casual wear

773 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
773
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

casual wear

  1. 1. MARKET RESEARCH Study of Consumer Decision Making Process for Casual Wear Group Members: Aman Jain – A02 Jaya Kumari – A19
  2. 2. Sachin Sehgal – A35 AMITY BUSINESS SCHOOL NOIDA Certificate of Appreciation This is to certify that Aman Jain, Jaya Kumari and Sachin Sehgal carried the project titled “Study of Consumer Decision Making Process for Casual Wear” under my guidance and supervision as a part of their academic curriculum towards the partial fulfillment of the PGDM program. I wish them all a bright future and good luck. 2
  3. 3. Dr. S. K. Laroiya (Pr oject Guide) 3
  4. 4. Acknowledgement This research project would have been a babbling effort and a bumpy ride if our Project Guide Dr. S.K. Laroiya would not have been shining like a beacon throughout the whole journey of this mammoth effort. We as a team would like to sincerely thank him for his support and guidance without which it many a times seemed impossible to bring the project to its present form. We are obliged towards all the respondents for providing us with the information we required. We thank them all for their giving their valuable time to us. In the end we would like to thank all those who have helped us while completing this research project and who have become an integral part of this project. We dedicate this project to all of these people. The obliged team: Aman Jain - A02 Jaya Kumari - A19 Sachin Sehgal - A35 4
  5. 5. Research Objectives After a brainstorming session with the group members and the project guide, the following are the objectives of the project: • To study the consumer decision making process for casual wears in the age group of 15-25 years in Delhi and NCR region. • To study the various factors influencing purchase decisions for the casual wear. 5
  6. 6. Introduction Casual wear is considered to be the inevitable part of our lives. These are clothes which help us feel comfortable, in sync with the times and above all help us to feel at home. The biggest advantage of wearing a casual is the psychological effect that erases off the strict rules and discipline of the formal wear and its boundaries. Be it Indian, western or indo-western casual wears come in many shapes, sizes, designs and with loads of fun. This perhaps is the reason why the students on the verge of going to college, we interviewed seemed so excited about the idea of going to college just because they will be able to wear whatever they want! And for that matter this means casual wear. Casual wear today perhaps are synonymous with unlimited fun, frolics and hungamas. Casual wear forms an integral part of our lives. There is bigger picture showing the serious business behind the casual wears. The casual wear business in India is more than $5000 million per year. This is the data for the organized branded casual wear and does not include the blooming businesses of the non-branded casual wear in the markets like Sarojini Nagar, Lajpat Nagar, Chandini Chowk etc. as per a rough estimate only Chandini Chowk makes a whopping business of few hundred crores daily by selling suits only, a type of Indian casual wear for ladies. Branded ready-to-wear (RTW) is the latest craze not just among consumers, but textiles and fabrics majors. Despite severe competition from the highly fragmented industry — whose size is 6
  7. 7. anywhere between Rs 15,000 crore to Rs 20,000 crore — the annual growth rate of over 20 per cent with high visibility and impressive margins is what has attracted textiles majors like Century Textiles, Indian Rayon, Raymonds, Bombay Dyeing among others to this industry. Interestingly, cashing in on the popular men’s RTW, it is the RTW for women which are the latest trend that’s being used to expand the market further. And the lead in ladies RTW has been taken by Indian Rayon which recently launched its maiden ‘Allen Solly — Ladies Wear’ range of products. This important shift in marketing strategy would soon be followed even by Century Textiles. Raymonds last year already launched the pret line for women under the label of BE which is available in upmarkets of both New Delhi and Mumbai. The whole growth strategy is to acquire and introduce newer ranges like ladies RTW, casual wear, sports wear etc. The textile majors used the acquisition route to enter the apparel business. Raymonds recently acquired ColorPlus for entering the casual wear thereby adding to its own existing formal wear under the names of Parx, Raymonds, and Park Avenue. Indian Rayon used this strategy by taking over the garments division of Madura Coates thus entering the apparel business with the prestigious Allen Solly, Van Heusen, Louis Phillpe and Peter England range of formal mens wear, while Bombay Dyeing too took over Proline to enter the sports wear while adding to its existing formal mens wear under Vivaldi range. 7
  8. 8. Analysts said this trend would continue in future with more such acquisitions of successful brands (in the unorganised sector) being taken over by successful players. With such a strategy, the company gets a ready market captured by the existing brand while also helping the company to avoid critical brand-building activities, they said. Further, analysts attributed this trend as a logical move towards building the value chain to their own textiles manufacturing. This burst of RTW is also due to the growing potential that these companies see in the growing working population women besides men, leading to rising income levels, due to more disposable income. Raymonds president Nabankur Gupta said, “Raymonds wants to consolidate and expand its existing range of apparel brands and we are open to the idea of takeovers and acquisition in this sphere.” Besides, the textile companies are leveraging the existing distribution and retailing network of the fabrics market available to them, this will help them in introducing products. According to Mr Gupta, “Raymonds boasts of an extensive retail network of over 13,000 retailers in over 400 town and cities, in India and abroad.” However, the smaller players do not feel the threat of cannibalisation yet they feel that target consumer for them is different. Cambridge Enterprises partner Narendra Bhatia said, “The Cambridge brand of meanswear is positioned for mass market and companies like Raymonds are targeting the middle and the upper class customers.” 8
  9. 9. Indian Rayon director Vikram Rao said, “We are targeting the middle and higher end of the market only by finely differentiating the product price. However, we are not targeting the mass market since our economics is not met by pricing the products for that segment. Indian Rayon’s strategy, said Mr Rao, is to introduce whole range of not just RTW but also accessories, leatherwear and other related products. Analysts said these and other players in the segment would try and diversify in various segments of apparels so that they can tap all segments of the market for overall growth. However, as compared to the global RTW market, estimated at around $183 billion India’s RTW is just in a nascent stage where players hope to expand faster than their competitors. Besides, players in the domestic apparel industry felt that there is no fear of foreign competition in their segment as costs of introducing apparel in India will be very expensive for these players. Mr Vikram Rao said, “We expect foreign players to come in maybe in 3-5 years but they are most likely to adopt the retail outlet to offer their products.” This trend will be on the increase as the companies are looking at growth potential from each and every segment of apparel. However, the companies have to face tremendous competition from the unorganised sector as well as smaller players as well. 9
  10. 10. Thus, to differentiate from the clutter of the mass market segment the companies have also planned a strategy of standardising the products. For this, the companies are introducing standard sizes to body shapes like the newly introduced Allen Solly range for women comes in comfort, regular, straight and trim fits. The companies are upgrading the consumers by bringing in this segment said analysts. As compared to the global industry which is nearly of $183 billion, the domestic readymade industry is still in a nascent stage. The structure of the readymade industry in India is complex as much as it is diverse. It is highly fragmented and a large part of it is unorganised. However, trend forecasters said that these companies would get into the entire value chain by entering into kids wear, sports wear etc. The companies, which do not manufacture fabrics for sportswear and kids wear, may start doing so and enter this segment. Also, the companies would keep introducing newer varieties, styles, and collection in different seasons and for different occasion to keep the consumers attracted and get a bigger slice of the pie. Pantaloon Fashions managing director Kishore Biyani said, “The trend is shifting more from tailored clothes to readymade garments, due to easy availability and affordable prices.” The companies are offering clothes at a very affordable price, besides, the convenience of picking clothes off the rack gives the 10
  11. 11. customer a certain surety of look and the finish, which is missing in the tailormade clothes.” The pricing is done keeping in mind the perceptible value of the product, the clothes more often than not are priced at around the tailored wear’, added Mr Biyani. A number of brands like ColorPlus, Provogue, Tamarind have established a foothold in the ready-to-wear market. The branded apparel market in India is dotted with numerous such brands marketed by umpteen players. What separates one from the other is the USP that each one attempts to create to attract customers to their stores. Color of the garment is a key differentiator, while design, fabric and finish are the others. The research basis of this report is Casual wear. Casual wear is defined as the informal attire which people wear to workplaces on weekends, students wear other than school, etc. all in all on one hand the attire in which people feel free and on the other the attire which can not be worn for a formal meeting, get together, dinner or any such occasion. We have divided the range of casual wear into the following classes: - Jeans - Skirts - Capris - Jackets 11
  12. 12. - T-Shirts - Sandoz - Suit (for girls) - Shorts - Three-fourths - Bermudas - Knickers - Sports wear - Cargos - Chinos - Six pockets - Parallel The report studies in the succeeding pages studies what exactly does a customer feels while going to purchase a casual wear, why does customer buys, does he(she) only for him(her)self, does he gather information before purchasing a casual wear and if yes why so and so many similar things. All this has helped us understand the consumer decision making process for a casual starting from the need recognition till the disposing off the product. This report also studies the influence of the environmental and personal factors while purchasing the product. 12
  13. 13. The Current Market Scenario The current market scenario of the casual wear portrays a picture of highly competitive, fast moving market comprising of highly demanding, distinguishing and even highly discriminating customers. The fast moving customers who in turn are influenced by even fater moving fashion trends all over the world characterize the market. The accessibility of information, increasing purchasing power, changing lifestyles and social setups and most importantly the changing values are the drivers of this casual wear market. This market many a times seems to be highly confused, disintegrated and unorganized and suddenly it seems to be a highly profitable place for the companies and fashion houses all over the world and as a result reputed fashion houses like Chanel, Versache, Louis Vouitton, Christian Dior etc. are a part of the band wagon joining the great India shining ride. And many more brands of such repute are preparing to join the same very soon. Coming back to India the sudden surge in the fashion industry with two big events lined (after the infamous break up of lakme with India fashion week) has definitely helped the designers to reap the opportunities lined up. Bollywood has also emerged as a big platform for these designers to showcase their latest collection to the masses and reach them in no times. The recent waves of fashion trends can be quoted as examples hit movies like Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gam, Kal Ho Na Ho, Lakshya, Salam Namaste etc have set up fashion trends and as a result the markets are flooded with skirts, from boot cuts to 13
