1. ~ 1 ~
A Report on
CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
ON
CIGARETTES
KINGS VS MARLBORO
Submitted by
ANEESH V R(12AB01)
VIJAY VIGNESWARAN (12AB43)
Of II year MBA
2. ~ 2 ~
PSG Institute of Management
SEPTEMBER 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION 2
2.1. Gold Flake 2
2.2. Marlbro 2
3. LITERATURE REVIEW 3
3.1. The Impact of Cigarette Advertisement on
Consumer Surplus, Profit, and Social Welfare 3
3.2. Cigarette Prices, Smoking, and the Poor:
Implications of Recent Trends 3
3.3. The Effect of Cigarette Advertising Bans On
Consumption: A Meta Analysis 4
3.4. How Do Consumers Switch Between Close
Substitutes When Price Variation Is Small?
The Case of Cigarette Types 5
3.5. The Effect of Cigarette taxes on Cigarette
Consumption, 1955 through 1994 5
3.6. Gender Identity in Consumer Behavior Research:
A Literature Review and Research Agenda 6
3.7. Smoke – free Air Laws, Cigarette Prices, and
3. ~ 3 ~
Adult Cigarette Demand 7
3.8. Factors Affecting Cigarette Demand 7
4. CONSUMER DECISION MAKING PROCESS 8
5. POST DECISION BEHAVIOR 8
6. LEARNING CONCEPT 9
7. INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING 9
8. CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT AND
PASSIVE LEARNING 10
9. MOTIVATION 10
10. PERSONALITY 10
11. INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE 11
12. CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM 11
13. KAREN PERSONALITY THEORY 12
14. SOCIAL CHARACTER 12
15. COGNITIVE PERSONALITY FACTORS 12
16. STIMULATION LEVEL 13
17. CONSUMER DOGMATISM 13
18. ANALYSING BRAND OF CIGATETTES WITH
OTHER FACTORS 14
18.1. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Quantity of Cigarette 14
18.2. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Frequency of purchase 14
4. ~ 4 ~
18.3. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Longness of smoking 15
18.4. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Change of brand 16
18.5. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Like about brand 16
18.6. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Initiator (friends) 17
18.7. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Prefer new brand 18
18.8. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Preference for a foreign brand 18
18.9. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Friends or alone (smoking) 19
18.10. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Feeling after smoking 20
18.11. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Advertisement 20
18.12. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Variants 21
18.13. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Medium 22
18.14. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Feeling after smoking 22
19. ADVERTISEMENT 24
6. ~ 6 ~
TABLE OF FIGURES
S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO
1. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Quantity of Cigarette 14
2. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Frequency of purchase 15
3. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Longness of smoking 15
4. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Change of brand 16
5. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Like about brand 17
6. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Initiator (friends) 17
7. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Prefer new brand 18
7. ~ 7 ~
8. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Preference for a foreign brand 19
9. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Friends or alone (smoking) 19
10. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Feeling after smoking 20
11. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Advertisement 21
12. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Variants 21
13. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Medium 22
14. Relation between brand of cigarette and
Feeling after smoking 23
15. ADVERTISEMENT 24
16. CHANGE 25
17. CONVINCED 26
18. FEELING 27
19. FRIENDS 28
20. GOOD 29
21. INITIATOR 30
22. LIKE 31
23. LONGNESS 32
24. OCCASIONS 33
25. QUANTITY 34
8. ~ 8 ~
26. VARIANTS 35
Acknowledgement
We express our sincere gratitude to our Director for giving us an opportunity to
work on various projects this trimester.
It takes us immense happiness to express our gratitude to our coordinator Mrs.
Uma Maheshwari whoconstantly supported us with her valuable suggestions and
monitoring.
We would like to express our heartfelt thanks to Mr.Balamurugan, Consumer
Behaviour faculty, who constantly inspired us.
We would also take this opportunity to thank the other faculties for their guidance
during this course.
