Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

An empirical analysis on consumer perception towards branded trousers

1,279

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,279
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
35
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT (IJM) 6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013)ISSN 0976 – 6367(Print)ISSN 0976 – 6375(Online)Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013), pp. 74-84 IJM© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijm.html ©IAEMEJournal Impact Factor (2012): 3.5420 (Calculated by GISI)www.jifactor.com AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS ON CONSUMER PERCEPTION TOWARDS BRANDED TROUSERS IN COIMBATORE CITY P.KARTHIKEYAN, Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, Kalaignar Karunanidhi Institute of Technology, Coimbatore. P.ARUL MURUGAN, Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, Kalaignar Karunanidhi Institute of Technology, Coimbatore. N. DEVI, Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, Kurinji College of Engineering and Technology, Trichy. ABSTRACT India is witnessing change in life styles of large section of the population. The need to understand the emerging markets and consumers has become a big challenge for the corporate world especially in creating and managing a powerful brand. By developing a powerful brand, corporate can establish brand equity and the equity assists firms in a variety of ways to manage competition and to maintain market share. Due to the globalization process, Indians are getting attracted to readymade dresses, particularly Multinational brands. Buying behavior of men on branded Trousers is changing one. Number of people visits the showroom with a brand in mind because the quality and comfort of that brand are suitable for them. It becomes important for the marketers to understand these relationships for successful design and execution of branding strategies. The present study investigates men’s perception towards branded Trousers and to ascertain the brand of shirt most preferred by respondents in Coimbatore city. The study also examines consumer’s perception towards retail garments showrooms in Coimbatore city. The study is a descriptive study. Primary data was collected with the help of structured questionnaire administered to 215 male respondents in Coimbatore city and the type of sampling was convenient sampling. Using statistical package for social science for the following test was administered 1.Factor Analysis, 2.Multiple Regression, and 3.Descriptive statistics. Pilot study was conducted and the necessary additions and deletions were made in the questionnaire. To check the reliability and validity of the data collected Cronbach’s alpha test was administered and the value of Cronbach’s alpha is 0.772. Based on the test result some of the relevant finding were derived that will be use full to find the factors that really influences men’s towards particular brand of Trousers. The manufactures can come out with suitable strategies to overcome the problems. 74
  • 2. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013)KEYWORDS: Brand, Brand equity, buying behavior.INTRODUCTION Brand management holds the key in the modern markets, particularly in Indianmarkets because Indians are very traditional. Indias traditional dress for men is Dhoti butgradually, people transmitted into tailor made dresses. Due to the globalization process,Indians are getting attracted to readymade dresses, particularly Multinational brands. Thegrowth of readymade men’s wear business in India was very slow till the early 1980s. Themain reason for this was that Indian men were used to buying cloth and getting their outfitstailored mainly through local tailoring shops from the unorganized segment. Consequently,there were no national level brands in this category for a long period. By the mid 1980showever customer mindset seemed to have started changing gradually, along with increasingurbanization, and changes in the social and economic status and life styles. As in many otherindustries in the nation, the move towards branding soon took momentum in the men’s wearmarket. In this study, an attempt was made to study the consumer perception towards brandedTrousers and retail garment showrooms of India.Both listed and unlisted players cater to the branded apparel market. There are a smallnumber of listed players such as Chennai Silks, Sarathas Textiles, Raymond Show Room,Bombay Dyeing, Nokada Show Room, Ahamed Brothers, Peter England, John player andThaila Silks. Popular unlisted players include Indigo Nation, Basic and Sting.REASONS FOR BRANDING It is an instrument for sales promotion in the market. It facilitates easy advertisement and publicity It creates special consumer preference over the product.BUYING BEHAVIOR Difference in customer’s habits, their cognitive structures and their motives causethem to behave differently when buying. Although an individual doesn’t act the same way inall situations, people tend to act consistently, we may identify six groups of consumers bytheir buying behavior. A habit – determined group of brand loyal consumers who tend to be satisfied with the Product or brand last purchased. A price – cognitive group of consumers who decide principally upon the basis of price or Economy comparison. A cognitive group of consumers who are sensitive to rational claims An impulse group of consumers who buy on the basis of physical appeal and are relatively insensitive to brand name. A group of emotional reactors who respond to product symbols and are heavily swayed by images. A group of new consumers who haven’t yet stabilized the psychological dimensions of their behavior. 75