  14. 14. straight fit jeans, head gears, suits in latest indo western styles and so on. The movies in India have also motivated some big fashion houses like DKNY(with Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gam) to enter into Indian markets. Despite all the rosy picture portrayed so far the reality is hard hitting. The market in reality is brutal and un forgiving. It’s a place where winning is the sole criteria of survival that too in a market which shows great colors in terms of big and improving purchasing power and changing lifestyles but all this statistics are limited to the realms of the big metros. The wave of branded casual wear and standard has not yet reached the outskirts of India. Recently released Forbes World’s richest shows that out of the 102 new entrants of the club “riche rich” 11 are Indians that means 1 out of every 10 new billionaires joining the Forbes list is an Indian. This can naturally be the dream market to launch the product with a bang. However this dream is turning sour for many of the foreign brands United Colors Of Benetton, Lacoste etc can be cited as example. United Colors of Benetton has already packed up its operations in India. The market is not as easy to conquer as it seems to be. Price is a criteria but not the sole, size does matter, stores also, then relationships with the “purane wale bhaiyya” comes in picture, and above all the class, income levels and perceptions. The recent studies show that in India the emerging middle class is the most spendthrift of all earning between Rs. 200000-Rs.500000 per annum, families where both the parents are working with one or two kids to look after. This is the 14
  15. 15. class that spends the most expecting to be counted in the upper classes. However, the most heart breaking class is the class earning between Rs. 500000-Rs.1000000 per annum and above it. This is the class that spends the less but is instrumental in bringing the world class labels to the country. Textile : Overview Textiles Industry: Market Rs. 207,895 crores* (US$ 48346 million) Process Products Machines Mills/ Units Spinning (Rs. 34700 crs. US $ 8070 mln) Yarn Spindles, Rotors Spinning Mills Composite Mills EOUs Weaving (Rs. 148960 crs. Fabric Looms Power Looms Hand Looms Composite Mills 15
  16. 16. US $ 34640 mln) Finishing (Rs. 24235 cr. US $ 5636 mln) Garments Processing and Stitching machines EOUs & SSIs * Estimated 2004-05 • Largest organised sector industry in India - has a 20% weightage in Index of Industrial Production • Largest export earner; second largest employer - > 20 million people. • Cotton dominant fibre; polyester/ cotton blended yarn and fabrics catching up • Ready made garments (RMG) - a part of the finished textiles process RMG Industry: An Overview • Industry has grown rapidly since early ‘90s • Value-adds to fabrics around 40%, through design and marketing • Makes up 15% of country’s export earnings - single largest net forex earner 16
  17. 17. • Concentrated in unorganised sector - employs around 2.5 million workers Category Range Some Brands Formal Wear Suits, Trousers, Shirts, Jackets Blazers, Neckties…... Allen Solly, Arrow, Cambridge, Colour Plus, Louis Philippe, Peter England, Park Avenue, Reid & Taylor, San Frisco, Van Heusen Casual Wear Shirts, Trousers, Jeans, Tee Shirts Shorts, Lee, Flying Machines, Parx, Weekender, Wear-house, Benetton Kids wear Shirts, Shorts, Frocks, Skirts, Jeans…. Lee, Ruf ‘n’ Tuf, Wear-house, Weekender Ladies Wear Skirts, Tops, Salwar Kameez , Sarees No national brands Under garments Knitwear Vests, Briefs, T-Shirts, etc. Byford, Crocodile, Jockey, Park Avenue, Tantex, VIP, Jockey,. RMG Industry : Market 17
  18. 18. • Annual output 1998- 99: Rs. 24,235 crs (US $ 5636 mln), at an estimated 10980 million pieces • Cotton garments had a growth around 2.5% while blended garments had a higher rate around 9% Raw Material • Key input : Cotton - available abundantly in the country (80% of market is for cotton garments). • High - quality fabrics also imported under advance licencing scheme. Industry Structure • Highly fragmented; Market dominated by unorganised sector (>60%) over 50,000 units in operation : each has typically 15-20 machines • Smaller players also active in local and overseas markets • Larger players positioned in branded segments - Arvind Mills, Madura Coats, J K Synthetics. 18
  19. 19. • Concentration of units in Tirupur (Tamil Nadu) - major centre for cotton and knitted garments,(exports and domestic); also at Bangalore, Chennai Mumbai and N Delhi RMG Industry : Exports RMG an export oriented industry o These exports are either done by units on their own or through export houses o India’s RMG exports are around Rs. 22650 crs US $ 5267 mln), as against the global demand of over Rs. 688,000 crs. (US $ 160,000 millions)In the world market, India’s share (3%);China (15%), Hongkong (13%) and Italy (8%); other competitors - Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, Egypt o Labour cost in India is very cheap; Per hour rates :India : US $ 0.72; Hong Kong - US$ 3.05, Japan - US$ 13.96, Singapore - US$ 2.83 o Focus on exports aided by governmental policies;the latest textile policy announced in Nov ‘99 encourages units to enter non-quota markets. Indian exports are mainly to quota countries (> 60%) - USA (> 20%) , Germany, UK, France, Canada Non-Quota markets : CIS, Gulf, Japan,Switzerland and Australia 19
  20. 20. State-wise share of exports Readymade Garments : WTO Implications • Upto 1995, textile trade regulated by Multi Fibre Agreement (MFA) - enabled importing countries(mainly Western) to impose quota restrictions on exports from developing countries • Quotas imposed on selective basis - India and Pakistan clubbed together with lower quota, Srilanka marginally higher quota, Bangladesh with no quota and so on • With the formation of World Trade (WTO) in January 1995, MFA replaced by Agreement on Textiles and clothing (ATC); MFA to be phased out over a 10-year period from 1995 • Scope for increased market access during the transition period of 10 - years for products under quota system • Market size of quota-imposing countries large - exports could become more competitive. • Indian exporters stand to gain with the opening up of markets hitherto restricted. 20
  21. 21. Readymade Garments : Market Segmentation Players Major Brands Arvind Mills Unit: Bangalore Casuals: Lee, Flying Machine, Newport, Ruf 'n' Tuf, Ruggers.Shirts: Arrow, Excalibur Madura Coats, Bangalore Shirts: Allen Solly, Louis Philippe, Peter England, Van Heusen; Trousers: San Frisco; T- Shirts & Socks - Byford J K Synthetics Park Avenue range of shirts, Trousers, T- Shirts, Under garments, Belts, etc. Parx range of casuals 21
  22. 22. Readymade Garments : Market Characteristics Key Success Factors • Branding & sub branding • Offering variety : current trends and patterns • Coping with change in fashion quickly • Quality standards - in material, stitching, cuts • Moving up the value-chain - ensuring better returns • Export market - Sticking to delivery schedules, honouring quality and quantity commitments, ability to interpret fashion changes Market Characteristics • Highly dynamic - designs changing frequently • Brand consciousness catching on-focus on quality, finish; price secondary a factor. • Increasing competition in the branded segment. • Some major players target different customer segments within the same product line with different product offerings. For e.g., Arvind Mills has positioned its denims “Lee” at Premium casuals, “Flying Machine” at upper -end casuals and “Newport” as a value-for-money brand 22
  23. 23. • Active Trade Channel - 4 types of channels used : Franchises (Benetton)/ Exclusive stores (Arvind Mills); Outright Sales to retailers (Louis Philippe); Company-owned stores (Colourplus); Normal 3 - tier chain through stockists, distributors, retailers (Louis Philippe). Some players opt for multiple channels also (Louis Phillip, Colourplus) • Significant expenditure on marketing / brand building only for branded segment • Local manufacturers have tied-up with foreign brands (Arvind Mills sells denims under ‘Lee’ label and “Arrow” shirts for Clue Peabody & Co., US; DCM supplies under ‘Benetton’) 23
  24. 24. Readymade Garments : Future Business Concerns • In garment exports, lower prices realisation due to intense competition - Pakistan a major force, has similar competitive edge in cost structure • Environmental issues : Ban on certain dyes and fabrics such as rayon and insistence on usage of vegetable dyes have impacted exports • Raw material prices: Fluctuation in cotton prices (a commodity product) has affected cost structures Demand Drivers • Rise in disposable income - burgeoning of middle class • Fashion consciousness; etiquette, aesthetic appeal • Convenience - purchase : available off the shelf • Influence of western styles - media driven • Export markets : Western countries looking to developing countries to source cheaper products Future • The future for blended garments appear to be bright at around 9% annually.Cotton garments growth to stagnate. WTO implications could positively impact industry in the long run 24
  25. 25. • Brand buy-outs - entry route for new and consolidation for existing players Summing up An export-oriented sector-prospects for exports improving, domestic market slowly opening up. 25
  26. 26. Previous Studies On The Topic This is the study done by KSA Technopak for the branded and non branded wear. Some facts of the study are as following: • The top 40 cities of India account for almost 50% of Sec A&B population • Sec A&B contribute almost 98% to the branded segment • The largest segment for clothing is the 16-35 age group (brand name and quality are top priority) • Branded segment is growing at 18-25% annually from 1998 onwards (the industry growth rate is only 5%) • Branded wear accounts for more than 21% of the apparel industry (around Rs 9,000 crore -KSA Technopak Our analysis of these figures: Now, for what these figures mean. Simply that the Indian consumer is showing an increasing fascination for branded wear. The reasons are clear - one, the increased disposable income of Indian households and two, the fast paced changes in the ready-to-wear industry. Today's customers are fussier than ever before - they are more aware of current trends, are totally in sync with the latest in fashion and demand the best products as well as service at an 26
  27. 27. affordable price. And manufacturers and retailers are going all out to keep them happy. Definitely, the ready-to-wear business is in vogue. From 'mom-and-pop' shops to organised retail, from unbranded merchandise to labels, from off-the-street quality to value for money, the ready-to-wear sector is witnessing an upheaval. At the forefront of all these changes are the highly versatile small brands. With big brands from textile companies growing weary in adapting to the fast- paced changing scenario in the ready-to-wear industry, it's the small brands, including private labels that are completely transforming the way men, women and children dress. A whole bunch of players have plunged into this branded ready-to- wear business. Easy to see why. According to current KSA Technopak reports, the branded ready-to-wear segment contributes only 21% to the apparel sector. And the present total market size of the ready-to-wear segment is pegged at around Rs 40,000 - 45,000 crore. That's lucrative indeed and there still is a lot of space for all to grow and grow big. And once the supply chain constraints have been eased, real estate markets made more organised and tax structure rationalised, this sector will become quite irresistible. Says Arvind Singhal, MD, KSA Technopak, "Ready-to-wear segment will be the key driver in the textile industry in the next five years." 27
