10 Chapter 4

CHAPTER-4
Analysis and Interpretation:

Note: Expansion of symbols and Abbreviations in Analysis;
% - Percentage: * - Significant at 5% level: **Significant at 1% level

NS - Not Significant. S - Significant . CTV- Colour Television. df degrees of
freedom.
Table 1: Gender distribution of the respondents
No. Percent
Male 227 56.8
Female 173 43.2
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found in the study that 56.8% of the respondents were male and
43.2 were female.
Table 2: Education level of the respondents
No. Percent
10th 151 37.7
+2 150 37.5
Graduate 80 20.0
Post Graduate 19 4.8
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found in the study that 37.7% of the respondents are 10th
standard qualified, 37.5 % are plus 2 qualified, 20% are Graduates, and 4.8 % are Post
Graduates.
64
Chart 1: Gender of the
respondents
250
200
150
Male
100 Female
50
0
No. Percent
65
Chart 2: Education level of respondents
160
140
120
100 10th
80 2
Graduate
60
Post Graduate
40
20
0
No. Percent
66
Table 3: Family size of the respondents
No. Percent
Two members 67 16.8
3-5 members 278 69.5
More than 5 55 13.7
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found that for 69.5% of the respondents the family size is 3-5
members, for 16.8 % of the respondents the family size is 2 members and for 13.7% of
the respondents the family size is more than 5.
Table 4: Occupation of the respondents
No. Percent
Official 85 21.3
Professional 92 23.0
Business 149 37.2
Housewife 55 13.7
Others 19 4.8
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found that 37.2% of the respondents are in business, 23% are
professionals, 21.3% are officials, 13.7% are housewives, and 4.8% are of any other
category.
67
Chart 3: Family size of the respondents
300
250
200
Two members
150
3-5 members
More than 5
100
50
0
No. Percent
68
Chart 4: Occupation of respondents
160
140
120
100 Official
Professional
80
Business
60 Housewife
40 Others
20
0
No. Percent
69
Table 5: Monthly family income of the respondents
No. Percent
Less than Rs.5000 15 3.8
Rs.5001 - Rs.10000 148 37.0
Rs.10001 - Rs.15000 197 49.2
Rs.15001 - Rs.20000 40 10.0
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found that 49.2% of the respondents earn Rs.10001 Rs.15000
per month, 37% have a monthly family income of Rs.5001-Rs.10000, 10% of the
respondents have a monthly family income of Rs.15001 Rs.20000 and 3% of the
respondents earn a monthly income of less than Rs.5000.
Table 6: Family type of the respondents
No. Percent
Nuclear family 246 61.5
Joint family 154 38.5
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found that 61.5% of the respondents are living as a nuclear
family and 38.5% of the respondents are living as a joint family.
70
Chart 5: Monthly family income
200
180
160
140 Less than
Rs.5000
120
Rs.5001 -
100 Rs.10000
Rs.10001 -
80
Rs.15000
60 Rs.15001 -
Rs.20000
40
20
0
No. Percent
71
Chart 6: Family type of the
respondents
250
200
150
Nuclear family
100 Joint family
50
0
No. Percent
72
Table 7: Newspaper read by the respondents
No. Percent
Don't read 118 29.5
The Hindu 10 2.5
The Indian Express 16 4.0
Daily Thanthi 134 33.5
Dina Malar 110 27.5
Maalai Murasu 1 .3
Any other 11 2.7
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found that 33.5% of the respondents read the Daily Thanthi,
27.5% of the respondents read Dina Malar, 4% read the Indian express, 2.5% read the
Hindu, 2.7% read any other, .3% read the Maalai Murasu, and 29.5% do not read any
newspapers.
Table 8: Magazine read by the respondents
No. Percent
Don't read 176 44.0
Sportstar 4 1.0
India Today 27 6.8
Nakeeran 20 5.0
Anandha Vikatan 81 20.2
Kumudham 77 19.2
any other 15 3.8
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found that 20.2% read Anandha Vikatan, 19.2% read
Kumudham, 6.8% read India Today, 5% read Nakeeran, 3.8% read any other, 1% read
Sportstar and 44% of the respondents do not read any magazines.
73
Chart 7: Newspapers read by the
respondents
140 Don't read
120 The Hindu

100
The Indian
Express
80
Daily Thanthi
60
Dina Malar
40
Maalai Murasu
20
Any other
0
No. Percent
74
Chart 8: Magazines read by the
respondents
180
Don't read
160
Sportstar
140
120 India Today
100 Nakeeran
80
Anandha
60 Vikatan
Kumudham
40
20 any other
75
Table 9: Other specified consumer durables owned by the respondents-Multiple
Response
No. %
Colour TV 400 100.0
Washing Machine 183 45.8
Refrigerator 175 43.8
Micro Wave Oven 22 5.5
DVD Player 267 66.8
Vacuum Cleaner 13 3.3
Dish Washer 11 2.8
Inference:
From the above table it is found that 100% of the respondents have Colour television, 66.8%
have DVD player, 45.8% have Washing machine, 43.8% have refrigerator, 5.5 have micro-wave
oven, 3.3% have vacuum cleaner and 2.8% have dish washer.
Table 10: CTV brand owned by the respondents
No. Percent
LG 64 16.0
Samsung 91 22.7
Onida 123 30.8
Sansui 77 19.2
Videocon 45 11.3
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found that 30.8% of the respondents own Onida CTV, 22.7% own
Samsung CTV, 19.2% own Sansui CTV, 16% own LG CTV and 11.3% own Videocon CTV.
76
Chart 9: Other Durables owned by
respondents
400
350
300
Colour TV
250 Washing Machine
Refrigerator
200
Micro Wave Oven
150 DVD Player
Vacuum Cleaner
100 Dish Washer
50
0
No. %
77
Chart 10: Colour TV brands
owned by the respondents
140
120
100
LG
80 Samsung
Onida
60
Sansui
40 Videocon
20
0
No. Percent
78
Table11: Purchase of other durable of same brand by the respondent
No. Percent
Yes 231 57.8
No 169 42.2
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found that 57.8% of the respondents have purchased some
other product of the same brand of durable again and 42.2% of the respondents have not
purchased the same brand.
Table 12: Purchase of type of other durables of same brand by the respondent-
Multiple Response
No. %
Washing Machine 20 8.7
Refrigerator 77 33.3
DVD 156 67.7
Microwave oven 2 .9
Inference:
From the above table it is found that 67.7% of the respondents have DVD players of the
same brand, 33.3% have refrigerators of the same brand, 8.7% have washing machines of
the same brand and .9% of the respondents have micro-wave oven of the same brand.
79
Chart 11: Respondents owning
same brands
250
200
150
Yes
100 No
50
0
No. Percent
80
Chart 12: Purchase of other
durables of same brand
160
140
120 Washing
Machine
100
Refrigerator
80
DVD
60
40 Microwave
oven
20
0
No. %
81
Table 13: Influencer for the respondent in buying the CTV
No. Percent
Newspaper
70 17.5
advertisement
Television
109 27.3
advertisement
Friends 113 28.2
Spouse 72 18.0
Children 11 2.8
Magazines 14 3.4
Retailer 11 2.8
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found that 28.2% of the respondents are influenced by friends
when buying a CTV, 27.3% by television advertisements, 18% by spouse, 17.5 by
newspaper advertisements, 3.4% by magazines, 2.8% by the retailer and 2.8 by children.
82
Chart 13: Influence in purchase of CTV
Newspaper
advertisement
120 Television
advertisement
100
Friends
80
Spouse
60
40 Children
20 Magazines
0
No. Percent Retailer
83
Table 14: Respondents rating with regard to brand name is very important when
buying CTV
No. Percent
Strongly disagree 4 1.0
Disagree 23 5.7
Neutral 55 13.8
Agree 230 57.5
Strongly Agree 88 22.0
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is observed that 57.5% of the respondents agree that brand name
is very important when buying a CTV, 22% strongly agree, 13.8% are neutral, 5.7%
disagree and 1% strongly disagree.
Table 15: Respondents opinion on attachment to a brand prompts purchase
No. Percent

Disagree 64 16.0
Neutral 134 33.4
Agree 111 27.8
Total 400 100.0
84
Inference:
From the above it is found that 27.8% of the respondents agree that attachment to a brand
prompts purchase of a CTV, 19.8% strongly agree, 16% disagree, 3% strongly disagree
and 33.4% have remained neutral.
Table 16: Respondents who purchased the brand in spite of offers on other brands
No. Percent
Yes 359 89.7
No 41 10.3
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found that 89.7% of the respondents have said that they bought
the brand in spite of offers from other brands. 10.3% of the respondents said no.
Table 17: Respondents who would you buy this CTV brand once again
No. Percent
Yes 351 87.8
No 49 12.2
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found that 87.8% of the respondents said they would buy the
same brand of CTV again whereas 12.2% said no.
Table 18: Respondents who would recommend this brand to others
No. Percent
Yes 370 92.5
No 30 7.5
Total 400 100.0

85
Inference:
From the table it is fond that 92.5% of the respondents would recommend the CTV they
own to others whereas 7.5% said they would not.
Table 19: Loyalty factor score of the brand
No. Percent
3.00 8 2.0
4.00 10 2.5
5.00 87 21.8
6.00 118 29.5
7.00 105 26.3
8.00 50 12.4
9.00 14 3.5
10.00 8 2.0
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found in the study that 29.5% of the respondents have given a
score of 6 to loyalty factor, 26.3% have given a score of 7, 21.8% have given a score of 5,
12.4% have given a score of 8, 3.5% have given a score of 9, 2.5% have given a score of
4, and 2% have given a score of 3 and 10.
Table 20: Respondents opinion on awareness to the Company is important for
buying a CTV
No. Percent
Disagree 20 5.0
Neutral 60 15.0
Agree 249 62.2
Total 400 100.0

