Tiger Beer Study

15,958 views

Published on

Presentation for Consumer Behavior. (Year 3 Term 1)

Published in: Business, News & Politics
0 Comments
12 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
15,958
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
93
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
12
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tiger Beer Study

  1. 1. Consumer Behavior Group Project 2
  2. 2. Agenda The Underdog Investigation Findings Proposed Strategy
  3. 3. Tiger Beer Market Share 3% per year Source: Euromonitor International
  4. 4. Investigation Taste Test and Online Survey 21-50 years old
  5. 5. “greater discernment and opinions in their choice of beer” 21-30 years old
  6. 6. Taste Test Purpose perception because of taste? Perceived brand image? Tiger Heineken Carlsberg
  7. 7. Online Survey Purpose advertisement recall consumers’ purchase habits frequency and brand loyalty imported vs. local beer Tiger’s attributes in relation to its closest competitors.
  8. 8. Results (Taste Test) Tiger Heineken Carlsberg 17% 58% 25%
  9. 9. Results (Taste Test) Tiger supporters Distinct taste The rest Too bitter and bland
  10. 10. 76% beer drinkers 76%
  11. 11. Demographics 76% Beer Drinker Non Beer Drinker
  12. 12. 82% of sample size 65% male 35% female 76% 21-30 years old
  13. 13. Uncued Recall 54.5% Tiger Heineken Carlsberg Others
  14. 14. Ad Recall 64.1% Tiger Heineken Carlsberg Others
  15. 15. Most Consumed 15.4% Tiger Heineken Carlsberg Hoegaarden Others
  16. 16. “Imported beer is superior compared to local beer”
  17. 17. Paired-Sample T-Test imported vs. local beer null hypothesis local beer and imported beer equally significance level = 0 < 0.05 Reject null hypothesis
  18. 18. Paired-Sample T-Test 4.07 2.99 inferior superior Local Imported Beer 3 (neutral) Beer
  19. 19. Loyalty 29.9% Loyal Non-Loyal
  20. 20. Why Loyal? Taste Price Heineken = 34.5% Hoegaarden = 17.2% Brand Image Tiger = 13.8%
  21. 21. T-Test for Brand Image null hypothesis Consumers view Tiger’s brand image to be good significance level = 0.0245 < 0.05 Mean lies within rejection region Reject null hypothesis
  22. 22. T-Test for Brand Image 2.84 3.143.44 Bad Image Good Tiger Carlserg Heineken Image 3 (neutral)
  23. 23. T-Test for Packaging null hypothesis Consumers view Tiger’s packaging to be attractive significance level = 0.02 < 0.05 Mean lies within rejection region Reject null hypothesis
  24. 24. T-Test for Packaging 2.84 3.203.56 Bad Packaging Good Tiger Carlserg Heineken Packaging 3 (neutral)
  25. 25. Integrated Marketing Strategy
  26. 26. One World. One Beer.
  27. 27. One World. One Beer.
  28. 28. 1World1Beer.com
  29. 29. And that’s not all…
  30. 30. Q&A

×