  28. 28. Research Design The research design is the most important step in producing the results in the form of usable conclusions. A research design is the detailed blueprint used to guide a research study towards its objective. The process of designing this research project has involved various interrelated and interdependent steps. The choice of information type, its gathering, analysis and interpretation of the results were determined on the basis of this research design. Phase 1 Preliminary Planning Stage The research in question is basically a mix of the three types of research starting with the exploratory research to define the problem (objectives and premises) , then moving to the descriptive research where the sample characteristics were explore and defined finally moving to the most important type of the research design that is to the casual research where the cause and effect relationship between the various variables we found important during the first two phases of the research process. Step 1.Type Of Research.-Exploratory In the first phase the following research framework was designed after long brainstorming sessions within the group, with the project guide and holding discussions with the potential respondents. 28
  29. 29. In the disruptive, discontinuous markets of contemporary and future businesses environments, a “roadmap” of how consumers make purchase decision is much more reliable than a set of “directions”. The consumer decision process (CDP) model, a simplified version of which is shown in the succeeding figure. 29
  30. 30. 30 NEED RECOGNITION DIVESTMENT POST-CONSUMPTION EVALUATION CONSUMPTION PURCHASE PRE-PURCHASE EVALUATION SEARCH FOR INFORMATION
  31. 31. It represents a roadmap of consumers’ minds that marketers and managers can use to help guide product mix, communication and sales strategies. The model captures the activities that occur when decisions are made in a schematic format and shows how different internal and external forces interact and affect how consumers think, evaluate and act. As the model shows, consumers typically go through seven major stages when making decisions: need recognition, search for information, pre-purchase evaluation, purchase, consumption, post- consumption evaluation and divestment. Though marketing textbooks and consumer researchers sometimes employ slightly different terminology for each of these seven stages and how various factors influence each stage of consumers’ decisions. By understanding the stages in the consumer decision-making roadmap, marketers can discover why people are or are not buying products and what to do to get them to buy more or from a specific supplier.  Stage 1 (Need Recognition): 31
  32. 32. The starting point of any purchase decision is a customer need. Need recognition occurs when an individual senses a difference between what he or she perceives to be the ideal versus the actual state of affairs. Consumers buy things when they believe a product’s ability to solve a problem is worth more than the cost of buying it, thereby, making recognition of an unmet need in the first step. In addition to needs, consumers also have desires. While marketers strive hard to fulfill desires, they must keep costs in mind with what their target markets can afford. Consumers are willing to sacrifice some of their desires for affordable products that meet their needs. Firms sometimes make the mistake of developing new products based on what they are able to manufacture or sell rather than based on what consumers want to buy. Products and services that don’t solve consumers problems fail no matter how dazzling the technology or how much is spent on advertising aimed at convincing consumers to buy them. Retailers and manufacturers must monitor consumer trends because as consumers change, so do their problems and needs. Some influences most likely to alter the way consumers look at problems and the ways to solve them are family, values, health, age, income and reference groups.  Stage 2 (Search for Information): Once the need recognition occurs, consumers begin searching for information and solutions to satisfy their unmet needs. The search may be internal, retrieving knowledge from memory or perhaps genetic tendencies, or it may be external, collecting information from peers, family and the marketplace. Sometimes consumers search passively by simply becoming perceptive to information around them, whereas at other times they engage in active search behavior, such as researching consumer publications, paying attention to ads, searching the Internet or venturing into shopping malls and other retail outlets. 32
  33. 33. The length and depth of search is determined by variables such as personality, social class, income size of the purchase, past experiences, prior brand perceptions and customer satisfaction. When consumers are happy with the current brand, they may repurchase the brand and use it again and again over a period of time whereas if the consumers are unhappy with current products or brands, the search expands to include other alternatives.  Stage 3 (Pre - purchase Evaluation of Alternatives): The next stage of the consumer decision process is evaluating alternative option identified during the search process. In this stage consumer seeks answers to questions such as: “What are my option and which is the best?” Consumer compare what they know about different products and brands with what they consider most important and begin to narrow the field of alternatives before they finally resolve to buy one of them. Consumers use new or pre-existing evaluation stored in memory to select products, service, brands and stores that will most likely result their satisfaction with the purchase and consumption. But consumers must also evaluate where they are going to purchase the desired product and they apply relevant criteria to the retail outlets from which they buy. Consumer often monitor attributes such as quantity, size,, quality and price: further changes in these attributes can affect their brand and product choices.  Stage 4 (Purchase): The next stage of consumer decision process is purchase. After deciding whether or not to purchase consumer move through two phases. In first phase the consumer chooses one retailer over the other retailer. The second phase involves in-store choices, influence by sales person, product display, electronic media and point of purchase (POP) advertising. A consumer might move through 33
  34. 34. the first three stages of the decision process according to plan and intend to purchase a particular product or brand. But consumers sometimes buy something quite different from what they intend or opt not to buy at all because of what happens during the purchase or choice stage. A consumer may prefer one retailer but choose another because of a sale or promotional event at a competitors store, hours of operation, location, or traffic flow problems. The consumer may talk with the sales man who changes his/her decision.  Stage 5 (Consumption): After the purchase is made and the consumer takes possession of the product, consumption can occur – the point at which consumer uses the product. Consumption can either occur immediately or be delayed. This requires consumer to warehouse products in freezers or on the pantry shelves. Consumers use products also effects how satisfied they are with the purchases and how likely they are to buy that particular product or brand in the future. Not only does it appeal to consumption of safety but it also highlights the hedonic benefit of consumption.  Stage 6 (Post-Consumption Evaluation): The next stage of consumer decision-making process is post-consumption evaluation in which consumer experiences a sense of either satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Satisfaction occurs when the consumer expectations are matched by perceived performance. When experiences and performances fall short of expectation, dissatisfaction occurs. If consumer is highly satisfied, subsequent purchase decision becomes shorter. The most important determinant of satisfaction is consumption: how consumer uses the product. The product might be good but if the consumer does not use it properly dissatisfaction may creep in. Even if the product works well, consumers often “second guess” their purchase decision specially with big-ticket item causing them to ask – have I made a good 34
  35. 35. decision. These tactics confirm that customer are satisfied but more importantly they provide information to consumers.  Stage 7 (Divestment): It is the last stage in consumer decision model. Consumers have several options including outright disposal, recycling or remarketing. He can choose to sell (remarket) it to other consumers, trade it in/on another vehicle or take it to junk yard. In this situation recycling and environmental concerns play a role in consumer divestment method. Stage 2- The next phase constituted of the exploring and defining the characteristics of the population. In this phase we defined the population as the people of the Delhi and the NCR. In this way it was easy to draw a sample from this population and to extrapolate the results over the population. Phase 2 – Defining The Research Objective In light of the above mentioned research framework following research objectives were defined: • To study the consumer decision making process for casual wears in the age group of 15-25 years in Delhi and NCR region. • To study the various factors influencing purchase decisions for the casual wear. Phase 3 – Research Design 35
  36. 36. Step 1 Choice of data and data collection method: The data collected is purely primary in nature as - no secondary data was available on this topic which could have been used. - Also no qualitative data collection method suited the nature of the research topic. - As a result, the final choice of data collection method was centered on collecting the data of the quantitative through the survey method. - Also, this type of the data collection method was suited to the specific research objectives. Step 2- research tactics Measurement Once the research project was chosen, research tactics was the next logical step : the specifics of the measurements, the plan for choosing the sample, and finally the methods of analyses were developed. Measurement The first logical step in this direction was to translate the research objective into research requirements and then into the questions which were to be answered by the potential respondents. For this the following research requirements were framed - Who purchases casual wear -The description (profiling) of the population - Why do people purchase- objective - What do they purchase-branded or non branded casual wear - From where do they purchase - How often do they purchase-frequency of purchase - Brand preferences as per demographic profile - The factors considered before purchasing - The factors affecting the choice and purchase of casual wear 36
  37. 37. - Does information play any role in deciding the purchase of casual wear - Does choice of retail shop/mall/exclusive store play any role in deciding the purchase. - When do they purchase-occasion - How do they purchase – mode of payment For this purpose, a questionnaire was framed, a copy of which is attached as an annexure. See annexure 1 Step 2 The Sampling Plan In the project, a random sample of 400 consumers was taken from different parts of Delhi and NCR region. The Stratified Random sampling technique is used to collect the sample and classify it. The whole population was divided into the age groups of less than 15, between 15 to 20 and between 20 to 25 and sub divided into the following strata based on their sex, profession and income levels. Male 1. Age group-> 15 years students In the income groups - < Rs.100000 - Rs.100000-200000 - Rs.200000-500000 - Rs.500000-1000000 - >Rs.1000000 2. Age Group –between 15 To 20 years students In the income groups - < Rs.100000 - Rs.100000-200000 - Rs.200000-500000 37