86
Inference:
From the table in the study it is found that 62.2% of the respondents agree that awareness
to the company is important for buying a CTV, 16.5% strongly agree, 5% disagree, 1.3%
strongly disagrees and 15% remained neutral.
Table 21: Respondents opinion on Knowledge of all CTV models of the brand is
important
No. Percent
Disagree 65 16.3
Neutral 134 33.4
Agree 138 34.5
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found in the study that 34.5% of the respondents agree that
knowledge of all CTV models of a brand is important, 16.3% disagree, 13.8% strongly
agree, 2 % strongly disagree and 33.4% remained neutral.
Table 22: Respondents source of awareness to the CTV
No. Percent
Newspapers 40 10.0
Magazines 67 16.8
Television 186 46.5
Friends 74 18.5
Relatives 30 7.4
Any other 3 .8
Total 400 100.0
87
Inference:
From the table in the study it is found that 46.5% of the respondents are aware of the
CTV through television, 18.5% through friends, 16.8% through magazines, 7.4% through
relatives, 10% through newspapers, and .8% through other sources.
Table 23: Respondents awareness of other durables made by the company
No. Percent
High 53 13.3
Moderate 178 44.5
Low 169 42.2
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table in the study it is found that there was a moderate response (44.5%)
towards other durables made by the same brand of CTV they owned, followed by low
(42.2%) and then high (13.3%).
Table 24: Awareness factor score of the brand
No. Percent
1.00 1 .3
3.00 5 1.3
4.00 17 4.3
5.00 96 24.0
6.00 147 36.8
7.00 74 18.5
8.00 43 10.5
9.00 16 4.0
10.00 1 .3
Total 400 100.0
88
Inference:
From the table in the study it is found that 36.8% of the respondents have given a score of
6 to the awareness factor of the brand, 24% have given a score of 5, 18.5% have given a
score of 7, 10.5% have given a score of 8, 4.3% have given a score of 4, 4% have given a
score of 9, 1.3% have given a score of 3, and .3% have given a score of 1 and 10.
Table 25: Celebrity advertisement is important for CTV products
No. Percent
Yes 364 91.0
No 36 9.0
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table in the study it is fond that 91% of the respondents have said that
celebrity supported advertisement is important for CTV products and 9% have said it is
not important.
Table 26: Factors that impressed the respondent when they first saw the
CTV
No. Percent
The look 55 13.7
Picture quality 149 37.3
Sound 172 43.0
Remote set 24 6.0
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table in the study it is found that 43% of the respondents have said that it
is the sound that impressed them the most when they first saw the CTV, 37.3% have said
picture quality, 13.7% have said the look of the CTV, 6% have said the remote set.
89
Table 27: Respondents opinion on Point of Purchase displays has influenced the
purchase
No. Percent
Strongly disagree 3 .8
Disagree 29 7.2
Neutral 148 37.0
Agree 176 44.0
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table in the study it is found that 44% agree that Point of Purchase
displays have influenced their purchase, 11% strongly agree, 7.2% disagree, .8% strongly
disagree and 37% have remained neutral.
Table 28: Respondents Association factor score of the brand
No. Percent
1.00 1 .3
3.00 4 1.0
4.00 13 3.3
5.00 89 22.2
6.00 97 24.2
7.00 113 28.2
8.00 67 16.7
9.00 13 3.3
10.00 3 .8
Total 400 100.0
90
Inference:
From the above table in the study it is found that 28.2% of the respondents have given a
score of 7 for the association factor score, 24.2% have given a score of 6, 22.2% have
given a score of 5, 16.7% have given a score of 8, 3.3% have given a score of 4 and 9,
1% have given a score of 3, .8% have given a score of 10, and .3% have given a score of
1.
Table 29: More models--Better Quality
No. Percent
Yes 234 58.5
No 166 41.5
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table in the study it is found that 58.5% of the respondents have stated
that more models in a brand the better the quality and 41.5% of the respondents have said
no.
Table 30: Respondents overall Brand satisfaction with regard to the pre-purchase
expectations
Pre-purchase expectation Yes No TOTAL

Factors
No. 334 66 400

Aesthetics/Looks
% 83.5 16.5 100.0
No. 286 114 400

Features
% 71.5 28.5 100.0
No. 314 86 400

Warranty
% 78.5 21.5 100.0
No. 302 98 400

Price
% 75.5 24.5 100.0
No. 310 90 400

Company response
% 77.5 22.5 100.0
91
Inference:
From the above table in the study it is found overall with regard to the pre purchase
expectations that 83.5% of the respondents are satisfied with the looks of the CTV
whereas 16.5% are not, 71.5% of are satisfied with the features of the CTV whereas
28.5% are not, 78.5% are satisfied with the warranty whereas 21.5% are not, 75.5% are
satisfied with the price of the CTV whereas 24.5% are not, and 77.5% of are satisfied
with the company response whereas 22.5% are not.
Table 31: Respondents specific Brand satisfaction with regard to the pre-purchase
expectations
CTV owned TOTAL
Pre-purchase expectation LG Samsung Onida Sansui Videocon

factors No. %
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Yes 53 82 74 81 106 86 68 88 33 73 334 83.5

Aesthetics/Looks
No 11 18 17 19 17 14 9 12 12 27 66 16.5
Yes 48 75 69 76 88 72 52 68 29 64 286 71.5

Features
No 16 25 22 14 35 28 25 32 16 36 114 28.5
Yes 48 75 71 78 100 81 63 82 32 71 314 78.5

Warranty
No 16 25 20 22 23 19 14 18 13 29 86 21.5
Yes 48 75 67 74 84 68 63 82 40 88 302 75.5

Price
No 16 25 24 26 39 32 14 18 5 12 98 24.5
Yes 52 81 68 75 97 79 52 68 41 91 310 77.5

Company response
No 12 19 23 25 26 21 25 32 4 9 90 22.5
Inference:
From the above table on satisfaction of pre-purchase expectation, it is found that for the
LG brand of CTV 82% of the respondents were satisfied with the aesthetics of the CTV,
75% were satisfied with the features, 75% with the warranty, 75% with the price and
81% with the company response.
It is found that for the Samsung brand of CTV 81% of the respondents were satisfied
with the aesthetics of the CTV, 76% were satisfied with the features, 78% with the
warranty, 74% with the price and 75% with the company response.
92
It is found that for the Onida brand of CTV 86% of the respondents were satisfied with
the aesthetics of the CTV, 72% were satisfied with the features, 81% with the warranty,
68% with the price and 79% with the company response.
It is found that for the Sansui brand of CTV 88% of the respondents were satisfied with
the aesthetics of the CTV, 68% were satisfied with the features, 82% with the warranty,
82% with the price and 68% with the company response.
It is found that for the Videocon brand of CTV 73% of the respondents were satisfied
with the aesthetics of the CTV, 64% were satisfied with the features, 71% with the
warranty, 88% with the price and 91% with the company response.
Table 32: No. of times repair problem has been faced in the CTV
No. Percent
None 104 26.0
1-2 times 191 47.8
3-5 times 72 18.0
6-8 times 29 7.2
more than 9 times 4 1.0
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table it is found that 47.8% of the respondents faced a repair problem 1-
2 Times, 18% faced a repair problem 3-5 times, 7.2% faced a repair problem 6-8 times,
1% of the respondents faced a repair problem more than 9 times and 26% have not faced
any repair problem.
93
Table 33: Service response time of the company
No. Percent
N.A 104 26.0
< 6 hours 128 32.0
7-9 hours 56 14.0
10-12 hours 49 12.3
> 13 hours 63 15.7
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the table in the study it is found that 32% of the respondents have received a
service response in < 6 hours, 15.7% in >13 hours, 14% in 7-9 hours, 12.3% in 10-12
hours and 26% did not have any service problem.
94
Table 34: Respondents Reputation factor score of the brand
No. Percent
1.00 1 .3
3.00 3 .8
4.00 13 3.3
5.00 97 24.3
6.00 124 31.0
7.00 94 23.4
8.00 47 11.8
9.00 18 4.3
10.00 3 .8
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table in the study it is found that 31% of the respondents have given a
score of 6 for the reputation factor, 24.3% have given a score of 5, 23.4% have given a
score of 7, 11.8% have given a score of 8, 4.3% have given a score of 9, 3.3% have given
a score of 4, .8% have given score of 3 and 10 and .35 have given a score of 1.
95
Table 35: Advertisement Effectiveness score of the brand
No. Percent
1.00 1 .3
2.00 1 .3
3.00 3 .7
4.00 17 4.3
5.00 67 16.7
6.00 100 25.0
7.00 123 30.7
8.00 56 14.0
9.00 28 7.0
10.00 4 1.0
Total 400 100.0
Inference:
From the above table in the study it is found that 30.7% of the respondents have given a
score of 7, 25% have given a score of 6, 16.7% have given a score of 5, 14% have given a
score of 8,
7% have given a score of 9, 4.3% have given a score of 4, 1% have given a score of 10,
.7% have given a score of 3. .3% has given a score of 1 and 2.
96
Table 36: Specific Brand Equity scores as related to the advertisement effectiveness
of the brand
Advertisement Effectiveness of the brand

LG SAMSUNG ONIDA SANSUI VIDEOCON
Loyalty factor of the brand 0.386** 0.192 0.175 0.181 0.164
Awareness factor of the brand 0.372** 0.440** 0.246** 0.353** 0.615**
Association factor of the brand 0.571** 0.550** 0.264** 0.529** 0.549**
Reputation factor of the brand 0.239 0.412** 0.211* 0.118 0.316*
Overall Brand Equity Score 0.530** 0.521** 0.313** 0.422** 0.553**
Inference:
From the above table in the study it is found that the overall brand equity score for
LG is .530, for Samsung it is .521, for Onida it is .313, for Sansui .422, and for Videocon
it is .553.
For the Loyalty factor the highest score is for the brand LG (.386) followed by
Samsung (.192), followed by Sansui (.181), followed by Onida (.175) and followed by
Videocon (.164).
For the Awareness factor the highest score is for the brand Videocon (.615), followed by
Samsung (.440), followed by LG (.372), followed by Sansui (.353), and followed by
Onida (.246).
For the Association factor of the brand the highest score is for the brand LG (.571),
followed by Samsung (.550), followed by Videocon (.549), followed by Sansui (.529),
and followed by Onida (.264).
For the Reputation of the brand the highest score is for the brand Samsung (.412),
followed by Videocon (.316), followed by LG (.239), followed by Onida (.211) and
followed by Sansui (.118)
97
Table 37: Type of education to the average loyalty factor scores
Loyalty factor of the brand

