographic variables are identified in

percent. The demographic variables are age, gender, marital status, education,
occupation and family income per month of 196 respondents.

18
AGE:

AGE

4% 10%
6%

15%

65%

age Below 18 18 to 25 26 to 30 40 above 45

INFERENCES:
This chart focus on the age group which says 10% of below 18 and 65% of 18
to 25 and 15% of 26 to 30 and 6% of 40 and 4% of above 45.

GENDER:

GENDER
60% 57%

50%
43%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Male Female

INFERENCES:
This chart focus on the gender which shows both gender male and female. Male
contributes 43 % and female contributes 67% on an average.

19
OCCUPATION:

OCCUPATION
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Students Business It employee Government Home maker Private
person Emplyoee

INFERENCES:
This chart focus on the occupation of the respondents. Students contributes 89, business
person contributes 23, It employees contributes 31, Government employees contributes to 14,
home-makers 17 and private employees contributes to 22 in total out of the 196 respondents.

INCOME:

20
INFERENCES:
This chart outfit on the income level. 62 are below 20k, 51 are having the salary range
21 to 30k, 33 are in 36 to 50k and about 50 respondents are salaried more than 51k.

MARITAL STATUS:

INFERENCES:
This graph concentrates on marital status. 148 people are unmarried and 48 people are
married out of the 196 respondents.

21
4.1 RELIABILITY:

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 193 98.5

Excludeda 3 1.5
Total 196 100.0
a. List wise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.780 26

INTERPRETATION:

Reliability is the overall consistency of the measure. A measure is said to have high reliability
if it produces similar results under consistent condition. Our value is 0.780 which is a good
reliability score.

4.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS:

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

HEALTH_ 196 1.00 5.00 3.8622 .92065 .848
ENVIRONMENT_ 196 1.00 5.00 3.8724 .94411 .891
POINT_OF_PURCHASE 196 1.00 5.00 3.5714 .96077 .923
SYMBOLS 196 1.00 5.00 3.0765 1.00729 1.015
BRANDS_OFFERING 196 1.00 5.00 3.0969 .94776 .898
MEAN_AWARENESS 196 1.00 5.00 3.4959 .73518 .540
PREFER_NATURAL 196 1.00 5.00 3.7908 .95118 .905
EXTRA_PRICE 196 1.00 5.00 3.6480 .94654 .896
USAGE_FUTURE 196 1.00 5.00 3.8010 1.18806 1.411
MEAN_PREFERENCE 196 1.00 5.00 3.7466 .74334 .553
SAVE_ENVIRONMENT 196 1.00 5.00 3.9796 .99722 .994
TRUST 196 1.00 5.00 2.9031 .97444 .950
PROUD U8196 1.00 5.00 3.6939 .92718 .860
MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION 196 1.33 5.00 3.5255 .67425 .455
NO_SIG_DIFF 196 1.00 5.00 2.3520 1.03455 1.070

22
ENVDECAY_IS_NATURAL 196 1.00 5.00 2.7857 1.15248 1.328
GENUINITY_DOUBTFUL 196 1.00 5.00 3.4133 .95950 .921
EXPENSIVE 196 1.00 5.00 3.6327 .94882 .900
MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION 196 1.00 5.00 3.0459 .55855 .312
PRICE 196 1.00 5.00 3.2347 .92043 .847
COMPARISON_DECISION 196 1.00 5.00 3.6276 .95491 .912
AVAILABILITY 196 1.00 5.00 3.9439 .94566 .894
MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR 196 1 5 3.60 .676 .457
FREQUENCY_BUYING 196 1 6 3.34 1.485 2.204
RECOMMEND 193 1 5 3.94 .902 .814
MEAN_RESONANCE 196 1 5 3.63 .783 .613
Valid N (listwise) 193

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

MEAN_AWARENESS 196 1.00 5.00 3.4959 .73518 .540
MEAN_PREFERENCE 196 1.00 5.00 3.7466 .74334 .553
MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION 196 1.33 5.00 3.5255 .67425 .455
MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION 196 1.00 5.00 3.0459 .55855 .312
MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR 196 1 5 3.60 .676 .457
MEAN_RESONANCE 196 1 5 3.63 .783 .613
Valid N (listwise) 196

MEAN AWARENESS:

Knowledge or perception of a situation or fact. Concern about and well-informed

interest in a particular situation or development.