  • 3. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013)LITERATURE REVIEW (Myers and Shocker, 1981; Tversky, 1977). They can be used to judge and compare aproduct on different aspects of product alternatives. According to the means-end chainapproach, "attributes are the means by which the product offers or generates desiredconsequences or values; (the ends)" According (Aaker, 1991) “a brand is a distinguishingname and/or symbol which intended to identify the goods, services of either one seller orgroup of sellers and to differentiate those goods or servicesfrom those of competitors”. (Styles & Ambler, 1995) he defines brand as the promise of thebundles of attributes that someone buys which provides satisfaction and attributes that makeup a brand” (Ambler, 1992) Had seen that brands describe personality of the users withparticular lifestyle. It also helps to convey a sense of belonging to a specific social group(Murphy, 1990). He perceives brand not only as the actual product, but also the uniqueproperty of a specific owner (Noesjirwan & Crawford, 1982) DAstous, et al (2002). Consumer perception of sports apparel: the role of brandname, store name, price, and intended usage situation. This study analyse four factors weremanipulated in the context of an evaluation of two sports garments by 172 consumers: t-shirtsand athletic shoes. These factors were intended usage situation (sport versus pleasure), brandname (national versus private brand,), price (discount versus no discount), and store name(sports shop versus department store). Some significant interactions were obtained betweensome of the manipulated factors suggesting the necessity of qualifying the brand name, storename, and price discount effects on consumer perceptions. The results of the study arediscussed in light of the existing marketing literature and the implications for sportsmarketing practice. (M.Ramakrishnan, Dr.Sudharani Ravindran, 2012 ) studied the Consumer Perceptiontowards Private Label Brands with Special Reference to Big Bazaar, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu.The objective of the study is to understand the possibility of success when retailers introduceprivate brands. The research is aimed to explore if buying choices are made based on brandloyalty and to analyze whether customers actively seek for new brands or strict to the oldbrands. A detailed study is conducted from the views of customers & collected by conductinga survey with a sample size of 150 (75 Fashion bazaar and 75 Food bazaar) from Coimbatoreregion with the help of structured questionnaire. The collected data is analyzed usingstatistical tools and the study reveals that most of the youngsters have good perceptiontowards the private brands in fashion wear & munchies. Majority of the respondents said thatquality, trustworthy and brand image is the leading feature that differentiate private labelbrand with other branded product.Labeaga et al. (2007) contend that private labels assist building loyalty by differentiating theretailer. These brands are available at one retailer exclusively whilst manufacturer brands areavailable at many competing outlets. Regular consumers of private label brands areconfronted with psychological costs when switching retailers as their preferred private labelchoice is no longer available. As a result, consumers who change retailers undergodemanding cognitive processes by evaluating other brands, including unfamiliar store brands,in choosing a new product. 76
  • 4. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013)RESEARCH QUESTIONS To ascertain the brand of Trousers most preferred by respondents. To study the factors that are influencing men’s towards branded Trousers. To examine consumer’s perception towards retail garments showrooms and factor they considered to choose a particular retail garments showroom for their shopping in Coimbatore city.HYPOTHESESHypothesis 1: There is a relationship among the factors that influence customer perceptiontoward branded Trousers.Hypothesis 2: Convenient store hours and offers & discounts can predict the overallsatisfaction of consumers towards retail garments showroom.RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The study is a descriptive study. Primary data was collected with the help ofstructured questionnaire administered to 215 male respondents in Coimbatore city and