Mean S.D No.
10th 6.22 1.34 151
+2 6.43 1.40 150
Education
Graduate 6.43 1.16 80
Post Graduate 6.89 1.24 19
TOTAL 6.37 1.33 400
ANOVA for Loyalty factor of the brand
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 9.419 3 3.140 1.792 NS
Within Groups 693.821 396 1.752
Total 703.240 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of education groups in

the average loyalty factor scores.
Result: One way ANOVA was applied to find whether there is significant difference
among the type of education groups in the average loyalty factor scores. The ANOVA
result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 1.792, which is lower than the table value
of 2.627 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is lower than the table
value it is inferred that there is no significant difference among the type of education
groups in the average loyalty factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
98
Table 38: Type of family size to the average loyalty factor scores

Mean S.D No.
Two members 6.75 1.30 67
Family size 3-5 members 6.26 1.35 278
More than 5 6.45 1.17 55
TOTAL 6.37 1.33 400

Between Groups 13.086 2 6.543 3.764 S
Within Groups 690.154 397 1.738
Total 703.240 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of family size groups
in the average loyalty factor scores.
among the type of family size groups in the average loyalty factor scores. The ANOVA
result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 3.764, which is higher than the table
value of 3.018 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is higher than the
table value it is inferred that there is significant difference among the type of family size
groups in the average loyalty factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.
99
Table 39: Type of occupation to the average loyalty factor scores

Mean S.D No.
Official 6.45 1.35 85
Professional 6.52 1.31 92
Occupation Business 6.29 1.40 149
Housewife 6.51 1.10 55
Others 5.53 1.07 19
TOTAL 6.37 1.33 400

Between Groups 18.199 4 4.550 2.623 S
Within Groups 685.041 395 1.734
Total 703.240 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of occupation groups

in the average loyalty factor scores.
among the occupation groups in the average loyalty factor scores. The ANOVA result
shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 2.623, which is higher than the table value of
2.394 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is higher than the table value
it is inferred that there is significant difference among the occupation groups in the
average loyalty factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.
100
Table 40: Type of monthly family income to the average loyalty factor scores.

Mean S.D No.
Less than Rs.5000 6.33 1.40 15
Rs.5001 - Rs.10000 6.28 1.40 148
Monthly family income
Rs.10001 - Rs.15000 6.47 1.23 197
Rs.15001 - Rs.20000 6.25 1.51 40
TOTAL 6.37 1.33 400

Between Groups 3.729 3 1.243 .704 NS
Within Groups 699.511 396 1.766
Total 703.240 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of income groups in

the average loyalty factor scores.
among the type of income groups in the average loyalty factor scores. The ANOVA
result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is .704, which is lower than the table value
value it is inferred that there is no significant difference among the type of income groups
in the average loyalty factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
101
Table 41: Type of CTV owned to the average loyalty factor scores.
Mean S.D No.
LG 6.39 1.23 64
Samsung 6.35 1.49 91
CTV owned Onida 6.47 1.25 123
Sansui 6.30 1.27 77
Videocon 6.22 1.44 45
TOTAL 6.37 1.33 400
Between Groups 2.700 4 .675 .381 NS
Within Groups 700.540 395 1.774
Total 703.240 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of CTV owned in the
average loyalty factor scores.
among the type CTV owned groups in the average loyalty factor scores. The ANOVA
value it is inferred that there is no significant difference among the type of CTV owned
in the average loyalty factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
102
Table 42: Type of education to the average awareness to the company scores.
Awareness to the Company is important for buying a CTV
Mean S.D No.
10th 3.85 .82 151
+2 3.91 .77 150

Education
Graduate 3.90 .76 80
Post Graduate 3.74 .73 19
TOTAL 3.88 .78 400
ANOVA for Awareness to the Company is important for buying a CTV
Between Groups .743 3 .248 .402 NS
Within Groups 244.254 396 .617
Total 244.997 399

the average awareness factor scores.
among the type of education groups in the average awareness factor scores. The ANOVA
value it is inferred that there is no significant difference among the type of education
groups in the average awareness factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
103
Table 43: Type of family size to the average awareness to the company scores.
Mean S.D No.
Two members 3.81 .86 67
Family size 3-5 members 3.88 .79 278
More than 5 3.95 .68 55
TOTAL 3.88 .78 400
Total 244.998 399
in the average awareness factor scores.
among the type of family size groups in the average awareness factor scores. The
ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is .488, which is lower than the
table value of 3.018 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is lower than
the table value it is inferred that there is no significant difference among the type of
family size groups in the average awareness factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is
accepted.
104
Table 44: Type of occupation to the average awareness to the company scores
Mean S.D No.
Official 3.78 .89 85
Professional 4.05 .75 92
Occupation Business 3.90 .69 149
Housewife 3.73 .85 55
Others 3.74 .87 19
TOTAL 3.88 .78 400
Total 244.997 399

in the average awareness factor scores.
among the type of occupation groups in the average awareness factor scores. The
ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 2.240, which is lower than the
occupation in the average awareness factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
105
Table 45: Type of family income to the average awareness to the company scores.
Awareness to the Company is important for buying a

CTV
Mean S.D No.
Less than Rs.5000 3.80 .94 15

Monthly Rs.5001 - Rs.10000 3.86 .84 148
family
income Rs.10001 - Rs.15000 3.87 .76 197
Rs.15001 - Rs.20000 3.98 .66 40
TOTAL 3.88 .78 400
Total 244.997 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of family income

groups in the average awareness factor scores.
among the type of family income groups in the average awareness factor scores. The
family income groups in the average awareness factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is
accepted.
106
Table 46: Type of CTV owned to the average awareness to the company scores
Mean S.D No.
LG 3.80 .86 64
Samsung 3.92 .76 91
CTV owned Onida 3.86 .81 123
Sansui 3.79 .78 77
Videocon 4.09 .60 45
TOTAL 3.88 .78 400
Between Groups 3.206 4 .802 1.310 NS
Total 244.998 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type CTV owned groups in
the average awareness factor scores.
among the type of CTV owned groups in the average awareness factor scores. The
the table value it is inferred that there is no significant difference among the type of CTV
owned groups in the average awareness factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
107
Table 47: Type of education to the average Knowledge of CTV models scores.
Knowledge of all CTV models of the brand is important
Mean S.D No.
10th 3.34 1.09 151
+2 3.43 .89 150

Education
Graduate 3.51 .89 80
TOTAL 3.42 .98 400
ANOVA for Knowledge of all CTV models of the brand is important
Between Groups 1.945 3 .648 .670 Ns
Total 385.278 399

the average knowledge of CTV models factor scores.
among the type of education groups in the average knowledge of CTV models factor
scores. The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is .670, which is lower
than the table value of 2.627 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is
lower than the table value it is inferred that there is no significant difference among the
type of education groups in the average knowledge of CTV models factor scores. Hence
the Hypothesis is accepted.
108
Table 48: Type of family size to the average knowledge of CTV models.
Mean S.D No.
Two members 3.52 .97 67
Family size 3-5 members 3.39 .98 278
More than 5 3.44 1.00 55
TOTAL 3.42 .98 400
Total 385.277 399
in the average knowledge of CTV models factor scores.
among the type of family size groups in the average knowledge of CTV models factor
scores. The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is .512, which is lower
type family size groups in the average knowledge of CTV models factor scores. Hence
109
Table 49: Type of occupation to the average knowledge of CTV models scores.
Mean S.D No.
Official 3.52 1.05 85
Professional 3.38 .97 92
Occupation Business 3.56 .83 149
Others 3.58 1.26 19
TOTAL 3.42 .98 400
Between Groups 19.627 4 4.907 5.301 S
Total 385.278 399

among the type of occupation groups in the average awareness factor scores. The
ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 5.301, which is higher than the
table value of 3.367 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is higher than
the table value it is inferred that there is significant difference among the type of
occupation groups in the average knowledge of CTV models factor scores. Hence the
Hypothesis is rejected.
110
Table 50: Type of monthly family income to the average knowledge of CTV models
scores
Knowledge of all CTV models of the brand is

important
Mean S.D No.
Less than Rs.5000 3.07 .80 15
Rs.5001 - Rs.10000 3.52 1.03 148

Monthly family Rs.10001 -
income 3.33 .97 197
Rs.15000
Rs.15001 -
3.60 .87 40
Rs.20000
TOTAL 3.42 .98 400
Total 385.278 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of monthly family

income groups in the average knowledge of CTV models factor scores.
among the type of monthly family income groups in the average knowledge of CTV
models factor scores. The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 2.177,
which is lower than the table value of 2.627 at 5% level of significance. Since the
calculated value is lower than the table value it is inferred that there is no significant
difference among the type of monthly family income groups in the average knowledge of
CTV models factor scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
111
Table 51: Type of CTV owned to the average knowledge of CTV models scores.
Mean S.D No.
LG 3.50 .99 64
Samsung 3.43 .94 91
Sansui 3.43 .98 77
TOTAL 3.42 .98 400
Total 385.277 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of CTV owned groups
among the type of CTV owned groups in the average awareness factor scores. The
owned groups in the average knowledge of CTV models factor scores. Hence the
Hypothesis is accepted.
112
Table 52: Type of education to the average awareness factor of the brand
Awareness factor of the brand
Mean S.D No.
10th 6.08 1.22 151
+2 6.07 1.29 150