MEAN PREFERENCES:
A greater liking for one alternative over another or others. A prior right or precedence,
especially in connection with the payment of debts

MEAN POSITIVE OPINION:

An opinion is a personal view or attitude. Positive opinion means the belief stronger than impression
and less strong than positive knowledge.

23
MEAN NEGATIVE OPINION:
An opinion is a personal view or attitude. A negative opinion means A fact, situation, or experience
that is negative is unpleasant, depressing, or harmful.

MEAN INFLUENCE FACTOR:

Influence is the power to have an important effect on someone or something. If
someone influences someone else, they are changing a person or thing in an indirect but important
way. Thus, the influence factor here means the effect or impact of various factors such as
price, availability, word of mouth etc.,

MEAN RESONANCE:
Resonance means the relationship that a consumer has with the product and how well he can
relate to it. The resonance is the intensity of customer’s psychological connection with the
product and the randomness to recall the product in different consumption situations.

4.3 CORRELATION:

4.3.1 Correlation with mean awareness with mean resonance:

Correlations

MEAN_AWARENESS MEAN_RESONANCE
MEAN_AWARENESS Pearson Correlation 1 -.028
Sig. (2-tailed) .692

N 196 196
MEAN_RESONANCE Pearson Correlation -.028 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .692

N 196 196

INTERPRETATION:

Here in this correlation the table value is calculated between mean awareness and mean
resonance. Here if we compare mean awareness with mean resonance we get -0.028 so this is
a negative correlation factor.

24
4.3.2 CORRELATION WITH MEAN RESONANCE WITH MEAN PREFERENCE:

MEAN_RESONANCE MEAN_PREFERENCE
MEAN_RESONANCE Pearson Correlation 1 .161*
Sig. (2-tailed) .024

N 196 196
MEAN_PREFERENCE Pearson Correlation .161* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .024

N 196 196

INTERPRETATION:

Here in this correlation the table value is calculated between mean resonance and mean
preference. Here if we compare mean resonance with mean preference we get 0.161 so this is
a positive correlation factor.

4.3.3 CORRELATION WITH MEAN RESONANCE WITH MEAN POSITIVE

OPINION:

MEAN_RESONANCE MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION
MEAN_RESONANCE Pearson Correlation 1 .123
Sig. (2-tailed) .086

N 196 196
MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION Pearson Correlation .123 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .086

N 196 196

INTERPRETATION:

Here in this correlation the table value is calculated between mean resonance and mean
positive opinion. Here if we compare mean resonance with mean positive opinion we get
0.123 so this is a positive correlation factor.

25
4.3.4 CORRELATION MEAN AWARENESS WITH MEAN NEGATIVE OPINION:

MEAN_RESONANCE MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION
MEAN_RESONANCE Pearson Correlation 1 -.070
Sig. (2-tailed) .332

N 196 196
MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION Pearson Correlation -.070 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .332

N 196 196

INTERPRETATION:

Here in this correlation the table value is calculated between mean awareness and mean
negative opinion. Here if we compare mean awareness with mean negative opinion we get -
0.070 so this is a negative correlation factor.

4.3.5 CORRELATION MEAN RESONANCE WITH MEAN INFLUENCE:

MEAN_RESONANCE MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR
MEAN_RESONANCE Pearson Correlation 1 .118
Sig. (2-tailed) .100

N 196 196
MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR Pearson Correlation .118 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .100

N 196 196

INTERPRETATION:

Here in this correlation the table value is calculated between mean resonance and mean
influence factor. Here if we compare mean resonance with mean influence factor we get
0.100 so this is a positive correlation factor.