thetype of sampling was convenient sampling. Pilot study was conducted and the necessaryadditions and deletions were made in the questionnaire.SCALING DESIGN Likert scale is being adapted to measure a quantity “consumer perception towardsbranded Trousers and retail garments showroom”. Five point scales have been used for thestudy.STATISTICAL TOOLS USED Reliability analysis Multiple regressions Factor analysis Descriptive statisticsRELIABILITY STATISTICS TABLE – 1 Cronbachs Alpha N of Items 0.755 41The reliability of the data had been examined to check the consistency for all questions of thisstudy through Cronbachs Alpha coefficient. From Table 1, it is clear that value of coefficientalpha obtained was 0.755 (>.05) which shows data has satisfactory internal consistencyreliability. 77
  • 5. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013) DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Brand Mean Rank Raymond 2.58 1 Peter England 3.61 2 John player 4.51 3 Louis Philippe 4.90 4 Basics 5.60 5 Arrow 5.09 6 Indigo nation 6.67 7 Zero 7.89 8 Sting 8.36 9 Allensolly 6.67 10 Others 10.79 11An examination had been made to rank the most preferred branded Trousers by employingdescriptive statistics. From the above table – 2 it is clear that Raymond (Rank 1), peterEngland (Rank 2), and john player (Rank 3) are the most preferred top three brands of men’sTrousers in Coimbatore city. Remaining brands (Louis Philippe, Basics, Arrow, Indigonation, Zero, and sting) are preferred next to the top three brands.FACTOR ANALYSISHypothesis 1: There is a relationship among the factors that influence customer perceptiontoward branded Trousers. TABLE 3: KMO AND BARTLETTS TESTKaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.607Bartletts Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 793.622 Df 190 Sig. 0.000KMO measure of sampling adequacy is an index to examine the appropriateness of factoranalysis. High values 1.0 indicate factor analysis is appropriate. Values below 0.5 imply thatfactor analysis may not be appropriate.From the above table it is seen that Kaiser-Meyerolkin measure of sampling adequacy indexis 0.607 and hence the factor analysis is appropriate for the given data set. Bartlett’s test ofSphericity is used to uncorrelated. It is based on chi-square transformation of the determinantof correlation matrix. Bartlett’s test of Sphericity Chi-square statistics is 793.622, that showsthe 20 statements are correlated and hence as inferred in KMO, factor analysis is appropriatefor the given data set. 78
  • 6. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013) TABLE – 4: TOTAL VARIANCE EXPLAINED Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Rotation Sums of Squared Squared Loadings LoadingsComponent Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Variance % Variance % Variance % 1 3.301 16.507 16.507 3.301 16.507 16.507 2.348 11.741 11.741 2 2.297 11.483 27.989 2.297 11.483 27.989 2.017 10.086 21.827 3 1.685 8.427 36.417 1.685 8.427 36.417 1.988 9.942 31.769 4 1.578 7.888 44.304 1.578 7.888 44.304 1.950 9.749 41.518 5 1.453 7.267 51.572 1.453 7.267 51.572 1.611 8.055 49.573 6 1.205 6.027 57.599 1.205 6.027 57.599 1.605 8.026 57.599 7 0.992 4.960 62.558 8 0.951 4.753 67.312 9 0.865 4.323 71.635 10 0.827 4.135 75.770 11 0.735 3.677 79.447 12 0.686 3.431 82.878 13 0.643 3.217 86.095 14 0.551 2.756 88.852 15 0.491 2.457 91.308 16 0.466 2.330 93.639 17 0.355 1.774 95.413 18 0.345 1.723 97.137 19 0.297 1.483 98.620 20 0.276 1.380 100.00Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.Eigen value represents the total variance explained by each factor. Percentage of the totalvariance attributed to each factor. One of the popular method used exploratory factor analysisin principle component analysis, where the total variance in the data is considered todetermine the minimum number of factors that will account for maximum variance of datarepresented. 79
  • 7. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013) Table 5 ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX Component 1 2 3 4 5 6Price Range 0.005 -0.127 -0.039 0.120 0.757 0.001Status Symbol 0.498 -0.206 -0.076 ..137 -.013 .200Quality .656 .045 .082 .438 -.115 -.127Durability .747 .110 .189 -.128 -.055 -.152Reliability .731 .138 -.054 .126 .037 .093Availability .149 .666 .102 .190 .229 -.167Attractiveness .098 -.081 .153 .788 .055 -.008Uniqueness .176 -.154 .634 .369 .154 -.109Different Style .026 .096 .311 .427 .258 -.064Life Style .190 -.129 .516 .345 -.468 .030Wider choice of color and design .131 .342 .647 -.001 -.045 -.027Smart look and Comfort .168 .337 -.103 .668 -.189 .107Fashion -.236 .021 -.112 .324 .100 .562Reference group .011 .742 .015 -.035 -.102 .154Official purpose -.117 .600 .447 .096 -.012 -.020Offers/Discounts -.104 .254 .307 -.087 .550 .119Advertisement -.190 .183 .617 -.059 .153 .317Celebrity endorser .175 -.180 .112 -.058 .065 .773Washing machine Washable .103 .390 .056 -.149 -.061 .631Brand image .525 -.043 .064 -.009 .513 .101Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. A Rotation converged in 12 iterations.Interpretation of factors is facilitated by identifying the statements that have large loading inthe same factor. The factor can be interpreted in terms of the statement that loads high on it. 80