Education
Graduate 6.38 1.22 80
TOTAL 6.16 1.26 400
ANOVA for Awareness factor of the brand
Within Groups 621.867 396 1.570
Total 630.390 399

the average awareness factor of the brand scores.
among the type of education groups in the average awareness factor of the brand scores.
The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 1.809, which is lower than
the table value of 2.627 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is lower
than the table value it is inferred that there is no significant difference among the type of
education groups in the average awareness factor of the brand scores. Hence the
113
Table 53: Type of family size to the average awareness factor of the brand
Mean S.D No.
More than 5 6.29 1.44 55
TOTAL 6.16 1.26 400
Between Groups 21.430 2 10.715 6.986 S
Within Groups 608.960 397 1.534
Total 630.390 399
in the average awareness factor of the brand scores.
among the type of family size groups in the average awareness factor of the brand scores.
The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 6.986, which is higher than
the table value of 4.659 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is higher
than the table value it is inferred that there is significant difference among the type of
family size in the average awareness factor of the brand scores. Hence the Hypothesis is
rejected.
114
Table 54: Type of occupation group to the average awareness factor of the brand.
Mean S.D No.
Official 6.13 1.13 85
Others 5.37 1.26 19
TOTAL 6.16 1.26 400
Between Groups 17.050 4 4.263 2.745 S
Within Groups 613.340 395 1.553
Total 630.390 399

among the type of occupation groups in the average awareness factor of brand scores.
occupation groups in the average awareness factor of the brand scores. Hence the
115
Table 55: Type of monthly family income to the average awareness factor of the
brand.
Mean S.D No.
Less than Rs.5000 6.60 1.40 15
Rs.5001 - Rs.10000 6.06 1.29 148

Rs.10001 Rs.15000 6.17 1.21 197
Rs.15001 Rs.20000 6.25 1.30 40
TOTAL 6.16 1.26 400
Within Groups 625.685 396 1.580
Total 630.390 399

income groups in the average awareness factor of brand scores.
among the type of monthly family income groups in the average awareness factor of
brand scores. The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is .993, which is
lower than the table value of 2.627 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value
is lower than the table value it is inferred that there is no significant difference among the
type of monthly family income groups in the average awareness factor for brand scores.
Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
116
Table 56: Type of CTV owned to the average awareness factor of the brand.
Mean S.D No.
LG 6.30 1.24 64
Samsung 6.11 1.41 91
Sansui 6.31 1.36 77
Videocon 5.87 1.06 45
TOTAL 6.16 1.26 400
Within Groups 623.151 395 1.578
Total 630.390 399
among the type of CTV owned groups in the average awareness factor of the brand
scores. The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 1.147, which is
type of CTV owned groups in the average awareness factor of brand scores. Hence the
117
Table 57: Type of CTV owned to the average point of purchase display influence on
purchase
Point of Purchase displays has influenced you to buy
Mean S.D No.
LG 3.69 .77 64
Samsung 3.67 .75 91
CTV owned Onida 3.51 .87 123
Sansui 3.44 .80 77
TOTAL 3.57 .81 400
ANOVA for Point of Purchase displays has influenced you to buy
Between Groups 3.519 4 .880 1.345 NS
Total 261.897 399
in the average point of purchase display influence factor scores.
among the type of CTV owned groups in the average point of purchase display influence
factor of the brand scores. The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is
1.345, which is lower than the table value of 2.394 at 5% level of significance. Since the
difference among the type of CTV owned groups in the average point of purchase display
influence factor of brand scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
118
Table 58: Type of education group to the average association factor scores.
Association factor of the brand
Mean S.D No.
10th 6.42 1.24 151
+2 6.31 1.43 150

Education
Graduate 6.41 1.09 80
TOTAL 6.42 1.30 400
ANOVA for Association factor of the brand
Within Groups 667.061 396 1.684
Total 679.110 399

the average association factor of brand scores.
among the type of education groups in the average association factor of brand scores. The
education type groups in the average association factor of brand factor scores. Hence the
119
Table 59: Type of family size to the average association factor of the brand scores.
Mean S.D No.
More than 5 6.13 1.33 55
TOTAL 6.42 1.30 400
Between Groups 23.219 2 11.610 7.027 **
Within Groups 655.891 397 1.652
Total 679.110 399
in the average association factor of brand scores.
among the type of family size groups in the average association factor of brand scores.
family size groups in the average association factor of brand factor scores. Hence the
120
Table 60: Type of occupation groups to the average association factor of the brand
Mean S.D No.
Official 6.69 1.38 85
Others 6.21 1.23 19
TOTAL 6.42 1.30 400
Between Groups 13.527 4 3.382 2.007 Ns
Within Groups 665.583 395 1.685
Total 679.110 399

in the average association factor of brand scores.
among the type of occupation groups in the average association factor of brand scores.
occupation groups in the average association factor of brand factor scores. Hence the
121
Table 61: Type of monthly family income group to the association factor of the brand
Mean S.D No.
Less than Rs.5000 6.73 1.62 15
Rs.5001 - Rs.10000 6.45 1.35 148

Rs.10001 - Rs.15000 6.44 1.26 197
Rs.15001 - Rs.20000 6.08 1.21 40
TOTAL 6.42 1.30 400
Within Groups 672.733 396 1.699
Total 679.110 399

income groups in the average association factor of brand scores.
among the type monthly family income groups in the average association factor of brand
scores. The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 1.251, which is
type of monthly family income groups in the average association factor of brand factor
scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
122
Table 62: Type of CTV owned to the average association factor of the brand
Mean S.D No.
LG 6.42 1.15 64
Samsung 6.33 1.39 91
Sansui 6.53 1.22 77
Videocon 6.02 1.37 45
TOTAL 6.42 1.30 400
Within Groups 668.370 395 1.692
Total 679.110 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type CTV owned groups in
the average association factor of brand scores.
among the type of CTV owned groups in the average association factor of brand scores.
CTV owned groups in the average association factor of brand factor scores. Hence the
123
Table 63: Type of education to the average reputation factor of brand scores
Reputation factor of the brand
Mean S.D No.
10th 6.38 1.29 151
+2 6.11 1.31 150

Education
Graduate 6.43 1.29 80
Post Graduate 6.47 .90 19
TOTAL 6.29 1.28 400
ANOVA for Reputation factor of the brand
Within Groups 650.302 396 1.642
Total 658.777 399

the average reputation factor of brand scores.
among the type of education groups in the average reputation factor of brand scores. The
education type groups in the average reputation factor of brand scores. Hence the
124
Table 64: Type of family size to the average reputation factor of brand scores
Mean S.D No.
More than 5 6.40 1.50 55
TOTAL 6.29 1.28 400
Between Groups 12.829 2 6.415 3.942 S
Within Groups 645.948 397 1.627
Total 658.778 399
in the average reputation factor of brand scores.
among the type of family size groups in the average reputation factor of brand scores.
family size groups in the average reputation factor of brand scores. Hence the Hypothesis
is rejected.
125
Table 65: Type of occupation to the average reputation factor of the brand.
Mean S.D No.
Official 6.42 1.25 85
Others 6.32 .82 19
TOTAL 6.29 1.28 400
Between Groups 5.829 4 1.457 .882 Ns
Within Groups 652.949 395 1.653
Total 658.777 399

among the type of occupation groups in the average reputation factor of brand scores.
The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is .882, which is lower than
occupation groups in the average reputation factor of brand scores. Hence the Hypothesis
is accepted.
126
Table 66: Type of monthly family income groups to the reputation factor of the brand
Mean S.D No.
Less than Rs.5000 6.53 1.68 15
Rs.5001 - Rs.10000 6.31 1.21 148

Rs.10001 - Rs.15000 6.27 1.24 197
Rs.15001 - Rs.20000 6.25 1.60 40
TOTAL 6.29 1.28 400
Between Groups 1.100 3 .367 .221 NS
Within Groups 657.677 396 1.661
Total 658.777 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type family income groups
among the type of family income groups in the average reputation factor of brand scores.
family income groups in the average reputation factor of brand scores. Hence the
127
Table 67: Type of CTV owned to the average reputation factor of the brand scores.
Mean S.D No.
LG 6.31 1.33 64
Samsung 6.15 1.41 91
Sansui 6.40 1.18 77
Videocon 6.20 1.41 45
TOTAL 6.29 1.28 400
Within Groups 655.283 395 1.659
Total 658.777 399
among the type of CTV owned groups in the average reputation factor of brand scores.
CTV owned groups in the average reputation factor of brand scores. Hence the
128
Table 68: Type of education to the average advertisement effectiveness of brand
scores
Mean S.D No.
10th 6.51 1.31 151
+2 6.37 1.52 150

Education
Graduate 6.75 1.14 80
TOTAL 6.54 1.37 400
ANOVA for Advertisement Effectiveness of the brand
Between Groups 18.107 3 6.036 3.269 S
Within Groups 731.253 396 1.847
Total 749.360 399

the average advertisement effectiveness factor of brand scores.
among the type of education groups in the average advertisement effectiveness factor of
brand scores. The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 3.269, which
is higher than the table value of 2.627 at 1% level of significance. Since the calculated
value is higher than the table value it is inferred that there is significant difference among
the type of education type groups in the average advertisement effectiveness factor of
brand scores. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.
129
Table 69: Type of family size groups to the average advertisement effectiveness of
brands
Mean S.D No.
More than 5 6.45 1.46 55
TOTAL 6.54 1.37 400
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Within Groups 740.005 397 1.864
Total 749.360 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the family size groups in the
average advertisement effectiveness factor of brand scores.
among the type of family size groups in the average advertisement effectiveness factor of
is lower than the table value of 3.018 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated
value is lower than the table value it is inferred that there is no significant difference
among the type of family size groups in the average advertisement effectiveness factor of
brand scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
130
Table 70: Type of occupation to the average advertisement effectiveness of brand
Mean S.D No.
Official 6.79 1.35 85
Others 6.68 .95 19
TOTAL 6.54 1.37 400
Within Groups 734.096 395 1.858
Total 749.360 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type occupation groups in

the average advertisement effectiveness factor of brand scores.
among the type of occupation groups in the average advertisement effectiveness factor of
is lower than the table value of 2.394 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated
value is lower than the table value it is inferred that there is no significant difference
among the type of occupation groups in the average advertisement effectiveness factor of
brand scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
131
Table 71: Type of monthly family income groups to the average advertisement
effectiveness of the brand scores.
Mean S.D No.
Less than Rs.5000 6.07 1.22 15
Rs.5001 - Rs.10000 6.57 1.46 148