Last butnot the least, we wantto express our deepest and warmestgratitude to our
parents, family and friends whose love and support keeps us going…
9. ~ 9 ~
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report aims to introduce people to the concepts of consumer behaviour the brands and
people prefernce towars the brands of cigarette . The focus of this report is the broad internal
individual characteristics of the consumers in the market for cigarette brand.
Consumers are different and may display different inner characteristics relating to their needs,
motivation, personality, perception, learning and atitude in relation to cigarette brands.
This report also emphazise the relation of brand to various attributes. Then finding is made on
attribute which has lot of influence on prefering the brand of cigarette.
10. ~ 10 ~
Sample questionarrie has been prepared by analysing some key factors which plays a vital role in
prefering for the brand of cigarette. All the consumer behavior concepts has been analysed and
the final questionarrie has been prepared.
The major findings which we have analysed in our report is though some people always used to
use particular brand of cigarette people tends to have liking for other brands of cigarette too. So
brand loyalty is not found to be true all times and the mind-set of smokers too change .They used
to buy what ever brand available to them when the brand which they are prefering is not
available at that time.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 GOLD FLAKE
11. ~ 11 ~
Gold Flake is a popular cigarette brand which includes Gold Flake Kings (84 mm), Gold Flake
Kings Lights (84mm), Gold Flake and Gold Flake Lights. It is positioned as a brand that caters to
all the age group from 20. This brand is owned, manufactured and marketed by ITC (Indian
Tobacco Company) Ltd, India. Other popular cigarette brands owned by ITC are Wills &
Scissors. Gold Flake can be segmented as ITC's mediocre brand in terms of its pricing. The
Kings varieties are more expensive with pricing about the same as Wills Classic varieties of
cigarettes. The single largest brand in India in terms of sales is Wills Navy Cut, which was
launched in July 1963. The cost of a Gold Flake Filter pack costs Rs.59 from Rs.55 earlier.
Likewise, the price of Kings has become Rs.80 a pack from Rs.70 earlier. The company’s
cigarette business reportedly grew by 11.48 % to Rs. 3,623.23 Cr. During fourth quarter of 2013.
An efficient supply-chain & distribution network reaches India's popular brands across the
country.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.2 MARLBORO
Marlboro is one of the leading brands of Cigarette in the world which was introduced in the year
1904 by Philip Morris. (SOURCE? IN-TEXT CITATION, (WWW.MARLBORO.COM)) It is
known as Philip Morris in the US and Philip Morris International outside in all the other
countries. Philip Morris launched the Marlboro brand in 1924 as a woman's cigarette, based on
the slogan "Mild As May". In the 1920s, advertising for the cigarette was primarily based around
how ladylike the cigarette was. To this end, the filter had a printed red band around it to hide
lipstick stains, calling it "Beauty Tips to Keep the Paper from Your Lips". Marlboro is known to
be the largest selling brand of Cigarette in the world. The brand is always associated to Motor
sports and it is positioned accordingly. The biggest plant is located at Richmond, Virginia. Philip
Morris launched it as a Cigarette for women and marketed with the tagline, Mild As May in
1924. Late in 1950’s when scientists came up with a report saying that there is a link between
smoking and Lung Cancer, So Marlboro repositioned itself as a men brand. Marlboro is known
for its sponsorship of motor racing. This started in 1972 with its sponsorship of Formula
One teams BRM and Iso Marlboro-Ford.
12. ~ 12 ~
Trembley et.al. (1995) estimated that the effect of US……..
3.1 THE IMPACT OF CIGARETTE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER SURPLUS,
PROFIT, AND SOCIAL WELFARE
Trembley, Carol Horton; Trembley, Victor J. Contemporary Economic Policy13.1 (Jan 1995):
113.
Abstract (summary)
An analysis estimates the effect of US cigarette advertising on social welfare. Because
economists hold different beliefs about the nature of advertising, the analysis uses 3 different
empirical models to test the welfare implication of cigarette advertising. Each model employs
estimates of a demand equation and a supply relation to calculate a single point estimate of the
impact of advertising on profit, consumer surplus, and total surplus. Bootstrapping generates
confidence intervals for each welfare estimate. The results indicate that the cigarette industry is
not competitive and that advertising significantly increases market power. Further, advertising
significantly reduces consumer surplus if it is either purely persuasive or purely informative but
has no significant effect on total surplus.
