MONA 98765-12871 CALL GIRLS IN LUDHIANA LUDHIANA CALL GIRL
consumer buying behavior.pptx
1. Chapter One Details
• Chapter One – Introduction
• The introduction chapter has been elaborated by adding
details about Fast Moving Consumer Goods Industry
(FMCG), the growth of FMCG in India till FY2021.
• The Indian FMCG market and its statistical details has also
been added to provide deep insights of the current
scenario in India.
• The details and importance of personal Hygiene care and
strategies adopted by various companies has bee added.
• The elements of socio-economic status have be figured out
by referring various research papers.
• The customer buying behavior concepts has also been
elaborated, reasons for major shifts in consumers
preferences due to COVID Pandemic has also been added.
2. Chapter Two Details
• Chapter Two – Review of Literature
• In the synopsis submitted there were 36 review of the
previous research studies has been conducted.
• After the new addition in the review of the literature; the
total of 49 review of the previous research studies has
been added in relation to research study.
• Most of the studies were conducted majorly on FMCG
sector no research focused particularly on personal hygiene
care of Fmcg sector.
• Most of the studies focused on demographic factors
towards FMCG sector rarely research studies focused on
socio-economic status.
3. Objectives of the Study
• To identify the factors influencing the buying
behaviour of consumer.
• To study the impact of identified factors on buying
behaviour of consumer.
• To study the impact of socio-economic factors on
buying behaviour of consumer.
• To examine the effect of demographic variables on
buying behaviour of consumer.
4. Research Methodology
• Research Design - Descriptive research design
• Data Collection The primary source using the standardized questionnaire was used to gather
the information from the respondents.
• Sample Design - The data using non-probability purposive sampling technique was gathered
from 750 respondents, 150 each from the five selected districts(Roopnagar, Mohali, Ludhiana,
Nawanshaher and Jalandhar) who were using the hygiene products and the eligibility for the
participation was that the respondent should be married and they should have at least one child.
• Statistical Tools Used –
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Independent Sample t test
5. Analysis & Interpretation
• Socio-Economic and demographic variables
considered in this research study
• Age
• Gender
• Employment Status
• Area of Residence
• Qualification
• Family Type
• Family Lifestyle
• Family Size
• Family Monthly Income
• No. of Earning Members
• Housing Status
6. Objective One: To identify the factors influencing the buying
behaviour of consumer.
To achieve this objective the researcher first
applied exploratory factor analysis and then
applied confirmatory factor analysis to confirm
the extracted factors.
7. Exploratory Factor Analysis
The appropriateness of exploratory factor analysis should be tested using
certain acceptable tests before it can be used to identify factors from a data set.
This can be accomplished through the use of the KMO (Kaiser-Meyer Olkin)
test.
• The KMO test value in this
analysis is 0.907, it indicates that
the sample size in the current
study is sufficient, and we are able
to analyze the factors
• The present study's findings
indicate that, when using
principal component analysis, the
correlation between the assertions
is adequately wide, as evidenced
by the fact that the correlation
matrix is less than 0.05
8. Table 4.3: Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
%
1 12.598 24.227 24.227 12.598 24.227 24.227 5.064 9.739 9.739
2 5.458 10.497 34.724 5.458 10.497 34.724 4.973 9.564 19.303
3 4.728 9.093 43.817 4.728 9.093 43.817 4.923 9.466 28.769
4 4.340 8.346 52.162 4.340 8.346 52.162 4.753 9.141 37.910
5 3.329 6.402 58.565 3.329 6.402 58.565 4.745 9.126 47.036
6 2.400 4.615 63.179 2.400 4.615 63.179 4.713 9.064 56.100
7 2.155 4.144 67.323 2.155 4.144 67.323 3.843 7.390 63.490
8 1.793 3.449 70.772 1.793 3.449 70.772 3.758 7.226 70.716
9 1.774 3.411 74.184 1.774 3.411 74.184 1.803 3.467 74.184
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
• A principal components analysis on 52 statements was carried out using "Varimax Rotation," a
substructure of orthogonal rotation, to extract the distinct factor.
• Consequently, nine components were derived from the 52 items as a result of this process.
• According to the findings, all these nine factors had eigenvalues greater than Kaiser's criteria 1 and
together explained 74.184 percent of the total variance.
9. Table 4.4: Rotated Component Matrix
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
In my opinion, As
Compared to local
shops, price charged
by the mall is always
high.