Rs.10001 - Rs.15000 6.57 1.27 197
Rs.15001 - Rs.20000 6.45 1.55 40
TOTAL 6.54 1.37 400
Within Groups 745.340 396 1.882
Total 749.360 399

income groups in the average advertisement effectiveness factor of brand scores.
among the type of monthly family income groups in the average advertisement
effectiveness factor of brand scores. The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-
value ratio is .712, which is lower than the table value of 2.627 at 5% level of
significance. Since the calculated value is lower than the table value it is inferred that
there is no significant difference among the type of monthly family income groups in the
average advertisement effectiveness factor of brand scores. Hence the Hypothesis is
accepted.
132
Table 72: Type of CTV owned to the average advertisement effectiveness of brand
Scores.
Mean S.D No.
LG 6.47 1.48 64
Samsung 6.34 1.55 91
Sansui 6.68 1.23 77
Videocon 6.20 1.44 45
TOTAL 6.54 1.37 400
Within Groups 732.623 395 1.855
Total 749.360 399
in the average advertisement effectiveness factor of brand scores.
among the type of CTV owned groups in the average advertisement effectiveness factor
of brand scores. The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 2.256,
which is lower than the table value of 2.394 at 5% level of significance. Since the
difference among the type of CTV owned groups in the average advertisement
effectiveness factor of brand scores. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
133
Table 73: Type of education to the overall brand equity score
Overall Brand Equity Score
Mean S.D No.
10th 25.11 3.90 151
+2 24.91 3.79 150

Education
Graduate 25.64 3.33 80
TOTAL 25.23 3.76 400
ANOVA for Overall Brand Equity Score
Within Groups 5557.613 396 14.034
Total 5651.378 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type education groups in

the average overall brand equity score.
among the type of education groups in the average overall brand equity score. The
education groups in the average overall brand equity score. Hence the Hypothesis is
accepted.
134
Table 74: Type of family size to the average overall brand equity score
Mean S.D No.
More than 5 25.27 3.80 55
TOTAL 25.23 3.76 400
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 248.707 2 124.354 9.138 S
Within Groups 5402.670 397 13.609
Total 5651.377 399
in the average overall brand equity score.
among the type of family size groups in the average overall brand equity score. The
the table value it is inferred that there is significant difference among the type of family
size groups in the average overall brand equity score. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.
135
Table 75: Type of occupation groups to the average overall brand equity score
Mean S.D No.
Official 25.69 3.27 85
Housewife 26.00 4.06 55
Others 23.42 2.76 19
TOTAL 25.23 3.76 400
Between Groups 134.441 4 33.610 2.406 S
Within Groups 5516.936 395 13.967
Total 5651.378 399

in the average overall brand equity score.
among the type of occupation groups in the average overall brand equity score. The
the table value it is inferred that there is significant difference among the type of
occupation groups in the average overall brand equity score. Hence the Hypothesis is
rejected.
136
Table 76: Type of monthly family income to the average overall brand equity score
Mean S.D No.
Less than Rs.5000 26.20 3.84 15
Rs.5001 - Rs.10000 25.09 3.85 148

Rs.10001 - Rs.15000 25.35 3.70 197
Rs.15001 - Rs.20000 24.83 3.77 40
TOTAL 25.23 3.76 400
Within Groups 5625.379 396 14.206
Total 5651.378 399

income groups in the average overall brand equity score.
among the type of monthly family income groups in the average overall brand equity
score. The ANOVA result shows that the calculated F-value ratio is 0.610, which is lower
type of monthly family income groups in the average overall brand equity score. Hence
137
Table 77: Type of CTV owned to the average overall brand equity score
Mean S.D No.
LG 25.42 3.61 64
Samsung 24.95 4.32 91
Sansui 25.55 3.54 77
Videocon 24.31 3.77 45
TOTAL 25.23 3.76 400
Within Groups 5587.802 395 14.146
Total 5651.378 399
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the type of CTV groups in the
average overall brand equity score.
among the type of CTV owned groups in the average overall brand equity score. The
owned groups in the average overall brand equity score. Hence the Hypothesis is
accepted.
138
Table 78: Difference between gender and average loyalty factor of the brand
Mean S.D No.
Male 6.38 1.44 227

Gender
Female 6.36 1.18 173
TOTAL 6.37 1.33 400
t-test for Equality of Means
t Df Sig.
.153 398 Ns
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between male and female types in the
average loyalty factor scores.
Result: The t-test was applied to find whether there is significant difference between
male and female types in the average loyalty factor scores. The calculated t-test value is
.153 which is less than the table value of 1.966 at 1% level of significance. Since the
calculated value is less than the table value it is inferred that there is no significant
difference between the male and female types in the average loyalty factor scores. Hence
139
Table 79: Difference between family type and average loyalty factor scores.
Mean S.D No.
Nuclear family 6.67 1.37 246

Family type
Joint family 5.90 1.10 154
TOTAL 6.37 1.33 400
t Df Sig.
5.882 398 S
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between Nuclear and Joint family

types in the average loyalty factor scores
Nuclear and Joint family types in the average loyalty factor scores. The calculated t-test
value is 5.882 which is higher than the table value of 2.588 at 1% level of significance.
Since the calculated value is higher than the table value it is inferred that there is
significant difference between joint and nuclear family types in the average loyalty factor
scores. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.
140
Table 80: Difference between gender and awareness to the company is important for
buying a CTV
Mean S.D No.
Male 3.92 .80 227

Gender
Female 3.83 .77 173
TOTAL 3.88 .78 400
t df Sig.
1.135 398 Ns
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between Male and Female types in the
awareness to the company is important for buying a CTV
Male and Female types in the average awareness to the company is important for buying
a CTV. The calculated t-test value is 1.135 which is lower than the table value of 1.966 at
1% level of significance. Since the calculated value is lower than the table value it is
inferred that there is no significant difference between male and female types in the
average awareness to the company is more important for buying a CTV. Hence the
141
Table 81: Difference between Nuclear and Joint family types to the awareness to the
company is important for buying a CTV
Mean S.D No.
Nuclear family 3.87 .84 246

Family type
Joint family 3.89 .69 154
TOTAL 3.88 .78 400
t df Sig.
0.244 398 NS
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between Nuclear and Joint family

types in the awareness to the company is important for buying a CTV
nuclear and joint family types in the average awareness to the company is important for
buying a CTV. The calculated t-test value is 0.244 which is lower than the table value of
1.966 at 1% level of significance. Since the calculated value is lower than the table value
it is inferred that there is no significant difference between nuclear and joint family types
in the average awareness to the company is more important for buying a CTV. Hence the
142
Table 82: Difference between gender and the knowledge of all CTV models of the
brand is important
Mean S.D No.
Male 3.50 .92 227

Gender
Female 3.31 1.05 173
TOTAL 3.42 .98 400
t df Sig.
1.878 398 NS
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between Male and Female types in the
knowledge of all CTV models is important for buying a CTV
male and female types in the average knowledge of CTV models of the brand is
important for buying a CTV.. The calculated t-test value is 1.878 which is lower than the
the table value it is inferred that there is no significant difference between male and
female types in the average knowledge of all CTV models is important for buying a CTV.
143
Table 83: Difference between the family type and the average knowledge of all CTV
models of the brand is important before buying a CTV
Mean S.D No.

Family type
Joint family 3.10 .83 154
TOTAL 3.42 .98 400
t df Sig.
5.213 398 S
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between nuclear and joint family

types in the knowledge of all CTV models of a brand is important for buying a CTV
nuclear and joint family types in the average knowledge of all CTV models of the brand
is important for buying a CTV.. The calculated t-test value is 5.213 which is higher than
than the table value it is inferred that there is significant difference between nuclear and
joint family types in the average knowledge of all CTV models of a brand is important
for buying a CTV. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.
144
Table 84: Difference between gender and the awareness factor of the brand.
Mean S.D No.
Male 6.19 1.27 227

Gender
Female 6.11 1.25 173
TOTAL 6.16 1.26 400
t df Sig.
.627 398 NS
awareness factor of the brand
male and female types in the average awareness factor of the brand. The calculated t-test
value is .627 which is lower than the table value of 1.966 at 1% level of significance.
Since the calculated value is lower than the table value it is inferred that there is no
significant difference between male and female types in the average awareness factor of
the brand. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
145
Table 85: Difference between the family type and the awareness factor of the brand
Mean S.D No.

Family type
TOTAL 6.16 1.26 400
t Df Sig.
3.986 398 **

types in the awareness factor of the brand
nuclear and joint family types in the average awareness factor of the brand. The
calculated t-test value is 3.986 which is higher than the table value of 2.588 at 1% level
of significance. Since the calculated value is higher than the table value it is inferred that
there is significant difference between nuclear and joint family types in the average
awareness factor of the brand. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.
146
Table 86: Difference between the gender type and the association factor of the
brand
Mean S.D No.
Male 6.44 1.34 227

Gender
Female 6.39 1.26 173
TOTAL 6.42 1.30 400
t df Sig.
.371 398 Ns
association factor of the brand
male and female types in the average association factor of the brand. The calculated t-test
significant difference between male and female types in the average association factor of
147
Table 87: Difference between family type and the association factor of the brand
Mean S.D No.