3.2 CIGARETTE PRICES, SMOKING, AND THE POOR: IMPLICATIONS OF
RECENT TRENDS
Franks, Peter, MD
Jerant, Anthony F, MD
Leigh, J Paul, PhD
Lee, Dennis, BS; Chiem, Alan, MPH, BS; et al. American Journal of Public Health97.10 (Oct
2007): 1873-7.
Abstract (summary)
We examined the relationship between smoking participation and cigarette pack price by income
group and time period to determine role of cigarette prices in income-related disparities in
smoking in the United States. We used data from the 1984-2004 Behavioral Risk Factor
13. ~ 13 ~
Surveillance System surveys linked to information on cigarette prices to examine the adjusted
prevalence of smoking participation and smoking participation-cigarette pack price elasticity
(change in percentage of persons smoking relative to a 1% change in cigarette price) by income
group (lowest income quartile [lower] vs all other quartiles [higher]) and time period (before vs
after the Master Settlement Agreement [MSA]). Increased real cigarette-pack price over time
was associated with a marked decline in smoking among higher-income but not among lower-
income persons. Although the pre-MSA association between cigarette pack price and smoking
revealed a larger elasticity in the lower- versus higher-income persons (-0.45 vs -0.22), the post-
MSA association was not statistically significant (P>.2) for either income group. Despite
cigarette price increases after the MSA, income-related smoking disparities have increased.
Increasing cigarette prices may no longer be an effective policy tool and may impose a
disproportionate burden on poor smokers.
3.3 THE EFFECT OF CIGARETTE ADVERTISING BANS ON CONSUMPTION: A
META-ANALYSIS
Capella, Michael L
Taylor, Charles R
Webster, Cynthia. Journal of Advertising37.2 (Summer 2008): 7-18.
Abstract (summary)
Because previous research and reviews on the effect of cigarette advertising bans on cigarette
consumption have reported mixed results, the effectiveness of cigarette advertising bans has been
a point of controversy. To ascertain the efficacy of cigarette advertising bans, the current
research is a quantitative integration (meta-analysis) of the entire available published cigarette
advertising ban research conducted to determine what impact, if any, advertising bans have on
cigarette smoking behavior. Results of the meta-analysis show that cigarette advertising bans do
not have a significant effect on cigarette consumption.
15. ~ 15 ~
By means of a pooled time-series analysis from 1955 through 1994 with the 50 states as units of
analysis, the impact of excise taxes on cigarette consumption for several different models and
econometric techniques is assessed.
From 1955 through 1994, increases in state taxes were effective in reducing cigarette use.
Federal tax increases, however, appear to have been more effective. This difference is partly the
result of the "bootlegging" of cigarettes across state lines and the size of the increases in the
federal tax. Cigarette consumption also declined when health warning labels were added.
Increases of taxes on cigarettes are associated with declines in the consumption of tobacco.
Because of inflation, increased health concerns, and the declining percentage of smokers,
however, large reductions in consumption require large tax increases.
3.6 GENDER IDENTITY IN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR RESEARCH: A LITERATURE
REVIEW AND RESEARCH AGENDA
Palan, Kay M
Academy of Marketing Science Review2001 (2001): 1.
Abstract (summary)
Consumer researchers have been examining the impact of gender identity--the degree to which
an individual identifies with masculine and feminine personality traits--on various consumer
variables for nearly four decades. However, significant gender identity findings in consumer
research have been rare, perhaps because of (1) operationalization problems (Palan, Kiecker, and
Areni 1999), (2) inappropriate interpretation and application of gender identity to consumer
variables (Gould 1996), or (3) blurring gender categories (Firat 1993). This paper presents a
thorough review, grounded in theoretical models of gender identity, of consumer behavior
studies in the marketing literature that have examined gender identity. Based on the literature
review, the paper evaluates whether gender identity research is still warranted, and proposes
specific research questions to guide future research.