26
4.3.6 CORRELATION MEAN INFLUENCE FACTOR AND MEAN PREFERENCE:

MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR MEAN_PREFERENCE
MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR Pearson Correlation 1 .313**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 196 196
MEAN_PREFERENCE Pearson Correlation .313** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 196 196

INTERPRETATION:

Here in this correlation the table value is calculated between mean influence factor and mean
preference. Here if we compare mean influence factor and mean preference we get 0.313 so
this is a positive correlation factor.

4.3.7 CORRELATION MEAN PREFERENCE AND MEAN POSITIVE OPINION:

MEAN_PREFERENCE MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION
MEAN_PREFERENCE Pearson Correlation 1 .415**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 196 196
MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION Pearson Correlation .415** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 196 196

INTERPRETATION:

Here in this correlation the table value is calculated between mean preference and mean
positive opinion. Here if we compare mean preference and mean positive opinion we get
0.415 so this is a positive correlation factor.

27
4.3.8 CORRELATION MEAN PREFERENCE AND MEAN NEGATIVE OPINION:

MEAN_PREFERENCE MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION
MEAN_PREFERENCE Pearson Correlation 1 .028
Sig. (2-tailed) .695

N 196 196
MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION Pearson Correlation .028 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .695

N 196 196

INTERPRETATION:

Here in this correlation the table value is calculated between mean preference and mean
negative opinion. Here if we compare mean preference and mean negative opinion we get
0.028 so this is a positive correlation factor.

4.3.9 CORRELATION MEAN NEGATIVE OPINION AND MEAN INFLUENCE

FACTOR:

MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR
MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION Pearson
1 .253**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 196 196
MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR Pearson
.253** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 196 196

INTERPRETATION:

Here in this correlation the table value is calculated between mean negative opinion and mean
influence factor. Here if we compare mean negative opinion and mean influence factor we
get 0.253 so this is a positive correlation factor.

28
4.3.10 CORRELATION MEAN INFLUENCE FACTOR AND MEAN POSITIVE
OPINION:

MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION
MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR Pearson Correlation 1 .337**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 196 196
MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION Pearson Correlation .337** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 196 196

INTERPRETATION:

Here in this correlation the table value is calculated between mean influence factor and mean
positive opinion. Here if we compare mean influence factor and mean positive opinion we get
0.337 so this is a positive correlation factor.

4.4 Regression:
Variables Entered/Removed
Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method
1 MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR,
MEAN_AWARENESS,
MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION, . Enter
MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION,
MEAN_PREFERENCE
a. Dependent Variable: MEAN_RESONANCE

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .220a .049 .023 .774

29
a. Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR, MEAN_AWARENESS, MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION,
MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION, MEAN_PREFERENCE

ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 5.798 5 1.160 1.937 .090b
Residual 113.753 190 .599

Total 119.551 195

a. Dependent Variable: MEAN_RESONANCE

b. Predictors: (Constant), MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR, MEAN_AWARENESS, MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION,
MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION, MEAN_PREFERENCE

Coefficients

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 3.262 .508 6.427 .000

MEAN_AWARENESS -.092 .079 -.086 -1.159 .248

MEAN_PREFERENCE .150 .087 .143 1.726 .086
MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION .056 .093 .049 .604 .546
MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION -.141 .103 -.100 -1.365 .174
MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR .099 .092 .086 1.077 .283

INTERPRETATION:

We have taken resonance as the dependent variable because the resonance or

loyalty is how loyal the customers are and how frequent they purchase the products or service
and how their feedbacks are to the fellow people. Thus, resonance always depends on factors
like opinions, preferences, awareness and influence etc. Here we have taken mean awareness,
mean preference, mean positive opinion, mean negative opinion and mean influence factor
for regression factor. We get values by through the regression process.