  38. 38. - Rs.500000-1000000 - >Rs.1000000 3. Age Group – between 20 To 25 years professionals In the income groups - < Rs.100000 - Rs.100000-200000 - Rs.200000-500000 - Rs.500000-1000000 - >Rs.1000000 Female 1. Age group->15 years students In the income groups - < Rs.100000 - Rs.100000-200000 - Rs.200000-500000 - Rs.500000-1000000 - >Rs.1000000 2. Age Group –between 15 To 20 years students In the income groups - < Rs.100000 - Rs.100000-200000 - Rs.200000-500000 - Rs.500000-1000000 - >Rs.1000000 3. Age Group – between 20 To 25 years professionals and housewives In the income groups - < Rs.100000 38
  39. 39. - Rs.100000-200000 - Rs.200000-500000 - Rs.500000-1000000 - >Rs.1000000 This type of sampling has helped us to analyse the properties of various strata of the population and as a result of which little chance is left of ruling out of any essential group being completely ruled out of the survey. This type of sampling has balanced the uncertainty of random sampling against the bias of deliberate selection. Also this type of sampling was done to ensure greater accuracy as each stratum consists of homogeneous variables. Stratified random sampling attempts to approximate simple random sampling. This method of stratified random sampling is developed for its precision, economy and physical ease. The foundation of this sampling is for statistical inferences, the process of making inferences about populations from information contained in samples. The sample was taken from the population in the age group of 15 to 25 years. Phase 3 –Collection, Analysis and Interpretation Of The Data The data was collected over a period of 15 days from various parts of the NCR viz, South Delhi, North Delhi, Central Delhi, New Delhi, Gurgaon, Noida etc. An attempt was made to keep a balanced figure of all the parts however due to cost and time factor this sample might not contain the perfect representation of the various parts of the NCR. This can be taken as an unconscious sampling error. Also, because of the same reasons the age groups, occupational and gender bias may also have crept in. 39
  40. 40. The analysis and interpretation of data The data was analysed using the SPSS (Statistical Program for Social Studies) software. The detailed discussion of the analysis and the interpretation of the data is revealed in the following pages. Scaling techniques: Most of the questions in the questionnaire are designed to measure attitudes of the population. Attitude is a psychological constructs, a way of conceptualizing the intangible. As attitudes can not be really observed or measured directly because their existence is inferred from their consequences. On the other hand, people’s values and beliefs may dictateor affect their purchasing decisions. Values and belifs in retrospect are influenced by a person’s attitude; conversely, values are the determinants of attitudes and belief involve evaluation. Attitude measurement techniques are generally systematic methods for abstracting the effective component of belief systems in orderto generate an attitude score. Attitude are the essence of the “human change agent”that all marketers strive to influence, but without the right tools to effectively measure attitudes, attitudinal research has little to offer. Keeping all this in mind the three related components of attitudes were separated and measured separately. These are 1. A cognitive or knowledge component 2. a liking component and finally 3. an action component. Out of all three the knowledge component was measured on a nominal scale of Yes and No (Single item Scale), the liking 40
  41. 41. component was measured on multi point interval scale (Likert scale- the Summated Scale) as the scores on the individual items were summed to produce a total score for the respondent, also on the Ratio Scale where the customer gave points out of 10 helped us to compare this attitude component on an absolute scale. 41
  42. 42. Research Methodology and Analysis of Data The research follows a systematic research sequence based on the research design. The following research methodology was used for obtaining, classifying, analyzing and interpreting the various information. The complete project worked under a systematic plan to bring out the results in the present form. Most of the data and information collected are from primary sources colleted by the survey method using the questionnaire. The data so collected was organized, analysed and interpreted using the SPSS (Statistical Program for Social Studies) software. Various statistical tools used to analyse the data are discussed in the succeeding pages: 1. Frequencies of various variables. 2. Cross tabulations for establishing relationships among the various variables. 3. Regression analysis to test whether or not two variables are interrelated and if yes what is the nature of relationship between them. 4. Testing of hypothesis using the chi-square test. 1.Frequencies (Basic independent variables used in the study) 42
  43. 43. Statistics respondent's sex respondent's age respondent's occupation respondents’ family income respondents’ education N Valid 400 400 400 400 400 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 Std. Error of Mean .025 .024 .034 .054 .042 Std. Deviation .498 .474 .670 1.084 .844 Sum 579 1090 643 1239 1262 Frequency Table respondent's sex Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid male 221 55.3 55.3 55.3 female 179 44.8 44.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondent's age Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid less than 15 5 1.3 1.3 1.3 between 15-20 100 25.0 25.0 26.3 between 20-25 295 73.8 73.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondent's occupation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid student 191 47.8 47.8 47.8 professional 183 45.8 45.8 93.5 housewife 18 4.5 4.5 98.0 any other 8 2.0 2.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 43
  44. 44. respondents’ family income Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid less than 100000 32 8.0 8.0 8.0 100000-200000 75 18.8 18.8 26.8 200000-500000 161 40.3 40.3 67.0 500000-1000000 86 21.5 21.5 88.5 above 1000000 46 11.5 11.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 44
  45. 45. respondents’ education Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Less than matriculate 20 5.0 5.0 5.0 Matriculate - senior secondary 44 11.0 11.0 16.0 Graduation 202 50.5 50.5 66.5 Post graduation 122 30.5 30.5 97.0 More than post graduation 12 3.0 3.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Frequency Table how often casual clothes are worn Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Every day 228 57.0 57.0 57.0 Once in a week 106 26.5 26.5 83.5 Occasionally 64 16.0 16.0 99.5 Never 2 .5 .5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 does respondent gather information before purchasing Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 225 56.3 56.3 56.3 No 175 43.8 43.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 for whom respondents purchases Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid For myself 203 50.8 50.8 50.8 For others 30 7.5 7.5 58.3 For myself and others 145 36.3 36.3 94.5 I don't buy casual wear 22 5.5 5.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 45
  46. 46. respondents’ preferred place of purchase Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid branded 239 59.8 59.8 59.8 non- branded 161 40.3 40.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ objective of wearing casual wear Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid i feel comfortable and free in casuals 293 73.3 73.3 73.3 i run out of stock 38 9.5 9.5 82.8 for someone 8 2.0 2.0 84.8 because its in 30 7.5 7.5 92.3 special occasions 31 7.8 7.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ rank of brand Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid no.1 60 15.0 26.5 26.5 no.2 50 12.5 22.1 48.7 no.3 32 8.0 14.2 62.8 no.4 41 10.3 18.1 81.0 no.5 43 10.8 19.0 100.0 Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 respondents’ rank of store Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 46
  47. 47. Valid no.1 27 6.8 11.9 11.9 no.2 58 14.5 25.7 37.6 no.3 43 10.8 19.0 56.6 no.4 47 11.8 20.8 77.4 no.5 51 12.8 22.6 100.0 Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 rank of price range Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid no.1 62 15.5 27.4 27.4 no2 59 14.8 26.1 53.5 no.3 67 16.8 29.6 83.2 no.4 22 5.5 9.7 92.9 no.5 16 4.0 7.1 100.0 Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 rank of type of clothes offered Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid no.1 61 15.3 27.0 27.0 no2 36 9.0 15.9 42.9 no.3 34 8.5 15.0 58.0 no.4 67 16.8 29.6 87.6 no.5 28 7.0 12.4 100.0 Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 rank of range offerd Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 47
  48. 48. Valid no.1 21 5.3 9.3 9.3 no2 25 6.3 11.1 20.4 no.3 50 12.5 22.1 42.5 no.4 45 11.3 19.9 62.4 no.5 85 21.3 37.6 100.0 Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 rank of advertisements (print and electronic) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid no.1 58 14.5 25.7 25.7 no.2 35 8.8 15.5 41.2 no.3 28 7.0 12.4 53.5 no.4 35 8.8 15.5 69.0 no.5 22 5.5 9.7 78.8 no.6 20 5.0 8.8 87.6 no.7 14 3.5 6.2 93.8 no.8 4 1.0 1.8 95.6 no.9 10 2.5 4.4 100.0 Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 rank of movies Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid no.1 45 11.3 19.9 19.9 no.2 68 17.0 30.1 50.0 no.3 32 8.0 14.2 64.2 no.4 39 9.8 17.3 81.4 no.5 21 5.3 9.3 90.7 no.6 9 2.3 4.0 94.7 48
  49. 49. no.7 4 1.0 1.8 96.5 no.8 2 .5 .9 97.3 no.9 6 1.5 2.7 100.0 Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 rank of hoardings Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid no.1 24 6.0 10.6 10.6 no.2 32 8.0 14.2 24.8 no.3 22 5.5 9.7 34.5 no.4 23 5.8 10.2 44.7 no.5 51 12.8 22.6 67.3 no.6 34 8.5 15.0 82.3 no.7 17 4.3 7.5 89.8 no.8 15 3.8 6.6 96.5 no.9 8 2.0 3.5 100.0 Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 rank of fashion magzines Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid no.1 5 1.3 2.2 2.2 no.2 24 6.0 10.6 12.8 no.3 49 12.3 21.7 34.5 no.4 35 8.8 15.5 50.0 no.5 37 9.3 16.4 66.4 no.6 41 10.3 18.1 84.5 no.7 16 4.0 7.1 91.6 no.8 15 3.8 6.6 98.2 no.9 4 1.0 1.8 100.0 49
  50. 50. Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 rank of latest fashion shows Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid no.1 7 1.8 3.1 3.1 no.2 10 2.5 4.4 7.5 no.3 32 8.0 14.2 21.7 no.4 29 7.3 12.8 34.5 no.5 29 7.3 12.8 47.3 no.6 48 12.0 21.2 68.6 no.7 51 12.8 22.6 91.2 no.8 15 3.8 6.6 97.8 no.9 5 1.3 2.2 100.0 Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 rank of TV fashion guides Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid no.1 16 4.0 7.1 7.1 no.2 20 5.0 8.8 15.9 no.3 24 6.0 10.6 26.5 no.4 24 6.0 10.6 37.2 no.5 37 9.3 16.4 53.5 no.6 39 9.8 17.3 70.8 no.7 46 11.5 20.4 91.2 no.8 16 4.0 7.1 98.2 no.9 4 1.0 1.8 100.0 Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 50
  51. 51. rank of window shopping Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid no.1 49 12.3 21.7 21.7 no.2 26 6.5 11.5 33.2 no.3 25 6.3 11.1 44.2 no.4 18 4.5 8.0 52.2 no.5 14 3.5 6.2 58.4 no.6 21 5.3 9.3 67.7 no.7 45 11.3 19.9 87.6 no.8 25 6.3 11.1 98.7 no.9 3 .8 1.3 100.0 Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 rank of internet Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid no.1 9 2.3 4.0 4.0 no.2 9 2.3 4.0 8.0 no.3 7 1.8 3.1 11.1 no.4 18 4.5 8.0 19.0 no.5 14 3.5 6.2 25.2 no.6 11 2.8 4.9 30.1 no.7 31 7.8 13.7 43.8 no.8 102 25.5 45.1 88.9 no.9 25 6.3 11.1 100.0 Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 rank of any other 51
  52. 52. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid no.1 8 2.0 3.5 3.5 no.2 6 1.5 2.7 6.2 no.3 3 .8 1.3 7.5 no.4 2 .5 .9 8.4 no.5 9 2.3 4.0 12.4 no.6 3 .8 1.3 13.7 no.7 13 3.3 5.8 19.5 no.8 26 6.5 11.5 31.0 no.9 155 38.8 68.6 99.6 no.10 1 .3 .4 100.0 Total 226 56.5 100.0 Missing System 174 43.5 Total 400 100.0 do u take advice of family(advice givers) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 161 40.3 69.4 69.4 no 71 17.8 30.6 100.0 Total 232 58.0 100.0 Missing System 168 42.0 Total 400 100.0 do u take advice from friends Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 117 29.3 50.4 50.4 no 115 28.8 49.6 100.0 Total 232 58.0 100.0 Missing System 168 42.0 Total 400 100.0 advice from peers Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 52