Family type
TOTAL 6.42 1.30 400
t df Sig.
6.078 398 S

types in the awareness factor of the brand
nuclear and joint family types in the average association factor of the brand. The
association factor of the brand. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.
148
Table 88: Difference between the gender and the reputation factor of the brand
Mean S.D No.
Male 6.32 1.30 227

Gender
Female 6.25 1.26 173
TOTAL 6.29 1.28 400
t df Sig.
.518 398 Ns
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between gender types in the

reputation factor of the brand
male and female types in the average reputation factor of the brand. The calculated t-test
significant difference between male and female types in the average reputation factor of
149
Table 89: Difference between family type and the reputation factor of the brand
Mean S.D No.

Family type
TOTAL 6.29 1.28 400
t Df Sig.
4.080 398 **

types in the reputation factor of the brand
nuclear and joint family types in the average reputation factor of the brand. The
reputation factor of the brand. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.
150
Table 90: Difference between the family type and the advertisement effectiveness of
the brand
Mean S.D No.

Family type
TOTAL 6.54 1.37 400
t df Sig.
5.115 398 S

types in the average advertisement effectiveness factor of the brand
nuclear and joint family types in the average advertisement effectiveness factor of the
brand. The calculated t-test value is 5.115 which is higher than the table value of 2.588 at
1% level of significance. Since the calculated value is higher than the table value it is
inferred that there is significant difference between nuclear and joint family types in the
average advertisement effectiveness factor of the brand. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.
151
Table 91: Difference between the gender and the advertisement effectiveness of the
brand
Advertisement. Effectiveness of the brand
Mean S.D No.
Male 6.55 1.46 227

Gender
Female 6.53 1.25 173
TOTAL 6.54 1.37 400
t Df Sig.
.178 398 Ns
Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between male and joint female types
in the average advertisement effectiveness factor of the brand
male and female types in the average advertisement effectiveness factor of the brand. The
calculated t-test value is .178 which is lower than the table value of 1.966 at 1% level of
there is no significant difference between male and female types in the average
advertisement effectiveness factor of the brand. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
152
Table 92: Difference between gender and the overall brand equity score.
Mean S.D No.
Male 25.33 3.63 227

Gender
Female 25.11 3.95 173
TOTAL 25.23 3.76 400
t df Sig.
0.569 398 Ns
average overall brand equity score of the brand
male and female types in the average overall brand equity score of the brand. The
calculated t-test value is 0.569 which is lower than the table value of 1.966 at 1% level of
there is no significant difference between male and female types in the average overall
brand equity score of the brand. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
153
Table 93: Difference between family type and the overall brand equity score
Mean S.D No.

Family type
TOTAL 25.23 3.76 400
t df Sig.
7.084 398 **

types in the average overall brand equity score of the brand
nuclear and joint family types in the average overall brand equity score of the brand. The
overall brand equity score of the brand. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.
154
Table 94: The relationship between Brand of CTV owned and Education of the
respondents.
Education TOTAL
10th +2 Graduate Post Graduate

No. %
No. % No. % No. % No. %
LG 25 16.6 21 14.0 15 18.8 3 15.8 64 16.0
Samsung 30 19.9 42 28.0 17 21.3 2 10.5 91 22.8
CTV owned Onida 53 35.1 39 26.0 24 30.0 7 36.8 123 30.8
Sansui 32 21.2 27 18.0 15 18.8 3 15.8 77 19.3
Videocon 11 7.3 21 14.0 9 11.3 4 21.1 45 11.3
TOTAL 151 100.0 150 100.0 80 100.0 19 100.0 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
Chi-Square 12.040 12 NS
Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between Brand of CTV owned and the
education of the respondents.
Result: Chi square test was applied to find whether there is significant relationship
between brand of CTV owned and the education of the respondents. The calculated value
of Chi Square is 12.040 which is less than the table value of 21.026 at 5% level of
significance. Since the calculated value is less than the table value, it is inferred that there
is no significant relationship
between Brand of CTV owned and education of the respondents. Hence the Hypothesis is
accepted.
155
Table 95: The relationship between brand of CTV owned and the family size.
Family size TOTAL
Two members 3-5 members More than 5

No. %
No. % No. % No. %
LG 16 23.9 39 14.0 9 16.4 64 16.0
Samsung 9 13.4 64 23.0 18 32.7 91 22.8
CTV owned Onida 23 34.3 90 32.4 10 18.2 123 30.8
Sansui 13 19.4 52 18.7 12 21.8 77 19.3
Videocon 6 9.0 33 11.9 6 10.9 45 11.3
TOTAL 67 100.0 278 100.0 55 100.0 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
family size of the respondents.
between brand of CTV owned and the family size of the respondents. The calculated
value of Chi Square is 12.242, which is less than the table value of 15.507 at 5% level of
significance. Since the calculated value is less than the table value, it is inferred that there
is no significant relationship
between Brand of CTV owned and the family size of the respondents. Hence the
156
Table 96: The relationship between the Brand of CTV owned and the occupation
Occupation TOTAL
Official Professional Business Housewife Others

No. %
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
LG 7 8.2 17 18.5 29 19.5 8 14.5 3 15.8 64 16.0
Samsung 22 25.9 22 23.9 34 22.8 11 20.0 2 10.5 91 22.8

CTV
Onida 36 42.4 20 21.7 43 28.9 17 30.9 7 36.8 123 30.8
owned
Sansui 13 15.3 21 22.8 23 15.4 13 23.6 7 36.8 77 19.3
Videocon 7 8.2 12 13.0 20 13.4 6 10.9 45 11.3
TOTAL 85 100.0 92 100.0 149 100.0 55 100.0 19 100.0 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
Chi-Square 22.903 16 S
occupation of the respondents.
between brand of CTV owned and the occupation of the respondents. The calculated
value of Chi Square is 22.903, which is more than the table value of 16.296 at 5% level
of significance. Since the calculated value is more than the table value, it is inferred that
there is significant relationship
Between Brand of CTV owned and occupation of the respondents. Hence the Hypothesis
is rejected.
157
Table 97: The relationship between Brand of CTV owned and the Monthly family
income
Monthly family income TOTAL
Less than Rs.5001 - Rs.10001 - Rs.15001 -

Rs.5000 Rs.10000 Rs.15000 Rs.20000 No. %
No. % No. % No. % No. %
LG 1 6.7 25 16.9 29 14.7 9 22.5 64 16.0
Samsung 6 40.0 31 20.9 42 21.3 12 30.0 91 22.8

CTV
Onida 5 33.3 50 33.8 57 28.9 11 27.5 123 30.8
owned
Sansui 2 13.3 29 19.6 44 22.3 2 5.0 77 19.3
Videocon 1 6.7 13 8.8 25 12.7 6 15.0 45 11.3
TOTAL 15 100.0 148 100.0 197 100.0 40 100.0 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
monthly family income of the respondents.
between brand of CTV owned and the monthly family income of the respondents. The
calculated value of Chi Square is 13.666, which is less than the table value of 21.026 at
5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is less than the table value, it is
inferred that there is no significant relationship between Brand of CTV owned and the
monthly family income of the respondents. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
158
Table 98: The relationship between the Brand of CTV owned and the family type.
Family type TOTAL
Nuclear family Joint family

No. %
No. % No. %
LG 45 18.3 19 12.3 64 16.0
Samsung 42 17.1 49 31.8 91 22.8
CTV owned Onida 89 36.2 34 22.1 123 30.8
Sansui 50 20.3 27 17.5 77 19.3
Videocon 20 8.1 25 16.2 45 11.3
TOTAL 246 100.0 154 100.0 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
family type of the respondents.
between brand of CTV owned and the family type of the respondents. The calculated
value of Chi Square is 23.187, which is more than the table value of 13.277 at 1% level
of significance. Since the calculated value is more than the table value, it is inferred that
there is significant relationship between Brand of CTV owned and family type of the
respondents. Hence the Hypothesis is rejected.
159
Table 99: Relationship between Brand of CTV owned and purchase of any other
durable of same brand name
Purchased any other durable of same brand TOTAL
Yes No
No. %
No. % No. %
LG 43 67.2 21 32.8 64 100.0
Samsung 51 56.0 40 44.0 91 100.0
CTV owned Onida 64 52.0 59 48.0 123 100.0
Sansui 43 55.8 34 44.2 77 100.0
Videocon 30 66.7 15 33.3 45 100.0
TOTAL 231 57.8 169 42.3 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
purchase of any other durable of the same brand by the respondents.
between brand of CTV owned and the purchase of any other durable of the same brand
by the respondents. The calculated value of Chi Square is 5.674, which is less than the
table value of 9.488 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is less than the
table value, it is inferred that there is no significant relationship between Brand of CTV
owned and purchase of any other durable of the same brand by the respondents. Hence
160
Table 100: Relationship between Brand of CTV purchased when other brands were
available with Discounts/ offers.
Purchase even though other brands