30
THE REGRESSION EQUATION IS AS FOLLOWS:

y= ax+b; where y is the dependent variable, x is the independent variable, a is the co-efficient
and b is the constant.

Resonance = -0.092(awareness)+0.150(preferences)+0.050(positiveopinion)

-0.141(negativeopinion) + 0.099(influence factor) + 3.262

4.5 T-TEST:

4.5.1 T-Test table results exhibiting the means for the study constructs with
respect to gender
Group Statistics
GENDER N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
MEAN_AWARENESS male 85 3.5365 .72782 .07894

female 111 3.4649 .74256 .07048

MEAN_PREFERENCE male 85 3.7255 .70369 .07633
female 111 3.7628 .77510 .07357
MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION male 85 3.4745 .75132 .08149
female 111 3.5646 .60934 .05784
MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION male 85 3.0941 .57214 .06206
female 111 3.0090 .54765 .05198
MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR male 85 3.59 .710 .077
female 111 3.61 .652 .062
MEAN_RESONANCE male 85 3.62 .815 .088
female 111 3.64 .761 .072

31
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95%

Sig. Confidence

(2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the

tailed Differenc Differenc Difference

F Sig. t df ) e e Lower Upper

MEAN_AWARENESS Equal
-
variance .56 .2808
.325 .675 194 .501 .07161 .10611 .1376
s 9 9
7
assumed

Equal
-
variance 182.65 .2804
.677 .500 .07161 .10583 .1372
s not 8 1
0
assumed
MEAN_PREFERENCE Equal
-
variance 1.21 .27 .1745
-.347 194 .729 -.03727 .10738 .2490
s 8 1 1
6
assumed
Equal
-
variance 188.40 .1718
-.352 .726 -.03727 .10601 .2463
s not 4 5
9
assumed
MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION Equal
-
variance 3.32 .07 .1016
-.926 194 .355 -.09005 .09722 .2817
s 3 0 8
9
assumed
Equal
-
variance 159.10 .1073
-.901 .369 -.09005 .09993 .2874
s not 6 1
2
assumed
MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINIO Equal
-
N variance 1.07 .30 1.05 .2438
194 .292 .08511 .08048 .0736
s 5 1 8 4
2
assumed

32
 Equal
-
variance 1.05 176.77 .2448
.295 .08511 .08095 .0746
s not 1 0 6
5
assumed
MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTO Equal
R variance 1.90 .16
-.249 194 .803 -.024 .098 -.217 .168
s 5 9
assumed
Equal
variance 172.56
-.247 .805 -.024 .099 -.219 .171
s not 7
assumed
MEAN_RESONANCE Equal
variance 1.09 .29
-.234 194 .815 -.026 .113 -.250 .197
s 3 7
assumed

Equal
variance 174.25
-.232 .817 -.026 .114 -.252 .199
s not 0
assumed

INTERPRETATION:
Here, we have taken the independent t-test to find out if there is a difference in the gender
for the constructs we have taken like awareness, preference, negative opinion, positive
opinion, influence factor and resonance. All the factors have values greater than 0.05 which
means there is no significant difference between Gender for these factors.

4.5.2 T-Test table results exhibiting the means for the study constructs with
respect to marital status
Group Statistics
Std. Std. Error
MARITAL_STATUS N Mean Deviation Mean
MEAN_AWARENESS unmarried 147 3.4939 .71128 .05867
married 49 3.5020 .81048 .11578
MEAN_PREFERENCE unmarried 147 3.6984 .75583 .06234
married 49 3.8912 .69184 .09883
MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION unmarried 147 3.4490 .70404 .05807
married 49 3.7551 .51718 .07388

33
MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION unmarried 147 3.0714 .55286 .04560
married 49 2.9694 .57426 .08204
MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR unmarried 147 3.53 .681 .056
married 49 3.81 .624 .089
MEAN_RESONANCE unmarried 147 3.62 .823 .068
married 49 3.66 .657 .094