.863
In my opinion, low
priced products are
not always inferior
quality products.
.855
In my opinion,
Discounted products
are not always
outdated products
.850
I give more
preference to price
than brand name and
quality in my buying
decisions.
.850
In my opinion,
branded products are
not always high
priced products.
.838
If the prices of the
product increase I
may switch/change
my brand/product.
.834
Fragrance and color
of the products are
important factors in
my buying decision.
.816
I buy another product
in case of non-
availability of the
brand I use.
.786
My buying decisions
depend on variety of
size of products.
.785
Seasonal change does
not affect my buying
decision of the
products.
.770
I always prefer to buy
the product which
fulfills my
expectations.
.765
I believe that, It is
always difficult to
differentiate between
spurious products and
branded products.
.749
In my opinion, the
presence of spurious
(duplicate) products
are always higher in
market.
.743
I often buy for myself. .830
Nobody influences
me in my purchase
decisions.
.792
I am angry if I do not
get what I want.
.792
I usually manage to
carry my point with
my family members.
.769
Usually I am stubborn
to take over my will.
.759
Usually I decide what
brand to buy.
.728
I often beg to take my
will over.
.720
If I want something I
usually bargain with
my parents.
.789
Principally my father
decides what to buy.
.756
It is important to have
a harmonic relation
with my family.
.755
I accept what my
parents say.
.747
I often do shopping
together with my
family.
.742
I like to do shopping
with my parents
.709
Principally my mother
decides what to buy.
.685
10. Usually I do not allow
my child’s request.
.908
I take my child often
to do shopping.
.903
I often allow my
children’s request.
.895
Mostly I listen to my
child when we buy
something.
.890
Generally my children
decide about what to
buy.
.887
My child often
bargain with me.
.824
Availability of
reasonable offers
motivate me to avail
those offers.
.839
I believe that,
Company offers free
products scheme,
because to give tuff
competition to the
competitor.
.828
Free gifts always
attracts me the most
to buy the products.
.806
Advertisement always
creates interest for the
products which I
purchase.
.804
Brand ambassador
influences my buying
decisions.
.799
I believe that,
Different sales
promotion schemes
increases the sales of
the product.
.791
Advertisement always
enhances my product
knowledge.
.785
Overall, I am satisfied
about my purchase of
products/brand.
.872
I feel good about my
decision to buy
products/brand I use.
.832
I frequently purchase
products of this brand.
.800
I will positively
recommend the
product/brand to other
people.
.799
I intent to purchase
again the
product/brand in the
future.
.761
I purchase the product
of hygiene brand
because it is easily
available.
.885
I buythe products
from the nearest shop.
.885
I prefer to buythe
products from
Mall/Big
Bazar/EasyDay/More.
.842
In case of non-
availabilityof regular
products at nearby
shop, I always wait
for product to come.
.830
In case of non-
availabilityof regular
products at nearby
shop, I always look
for at another shop.
.783
I often ask my
spouse’s opinion
before buying
something.
.929
I often listen to my
spouse’s opinion.
.926
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
11. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the factors which were extracted through exploratory factor analysis. For that
purpose A first-order measurement model was performed and the validity and model fitness was checked for the measurement
model. The validity was established through convergent and discriminant validity.
Table4.6:ValidityoftheMeasurementModel
CR AVE Parent Product Price Place Promotion Children Self Spouse BB
Parent 0.908 0.585 0.765
Product 0.916 0.610 0.469 0.781
Price 0.980 0.893 0.602 0.595 0.945
Place 0.911 0.673 0.057 0.015 0.164 0.821
Promotion 0.915 0.608 0.073 0.094 0.125 0.213 0.780
Children 0.946 0.744 0.020 -0.074 0.039 0.062 0.018 0.862
Self 0.917 0.611 0.406 0.212 0.350 0.161 0.210 0.034 0.782
Spouse 0.855 0.747 0.008 0.029 -0.030 -0.098 -0.022 -0.036 -0.009 0.865
BB 0.934 0.738 0.444 0.256 0.338 0.167 0.080 0.047 0.569 0.003 0.859
The values of CR and AVE for nine
constructs used in the measurement model
indicate the appropriate convergent validity
in this analysis.
Discriminant validity indicates that there is
no association of the various constructions,
and a system is unique and distinctive by
catching phenomena not seen by other
constructs
12. Findings :
• As per the results of EFA , nine factors were derived from the 52 items.