16. ~ 16 ~
3.7 SMOKE-FREE AIR LAWS, CIGARETTE PRICES, AND ADULT CIGARETTE
DEMAND
Tauras, John A. Economic Inquiry44.2 (Apr 2006): 333-342.
Abstract (summary)
This article examines the impact of cigarette prices and smoke-free air laws on adult smoking.
Probit methods and a generalized linear model with log-link and Gaussian distribution are
employed to model adult smoking propensity and intensity, respectively. After controlling for
unobserved state-level heterogeneity, which can influence both tobacco policy and smoking
behavior, the estimates from this study imply that an inverse relationship exists between cigarette
prices and both smoking prevalence and average cigarette consumption by adult smokers. The
estimates also imply that more restrictive smoke-free air laws decrease average smoking by adult
smokers but have little impact on prevalence.
3.8 FACTORS AFFECTING CIGARETTE DEMAND
ELENI RAPTOU*, KONSTADINOS MATTAS*, EFTHIMIA TSAKIRIDOU**,
AND CONSTANTINOS KATRAKILIDIS***
Abstract
This paper addresses the impact of smoking restrictions in workplaces and educational
establishments, cigarette price measures and various psychosocial indicators on cigarette
demand, controlling for demographic and socio-economic factors. The data used for the analysis
are collected via questionnaire that was administered in personal-in home interviews. A two-part
model of cigarette demand [Cragg, J. G.BSome Statistical Models for Limited Dependent
Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods,^Econometrica, 39, 5, 1971, pp.
829Y44.] is estimated. According to the estimations, cigarette price measures do not influence
cigarette demand. On the contrary, smoking restrictions in workplaces and educational
establishments and most of the psychosocial variables are found to affect cigarette demand
considerably. (JEL D12, I00,M31)
17. ~ 17 ~
4. CONSUMER DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
Input
Process
5. POST DECISION BEHAVIOR
Firms marketing
efforts:
Price
product
Socio-cultural
environment:
Reference
group
Sub culture
Pre purchase
search
Evaluation of
alternative
Personality
Learning
perception
Trial
Repeated
purchase
Postpurchase
evaluation
Experience
18. ~ 18 ~
6. LEARNING CONCEPT
People who are smoking cigarettes will pass through various learning process before confirming
to particular brand. Usually they pass through cognitive stage , affective stage, conative stage.
Based upon the quantity of cigarette the user purchase, frequency of purchase and number of
years they have been smoking the learning concepts depends.
Cognitive stage: people who are new to smoking will just have knowledge and belief about the
product. Usually person who is smoking below one month will pass through this stage.
Affective stage: Evaluation of particular brand of cigarette as favorable or unfavorable to the
user. Usually person who is smoking for more than 6 months will be passing through this phase
Conative stage: Intension to buy a particular brand of cigarette when lot of choice available
before them. Brand Loyalty comes into play at this stage. Usually people who smoke for more
than a year will pass through this stage.
7. INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING
People who smoke will definitely fall under instrumental conditioning learning. Usually they try
different brand of cigarette before sticking on to a particular brand of cigarette. So they normally
follow trail and error method
Stimulus
purchase
decision
Marlboro
Kings
Very mild to
smoke
Good to smoke
because of
nicotine content
19. ~ 19 ~
8. CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT AND PASSIVE LEARNING
How much of involvement the consumer exhibits on the product will be checked here. Usually
product which is low cost will be obtained through low involvement but in the case of cigarette
its quite different. People used to ask and search for particular brand unless they end up getting
that.
Consumers learn many things while smoking. Usually people preference changes. Some make
rational, active decision while purchasing cigarette and usually left hemisphere is involved in
decision making for such type. Some make impulsive decision and at that point of time right
hemisphere is involved in the decision process.
9. MOTIVATION
There are various factors, which makes a person to smoke. Usually people smokes cigarette
because of acquired need.
Acquired need: The people learn the habit from the environment. Sometime because of the
cultural value too people smoke. But, in India its purely acquired thing.
Both rational and emotional motive is involved while selecting cigarette.