Independent Samples Test

Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95%
Sig. Confidence
(2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the
tailed Differenc Differenc Difference
F Sig. t Df ) e e Lower Upper
MEAN_AWARENESS Equal
-
variance 2.23 .13 .2316
-.067 194 .947 -.00816 .12158 .2479
s 7 6 3
6
assumed
Equal
-
variance .2504
-.063 74.202 .950 -.00816 .12980 .2667
s not 5
8
assumed
MEAN_PREFERENCE Equal
- -
variance .59 .0481
.281 1.57 194 .116 -.19274 .12215 .4336
s 6 8
8 6
assumed
Equal
- -
variance .0394
1.64 89.151 .103 -.19274 .11685 .4249
s not 3
9 2
assumed
MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION Equal
- - -
variance 7.09 .00
2.80 194 .006 -.30612 .10932 .5217 .0905
s 7 8
0 3 1
assumed
Equal
- - -
variance 111.61
3.25 .001 -.30612 .09397 .4923 .1199
s not 3
8 2 2
assumed

34
MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINIO Equal
-
N variance .65 1.10 .2836
.200 194 .269 .10204 .09208 .0795
s 5 8 5
7
assumed
Equal
-
variance 1.08 .2888
79.739 .280 .10204 .09386 .0847
s not 7 3
5
assumed
MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTO Equal
-
R variance .55
.359 2.51 194 .013 -.277 .110 -.494 -.060
s 0
3
assumed
Equal
-
variance
2.62 89.112 .010 -.277 .105 -.486 -.067
s not
7
assumed
MEAN_RESONANCE Equal
variance 3.63 .05
-.315 194 .753 -.041 .129 -.296 .215
s 1 8
assumed
Equal
variance 102.17
-.353 .725 -.041 .116 -.270 .189
s not 1
assumed

INTERPRETATION:
Here, we have taken the independent t-test to find out if there is a difference in the marital
status for the constructs we have taken like awareness, preference, negative opinion,
positive opinion, influence factor and resonance. The constructs positive opinion and
influence factors have it’s significance values less than 0.05 which means we can infer that
there is a significant difference in the marital status for the factors. But, the other factors
have values greater than 0.05 which means there is no significant difference between marital
status for those factors

35
4.6 ANOVA:
4.6.1 Anova table results exhibiting the means for the study constructs with
respect to age

INTERPRETATION:
Here, we have taken the ANOVA test to find out if there is a difference in the
age groups for the constructs we have taken like awareness, preference, negative opinion,
positive opinion, influence factor and resonance. The constructs positive opinion and
influence factor have their significance values less than 0.05 which means we can infer that
there is a significant difference in the age groups for those factors. But, the other factors
have values greater than 0.05 which means there is no significant difference between age
groups for those factors.

36
4.6.2 Anova table results exhibiting the means for the study constructs with
respect to income
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
MEAN_AW Between Groups 5.027 3 1.676 3.205 .024
ARENESS Within Groups 100.370 192 .523

Total 105.397 195

MEAN_PR Between Groups 2.125 3 .708 1.287 .280

EFERENCE Within Groups 105.623 192 .550

Total 107.748 195

MEAN_NE Between Groups .156 3 .052 .165 .920

GATIVEOP Within Groups 60.680 192 .316
INION
Total 60.837 195

MEAN_PO Between Groups .730 3 .243 .531 .661

SITIVEOPI Within Groups 87.921 192 .458
NION
Total 88.650 195

MEAN_INF Between Groups 2.372 3 .791 1.748 .159

LUENCEFA Within Groups 86.810 192 .452
CTOR
Total 89.181 195

MEAN_RE Between Groups 2.355 3 .785 1.286 .280

SONANCE Within Groups 117.196 192 .610

Total 119.551 195

INTERPRETATION:
Here, we have taken the ANOVA test to find out if there is a difference in the income
groups for the constructs we have taken like awareness, preference, negative opinion,
positive opinion, influence factor and resonance. The construct awareness only have it’s
significance value less than 0.05 which means we can infer that there is a significant
difference in the income groups. But, the other factors have values greater than 0.05 which
means there is no significant difference between income groups for those factors.