  53. 53. Valid yes 94 23.5 40.5 40.5 no 138 34.5 59.5 100.0 Total 232 58.0 100.0 Missing System 168 42.0 Total 400 100.0 advice from reference groups Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 35 8.8 15.1 15.1 no 197 49.3 84.9 100.0 Total 232 58.0 100.0 Missing System 168 42.0 Total 400 100.0 advice from fashion gurus Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 53 13.3 22.8 22.8 no 179 44.8 77.2 100.0 Total 232 58.0 100.0 Missing System 168 42.0 Total 400 100.0 have ever purchased GAP Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 89 22.3 22.3 22.3 no 311 77.8 77.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 purchase of Tommy Hilfiger Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 159 39.8 39.8 39.8 no 241 60.3 60.3 100.0 53
  54. 54. Total 400 100.0 100.0 purcahse of Nike Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 186 46.5 46.5 46.5 no 214 53.5 53.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 purchase of Provogue Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 216 54.0 54.0 54.0 no 184 46.0 46.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 purchase of UCB Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 170 42.5 42.5 42.5 no 230 57.5 57.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 purchase of Wills Lifestyle Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 184 46.0 46.0 46.0 no 216 54.0 54.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 purchase of Reebok Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 203 50.8 50.8 50.8 no 197 49.3 49.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Purchase of Levis 54
  55. 55. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 230 57.5 57.5 57.5 no 170 42.5 42.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 purchase of Wrangler Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 196 49.0 49.0 49.0 no 204 51.0 51.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 purchase of Flying Machine Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 191 47.8 47.8 47.8 no 209 52.3 52.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Purchase of Killer Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 202 50.5 50.5 50.5 no 198 49.5 49.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Purchase of DKNY Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 146 36.5 36.5 36.5 no 254 63.5 63.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 purchase of Koutons Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 178 44.5 44.5 44.5 55
  56. 56. no 222 55.5 55.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 purchase of Color Plus Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 148 37.0 37.0 37.0 no 252 63.0 63.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 purchase of Lee Cooper Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 183 45.8 45.8 45.8 no 217 54.3 54.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 purchase of Dockers Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 142 35.5 35.5 35.5 no 258 64.5 64.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 purchase of Peter England Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 181 45.3 45.3 45.3 no 219 54.8 54.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 purchase of any other brand Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 206 51.5 51.5 51.5 no 194 48.5 48.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 56
  57. 57. respondents’' ranking of brand and company image Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 61 15.3 15.3 15.3 somewhat important 46 11.5 11.5 26.8 important 104 26.0 26.0 52.8 very important 144 36.0 36.0 88.8 most important 45 11.3 11.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ ranking of price Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 17 4.3 4.3 4.3 somewhat important 35 8.8 8.8 13.0 important 129 32.3 32.3 45.3 very important 147 36.8 36.8 82.0 most important 72 18.0 18.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’' ranking of range Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 20 5.0 5.0 5.0 somewhat important 67 16.8 16.8 21.8 important 166 41.5 41.5 63.3 very important 114 28.5 28.5 91.8 most important 33 8.3 8.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 repondants' ranking of sizerange Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 15 3.8 3.8 3.8 somewhat important 44 11.0 11.0 14.8 important 147 36.8 36.8 51.5 57
  58. 58. very important 139 34.8 34.8 86.3 most important 55 13.8 13.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ ranking of design Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 47 11.8 11.8 11.8 somewhat important 70 17.5 17.5 29.3 important 89 22.3 22.3 51.5 very important 123 30.8 30.8 82.3 most important 71 17.8 17.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ ranking of knitting Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 23 5.8 5.8 5.8 somewhat important 66 16.5 16.5 22.3 important 103 25.8 25.8 48.0 very important 145 36.3 36.3 84.3 most important 63 15.8 15.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ ranking of quality Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 5 1.3 1.3 1.3 somewhat important 63 15.8 15.8 17.0 important 93 23.3 23.3 40.3 very important 122 30.5 30.5 70.8 most important 117 29.3 29.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ ranking of colours Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 58
  59. 59. Valid not important 11 2.8 2.8 2.8 somewhat important 42 10.5 10.5 13.3 important 131 32.8 32.8 46.0 very important 135 33.8 33.8 79.8 most important 81 20.3 20.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ ranking of customization Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 36 9.0 9.0 9.0 somewhat important 97 24.3 24.3 33.3 important 128 32.0 32.0 65.3 very important 109 27.3 27.3 92.5 most important 30 7.5 7.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ ranking of endorsements Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 136 34.0 34.0 34.0 somewhat important 130 32.5 32.5 66.5 important 83 20.8 20.8 87.3 very important 38 9.5 9.5 96.8 most important 13 3.3 3.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ ranking of any other factor Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 180 45.0 45.0 45.0 somewhat important 126 31.5 31.5 76.5 important 52 13.0 13.0 89.5 very important 29 7.3 7.3 96.8 most important 13 3.3 3.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 59
  60. 60. respondents’ allocated marks for brand and company image Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 marks 10 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 marks 47 11.8 11.8 14.3 3 marks 9 2.3 2.3 16.5 4 marks 22 5.5 5.5 22.0 5 marks 30 7.5 7.5 29.5 6 marks 56 14.0 14.0 43.5 7 marks 83 20.8 20.8 64.3 8 marks 67 16.8 16.8 81.0 9 marks 35 8.8 8.8 89.8 10 marks 40 10.0 10.0 99.8 87 1 .3 .3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ allocated marks for price Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 marks 1 .3 .3 .3 1 marks 5 1.3 1.3 1.5 2 marks 21 5.3 5.3 6.8 3 marks 4 1.0 1.0 7.8 4 marks 10 2.5 2.5 10.3 5 marks 15 3.8 3.8 14.0 6 marks 74 18.5 18.5 32.5 7 marks 60 15.0 15.0 47.5 8 marks 77 19.3 19.3 66.8 9 marks 93 23.3 23.3 90.0 10 marks 40 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ allocated marks for range Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 60
  61. 61. Valid 0 marks 3 .8 .8 .8 1 marks 11 2.8 2.8 3.5 2 marks 16 4.0 4.0 7.5 3 marks 14 3.5 3.5 11.0 4 marks 31 7.8 7.8 18.8 5 marks 57 14.3 14.3 33.0 6 marks 77 19.3 19.3 52.3 7 marks 69 17.3 17.3 69.5 8 marks 65 16.3 16.3 85.8 9 marks 29 7.3 7.3 93.0 10 marks 28 7.0 7.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ allocated marks for size range Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 marks 2 .5 .5 .5 2 marks 22 5.5 5.5 6.0 3 marks 16 4.0 4.0 10.0 4 marks 32 8.0 8.0 18.0 5 marks 35 8.8 8.8 26.8 6 marks 82 20.5 20.5 47.3 7 marks 75 18.8 18.8 66.0 8 marks 62 15.5 15.5 81.5 9 marks 40 10.0 10.0 91.5 10 marks 34 8.5 8.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ allocated marks for designs Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 marks 5 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 marks 12 3.0 3.0 4.3 3 marks 19 4.8 4.8 9.0 4 marks 24 6.0 6.0 15.0 61
  62. 62. 5 marks 35 8.8 8.8 23.8 6 marks 61 15.3 15.3 39.0 7 marks 75 18.8 18.8 57.8 8 marks 95 23.8 23.8 81.5 9 marks 40 10.0 10.0 91.5 10 marks 34 8.5 8.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ allocated marks for knitting Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 marks 6 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 marks 22 5.5 5.5 7.0 3 marks 14 3.5 3.5 10.5 4 marks 40 10.0 10.0 20.5 5 marks 31 7.8 7.8 28.3 6 marks 67 16.8 16.8 45.0 7 marks 81 20.3 20.3 65.3 8 marks 75 18.8 18.8 84.0 9 marks 42 10.5 10.5 94.5 10 marks 22 5.5 5.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ allocated marks for quality Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 2 marks 11 2.8 2.8 2.8 3 marks 4 1.0 1.0 3.8 4 marks 34 8.5 8.5 12.3 5 marks 25 6.3 6.3 18.5 6 marks 67 16.8 16.8 35.3 7 marks 71 17.8 17.8 53.0 8 marks 86 21.5 21.5 74.5 9 marks 56 14.0 14.0 88.5 10 marks 46 11.5 11.5 100.0 62
  63. 63. Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ allocated marks for colours Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 marks 1 .3 .3 .3 2 marks 10 2.5 2.5 2.8 3 marks 6 1.5 1.5 4.3 4 marks 29 7.3 7.3 11.5 5 marks 34 8.5 8.5 20.0 6 marks 72 18.0 18.0 38.0 7 marks 86 21.5 21.5 59.5 8 marks 88 22.0 22.0 81.5 9 marks 45 11.3 11.3 92.8 10 marks 29 7.3 7.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ allocated marks for customization Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 marks 3 .8 .8 .8 1 marks 8 2.0 2.0 2.8 2 marks 37 9.3 9.3 12.0 3 marks 29 7.3 7.3 19.3 4 marks 51 12.8 12.8 32.0 5 marks 65 16.3 16.3 48.3 6 marks 83 20.8 20.8 69.0 7 marks 49 12.3 12.3 81.3 8 marks 49 12.3 12.3 93.5 9 marks 10 2.5 2.5 96.0 10 marks 16 4.0 4.0 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ allocated marks for endorsements Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 63
  64. 64. Valid 0 marks 23 5.8 5.8 5.8 1 marks 43 10.8 10.8 16.5 2 marks 54 13.5 13.5 30.0 3 marks 59 14.8 14.8 44.8 4 marks 64 16.0 16.0 60.8 5 marks 45 11.3 11.3 72.0 6 marks 51 12.8 12.8 84.8 7 marks 25 6.3 6.3 91.0 8 marks 13 3.3 3.3 94.3 9 marks 14 3.5 3.5 97.8 10 marks 9 2.3 2.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 store/mall/retail outlet play any role while purchasing Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid yes 287 71.8 71.8 71.8 no 113 28.3 28.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 how important are sales while purchasing Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 33 8.3 11.5 11.5 somewhat important 50 12.5 17.4 28.9 important 91 22.8 31.7 60.6 very important 82 20.5 28.6 89.2 most important 31 7.8 10.8 100.0 Total 287 71.8 100.0 Missing System 113 28.3 Total 400 100.0 how important is traffic flows Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 20 5.0 7.0 7.0 64
  65. 65. somewhat important 51 12.8 17.8 24.7 important 80 20.0 27.9 52.6 very important 88 22.0 30.7 83.3 most important 48 12.0 16.7 100.0 Total 287 71.8 100.0 Missing System 113 28.3 Total 400 100.0 how important is location Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 18 4.5 6.3 6.3 somewhat important 25 6.3 8.7 15.0 important 96 24.0 33.4 48.4 very important 90 22.5 31.4 79.8 most important 58 14.5 20.2 100.0 Total 287 71.8 100.0 Missing System 113 28.3 Total 400 100.0 how important is ambience Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 14 3.5 4.9 4.9 somewhat important 30 7.5 10.5 15.3 important 101 25.3 35.2 50.5 very important 103 25.8 35.9 86.4 most important 39 9.8 13.6 100.0 Total 287 71.8 100.0 Missing System 113 28.3 Total 400 100.0 how important is staff Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 14 3.5 4.9 4.9 65