• According to the findings, all these nine factors had eigenvalues greater than Kaiser's criteria 1 and
together explained 74.184 percent of the total variance.
• Six statements were found in the first factor followed by seven statements in the second factor, seven
statements in the third factor, seven statements in the fourth factor, six statements were found in the
fifth factor, seven statements in the sixth factor, five statements in the seventh factor, five statements
in the eighth factor and finally two statements in the ninth factor.
• It was determined that the first factor was titled "Price," the second component was titled "Product,"
the third factor was titled “Self”, the fourth factor was titled “Parents”, the fifth factor was titled
“Children”, the sixth factor was titled “Promotion”, the seventh factor was titled “Buying
Behaviour”, the eighth factor was titled “Place” and the ninth factor was titled “Spouse”.
• A first-order measurement model was performed and the validity and model fitness was checked for
the measurement model.
• To access the validity of the proposed model, researcher used convergent and discriminant validity.
• Results of the measurement model showed good convergent and discriminant validity.
• The results of the model fit indices showed that the measurement model has good model fitness.
13. Objective Two: To study the impact of identified
factors on buying behaviour of consumer.
14. Structural Equation Modeling
The researcher used structural equation modelling technique to test the
relationship between product, price, place, promotion, children, self,
spouse, parents and buying behaviour.
Figure 4.2: Structural Model
16. Findings
• Results of the analysis show that there is significant and positive impact of product on
consumer’s buying behaviour as the p-value for this relationship is less than 0.05 level of
significance.
• Results of the structural equation modeling show that there is significant and positive
impact of price on consumer’s buying behaviour as the p-value for this relationship is less
than 0.05 level of significance.
• Results of the SEM analysis show that there is significant and positive impact of place on
consumer’s buying behaviour as the p-value for this relationship is less than 0.05 level of
significance.
• The results of the structural equation modeling show that there is significant and positive
impact of promotion on consumer’s buying behaviour as the p-value for this relationship is
less than 0.05 level of significance.
• However, results of the analysis show that children factor has no impact on consumer’s
buying behaviour as the p-value for this relationship is higher than 0.05 level of
significance.
• Nevertheless, the results of the structural equation modeling show that there is significant
and positive impact of self-factor on consumer’s buying behaviour as the p-value for this
relationship is less than 0.05 level of significance.
• However, results of the analysis show that spouse factor has no impact on consumer’s
buying behaviour as the p-value for this relationship is higher than 0.05 level of
significance.
• Finally, results of the analysis show that there is significant and positive impact of parent
factor on consumer’s buying behaviour as the p-value for this relationship is less than 0.05
level of significance.
17. Objective Three: To study the impact of socio-economic
status on buying behaviour of consumer.
To achieve this objective, researcher used independent sample
t-test and One-Way ANOVA to examine the significance
difference in the mean value of consumer’s buying behaviour
towards hygiene products based on different socio-economic
factors such as educational qualification, type of family,
lifestyle of the family, family size, monthly income, earning
members in the family, and housing status.
18. One-Way ANOVA based on Qualification
Table 4.9: Descriptive Statistics
Buying Behaviour
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Graduate 245 3.4710 1.49481 .09550 3.2829 3.6591 1.00 5.00
Postgraduate 353 3.7354 1.27695 .06796 3.6017 3.8691 1.00 5.00
Doctoral 152 3.9039 1.26532 .10263 3.7012 4.1067 1.00 5.00
Total 750 3.6832 1.35753 .04957 3.5859 3.7805 1.00 5.00
Table 4.10: ANOVA
Buying Behaviour
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between
Groups
19.399 2 9.700 5.324 .005
Within Groups 1360.929 747 1.822
Total 1380.328 749
the analysis show that the respondents who were graduates their mean value was 3.47,
those who were post-graduates their mean value was 3.73, and those who were doctorate
their mean value was 3.90.
table 4.10 demonstrated that there is significant difference in the mean value of consumer buying
behaviour in terms of different educational background (F = 5.324; p <0.05). It means that the
consumer buying behaviour is consistent for all the respondents and educational qualification
does affect the consumer buying behaviour towards hygiene products.