37
4.6.3 Anova table results exhibiting the means for the study constructs with
respect to education
ANOVA
Mean
Sum of Squares df Square F Sig.
MEAN_AWARENESS Between
1.664 3 .555 1.027 .382
Groups
Within
103.732 192 .540
Groups
Total 105.397 195

MEAN_PREFERENCE Between
1.575 3 .525 .950 .418
Groups
Within
106.172 192 .553
Groups
Total 107.748 195

MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION Between
1.549 3 .516 1.673 .174
Groups
Within
59.287 192 .309
Groups
Total 60.837 195

MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION Between
2.232 3 .744 1.653 .179
Groups
Within
86.419 192 .450
Groups
Total 88.650 195

MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR Between
3.569 3 1.190 2.668 .049
Groups
Within
85.613 192 .446
Groups
Total 89.181 195

MEAN_RESONANCE Between
.434 3 .145 .233 .873
Groups
Within
119.117 192 .620
Groups
Total 119.551 195

38
INTERPRETATION:
Here, we have taken the ANOVA test to find out if there is a difference in the education
groups for the constructs we have taken like awareness, preference, negative opinion,
positive opinion, influence factor and resonance. The construct influence factor have it’s
significance values less than 0.05 which means we can infer that there is a significant
difference in the education groups for the factors. But, the other factors have values greater
than 0.05 which means there is no significant difference between education groups for those
factors.

4.6.4 Anova table results exhibiting the means for the study constructs with
respect to occupation

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.

MEAN_AWARENESS Between
.879 5 .176 .319 .901
Groups

Within
104.518 190 .550
Groups

Total
105.397 195

MEAN_PREFERENCE Between
2.883 5 .577 1.045 .393
Groups
Within
104.864 190 .552
Groups
Total
107.748 195

MEAN_NEGATIVEOPINION Between
1.802 5 .360 1.160 .330
Groups
Within
59.034 190 .311
Groups
Total
60.837 195

MEAN_POSITIVEOPINION Between
3.792 5 .758 1.698 .137
Groups
Within
84.859 190 .447
Groups

39
 Total
88.650 195

MEAN_INFLUENCEFACTOR Between
6.796 5 1.359 3.135 .010
Groups
Within
82.385 190 .434
Groups
Total
89.181 195

MEAN_RESONANCE Between
1.124 5 .225 .361 .875
Groups

Within
118.427 190 .623
Groups

Total
119.551 195

INTERPRETATION:
Here, we have taken the ANOVA test to find out if there is a difference in the occupation
groups for the constructs we have taken like awareness, preference, negative opinion,
positive opinion, influence factor and resonance. The construct influence factor have it’s
significance values less than 0.05 which means we can infer that there is a significant
difference in the occupation groups for the factors. But, the other factors have values greater
than 0.05 which means there is no significant difference between occupation groups for
those factors.