Rational Motive: select particular brand of cigarette because of certain features.
Emotional Motive: doesn’t think about feature and buy whatever is available.
10. PERSONALITY
Personality is generally expressed as human inner psychological characteristics like person’s
specific qualities, attributes, traits, factors, and mannerisms that distinguish one person from
other person.
Smokers involves highly on this inner psychological characteristics (personality) as they are
influenced more by their environment.
20. ~ 20 ~
11. INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE
Interpersonal influence is a kind of outside influence where consumers choose certain products
over others. When personality influence consumer to buy products based on their inner
psychological characteristics whereas interpersonal influence the consumers based on others.
There are three types of interpersonal influence and the influence as impact of buying cigarettes.
1. Information influence: this type of smokers influenced by the reality experienced by
others. This type of smokers purchase is based on the others reality about the product so
they always make a purchase by the word–of-mouth strategies.
2. Value expressive influence: this type of smokers influenced by the person they compare
with themselves. Their purchase is based on the other whom do they compare. For
Example a person buy particular brand cigarettes if their brother, friends, father, role
model or celebrity (whom do they compare) use that particular brand of cigarettes.
3. Utilitarian influence: this type of smokers influenced by others, who buy a cigarettes in
order to fulfill the others need or wish. For example a person smokes cigarette by the
pressure given by his senior or peer. These types of smoker generally try to conform the
wishes by others in order to get appreciation or to avoid punishment.
12. CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM
If a smoker who wish to smoke the foreign made brand out of the local made or regional one
then this type of smoker is low ethnocentric consumers. If a smoker buys a cigarette made in
their country in respect to increase the economic conditions and other social responsibilities is
highly ethnocentric. For example if a smoker buys Marlboro even though domestic brands are
available in a shop then he is considered as a low ethnocentric. These types of consumers want to
know how good it would be, and to taste the foreign made. They have the extrinsic
characteristics. Some products are actually foreign made one but due to their low product
cultural uniqueness make them for cross cultural adoption. Marlboro is such a kind of cigarette.
21. ~ 21 ~
13. KAREN PERSONALITY THEORY
Complaint: this type of person smokes cigarette when others to appreciate and like him. They
expect more compliments, this influence them to buy cigarettes. Eve Cigarette- "The first truly
feminine cigarette--almost as pretty as you are"
this tagline made the female cigarette users who are characterized as ‘complaint’ to buy a
cigarette.
Aggressive: this type of person smoke cigarettes who seeks to excel and achieve recognition. So
the marketers try to attract them by tagline meant for winners or achievers.
Detached: These types of person were less likely to be brand loyal and were more likely to try
different brands. These type of person influence to buy cigarette when they feel individualism,
freedom, self–reliance, independence.
14. SOCIAL CHARACTER
Inner directed people: Inner directed smokers seem to prefer ads that stress product features
and personal benefits in cigarette. These smokers tend to rely on their own inner values in
evaluating new product- cigarette. They are the consumer innovator.
Other directed people: Other directed people are seem to prefer ads that feature an approving
social environment or social acceptance but these type of people cannot be found in cigarette
category because in the ad or in cigarette box itself mentioned ‘smoking kills’. So they naturally
don’t accept as a concern over social environment.
15. COGNITIVE PERSONALITY FACTORS
Visualizers: this type of people who get influence to buy cigarettes in the form of visual
communication – video type advertisement.
Verbalizers: this type of people who get influence to buy cigarettes in the form of written or
verbal information ad.
22. ~ 22 ~
16. STIMULATION LEVEL
High stimulation level: highly stimulated smokers always try new one and tend to be more
innovative one. So marketers try to launch new variants of cigarettes in term of flavors, colors,
size in order to not to leave their highly stimulated smokers who always want more innovative
and different variants.
Low stimulation level: low stimulated smokers always tend to be simple and prefer traditional
than innovative. That’s why marketers have a classic style for them (Marlboro classics, gold
flake classic and kings lights). They will not involve in many variants.