19. One-Way ANOVA based on Monthly Income
Results of the table 4.27 show the descriptive analysis for consumer buying behaviour
based on family monthly income. The analysis show that the family who were earning
monthly income of upto Rs. 20,000 their mean value were 3.40, those who were
earning monthly income of Rs. 21,000 – 40,000 their mean value were 2.99, those who
were earning monthly income of Rs. 41,000 – 60,000 their mean value were 3.29,
those who were earning monthly income of Rs. 61,000 – 80,000 their mean value
were 3.96, those who were earning monthly income of Rs. 81000 – 100000 their mean
value were 4.10, those who were earning monthly income of Rs. 101000 – 120000
their mean value were 4.01, and those who were earning monthly income of Rs.
121000 & above their mean value were 3.77.
Table 4.27: Descriptive Statistics
Buying Behaviour
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Up to Rs.
20000
53 3.4000 1.52063 .20887 2.9809 3.8191 1.00 5.00
Rs. 21,000 –
40,000
85 2.9953 1.48098 .16064 2.6759 3.3147 1.00 5.00
Rs. 41,000 –
60,000
98 3.2816 1.50514 .15204 2.9799 3.5834 1.00 5.00
Rs. 61,000 –
80,000
102 3.9647 1.08725 .10765 3.7512 4.1783 1.00 5.00
Rs. 81000 –
100000
76 4.1026 1.16000 .13306 3.8376 4.3677 1.00 5.00
Rs. 101000 -
120000
89 4.0112 1.20656 .12789 3.7571 4.2654 1.00 5.00
Rs. 121000 &
above
247 3.7765 1.29763 .08257 3.6139 3.9391 1.00 5.00
Total 750 3.6832 1.35753 .04957 3.5859 3.7805 1.00 5.00
20. Table 4.28: ANOVA
ANOVA
Buying Behaviour
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 93.458 6 15.576 8.993 .000
Within Groups 1286.870 743 1.732
Total 1380.328 749
table 4.28 show that there is significant difference in the mean
value of consumer buying behaviour in terms of different family
monthly income (F = 8.993; p <0.05). It means that the consumer
buying behaviour is not consistent for all the respondents and
family monthly income does affect the consumer buying
behaviour towards hygiene products.
Similarly independent sample t-test and One-Way ANOVA was
performed for other variables and found significant difference in
the mean value of consumer buying behaviour in terms of Family
Income and Earnings Members in the family whereas found no
significant differences in the mean values of Family lifestyle,
Family Size, Type of Family and Housing Status.
21. Findings
• Results of the one-way ANOVA demonstrated that there is significant difference in the mean value of
consumer buying behaviour in terms of different educational background (F = 5.324; p <0.05).
• It means that the consumer buying behaviour is not consistent for all the respondents and educational
qualification does affect the consumer buying behaviour towards hygiene products.
• Results of the multiple comparison show that there is significant difference in the mean values of graduates
and postgraduates in term of their buying pattern.
• Further, there is significant difference in the mean values of graduates and doctorates in term of their buying
pattern.
• However, there is no significant difference in the mean values of post-graduates and doctorates in term of their
buying pattern for hygiene products.
• Results of the descriptive analysis show that the family who were earning monthly income of upto Rs. 20,000
their mean value were 3.40, and those who were earning monthly income of Rs. 21,000 – 40,000 their mean
value were 2.99.
• Results of the descriptive analysis show that the family who were earning monthly income of Rs. 41,000 –
60,000 their mean value were 3.29, those who were earning monthly income of Rs. 61,000 – 80,000 their mean
value were 3.96, and those who were earning monthly income of Rs. 81000 – 100000 their mean value were
4.10.
• Finally, the results of the descriptive analysis show that the family who were earning monthly income of Rs.
101000 – 120000 their mean value were 4.01, and those who were earning monthly income of Rs. 121000 &
above their mean value were 3.77.
• Results of one-way ANOVA show that there is significant difference in the mean value of consumer buying
behaviour in terms of different family monthly income (F = 8.993; p <0.05).
• It means that the consumer buying behaviour is not consistent for all the respondents and family monthly
income does affect the consumer buying behaviour towards hygiene products.
• Results of the multiple comparision show that there is significance difference in the mean value of individuals
who have upto Rs. 20000 monthly income and who falls under the income category of Rs. 61,000 – 80,000, Rs.
81000 – 100000 and Rs. 101000 – 120000.
22. • Further, there is significance difference in the mean value of individuals who have monthly income in between Rs. 21,000
– 40,000 and who falls under the income category of Rs. 61,000 – 80,000, Rs. 81000 – 100000, Rs. 101000 – 120000 and
Rs. 121000 & above.