40
 CHAPTER 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 The analysis is done using 196 respondents across different regions of Coimbatore.
 It is found mean awareness with mean resonance we get -0.028 so this is a negative
correlation factor.
 Similarly mean resonance with mean preference we get 0.161 so this is a positive
correlation factor.
 We form mean resonance with mean positive opinion we get 0.123 so this is a
positive correlation factor.
 We organise mean awareness with mean negative opinion we get -0.070 so this is a
negative correlation factor.
 I create mean resonance with mean influence factor we get 0.100 so this is a positive
correlation factor.
 We commence mean influence factor and mean preference we get 0.313 so this is a
positive correlation factor.
 We get going mean preference and mean negative opinion we get 0.028 so this is a
positive correlation factor.
 I start mean negative opinion and mean influence factor we get 0.253 so this is a
positive correlation factor.
 We launch mean influence factor and mean positive opinion we get 0.337 so this is a
positive correlation factor.
 We have taken resonance as the dependent variable because the resonance or loyalty
is how loyal the customers are and how frequent they purchase the products or service
and how their feedbacks are to the fellow people. Thus, resonance always depends on
factors like opinions, preferences, awareness and influence etc. Here we have taken
mean awareness, mean preference, mean positive opinion, mean negative opinion and
mean influence factor for regression factor. We get values by through the regression
process.
 Here, we have taken the independent t-test to find out if there is a difference in the
gender for the constructs we have taken like awareness, preference, negative opinion,
positive opinion, influence factor and resonance. All the factors have values greater
than 0.05 which means there is no significant difference between Gender for these
factors.
41
 Here, we have taken the independent t-test to find out if there is a difference in the
marital status for the constructs we have taken like awareness, preference, negative
opinion, positive opinion, influence factor and resonance. The constructs positive
opinion and influence factors have it’s significance values less than 0.05 which
means we can infer that there is a significant difference in the marital status for the
factors. But, the other factors have values greater than 0.05 which means there is no
significant difference between marital status for those factors
 We have taken the ANOVA test to find out if there is a difference in the age groups
for the constructs we have taken like awareness, preference, negative opinion,
positive opinion, influence factor and resonance. The constructs positive opinion and
influence factor have their significance values less than 0.05 which means we can
infer that there is a significant difference in the age groups for those factors. But, the
other factors have values greater than 0.05 which means there is no significant
difference between age groups for those factors.
 Then taken the ANOVA test to find out if there is a difference in the income groups
for the constructs we have taken like awareness, preference, negative opinion,
positive opinion, influence factor and resonance. The construct awareness only have
it’s significance value less than 0.05 which means we can infer that there is a
significant difference in the income groups. But, the other factors have values greater
than 0.05 which means there is no significant difference between income groups for
those factors.

 Similarly taken the ANOVA test to find out if there is a difference in the education
groups for the constructs we have taken like awareness, preference, negative opinion,
positive opinion, influence factor and resonance. The construct influence factor have
it’s significance values less than 0.05 which means we can infer that there is a
significant difference in the education groups for the factors. But, the other factors
have values greater than 0.05 which means there is no significant difference between
education groups for those factors.

42
 Taken the anova test to find out if there is a difference in the occupation groups for
the constructs we have taken like awareness, preference, negative opinion, positive
opinion, influence factor and resonance. The construct influence factor have it’s
significance values less than 0.05 which means we can infer that there is a significant
difference in the occupation groups for the factors. But, the other factors have values
greater than 0.05 which means there is no significant difference between occupation
groups for those factors.

 From the results below, the respondents have opted to have natural ingredients in
certain products and fruits and vegetables have topped the list with snacks and breads
and dairy products standing next to it. From this we can infer that our study is useful
and gives justice to the food products industry that there is a huge scope for the
FMCG industry also considering snacks and breads and dairy products etc.,

43
 The graph below also gives a proof that people are willing to pay
more if they contain natural ingredients in it.

44
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

 Independent variables such as consumer awareness, preference, opinions and

influence factors are good enough in predicting the Attention of Customer's
Engagement.
 Thus, it’s clear that there is an association among the consumer resonance and the
above independent factors on natural ingredients in food products. The difference in
perception level of the customers affects their engagement in resonance.
 We have also found out an interesting fact that more the awareness, lesser the
resonance which means we can infer that the awareness in one or the other way is
communicated to or perceived by the consumers in a negative and an improper way,
thus our suggestion to the marketers in this area is to focus better on the awareness
communication so that all other factors will turn positive accordingly so as the
resonance.
 The customers are also willing to pay a little extra for the good reasons behind the
natural ingredients which we have found out from the study and analysis.
 Finally, we could understand that there is a transformation towards natural
ingredients with the results because of various good reasons to be considered and we
also were able to collect details of in what products the consumers really expect
natural ingredients and there is a predictable future scope for this particular industry
with the help of the above results and analysis.