TOTAL
were available with discounts/ offers
Yes No
No. %
No. % No. %
LG 59 92.2 5 7.8 64 100.0
Samsung 82 90.1 9 9.9 91 100.0
CTV owned Onida 107 87.0 16 13.0 123 100.0
Sansui 70 90.9 7 9.1 77 100.0
Videocon 41 91.1 4 8.9 45 100.0
TOTAL 359 89.8 41 10.3 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between Brand of CTV purchased

when other brands were available with discounts/ offers.
between brand of CTV purchased when other brands were available with discounts/
offers by the respondents. The calculated value of Chi Square is 1.646, which is less than
the table value of 9.488 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is less than
the table value, it is inferred that there is no significant relationship between Brand of
CTV owned and its purchase when other brands were available with discounts/ offers by
the respondents. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
161
Table 101: The relationship between the Brand of CTV owned and intention to
purchase the CTV once again
Would you buy this CTV once again TOTAL
Yes No
No. %
No. % No. %
LG 56 87.5 8 12.5 64 100.0
Samsung 82 90.1 9 9.9 91 100.0
CTV owned Onida 109 88.6 14 11.4 123 100.0
Sansui 70 90.9 7 9.1 77 100.0
Videocon 34 75.6 11 24.4 45 100.0
TOTAL 351 87.8 49 12.3 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
intention to buy the same brand of CTV once again by the respondents.
between brand of CTV owned and the intention to buy the same brand of CTV once
again by the respondents. The calculated value of Chi Square is 7.501, which is less than
the table value of 9.488 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is less than
the table value, it is inferred that there is no significant relationship between Brand of
CTV owned and the intention to buy the same brand of CTV once again by the
respondents. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
162
Table 102: Relationship between the Brand of CTV owned and the willingness to
recommend the same brand to others.
Would you recommend this brand to others TOTAL
Yes No
No. %
No. % No. %
LG 58 90.6 6 9.4 64 100.0
Samsung 86 94.5 5 5.5 91 100.0
CTV owned Onida 115 93.5 8 6.5 123 100.0
Sansui 69 89.6 8 10.4 77 100.0
Videocon 42 93.3 3 6.7 45 100.0
TOTAL 370 92.5 30 7.5 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
willingness to recommend the same brand to others by the respondents.
between brand of CTV owned and willingness to recommend the same brand to others by
the respondents. The calculated value of Chi Square is 2.000, which is less than the table
value of 9.488 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is less than the table
value, it is inferred that there is no significant relationship between the Brand of CTV
owned and the willingness to recommend the same brand to others by the respondents.
163
Table 103: The relationship between the criteria that impressed the most and the CTV
owned
CTV owned TOTAL
LG Samsung Onida Sansui Videocon

No. %
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
The look 10 15.6 15 16.5 13 10.6 11 14.3 6 13.3 55 13.8

What
impressed you Picture quality 24 37.5 35 38.5 43 35.0 30 39.0 17 37.8 149 37.3
the most when
you first saw Sound 25 39.1 36 39.6 60 48.8 32 41.6 19 42.2 172 43.0
the CTV
Remote set 5 7.8 5 5.5 7 5.7 4 5.2 3 6.7 24 6.0
TOTAL 64 100.0 91 100.0 123 100.0 77 100.0 45 100.0 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between the factors that impressed

the respondent most and the CTV owned by the respondents.
between the factors that impressed the respondent most and the CTV brand owned. The
calculated value of Chi Square is 3.865, which is less than the table value of 21.026 at 5%
level of significance. Since the calculated value is less than the table value, it is inferred
that there is no significant relationship between the factors that impressed the respondents
most and the CTV owned. Hence the Hypothesis is accepted.
164
Table 104: Relationship between education and the statement more models means
better quality
More models--Better Quality TOTAL
Yes No
No. %
No. % No. %
10th 81 53.6 70 46.4 151 100.0
+2 96 64.0 54 36.0 150 100.0

Education
Graduate 53 66.3 27 33.8 80 100.0
Post Graduate 4 21.1 15 78.9 19 100.0
TOTAL 234 58.5 166 41.5 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between education level and the

statement more models means better quality.
between education level and the statement more models means better quality by the
respondents. The calculated value of Chi Square is 16.291, which is more than the table
value of 11.345 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is more than the
table value, it is inferred that there is significant relationship between the education level
and the statement more models means better quality by the respondents. Hence the
165
Table 105: Relationship between family size and more models means better quality
statement
Yes No
No. %
No. % No. %
Two members 38 56.7 29 43.3 67 100.0
Family size 3-5 members 161 57.9 117 42.1 278 100.0
More than 5 35 63.6 20 36.4 55 100.0
TOTAL 234 58.5 166 41.5 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
Chi-Square .725 2 NS
Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between family size and the

between family size and the statement more models means better quality by the
respondents. The calculated value of Chi Square is .725, which is less than the table value
of 5.991 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is less than the table
value, it is inferred that there is no significant relationship between the family size and
the statement more models means better quality by the respondents. Hence the
166
Table 106: Relationship between occupation and the statement more models better
quality
Yes No
No. %
No. % No. %
Official 42 49.4 43 50.6 85 100.0
Professional 58 63.0 34 37.0 92 100.0
Occupation Business 102 68.5 47 31.5 149 100.0
Housewife 25 45.5 30 54.5 55 100.0
Others 7 36.8 12 63.2 19 100.0
TOTAL 234 58.5 166 41.5 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between occupation and the

between occupation and the statement more models means better quality by the
respondents. The calculated value of Chi Square is 17.285, which is more than the table
value of 13.277 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is more than the
table value, it is inferred that there is significant relationship between the occupation and
the statement more models means better quality by the respondents. Hence it is
rejected.
167
Table 107: Relationship between monthly family income and the statement more
models-better quality statement.
Yes No
No. %
No. % No. %
Less than Rs.5000 6 40.0 9 60.0 15 100.0
Rs.5001 - Rs.10000 72 48.6 76 51.4 148 100.0

Rs.10001 - Rs.15000 129 65.5 68 34.5 197 100.0
Rs.15001 - Rs.20000 27 67.5 13 32.5 40 100.0
TOTAL 234 58.5 166 41.5 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
Chi-Square 13.321 3 **
Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between monthly family income and

the statement more models means better quality.
between monthly family income and the statement more models means better quality
by the respondents. The calculated value of Chi Square is 13.321, which is more than the
table value of 11.345 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is more than
the table value, it is inferred that there is significant relationship between the occupation
and the statement more models means better quality by the respondents. Hence it is
rejected.
168
Table 108: Relationship between type of family and the statement more models-
better quality
Yes No
No. %
No. % No. %
Nuclear family 139 56.5 107 43.5 246 100.0

Family type
Joint family 95 61.7 59 38.3 154 100.0
TOTAL 234 58.5 166 41.5 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
Chi-Square .846 1 NS
Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between family type and the

between family type and the statement more models means better quality by the
respondents. The calculated value of Chi Square is .846, which is less than the table value
of 3.841 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is less than the table
value, it is inferred that there is no significant relationship between the occupation and
the statement more models means better quality by the respondents. Hence the
169
Table 109: Relationship between CTV owned and the statement more models-better
quality
Yes No
No. %
No. % No. %
LG 39 60.9 25 39.1 64 100.0
Samsung 62 68.1 29 31.9 91 100.0
CTV owned Onida 59 48.0 64 52.0 123 100.0
Sansui 46 59.7 31 40.3 77 100.0
Videocon 28 62.2 17 37.8 45 100.0
TOTAL 234 58.5 166 41.5 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between CTV owned and the

Result:
Chi square test was applied to find whether there is significant relationship between CTV
owned and the statement more models means better quality by the respondents. The
calculated value of Chi Square is 9.560, which is more than the table value of 9.488 at
1% level of significance. Since the calculated value is more than the table value, it is
inferred that there is significant relationship between the CTV owned and the statement
more models means better quality by the respondents. Hence the Hypothesis is
rejected.
170
Table 110: Relationship between No. of times repair problem faced and the CTV
brand owned
CTV owned TOTAL

No. %
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
None 15 23.4 27 29.7 25 20.3 20 26.0 17 37.8 104 26.0
0-2 times 32 50.0 43 47.3 62 50.4 33 42.9 21 46.7 191 47.8

No. of times faced
repair problem in 3-5 times 10 15.6 15 16.5 25 20.3 15 19.5 7 15.6 72 18.0
the CTV
6-8 times 5 7.8 6 6.6 10 8.1 8 10.4 29 7.2
more than 9 times 2 3.1 1 .8 1 1.3 4 1.0
TOTAL 64 100.0 91 100.0 123 100.0 77 100.0 45 100.0 400 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between number of times the repair

problem is faced and the CTV brand owned.
between number of times repair problem is faced and CTV brand owned by the
respondents. The calculated value of Chi Square is 15.023, which is less than the table
value of 26.296 at 5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is less than the
table value, it is inferred that there is no significant relationship between the number of
times the repair problem is faced and the CTV brand owned. Hence it is accepted.
171
Table 111: Relationship between the response time for repair and the CTV brand
owned
CTV owned TOTAL

No. %
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
< 6 hours 25 51.0 29 45.3 36 36.7 23 40.4 15 53.6 128 43.2

Response 7-9 hours 6 12.2 7 10.9 21 21.4 16 28.1 6 21.4 56 18.9
time of the
company 10-12 hours 8 16.3 11 17.2 16 16.3 8 14.0 6 21.4 49 16.6
> 13 hours 10 20.4 17 26.6 25 25.5 10 17.5 1 3.6 63 21.3
TOTAL 49 100.0 64 100.0 98 100.0 57 100.0 28 100.0 296 100.0
Chi-Square Test
Value df Sig.
Chi-Square 15.581 12 Ns
Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between response time of the

company and the brand of CTV owned.
between the response time for repair of the company and the CTV brand owned. The
calculated value of Chi Square is 15.581, which is less than the table value of 21.026 at
5% level of significance. Since the calculated value is less than the table value, it is
inferred that there is no significant relationship between the response time for repair by
the company and the CTV brand owned by the respondents. Hence the Hypothesis is
accepted.
172
Table 112: Correlation between Brand equity factors of LG CTV
Loyalty Awareness Association Reputation

factor of factor of the factor of the factor of the
the brand brand brand brand
Loyalty factor of the brand 1.000
Awareness factor of the brand .546** 1.000
Association factor of the brand .498** .388** 1.000
Reputation factor of the brand .244** .365** .223 1.000
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Inference:
For the LG brand CTV the correlation is significant between awareness and loyalty
(.546), association and loyalty (.498), reputation and loyalty (.244), between association
and awareness(.388), reputation and awareness(.365) and reputation and
association(.223).
Table 113: Correlations between brand equity factors and overall brand equity score
of LG
Loyalty factor of the brand .777**
Awareness factor of the brand .788**
Association factor of the brand .704**
Reputation factor of the brand .649**
Inference:
For the brand LG the correlations between factors of brand equity and overall brand
equity score is significant. Highest correlation exists for awareness factor (.788),
followed by loyalty factor (.777), followed by association factor (.704), and followed by
reputation factor(.649).
173
Table 114: Correlation between brand equity factors of SAMSUNG CTV