• In addition to this, there is significance difference in the mean value of individuals who have monthly income in between
Rs. 41,000 – 60,000 and who falls under the income category of Rs. 61,000 – 80,000, Rs. 81000 – 100000, Rs. 101000 –
120000 and Rs. 121000 & above.
• Results of the one-way ANOVA analysis show that the respondents who were living with Indian tradition their mean value
were 3.662, those who were semi-modern their mean value was 3.680, and those who were modern their mean value was
3.714.
• Results of the analysis show that there is no significant difference in the mean value of consumer buying behaviour in
terms of different family lifestyle (F .038; p >0.05).
• Results of the descriptive analysis show that the respondents who family size was less than 3 members their mean value
was 3.704, those who family size was either 4 or 5 members their mean value was 3.687, and those who family size was
more than 5 members their mean value was 3.683.
• Results of one-way ANOVA analysis demonstrated that there is no significant difference in the mean value of consumer
buying behaviour in terms of different family members (F = .051; p >0.05).
• It means that the consumer buying behaviour is consistent for all the respondents and size of the family does not affect the
consumer buying behaviour towards hygiene products.
• Results of the descriptive analysis show that the respondents who were living nuclear their mean value were 3.706 and
those who were living in a joint family then their mean value were 3.640.
• Results of one-way ANOVA analysis show that there is no significant difference in the mean value of consumer buying
behaviour in terms of different family types (t = .638; p >0.05).
• Results of the descriptive analysis show that the respondents who has single earning member their mean value were
3.6618, those where number of earning members were two their mean value was 3.8162, and those where number of
earning members were more than two their mean value was 3.5135.
23. • Results of one-way ANOVA analysis show that there is significant difference in the mean value of consumer buying
behaviour in terms of number of earning members in a family (F = 3.674; p <0.05).
• It means that the consumer buying behaviour is not consistent for all the respondents and number of earning
members does affect the consumer buying behaviour towards hygiene products.
• Results of multiple comparison analysis show that there is no significant difference in the mean value of consumer
buying behaviour when there is either one or two number of earning members in a family as the p-value >0.05.
• Similarly, there is no significant difference in the mean value of consumer buying behaviour when there is either one
or more than two number of earning members in a family as the p-value >0.05.
• However, there is significant difference in the mean value of consumer buying behaviour when there is either two or
more two number of earning members in a family as the p-value <0.05.
• Results of the descriptive analysis show that the mean value of family who have two earning member is higher as
compare to family who have more than two earning member.
• Results of the descriptive analysis show that the respondents who were living in their own house their mean value
were 3.6787, those who were living in rented house their mean value was 3.7140, and those who were living in
Govt. / company residence their mean value was 3.6809.
• Results of one-way ANOVA show that there is no significant difference in the mean value of consumer buying
behaviour in terms of housing status (F = .027; p >0.05).
• It means that the consumer buying behaviour is consistent for all the respondents and housing status does not affect
the consumer buying behaviour towards hygiene products.
24. Objective Four: To examine the effect of
demographic variables on buying behaviour of
consumer.
25. To achieve this objective, researcher used independent sample t-test and One-Way ANOVA to
examine the significance difference in the mean value of consumer’s buying behaviour
towards hygiene products based on different demographic variables such as gender, age,
employment status and area of residence.
Table 4.35: Group Statistics
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Buying
Behaviour
Male 301 3.4631 1.40423 .08094
Female 449 3.8307 1.30625 .06165
table 4.35 show the descriptive analysis for consumer buying behaviour based on
gender. Results of the analysis show that the respondents who were male their mean
value was 3.6644, and those who were female their mean value was 3.6970.
26. table 4.36 show that there is no significant difference in the mean value of consumer
buying behaviour in terms of gender (t = -3.613; p <0.05). It means that the consumer
buying behaviour is not consistent for all the respondents and gender does affect the
consumer buying behaviour towards hygiene products.
27. Findings
.
• Results of the descriptive analysis show that the respondents whose age is between 18 to 24 years their mean value
was 3.6633, those who age is between 25 to 34 years their mean value was 3.6026, those who age is between 35 to 44
years their mean value was 3.8557, those who age is between 45 to 59 years their mean value was 3.7522 and those
who age is over 60 years their mean value was 4.0000.
• Results of one-way ANOVA analysis show that there is no significant difference in the mean value of consumer buying
behaviour in terms of different age groups (F = 1.110; p >0.05).