  66. 66. somewhat important 47 11.8 16.4 21.3 important 117 29.3 40.8 62.0 very important 79 19.8 27.5 89.5 most important 30 7.5 10.5 100.0 Total 287 71.8 100.0 Missing System 113 28.3 Total 400 100.0 how important is discounts Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 22 5.5 7.7 7.7 somewhat important 32 8.0 11.1 18.8 important 74 18.5 25.8 44.6 very important 86 21.5 30.0 74.6 most important 73 18.3 25.4 100.0 Total 287 71.8 100.0 Missing System 113 28.3 Total 400 100.0 how important is relationships Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 66 16.5 23.0 23.0 somewhat important 58 14.5 20.2 43.2 important 81 20.3 28.2 71.4 very important 59 14.8 20.6 92.0 most important 23 5.8 8.0 100.0 Total 287 71.8 100.0 Missing System 113 28.3 Total 400 100.0 respondents’ perception of any other factor about shopping places Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid not important 145 36.3 50.5 50.5 66
  67. 67. somewhat important 87 21.8 30.3 80.8 important 30 7.5 10.5 91.3 very important 10 2.5 3.5 94.8 most important 15 3.8 5.2 100.0 Total 287 71.8 100.0 Missing System 113 28.3 Total 400 100.0 how often you shop for casuals Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid once in a month 156 39.0 39.0 39.0 two-four times in a year 114 28.5 28.5 67.5 i am an impulsive buyer 130 32.5 32.5 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 how much do you spend in one go Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid less than 500 21 5.3 5.3 5.3 500-1000 115 28.8 28.8 34.0 1000-2000 168 42.0 42.0 76.0 2000-5000 75 18.8 18.8 94.8 more than 5000 21 5.3 5.3 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 respondents’ mode of payment Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid cash 233 58.3 58.3 58.3 card 167 41.8 41.8 100.0 Total 400 100.0 100.0 Conclusion 67
  68. 68. The various questions in the questionnaire have been analyzed one by one as shown above. After thorough analysis of the data, it has been seen that amongst the sample size of 400 individuals surveyed, 221 were Male (55.3%) and 179 were Female (44.7%). In other words fairly equal number of male and female individuals was surveyed so as to get a good review about the perceptions regarding casual wear. In all 47.8% were students (191 no.) and 45.8% were professionals (183 no.), 50.5% were graduates (202 no.) and a mere 30.5% were post graduates (122 no.). Amongst the whole sample size, majority of the individuals (40.3%) belonged to the family income of the bracket of Rs.2 lac to Rs.5 lac. It was also found that mostly individuals wear casuals everyday i.e. 57% and a large number of people gather information before purchasing. 59.8% of the sample size shop branded casuals and a very large number (73.3%) say that they wear casuals because they feel comfortable in casuals as compared to formals. The questionnaire also had a question wherein the individual had to rank brands, store, price, types of casual offered, etc. It was found that mostly people ranked brand as number 1 followed by store, price range, range offered and types of casual offered. The respective percentages were 12.5%, 14.5%, 16.8%, 16.8% and 21.3%. This clearly shows that people are more inclined towards the brand they purchase rather that the range offered by that particular brand. Further it was noticed that individuals from the sample size gather information mostly by means of advertisements and movies which helps them to be more aware of the latest trends and the on going fashion trend. It is also seen that purchasing decision of an individual is affected by the advice of the people in close proximity. The sample results show that advice from family and friends play a major role in the purchasing decision of an individual. The 68
  69. 69. results show that 40.3% of the sample size consider advice of family members as one of the key aspects before purchasing casuals and the advice from friends is equally taken into consideration. The survey also shows that brands like GAP, DKNY, UCB and Tommy Hillfiger are not very famous amongst the sample size. This is mainly because these brands are very costly and a large number of competitors have entered the market bringing in more and more value for money products. This has for sure resulted in the decline in sales of the brands which were the best in the past. Nowadays the store, mall or the retail outlet also plays a major role in the purchasing decision of the customer. The location, sales promotion techniques, traffic flows, relations, ambience, etc are the key factors related to the store. It was seen that 71.8% (287 no.) of the sample size consider store as a major factor in deciding the purchase of casuals. 69
  70. 70. II. Cross tabulations 1. Relationship between gathering information and respondent’s gender Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent respondent's sex * does respondant gather information before purchasing 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondent's sex * does respondant gather information before purchasing Crosstabulation does respondant gather information before purchasing Total yes no respondent's sex male Count 111 110 221 % within respondent's sex 50.2% 49.8% 100.0% % within does respondant gather information before purchasing 49.3% 62.9% 55.3% % of Total 27.8% 27.5% 55.3% Residual -13.3 13.3 female Count 114 65 179 % within respondent's sex 63.7% 36.3% 100.0% % within does respondant gather information before purchasing 50.7% 37.1% 44.8% % of Total 28.5% 16.3% 44.8% Residual 13.3 -13.3 Total Count 225 175 400 % within respondent's sex 56.3% 43.8% 100.0% % within does respondant gather information before purchasing 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 56.3% 43.8% 100.0% 70
  71. 71. Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.135 .049 -2.717 .007(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.135 .049 -2.717 .007(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. male female respondent's sex 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Count 110 114110 65 does respondant gather information before purchasing yes no Bar Chart Interpretation: Our data shows that males are indifferent towards gathering information before purchasing casual wear. Out of 221 males, 111 say ‘Yes’ to gathering information and the rest say ‘No’. However, females do care about gathering information before purchase. Out of a sample of 179 females, 114 said ‘Yes’ to gathering information whereas the rest i.e. 65 (less than half) said ‘No’. 71
  72. 72. 2. Relationship Between Purchase Frequency Of Casual Wear And Respondent’s Gender Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent respondent's sex * how often you shop for casuals 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondent's sex * how often you shop for casuals Cross tabulation how often you shop for casuals Totalonce in a month two-four times in a year i am an impulsive buyer respondent's sex male Count 103 61 57 221 % within respondent's sex 46.6% 27.6% 25.8% 100.0% % within how often you shop for casuals 66.0% 53.5% 43.8% 55.3% % of Total 25.8% 15.3% 14.3% 55.3% Residual 16.8 -2.0 -14.8 female Count 53 53 73 179 % within respondent's sex 29.6% 29.6% 40.8% 100.0% % within how often you shop for casuals 34.0% 46.5% 56.2% 44.8% % of Total 13.3% 13.3% 18.3% 44.8% Residual -16.8 2.0 14.8 Total Count 156 114 130 400 % within respondent's sex 39.0% 28.5% 32.5% 100.0% % within how often you shop for casuals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 39.0% 28.5% 32.5% 100.0% 72
  73. 73. Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .189 .049 3.833 .000(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .189 .049 3.838 .000(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. 73
  74. 74. male female respondent's sex 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Count 103 53 60 53 57 73 how often you shop for casuals once in a month two-four times in a year i am an impulsive buyer Bar Chart Interpretation Our analysis shows that men as per the general beliefs do shop less for clothes however women are basically impulsive buyers, more than 73 out of 179 (more than 40%) said that they are impulsive buyers which means they purchase whenever they find time and of course money. This definitely poses as an opportunity for the marketers. 74
  75. 75. 3.Relationship Between The Income Group And The Monthly Spending On Casual Wear Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent respondents’ family income * how much do you spend in one go 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% Respondents’ family income * how much do you spend in one go Crosstabulation how much do you spend in one go Totalless than 500 500- 1000 1000- 2000 2000- 5000 more than 5000 respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 4 18 7 3 0 32 % within respondents’ family income 12.5% 56.3% 21.9% 9.4% .0% 100.0% % within how much do you spend in one go 19.0% 15.7% 4.2% 4.0% .0% 8.0% % of Total 1.0% 4.5% 1.8% .8% .0% 8.0% Residual 2.3 8.8 -6.4 -3.0 -1.7 100000- 200000 Count 4 39 26 4 2 75 % within respondents’ family income 5.3% 52.0% 34.7% 5.3% 2.7% 100.0% % within how much do you spend in one go 19.0% 33.9% 15.5% 5.3% 9.5% 18.8% % of Total 1.0% 9.8% 6.5% 1.0% .5% 18.8% Residual .1 17.4 -5.5 -10.1 -1.9 Count 7 31 82 37 4 161 75
  76. 76. 200000- 500000 % within respondents’ family income 4.3% 19.3% 50.9% 23.0% 2.5% 100.0% % within how much do you spend in one go 33.3% 27.0% 48.8% 49.3% 19.0% 40.3% % of Total 1.8% 7.8% 20.5% 9.3% 1.0% 40.3% Residual -1.5 -15.3 14.4 6.8 -4.5 500000- 1000000 Count 3 22 38 17 6 86 % within respondents’ family income 3.5% 25.6% 44.2% 19.8% 7.0% 100.0% % within how much do you spend in one go 14.3% 19.1% 22.6% 22.7% 28.6% 21.5% % of Total .8% 5.5% 9.5% 4.3% 1.5% 21.5% Residual -1.5 -2.7 1.9 .9 1.5 above 1000000 Count 3 5 15 14 9 46 % within respondents’ family income 6.5% 10.9% 32.6% 30.4% 19.6% 100.0% % within how much do you spend in one go 14.3% 4.3% 8.9% 18.7% 42.9% 11.5% % of Total .8% 1.3% 3.8% 3.5% 2.3% 11.5% Residual .6 -8.2 -4.3 5.4 6.6 Total Count 21 115 168 75 21 400 % within respondents’ family income 5.3% 28.8% 42.0% 18.8% 5.3% 100.0% % within how much do you spend in one go 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 5.3% 28.8% 42.0% 18.8% 5.3% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .324 .049 6.824 .000(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .320 .048 6.747 .000(c) 76
  77. 77. N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. less than 100000 100000- 200000 200000- 500000 500000- 1000000 above 1000000 respondant's family income 0 20 40 60 80 100 Count 4 4 7 3 3 18 39 31 22 57 26 82 38 15 3 4 37 17 14 2 4 6 9 how much do you spend in one go less than 500 500-1000 1000-2000 2000-5000 more than 5000 Bar Chart Interpretation Our analysis shows that the income group 3 is the dream class of any casual wear marketer be it branded or non branded. This class believes in spending and living life in fullest. Maximum 77
  78. 78. spending is from this class that too maximum time in a month. This way it becomes the newly emerging Indian consumer class and the sole savior of all the brands in the market on a long term basis. 78
  79. 79. 4. Relationship Between The Income Levels And The Mode Of Payment Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent respondents’ family income * respondents’ mode of payment 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * respondents’ mode of payment Crosstabulation respondents’ mode of payment Total cash card respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 22 10 32 % within respondents’ family income 68.8% 31.3% 100.0% % within respondents’ mode of payment 9.4% 6.0% 8.0% % of Total 5.5% 2.5% 8.0% Residual 3.4 -3.4 100000- 200000 Count 63 12 75 % within respondents’ family income 84.0% 16.0% 100.0% % within respondents’ mode of payment 27.0% 7.2% 18.8% % of Total 15.8% 3.0% 18.8% Residual 19.3 -19.3 200000- 500000 Count 82 79 161 % within respondents’ family income 50.9% 49.1% 100.0% % within respondents’ mode of payment 35.2% 47.3% 40.3% % of Total 20.5% 19.8% 40.3% Residual -11.8 11.8 500000- 1000000 Count 46 40 86 % within respondents’ family income 53.5% 46.5% 100.0% 79