17. CONSUMER DOGMATISM
High dogmatic: highly dogmatic smokers who like to choose only well established product and
always use that particular brand alone, no product alternative also.
Low dogmatic: Low dogmatic smokers, who like to prefer innovative products, always try a
new product. These type of smokers only set the market for competition one and influence to
have different variants in different brands.
23. ~ 23 ~
18. ANALYSING BRAND OF CIGATETTES WITH OTHER FACTORS
18.1. Relation between brand of cigarette and quantity of cigarette
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and quantity of cigarette.
H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and quantity of cigarette.
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (1.34>0.05).
Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and quantity
of cigarette.
Fig 1. Relation between brand of cigarette and quantity of cigarette
18.2. Relation between brand of cigarette and frequency of purchase
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and frequency of purchase
H1: there is relationship between brand of cigarette and frequency of purchase
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.18 >0.05).
Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is relationship between brand of cigarette and frequency
of purchase
24. ~ 24 ~
Fig 2. Relation between brand of cigarette and frequency of purchase
18.3. Relation between brand of cigarette and longness of smoking
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and longness of smoking
H1: there is relationship between brand of cigarette and longness of smoking
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.18 >0.05).
Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is relationship between brand of cigarette and longness of
smoking.
Fig 3. Relation between brand of cigarette and longness of smoking
25. ~ 25 ~
18.4. Relation between brand of cigarette and change of brand
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and changing of brand.
H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and changing of brand.
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.81>0.05).
Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and change
of brand.
Fig 4. Relation between brand of cigarette and change of brand
18.5. Relation between brand of cigarette and like about brand
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and like about brand.
H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and like about brand
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.03<0.05).
Since t value is lesser than 0.05 there is relationship between brand of cigarette and like of brand.
26. ~ 26 ~
Fig 5. Relation between brand of cigarette and like about brand
18.6. Relation between brand of cigarette and initiator (friends)
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and initiator.
H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and initiator.
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.09 >0.05).
Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and initiator.
Fig 6. Relation between brand of cigarette and initiator (friends)
27. ~ 27 ~
18.7. Relation between brand of cigarette and prefer new brand
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and prefer new brand.
H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and prefer new brand.
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.13 >0.05).
Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and prefer new brand.
Fig 7. Relation between brand of cigarette and prefer new brand
18.8. Relation between brand of cigarette and preference for a foreign brand
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and preference for a foreign brand.
H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and preference for a foreign brand.
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.34 >0.05).
Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and preference for a
foreign brand
28. ~ 28 ~
Fig 8. Relation between brand of cigarette and preference for a foreign brand
18.9. Relation between brand of cigarette and friends or alone (smoking)
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and friends or alone(smoking)
H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and friends or alone(smoking)
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.77 >0.05).
Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and friends
or alone (smoking)
Fig 9. Relation between brand of cigarette and friends or alone (smoking)
29. ~ 29 ~
18.10. Relation between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking.
H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.78>0.05).
Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is relationship between brand of cigarette and feeling after
smoking.
Fig 10. Relation between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking
18.11. Relation between brand of cigarette and advertisement
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and advertisement
H1: there is relationship between brand of cigarette and advertisement
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.68 >0.05).
Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and
advertisement.
30. ~ 30 ~
Fig 11. Relation between brand of cigarette and advertisement
18.12. Relation between brand of cigarette and variants
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and variants
H1: there is relationship between brand of cigarette and variants
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.16 >0.05).
Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and variants.
31. ~ 31 ~
18.13. Relation between brand of cigarette and medium
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and medium
H1: there is relationship between brand of cigarette and medium
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.61 >0.05).
Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is relationship between brand of cigarette and medium
Fig 13. Relation between brand of cigarette and medium
18.14. Relation between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking
H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking
H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking
By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.45 >0.05).
Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and feeling
after smoking.
32. ~ 32 ~
Fig 14. Relation between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking
45. ~ 45 ~
31. CONCLUSION
Thus by above research it has been proved that consumer behavior towards the brand of cigarette
is not influenced by many factors. But certain factors like inner psychological charcter,
ethnocentirism, persnality trait are very important influencer when prefering for certain brand of
cigarette. So if a particular brand of cigarette is able to satisfy all these facotrs then the product
will be definetly succeed in the market.