  • 8. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013)The factors of a consumer perception towards branded Trousers comprise of 20 individualstatements. Out of 20 factors, 6 individual factors contribute more towards consumerperceptions towards retail hypermarket. The factors are: 1. Durability 2. Reference groups 3. Wider choice of color and design 4. Attractive 5. Price range 6. Celebrity endorserMULTIPLE REGRESSIONSHYPOTHESIS 2: Convenient store hours and offers & discounts can predict the overallsatisfaction of consumers towards retail garment showroom. TABLE – 6: MODEL SUMMARY Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 0.899 (a)* 0.808 0.789 0.181* (a) Predictors: (Constant), Convenience store hours, Store ambience, Price range, Valueadded services, Parking facilities, Facility for use of credit card, Product display anddemo, Several brands to choose, Hospitality, Better customer service, Design andmaterial, Close to where you live, Store comfortable to shop in, Security, Wider choice ofcolor, Offers and discount, Salesmanship and courtesy, Fast billing, Location of shops.The above model summary table shows R-square for this model is 0.808. This means that80.8% of the variation in overall satisfaction of consumers (dependent variable) can beexplained from the 19 independent variables. The table also shows the adjusted R-squarefor the model as 0.789. Anytime another independent variable is added to a multipleregression model, the R-square will increase (even if only slightly). Consequently, itbecomes difficult to determine which models do the best job of explaining variation in thesame dependent variable. The adjusted R-square does just what its name implies. Thisadjustment allows the easy comparison of the explanatory power of models with differentnumbers of predictor’s variable. Its also helps us to decide how many variables to includein our regression model. 81
  • 9. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013) TABLE – 7: COEFFICIENTS (A) Unstandardized Standardized Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig B Std. Error Beta(Constant) 5.342 .482 11.086 .000Location of shops -.231 .041 -.676 -5.684 .000Salesmanship and -.332 .056 -.603 -5.910 .000CourtesyWider choice of color .176 .041 .473 4.237 .000Design and material -.472 .055 -.739 -8.625 .000Price range -.019 .043 -.042 -.438 .662Offers and discount .310 .050 .569 6.170 .000Facility for use of credit card -.180 .027 -.545 -6.550 .000Parking facilities -.139 .055 -.320 -2.501 .013Store comfortable to Shop .026 .048 .043 .543 .588Security .074 .041 .170 1.833 .068Close to where you live -.025 .039 -.055 -.652 .515Several brands to Choose -.199 .058 -.380 -.3.426 .001Product display and Demo -.101 .046 -.184 -2.210 .028Store ambience .145 .052 .214 2.805 .006Fast billing .075 .037 .228 2.024 .044Value added services -.002 .040 -.005 -.044 .965Hospitality -.196 .042 -.420 -4.707 .000Better customer service -.039 -.030 -.083 -1.330 .185Convenience store hours .348 .042 .735 8.196 .000A Dependent Variable: satisfaction with showroomTo determine if one or more of the independent variables are significant predictors of overallsatisfaction of consumer, we examine the information provided in the coefficient table. Fromthe above 19 independent statements only 8 statements are not statistically significant. Thestandardized coefficient beta column reveals the Location of Shops has a beta coefficient -.676, which is significant (.000). Salesman ship & Courtesy has a beta coefficient -.603,which is significant (.000). Wider choice in Color has a beta coefficient .569, which issignificant (0.000). Design & Material has a beta coefficient -.739, which is significant(0.000). Price range has a beta significant -.042, which is not significant (.662). Offers anddiscounts have a beta coefficient -.473, which is significant (0.000). Facility for use of credit 82
  • 10. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013)card has a beta coefficient -.545, which is significant (0.000). Parking facilities has a betacoefficient -.320, which is not significant (0.013). Store comfortable to shop in has a betacoefficient .043, which is not significant (0.588). Security has a beta coefficient .170, whichis not significant (0.068). Close to where you live has a beta coefficient -.055, which issignificant (0.515). Several brands to choose have a beta coefficient -.380, which issignificant (0.001). Product display and demo has a beta coefficient --.184, which is notsignificant (0.028). Store ambience has a beta coefficient .214, which is not significant(0.006). Fast billing has a beta coefficient .228, which is not significant (0.044).hospitalityhas a beta coefficient -.420, which is significant (0.000) Value added services has a betacoefficient -.005, which is not significant (0.965). Better