  80. 80. % within respondents’ mode of payment 19.7% 24.0% 21.5% % of Total 11.5% 10.0% 21.5% Residual -4.1 4.1 above 1000000 Count 20 26 46 % within respondents’ family income 43.5% 56.5% 100.0% % within respondents’ mode of payment 8.6% 15.6% 11.5% % of Total 5.0% 6.5% 11.5% Residual -6.8 6.8 Total Count 233 167 400 % within respondents’ family income 58.3% 41.8% 100.0% % within respondents’ mode of payment 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 58.3% 41.8% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .205 .048 4.171 .000(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .213 .048 4.354 .000(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. 80
  81. 81. less than ... 100000-... 200000-... 500000-... above ... respondant's family income 0 20 40 60 80 100 Count 22 63 82 46 2010 12 79 40 26 respondant's mode of payment cash card Bar Chart Interpretation Our analysis shows that the income group 3 spends the most on casual wear and has no as such preferences for the plastic money. One of the reasons for this may be the fact that this class consists of the newly formed knowledge workers who love to show off their power of money on one hand and also want to play safe by keeping the plastic money. 81
  82. 82. 5.Relationship between the brand preference and income levels. Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent respondents’ family income * have ever purchased GAP 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of Tommy Hilfiger 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purcahse of Nike 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of Provogue 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of UCB 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of Wills Lifestyle 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of Reebok 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of Levis 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of Wrangler 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of Flying Machine 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of Killer 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of DKNY 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of Koutons 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of Color Plus 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of Lee Cooper 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of Dockers 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of Peter England 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * purchase of any other brand 400 100.0% 0 .0% 400 100.0% respondents’ family income * have ever purchased GAP Crosstab have ever purchased GAP Total yes no Count 9 23 32 82
  83. 83. respondents’ family income less than 100000 % within respondents’ family income 28.1% 71.9% 100.0% % within have ever purchased GAP 10.1% 7.4% 8.0% % of Total 2.3% 5.8% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 18 57 75 % within respondents’ family income 24.0% 76.0% 100.0% % within have ever purchased GAP 20.2% 18.3% 18.8% % of Total 4.5% 14.3% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 30 131 161 % within respondents’ family income 18.6% 81.4% 100.0% % within have ever purchased GAP 33.7% 42.1% 40.3% % of Total 7.5% 32.8% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 17 69 86 % within respondents’ family income 19.8% 80.2% 100.0% % within have ever purchased GAP 19.1% 22.2% 21.5% % of Total 4.3% 17.3% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 15 31 46 % within respondents’ family income 32.6% 67.4% 100.0% % within have ever purchased GAP 16.9% 10.0% 11.5% % of Total 3.8% 7.8% 11.5% Total Count 89 311 400 % within respondents’ family income 22.3% 77.8% 100.0% % within have ever purchased GAP 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 22.3% 77.8% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Pearson's R -.013 .054 -.257 .797(c) 83
  84. 84. Interval Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.009 .053 -.176 .861(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. respondents’ family income * purchase of Tommy Hilfiger Crosstab purchase of Tommy Hilfiger Total yes no Count 12 20 32 84
  85. 85. respondents’ family income less than 100000 % within respondents’ family income 37.5% 62.5% 100.0% % within purchase of Tommy Hilfiger 7.5% 8.3% 8.0% % of Total 3.0% 5.0% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 33 42 75 % within respondents’ family income 44.0% 56.0% 100.0% % within purchase of Tommy Hilfiger 20.8% 17.4% 18.8% % of Total 8.3% 10.5% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 63 98 161 % within respondents’ family income 39.1% 60.9% 100.0% % within purchase of Tommy Hilfiger 39.6% 40.7% 40.3% % of Total 15.8% 24.5% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 30 56 86 % within respondents’ family income 34.9% 65.1% 100.0% % within purchase of Tommy Hilfiger 18.9% 23.2% 21.5% % of Total 7.5% 14.0% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 21 25 46 % within respondents’ family income 45.7% 54.3% 100.0% % within purchase of Tommy Hilfiger 13.2% 10.4% 11.5% % of Total 5.3% 6.3% 11.5% Total Count 159 241 400 % within respondents’ family income 39.8% 60.3% 100.0% % within purchase of Tommy Hilfiger 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 39.8% 60.3% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Pearson's R .002 .050 .047 .962(c) 85
  86. 86. Interval Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .012 .050 .235 .814(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. respondents’ family income * purcahse of Nike Crosstab purcahse of Nike Total yes no Count 22 10 32 86
  87. 87. respondents’ family income less than 100000 % within respondents’ family income 68.8% 31.3% 100.0% % within purcahse of Nike 11.8% 4.7% 8.0% % of Total 5.5% 2.5% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 31 44 75 % within respondents’ family income 41.3% 58.7% 100.0% % within purcahse of Nike 16.7% 20.6% 18.8% % of Total 7.8% 11.0% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 83 78 161 % within respondents’ family income 51.6% 48.4% 100.0% % within purcahse of Nike 44.6% 36.4% 40.3% % of Total 20.8% 19.5% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 31 55 86 % within respondents’ family income 36.0% 64.0% 100.0% % within purcahse of Nike 16.7% 25.7% 21.5% % of Total 7.8% 13.8% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 19 27 46 % within respondents’ family income 41.3% 58.7% 100.0% % within purcahse of Nike 10.2% 12.6% 11.5% % of Total 4.8% 6.8% 11.5% Total Count 186 214 400 % within respondents’ family income 46.5% 53.5% 100.0% % within purcahse of Nike 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 46.5% 53.5% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .112 .049 2.242 .025(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .106 .050 2.117 .035(c) N of Valid Cases 400 87
  88. 88. a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. respondents’ family income * purchase of Provogue Crosstab purchase of Provogue Total yes no respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 13 19 32 % within respondents’ family income 40.6% 59.4% 100.0% % within purchase of Provogue 6.0% 10.3% 8.0% 88
  89. 89. % of Total 3.3% 4.8% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 40 35 75 % within respondents’ family income 53.3% 46.7% 100.0% % within purchase of Provogue 18.5% 19.0% 18.8% % of Total 10.0% 8.8% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 86 75 161 % within respondents’ family income 53.4% 46.6% 100.0% % within purchase of Provogue 39.8% 40.8% 40.3% % of Total 21.5% 18.8% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 50 36 86 % within respondents’ family income 58.1% 41.9% 100.0% % within purchase of Provogue 23.1% 19.6% 21.5% % of Total 12.5% 9.0% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 27 19 46 % within respondents’ family income 58.7% 41.3% 100.0% % within purchase of Provogue 12.5% 10.3% 11.5% % of Total 6.8% 4.8% 11.5% Total Count 216 184 400 % within respondents’ family income 54.0% 46.0% 100.0% % within purchase of Provogue 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 54.0% 46.0% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.078 .050 -1.570 .117(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.075 .050 -1.491 .137(c) N of Valid Cases 400 89
  90. 90. a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. respondents’ family income * purchase of UCB Crosstab purchase of UCB Total yes no respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 13 19 32 % within respondents’ family income 40.6% 59.4% 100.0% % within purchase of UCB 7.6% 8.3% 8.0% % of Total 3.3% 4.8% 8.0% 90
  91. 91. 100000- 200000 Count 33 42 75 % within respondents’ family income 44.0% 56.0% 100.0% % within purchase of UCB 19.4% 18.3% 18.8% % of Total 8.3% 10.5% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 67 94 161 % within respondents’ family income 41.6% 58.4% 100.0% % within purchase of UCB 39.4% 40.9% 40.3% % of Total 16.8% 23.5% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 43 43 86 % within respondents’ family income 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% % within purchase of UCB 25.3% 18.7% 21.5% % of Total 10.8% 10.8% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 14 32 46 % within respondents’ family income 30.4% 69.6% 100.0% % within purchase of UCB 8.2% 13.9% 11.5% % of Total 3.5% 8.0% 11.5% Total Count 170 230 400 % within respondents’ family income 42.5% 57.5% 100.0% % within purchase of UCB 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 42.5% 57.5% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .021 .049 .426 .670(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .013 .050 .260 .795(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. 91
  92. 92. respondents’ family income * purchase of Wills Lifestyle Crosstab purchase of Wills Lifestyle Total yes no respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 9 23 32 % within respondents’ family income 28.1% 71.9% 100.0% % within purchase of Wills Lifestyle 4.9% 10.6% 8.0% % of Total 2.3% 5.8% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 25 50 75 % within respondents’ family income 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% 92
  93. 93. % within purchase of Wills Lifestyle 13.6% 23.1% 18.8% % of Total 6.3% 12.5% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 91 70 161 % within respondents’ family income 56.5% 43.5% 100.0% % within purchase of Wills Lifestyle 49.5% 32.4% 40.3% % of Total 22.8% 17.5% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 37 49 86 % within respondents’ family income 43.0% 57.0% 100.0% % within purchase of Wills Lifestyle 20.1% 22.7% 21.5% % of Total 9.3% 12.3% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 22 24 46 % within respondents’ family income 47.8% 52.2% 100.0% % within purchase of Wills Lifestyle 12.0% 11.1% 11.5% % of Total 5.5% 6.0% 11.5% Total Count 184 216 400 % within respondents’ family income 46.0% 54.0% 100.0% % within purchase of Wills Lifestyle 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 46.0% 54.0% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.093 .049 -1.862 .063(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.088 .050 -1.768 .078(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. 93
  94. 94. respondents’ family income * purchase of Reebok Crosstab purchase of Reebok Total yes no respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 21 11 32 % within respondents’ family income 65.6% 34.4% 100.0% % within purchase of Reebok 10.3% 5.6% 8.0% % of Total 5.3% 2.8% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 37 38 75 % within respondents’ family income 49.3% 50.7% 100.0% 94
  95. 95. % within purchase of Reebok 18.2% 19.3% 18.8% % of Total 9.3% 9.5% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 82 79 161 % within respondents’ family income 50.9% 49.1% 100.0% % within purchase of Reebok 40.4% 40.1% 40.3% % of Total 20.5% 19.8% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 44 42 86 % within respondents’ family income 51.2% 48.8% 100.0% % within purchase of Reebok 21.7% 21.3% 21.5% % of Total 11.0% 10.5% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 19 27 46 % within respondents’ family income 41.3% 58.7% 100.0% % within purchase of Reebok 9.4% 13.7% 11.5% % of Total 4.8% 6.8% 11.5% Total Count 203 197 400 % within respondents’ family income 50.8% 49.3% 100.0% % within purchase of Reebok 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 50.8% 49.3% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .078 .049 1.551 .122(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .067 .050 1.330 .184(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. 95