45
 CHAPTER 7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Marvin T. Batte, Jeremy Beaverson, Neal H. Hooker, and Tim Haab – 2004
2. Dr. Roshni Rawal 1, Prof. Bhavika Ganatra2, Prof. Dr. S.G. Desai3 – 2017
3. H. Stolz a, M. Stolzea, U. Hammb, M. Janssenb, E. Rutoc – 2009 attributes
4. Su-Huey Quah and Andrew K. G. Tan – 2009)
5. Nihan Ozguven
6. Pittawat Ueasangkomsatea*, Salinee Santiteerakulb
7. Farah Ayuni Shafiea*and Denise Rennie
8. Mohamed Bilal Bashaa, Cordelia Masonb, Mohd Farid Shamsudinc*, Hafezali Iqbal
Hussainc, Milad Abdelnabi Salemc
9. Dr. Roshni Rawal 1, Prof. Bhavika Ganatra2, Prof. Dr. S.G. Desai3
10. Annunziata Azzurra, Agovino Massimiliano, Mariani Angela

46
 A STUDY ON CONSUMER AWARENESS AND PREFERENCE ON
NATURAL INGREDIENTS IN FOOD PRODUCTS

Demographic profile

AGE:

 Below 18
 18 – 25
 26 – 30
 31– 45
 45 above

GENDER:

 Male
 Female

MARITAL STATUS:

 Unmarried
 Married

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION:

 Graduate
 Post graduate
 Doctorate
 Others

OCCUPATION:

 Students
 Business person
 It employee
 Government employee
 Home maker
 Private employee

47
FAMILY MONTHLY INCOME:

 Below 20k
 21k – 35k
 36k – 50k
 51k and above

AWARENESS:

Sr. Very Very

No. Question Low Low Average High High

Your awareness on the benefits of natural

Ingredients for good health

I am aware of the benefits of Natural

ingredients for better environment

I am aware of the point of purchase for

Natural ingredients

4 I am aware of various symbols /

certifications / other identifiers which

declare the product as natural.

48
 I am aware of various brands offering
5 natural ingredients in their products.

Statements Sd D Neu A Sa
SI
No.

1 Natural ingredients can help save the environment.

2 I prefer natural ingredients over non natural ingredients.

Products with natural ingredients cannot help in protecting

3 the environment because environmental decay is natural.

There is no significant difference between natural

4 ingredients and non-natural ingredients.

5 I trust completely when a product says it is natural.

49
 Using natural ingredients makes me feel proud and healthy
6 and socially responsible

7 I am doubtful about the Genuity of natural ingredients

I would like to pay a little extra money if there are natural

ingredients in the food product?

Price of natural ingredients is the first thing I look into

9 before taking a decision to purchase it.

Before buying natural ingredients, I compare its price with

10 Traditional products.

I would purchase natural ingredients if they are easily

11 Available.

50
12) How frequently do you buy natural ingredients

 Once a week
 Once a fortnight
 Once a month
 Once a year
 Regularly when needed
 Never
13) How would you express your willingness to recommend natural ingredients
to friends and relatives?

very much unwilling

willing

neutral

willing

very much willing

14) If you don’t use natural ingredients, please rate your reasons for non-usage

Sr.

Statements Sd D Neu A Sa

No.

1 Lack of awareness about natural ingredients.

2 Natural ingredients are very expensive.

51
3 Natural ingredients are not promoted properly.

15) If you don’t use natural ingredients. Will you consider using natural
ingredients in the future?

not at all (1)

intend to consider (2)

consider but not in the immediate future (3)

consider to use sometimes (4)

consider to use always (5)

16) In the below category of products, which one you want to have natural
ingredients in it? (check box)
 Fruits and vegetables
 Snacks and breads
 Dairy products
 Meat/fish
 Toiletries
 others

52
53