46. ~ 46 ~
32. REFERENCES
1.CigarettesIndia- ITC Ltd.is a Manufacturers& Supplierof CigarettesinIndia&Abroad.2013.
CigarettesIndia- ITCLtd. is a Manufacturers& Supplierof CigarettesinIndia&Abroad.[ONLINE]
Available at:http://www.itcportal.com/businesses/fmcg/cigarettes.aspx.[Accessed18 September2013]
2.Schiffman,L.(2010). ConsumerBehaviour(Tenthed.,Vol.,pp.2-50).Delhi:Pearson.
3.Schiffman,L.(2010). ConsumerBehaviour(Tenthed.,Vol.,pp.50-100).Delhi:Pearson.
4.Schiffman,L.(2010). ConsumerBehaviour(Tenthed.,Vol.,pp.100-150). Delhi:Pearson.
5.Schiffman,L.(2010). ConsumerBehaviour(Tenthed.,Vol.,pp.150-232). Delhi:Pearson.
6.BRAIN,S.(1997). SegmentingAndTargeting.THINKINGABOUTTHE CUSTOMER, (Special),2-30.
7.STEUART, H. (1989). THE STRATEGY OF CONSUMER MOTIVATION.JOURNALOFMARKETING,(Special),
666-674.
8.HAROLD, K.(1971). PERSONALITYANDCONSUMER BEHAVIOUR: A REVIEW. JOURNALOF MARKETING
RESEARCH,8(000004), 409.
9.Marlboro Cigarettes.2013. Marlboro Cigarettes.[ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.aboutmarlborocigarettes.blogspot.in.[Accessed18September2013].
10.Gold Flake Cigarettes,CheapGoldFlakeCigarettes.2013. GoldFlake Cigarettes,CheapGoldFlake
Cigarettes.[ONLINE] Available at:http://www.mycigstore.com/17-gold-flake.[Accessed18September
2013].
47. ~ 47 ~
33. APPENDIX
GENERALQUESTIONNAIREBASEDONCIGARETTEUSERS
Name: ____________________________
Date of birth: –/–/—-
Contact No.: _____________________
1. What brand of cigarette do you prefer?
a) Gold flake
b) Marlboro
2. In what quantity do you buy them?
a) 1-3
b) 3-5
48. ~ 48 ~
c) More than 5
d) Whole packs
3. How often do you purchase cigarettes?
a) Once a day
b) More than once in a day
c) Once a week
4. Since how long have you been smoking?
a) Last one month
b) 1-6months
c) 1year
d) More than one year
5. Have you changed your cigarette brand
a. No reason, just for a change
b. Suggestion from a friend
c. Others. Please specify ______________________
d. No, I have not change.
6. What are the things that you like about smoking? (You can tick more than one)
a) It helps in coping with stress
b) It helps to break up my working time
c) ItissomethingI do with my friends and colleagues
d) It helps me to curb hunger
e) I enjoyit
49. ~ 49 ~
f) It stops me from getting withdrawal symptoms
7. What initiated you to purchase cigarettes for the first time
a) Word of mouth
b) Friends
c) Peers
d) Celebrities/ movie
8. Do you try a variety of a brand when it new to the market ?
a) yes b)no
9. Do you try a foreign brand?
a) yes b)no
10. You interested in smoking a Marlboro/ gold flakes cigarette with friends or alone:
a) Friends b) Alone
11. After smoking Marlboro/ gold flakes cigarettes , what you feel?
a) Feel like independent b) Feel like winning/achieving c) Feel like to be
appreciated
12. In what point of view you see advertisements of Marlboro/ gold flakes cigarettes?
a) Product features b) social environmental concern
13. Do you like more variants in Marlboro/ gold flakes?
a) Yes b) no
14. How you will be impressed when promoting Marlboro/ gold flakes in ad, through visual image (video
tape) or written information (audio tape)?
a) Visual image b) written information
15. Which product do you think as good?