  96. 96. respondents’ family income * purchase of Levis Crosstab purchase of Levis Total yes no respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 16 16 32 % within respondents’ family income 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% % within purchase of Levis 7.0% 9.4% 8.0% % of Total 4.0% 4.0% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 36 39 75 % within respondents’ family income 48.0% 52.0% 100.0% % within purchase of Levis 15.7% 22.9% 18.8% 96
  97. 97. % of Total 9.0% 9.8% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 103 58 161 % within respondents’ family income 64.0% 36.0% 100.0% % within purchase of Levis 44.8% 34.1% 40.3% % of Total 25.8% 14.5% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 50 36 86 % within respondents’ family income 58.1% 41.9% 100.0% % within purchase of Levis 21.7% 21.2% 21.5% % of Total 12.5% 9.0% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 25 21 46 % within respondents’ family income 54.3% 45.7% 100.0% % within purchase of Levis 10.9% 12.4% 11.5% % of Total 6.3% 5.3% 11.5% Total Count 230 170 400 % within respondents’ family income 57.5% 42.5% 100.0% % within purchase of Levis 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 57.5% 42.5% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.045 .051 -.893 .372(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.048 .051 -.955 .340(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. 97
  98. 98. respondents’ family income * purchase of Wrangler Crosstab purchase of Wrangler Total yes no respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 21 11 32 % within respondents’ family income 65.6% 34.4% 100.0% % within purchase of Wrangler 10.7% 5.4% 8.0% % of Total 5.3% 2.8% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 31 44 75 % within respondents’ family income 41.3% 58.7% 100.0% 98
  99. 99. % within purchase of Wrangler 15.8% 21.6% 18.8% % of Total 7.8% 11.0% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 78 83 161 % within respondents’ family income 48.4% 51.6% 100.0% % within purchase of Wrangler 39.8% 40.7% 40.3% % of Total 19.5% 20.8% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 45 41 86 % within respondents’ family income 52.3% 47.7% 100.0% % within purchase of Wrangler 23.0% 20.1% 21.5% % of Total 11.3% 10.3% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 21 25 46 % within respondents’ family income 45.7% 54.3% 100.0% % within purchase of Wrangler 10.7% 12.3% 11.5% % of Total 5.3% 6.3% 11.5% Total Count 196 204 400 % within respondents’ family income 49.0% 51.0% 100.0% % within purchase of Wrangler 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 49.0% 51.0% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .024 .050 .471 .638(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .008 .050 .156 .876(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. 99
  100. 100. respondents’ family income * purchase of Flying Machine Crosstab purchase of Flying Machine Total yes no respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 7 25 32 % within respondents’ family income 21.9% 78.1% 100.0% % within purchase of Flying Machine 3.7% 12.0% 8.0% % of Total 1.8% 6.3% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 36 39 75 % within respondents’ family income 48.0% 52.0% 100.0% 100
  101. 101. % within purchase of Flying Machine 18.8% 18.7% 18.8% % of Total 9.0% 9.8% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 83 78 161 % within respondents’ family income 51.6% 48.4% 100.0% % within purchase of Flying Machine 43.5% 37.3% 40.3% % of Total 20.8% 19.5% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 44 42 86 % within respondents’ family income 51.2% 48.8% 100.0% % within purchase of Flying Machine 23.0% 20.1% 21.5% % of Total 11.0% 10.5% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 21 25 46 % within respondents’ family income 45.7% 54.3% 100.0% % within purchase of Flying Machine 11.0% 12.0% 11.5% % of Total 5.3% 6.3% 11.5% Total Count 191 209 400 % within respondents’ family income 47.8% 52.3% 100.0% % within purchase of Flying Machine 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 47.8% 52.3% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.080 .049 -1.607 .109(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.071 .050 -1.429 .154(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. 101
  102. 102. respondents’ family income * purchase of Killer Crosstab purchase of Killer Total yes no respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 16 16 32 % within respondents’ family income 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% % within purchase of Killer 7.9% 8.1% 8.0% % of Total 4.0% 4.0% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 38 37 75 % within respondents’ family income 50.7% 49.3% 100.0% % within purchase of Killer 18.8% 18.7% 18.8% 102
  103. 103. % of Total 9.5% 9.3% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 82 79 161 % within respondents’ family income 50.9% 49.1% 100.0% % within purchase of Killer 40.6% 39.9% 40.3% % of Total 20.5% 19.8% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 44 42 86 % within respondents’ family income 51.2% 48.8% 100.0% % within purchase of Killer 21.8% 21.2% 21.5% % of Total 11.0% 10.5% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 22 24 46 % within respondents’ family income 47.8% 52.2% 100.0% % within purchase of Killer 10.9% 12.1% 11.5% % of Total 5.5% 6.0% 11.5% Total Count 202 198 400 % within respondents’ family income 50.5% 49.5% 100.0% % within purchase of Killer 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 50.5% 49.5% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .008 .050 .156 .876(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .007 .050 .135 .892(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. 103
  104. 104. respondents’ family income * purchase of DKNY Crosstab purchase of DKNY Total yes no respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 13 19 32 % within respondents’ family income 40.6% 59.4% 100.0% % within purchase of DKNY 8.9% 7.5% 8.0% % of Total 3.3% 4.8% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 36 39 75 % within respondents’ family income 48.0% 52.0% 100.0% % within purchase of DKNY 24.7% 15.4% 18.8% 104
  105. 105. % of Total 9.0% 9.8% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 56 105 161 % within respondents’ family income 34.8% 65.2% 100.0% % within purchase of DKNY 38.4% 41.3% 40.3% % of Total 14.0% 26.3% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 25 61 86 % within respondents’ family income 29.1% 70.9% 100.0% % within purchase of DKNY 17.1% 24.0% 21.5% % of Total 6.3% 15.3% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 16 30 46 % within respondents’ family income 34.8% 65.2% 100.0% % within purchase of DKNY 11.0% 11.8% 11.5% % of Total 4.0% 7.5% 11.5% Total Count 146 254 400 % within respondents’ family income 36.5% 63.5% 100.0% % within purchase of DKNY 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 36.5% 63.5% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .092 .050 1.848 .065(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .103 .050 2.057 .040(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. 105
  106. 106. respondents’ family income * purchase of Koutons Crosstab purchase of Koutons Total yes no respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 21 11 32 % within respondents’ family income 65.6% 34.4% 100.0% % within purchase of Koutons 11.8% 5.0% 8.0% % of Total 5.3% 2.8% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 34 41 75 % within respondents’ family income 45.3% 54.7% 100.0% 106
  107. 107. % within purchase of Koutons 19.1% 18.5% 18.8% % of Total 8.5% 10.3% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 74 87 161 % within respondents’ family income 46.0% 54.0% 100.0% % within purchase of Koutons 41.6% 39.2% 40.3% % of Total 18.5% 21.8% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 30 56 86 % within respondents’ family income 34.9% 65.1% 100.0% % within purchase of Koutons 16.9% 25.2% 21.5% % of Total 7.5% 14.0% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 19 27 46 % within respondents’ family income 41.3% 58.7% 100.0% % within purchase of Koutons 10.7% 12.2% 11.5% % of Total 4.8% 6.8% 11.5% Total Count 178 222 400 % within respondents’ family income 44.5% 55.5% 100.0% % within purchase of Koutons 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 44.5% 55.5% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .118 .050 2.366 .018(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .115 .050 2.315 .021(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. 107
  108. 108. respondents’ family income * purchase of Color Plus Crosstab purchase of Color Plus Total yes no respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 5 27 32 % within respondents’ family income 15.6% 84.4% 100.0% % within purchase of Color Plus 3.4% 10.7% 8.0% % of Total 1.3% 6.8% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 34 41 75 % within respondents’ family income 45.3% 54.7% 100.0% 108
  109. 109. % within purchase of Color Plus 23.0% 16.3% 18.8% % of Total 8.5% 10.3% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 56 105 161 % within respondents’ family income 34.8% 65.2% 100.0% % within purchase of Color Plus 37.8% 41.7% 40.3% % of Total 14.0% 26.3% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 35 51 86 % within respondents’ family income 40.7% 59.3% 100.0% % within purchase of Color Plus 23.6% 20.2% 21.5% % of Total 8.8% 12.8% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 18 28 46 % within respondents’ family income 39.1% 60.9% 100.0% % within purchase of Color Plus 12.2% 11.1% 11.5% % of Total 4.5% 7.0% 11.5% Total Count 148 252 400 % within respondents’ family income 37.0% 63.0% 100.0% % within purchase of Color Plus 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 37.0% 63.0% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.060 .049 -1.201 .230(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.048 .050 -.949 .343(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. 109
  110. 110. respondents’ family income * purchase of Lee Cooper Crosstab purchase of Lee Cooper Total yes no respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 14 18 32 % within respondents’ family income 43.8% 56.3% 100.0% % within purchase of Lee Cooper 7.7% 8.3% 8.0% % of Total 3.5% 4.5% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 31 44 75 % within respondents’ family income 41.3% 58.7% 100.0% 110
  111. 111. % within purchase of Lee Cooper 16.9% 20.3% 18.8% % of Total 7.8% 11.0% 18.8% 200000- 500000 Count 69 92 161 % within respondents’ family income 42.9% 57.1% 100.0% % within purchase of Lee Cooper 37.7% 42.4% 40.3% % of Total 17.3% 23.0% 40.3% 500000- 1000000 Count 43 43 86 % within respondents’ family income 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% % within purchase of Lee Cooper 23.5% 19.8% 21.5% % of Total 10.8% 10.8% 21.5% above 1000000 Count 26 20 46 % within respondents’ family income 56.5% 43.5% 100.0% % within purchase of Lee Cooper 14.2% 9.2% 11.5% % of Total 6.5% 5.0% 11.5% Total Count 183 217 400 % within respondents’ family income 45.8% 54.3% 100.0% % within purchase of Lee Cooper 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 45.8% 54.3% 100.0% Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error(a) Approx. T(b) Approx. Sig. Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.084 .050 -1.684 .093(c) Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -.086 .050 -1.719 .086(c) N of Valid Cases 400 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. 111
  112. 112. respondents’ family income * purchase of Dockers Crosstab purchase of Dockers Total yes no respondents’ family income less than 100000 Count 9 23 32 % within respondents’ family income 28.1% 71.9% 100.0% % within purchase of Dockers 6.3% 8.9% 8.0% % of Total 2.3% 5.8% 8.0% 100000- 200000 Count 27 48 75 % within respondents’ family income 36.0% 64.0% 100.0% 112

×