customer service has a betacoefficient -.083, which is not significant (0.185). A convenience store hour has a betacoefficient .735, which is significant (0.000). from the above table we can able to know thatoffers & discounts and convenient store hours are having major impact in the minds of theconsumer and brings them lot of satisfaction when compared with other factors in preferringparticular retail garment showroom.CONCLUSION The study reveals that Raymond, Peter England, and John player remains the top threebrands preferred by the respondents. It is clear that most of the shoppers of men’s brandedTrousers were highly influenced by the factors such as durability, reference groups, widerchoice of color and design, attractiveness, price range and celebrity endorser. Most of thecustomers are expecting reduced price and wider choice of color and design. Themanufacturers of branded Trousers must focus on all these factors to formulate brandingstrategies effectively and to sustain their growth. Convenient shop hours and the offer &discounts are the two factors that contribute more to prefer a particular retail garmentshowroom. The retailers need to give more attention to these factors in order to attract andretain their customers.REFERENCES 1. Aaker. (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Nam. The Free Press. New York, NY 2. Bakewell, C. and Mitchell, V. W. (2006). Male versus female consumer decision making. Journal of Business Research, 59, pp 1297-1300. 3. Biplab, S. B. (1998). Hand Book of Marketing Management, Himalaya Publishing House, Bombay, 1st Edition. 4. Canabal, M. E. (2001). Decision making styles of young South Indian consumers: An exploratory study. College Student Journal, 36(1), pp 12-19. 5. Fornell, C., S. Mithas, and F.V. Morgeson III (2009). "The Economic and Statistical Significance of Stock Returns on Customer Satisfaction," Marketing Science, 28(5), pp 820-825. 6. Fornell, C., S. Mithas, F.V. Morgeson III, and M.S. Krishnan (2006). “Customer Satisfaction and Stock Prices: High Returns, Low Risk,” Journal of Marketing, 70(1), pp 3−14 83
  • 11. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- February (2013) 7. Jaishri, N. Jethwaney, (1999). Advertising, Phoenix Publishing House, New Delhi, 1st Edition. 8. Jayashree, Y. (1998).Consumer behavior and fashion. Textile trends. 40: pp.33-43. 9. Kamalaveni. D., Kalaiselvi, S. and Rajalakshmi, S. (2008). Brand Loyalty of Women consumers with respect to FMCGs. Indian Journal of Marketing, 38(9), PP. 44-50. 10. Kazmi. S.H.H. (2001). Advertising and Sale Promotion, Excel Books, New Delhi, 1st Edition. 11. Labeaga J, Lado N, Martos M (2007) Behavioral loyalty toward store brands, J. Retailing Consumer Serv. 1 (1): 1-10. 12. Lalitha. A., Ravikumar, J.and Padmavali, K. (2008). Brand preference of Men Wear. Indian Journal of Marketing, 38(10), pp.33-36 13. M.Ramakrishnan, Dr.Sudharani Ravindran. (2012 ). Consumer Perception Towards Private label Brands with Special Reference to coimbatore City . Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce ■ E-ISSN 2229-4686 ■ ISSN 2231-4172 , 79-85. 14. Mathur. V.C.(2002). Advertising Management, New Age International Publishers, New Delhi, 1st edition. 15. Myers, J.H. and Shocker, A.D. (1981). The nature of product-related attributes, Research in Marketing, 5: 211-236. 16. Mishra, Sita (2009). “New Retail Models in India: Strategic Perspective Analysis”, Journal of Marketing and Communication, Dec. 2008, Vol 4, No.2, pp. 39-47. 17. Mitchell, V. and Walsh, G. (2004). Gender differences in German consumer decision- making styles. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(4), 331-346. 18. Murphy (1990). Assessing the value of brands. Long Range Planning, 23(3), 23-29. 19. Pathak. S.V. and Aditya P. Tripathi., (2009). Consumer shopping behaviour among Modern Retail Formats: A Study of Delhi & NCR. Indian Journal of Marketing, 39(2), PP. 312. 20. Ritu Narang, (2006). A Study on Branded Men Wear. Indian Journal of Marketing, 6(11), pp.39 21. Styles, Ambler. (1995). Brand Management. Financial Times Handbook of Management. Pitman, London, 581-93. 22. Shainesh, (2004). Understanding buying behaviour, International Journal of Technology Management, , Vol 28 issue 1, pp.118 – 127. 23. Sherlaker. S.A.(1995). Marketing Management, Himalaya Publishing House, Bombay, and 1st Edition. 24. Simintiras, (1997).Prepurchase satisfaction and first time buying behavior, European Journal of Marketing, Vol 31 issue 11/12, pp.737–872. 25. Sproles G. B. and Kendall, E. L. (1986). A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision making styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20(2), pp.267-279. 26. Sumathi.S. (2003). Marketing Research and Consumer Behavior, Vikas Publishing House, 1st Edition. 27. Mr. K.Sadasivan, Dr. Jayshree Suresh and S.Rakshana “Consumer Involvement Toward Private Brand’s In Mens Apparel With Reference To Chennai City” International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 2, Issue 2, 2011, pp. 154 - 166, Published by IAEME. 84

×