• Results of the descriptive analysis show that the respondents who were in service their mean value was 3.7000, those
who were in business their mean value was 3.6574, those who were homemaker their mean value was 3.6846 and
finally those who were student their mean value was 3.6832.
• Results of the one-way ANOVA analysis show that there is no significant difference in the mean value of consumer
buying behaviour in terms of different employment status (F = .039; p >0.05).
• It means that the consumer buying behaviour is consistent for all the respondents and employment status of the
respondent does not affect the consumer buying behaviour towards hygiene products.
• Results of the descriptive analysis show that the respondents who were living in rural area their mean value was
3.5825, those who were living in urban area their mean value was 3.7145, and those who were living in semi-urban
area their mean value was 3.6565.
• Results of one-way ANOVA analysis show that there is no significant difference in the mean value of consumer buying
behaviour in terms of different residential area (F = .382; p >0.05).
• It means that the consumer buying behaviour is consistent for all the respondents and area of residence does not affect
the consumer buying behaviour towards hygiene products.
28. Limitations and Future Scope
• The nature of the sample is the second limitation of this research. As the current study only
looked at the viewpoint of married and having children, we don't know if the findings of the
current study applies to other stakeholders, such as unmarried or married with no children, or
not. To overcome this limitation, the future researcher could gather data from different
stakeholders to have a comprehensive perspective on the research issue.
• The third drawback is the inability to generalize the findings. As previously stated, the data was
collected just from the users of hygiene products; hence the outcomes of this study cannot be
extended to other product categories. As a result, future researchers are encouraged to include
the perspectives of additional product categories from various industries.
29. Conclusion and Implications of the Study
• As a result of the intense competition, hygiene product manufacturers must improve the qualities of their products in terms
of quality, dependability, and brand recognition in order to compete effectively in the market. Additionally, makers of
personal hygiene products should pay greater attention to the content on their product package labels and incorporate
additional information that may be of benefit to consumers. This area of the label contains information such as usage
directions, composition, country of origin, expiration date, and quantity/size.
• It is recommended that enterprises in the hygiene product market always keep in mind that customers are price sensitive. In
order to avoid consumers switching brands, product costs should not be raised if there is no improvement in the benefits or
value of the products. Otherwise, consumers will switch brands. Pricing methods such as price reductions, free samples,
and bonus packs should be used from time to time to draw customers into stores and raise their likelihood of making a
purchase are recommended to increase sales.
• In addition, the study proposes a pricing penetration approach for new items in order to persuade customers to purchase.
Because people only purchase new products at fair rates, and because they are hesitant to try out new and unfamiliar
brands, dropping the price will persuade customers to try out the product. This strategy is particularly effective when
launching a new product. However, companies should exercise caution when pricing new products too cheap, as doing so
may cause the consumer to perceive the product as inferior or of low quality as a result of this association.
• According to the findings of the study, hygiene product companies should employ personal selling to promote their
products, particularly those that are in the decline stage of the product life cycle. We urge that businesses train their
salespeople in negotiation skills, as well as how to leverage their personal appearance and confidence, because these
factors influence consumers' purchasing decisions in retail establishments. These salespeople should also be instructed on
how to deal with consumers in terms of assisting them in finding the products they are looking for and, most importantly,
following through on their promises to clients, among other things.
30. • In addition, the study recommended that sales promotions be employed on a
regular basis to persuade people to purchase products from the retailers.
However, while price reductions are the most commonly utilised sales
promotion, retailers should also explore other options such as bonus packs,
buy one get one free deals, and gift coupons.
• It is recommended that hygiene product companies make an effort to
establish and sustain relationships with their customers through frequent
contact, as this increases customer satisfaction and loyalty. When people are
loyal to a brand, they prioritise that brand when making decisions about
which things to purchase at the store or online.
• To ensure that their products are widely accessible to clients, it is
recommended that hygiene product companies broaden their distribution
strategies to include more channels. It is recommended that hygiene product
supermarkets have their stores strategically distributed across the city, and
that their physical locations be in areas where customers can easily access
them, such as in housing estates or along important roadways.
• Furthermore, according to the findings of the study, retail supermarkets
should maintain extended operating hours to serve customers with varying
schedules, particularly those working night shifts. Stores should take care to
maintain a clean atmosphere both inside and outside the business, as well as
a spacious parking lot that is conveniently accessible from the store.