Reputation factor of the brand .295** .471** .505** 1.000
Inference:
For the Samsung brand correlation is significant between awareness and loyalty (.293),
between association and loyalty (.355), between reputation and loyalty (.295), between
association and awareness (.695), between reputation and awareness (.471) and between
reputation and association (.505)
of Samsung

Inference:
For the brand Samsung the correlations between factors of brand equity and overall brand
equity score is significant. Highest correlation exists for association factor (.836),
followed by awareness factor (.805), followed by reputation factor(.745), and followed
by loyalty factor(.652).
174
Table 116: Correlation between brand equity factors of Onida CTV

Reputation factor of the brand .232** .292** .218* 1.000

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
Inference:
For the Onida brand, the correlation is found significant between awareness and loyalty
and awareness (.593), between reputation and awareness (.292) and between reputation
and association (.218).
of Onida
Inference:
For the brand Onida the correlations between factors of brand equity and overall brand
followed by association factor (.751), followed by loyalty factor (.706), and followed by
reputation factor (.596).
175
Table 118: Correlation between brand equity factors of SANSUI CTV

Awareness factor of the brand .266* 1.000
Association factor of the brand .228* .430** 1.000
Reputation factor of the brand .471** .305** .269* 1.000

Inference:
For the Onida brand, the correlation is found significant between awareness and loyalty
and awareness (.430), between reputation and awareness (.305) and between reputation
and association (.269).
of Sansui

Inference:
For the brand Sansui the correlations between factors of brand equity and overall brand
followed by reputation factor (.712), followed by loyalty factor (.695), and followed by
association factor(.680)
176
Table 120: Correlation between brand equity factors of Videocon CTV

Awareness factor of the brand .332* 1.000
Association factor of the brand .181 .409** 1.000
Reputation factor of the brand .291 .537** .374* 1.000

Inference:
For the Videocon brand, the correlation is found significant between awareness and
loyalty (.322), association and loyalty (.181), reputation and loyalty (.291), between
association and awareness (.409), between reputation and awareness (.537) and between
reputation and association (.374).
of Videocon
Inference:
For the brand Videocon the correlations between factors of brand equity and overall
brand equity score is significant. Highest correlation exists for reputation factor (.771),
followed by awareness factor (.757), followed by association factor (.688), and followed
by loyalty factor (.651)
177
Table 122: Priority in purchase of durable products
Mean Rank
Colour TV 2.51
Washing Machine 3.00
Refrigerator 4.01
Micro Wave Oven 4.19
DVD Player 3.35
Vacuum Cleaner 5.39
Dish Washer 5.56
Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance
Kendalls W .287
Inference:
By applying the Kendalls co-efficient of concordance, the mean ranks show that the
Colour Television was the top priority item (mean rank 2.51), followed by washing
machine (3.0), then DVD player (3.35), then refrigerator (4.01), then micro-wave oven
(4.19), then vacuum cleaner (5.39) and then dish washer (5.56).
By ranking the priority items from 1-7, the top priority item got the rank of 1 and the
least priority item got the rank of 7. The Kendalls W is found to be 0.287 which
indicates that there is less similarity among the respondents in assigning the priorities for
the set of items given.
178
Table 123: Reasons for liking the brand owned
Mean Rank
Quality 2.35
Lowest Price 2.63
Technology 3.04
Advertisement 3.48
Discounts/offers 3.50
Kendalls W .106
Inference:
Quality was the top priority item (mean rank 2.35), followed by lowest price (2.63), then
technology (3.04), then advertisements (3.48), then discounts (3.50).
By ranking the priority items from 1-5, the top priority item got the rank of 1 and the
indicates that there is less similarity among the respondents in assigning the reasons for
liking the brand owned.
179
Table 124: Association of the CTV among the external factors
Mean Rank
Good Advertisements 2.88
Consistent Quality 2.88
Competitive prices 3.18
Best discounts 3.90
Employee interaction 4.28
Product display 3.88
Kendalls W .103
Inference:
good advertisements and consistent quality was the top association item (mean rank
2.88), followed by competitive price (3.18), then best discounts (3.90), then product
display (3.88) and then employee interaction (4.28).
By ranking the priority items from 1-6, the top association item got the rank of 1 and the
180
Table 125: Advertising Effectiveness of the brands in the study
Mean Rank
LG 2.21
Samsung 2.73
Onida 2.84
Sansui 3.66
Videocon 3.57

Kendalls W .149
Inference:
By applying the Kendalls co-efficient of concordance, the mean ranks show that LG was
the top in advertising effectiveness (mean rank 2.21), followed by Samsung (2.73), then
Onida (2.84), then Sansui (3.66), then Videocon (3.57).
181
Table 126: Best media for advertisements
Mean Rank
Television 2.32
Newspaper 3.90
Magazine 4.61
Hoardings 6.00
Glow sign 6.77
Wall painting 4.45
Posters 5.53
Banners 5.58
In shop advertisement 5.83
Kendalls W .238
Inference:
By applying the Kendalls co-efficient of concordance, the mean ranks show that
Television was the top in best media (mean rank 2.32), followed by Newspaper (3.90),
then wall paintings (4.45), then Magazines (4.61),then posters (5.53), then Banners
(5.58), in shop advertisements (5.83), then hoardings (6.0), then glow sign (6.77)
182
Table 127: Mean ranks of advertising effectiveness as indicated by the CTV owners
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank

Mean Rank
Samsung Onida Sansui Videocon
LG owners
owners owners owners owners
LG 1.80 2.33 2.14 2.39 2.42
Samsung 2.89 2.20 2.86 2.94 2.84
Onida 3.03 2.91 2.47 3.04 3.04
Sansui 3.66 3.88 3.84 3.04 3.82
Videocon 3.63 3.68 3.68 3.60 2.87
Kendalls W .228 .234 .221 .074 .105
Inference:
By applying the Kendalls co-efficient of concordance, the mean ranks by LG CTV

owners show that the most effective advertising is by LG (1.80), followed by
Samsung(2.89), followed by Onida (3.03), followed by Videocon (3.63), followed by
Sansui (3.66). The Kendalls W is found to be 0.228 which indicates that there is less
similarity among the respondents in assigning the effectiveness of the advertising of the
CTV brands.
The mean ranks by the Samsung CTV owners show that the most effective advertising is
by Samsung (2.20), followed by LG (2.33), followed by Onida (2.91), followed by
Videocon (3.68), and followed by Sansui (3.88). The Kendalls W is found to be 0.234
which indicates that there is less similarity among the respondents in assigning the
effectiveness of the advertising of the CTV brands.
183
The mean ranks by the Onida CTV owners show that the most effective advertising is by
LG (2.14), followed by Onida (2.47), followed by Samsung (2.86), followed by Videocon
(3.68) followed by Sansui ( 3.84). The Kendalls W is found to be 0.221 which
indicates that there is less similarity among the respondents in assigning the effectiveness
of the advertising of the CTV brands.
The mean ranks by the Sansui CTV owners show that the most effective advertising is by
LG (2.39), followed by Samsung (2.94), followed by Onida and Sansui (3.04), and
followed by Videocon (3.60). The Kendalls W is found to be 0.074 which indicates
that there is less similarity among the respondents in assigning the effectiveness of the
advertising of the CTV brands..
The mean ranks by the Videocon CTV owners show that the most effective advertising is
by LG (2.42), followed by Samsung (2.84), followed by Videocon (2.87), followed by
Onida ( 3.04), followed by Sansui (3.82). The Kendalls W is found to be 0.105 which
indicates that there is less similarity among the respondents in assigning the effectiveness
of the advertising of the CTV brands.
The above inferences also indicate that LG and Samsung are emerging as strong brands
in advertising effectiveness.
184
Table 128: Regression of Brand LG
Dependent Variable: Overall Brand Equity Score
Regression R
Std. Error t Sig. R
Coefficients(B) Square
(Constant) 17.058 1.744 .530 .281
Advertisement
1.293 .263 4.918 **
Effectiveness of the brand
Inference:
Regression analysis was applied to find the effectiveness of advertisement on overall

brand equity scores. The regression results show that advertisement has a positive effect
on overall brand equity. The R square value is (0.281) which indicates that 28.1% of
variation in overall brand equity has been contributed by advertisement effectiveness.
The regression coefficient of advertisement (1.293) shows that the unit increase in
advertisement effectiveness will increase the brand equity score by 1.293 scores. The t-
test (4.918) shows that the advertisement effectiveness has significantly influenced the
brand equity at 1% level of significance.
185
Table 129: Regression of Brand Samsung
Regression R
Std. Error t Sig. R
(Constant) 15.726 1.646 .521 .272
Advertisement
1.454 0.252 5.765 **
Inference:

186
Table 130: Regression of Brand ONIDA
Regression R
Std. Error t Sig. R
(Constant) 19.235 1.752 .313 0.098
Advertisement
0.924 0.255 3.624 **
Inference:

187
Table 131: Regression of Brand Sansui
Regression R
Std. Error t Sig. R
(Constant) 17.432 2.049 0.422 0.178
Advertisement Effectiveness
1.215 0.302 4.026 **
of the brand
Inference:

188
Table 132: Regression of Brand Videocon
Regression R
Std. Error t Sig. R
(Constant) 15.324 2.116 .553 .306
Advertisement Effectiveness of
1.450 .333 4.357 **
the brand
Inference:

on overall brand equity. The R square value is (.306) which indicates that 30.6% of
Overall inference:
The regression results indicate effectiveness of advertisement has a positive effect on

brand equity for all brands. The brand Videocon has the maximum of (30.6%) variation
in overall brand equity contributed by advertisement effectiveness, followed by LG
(28.1%,) followed by Samsung (27.2%), followed by Sansui (17.8%) and Onida (9.8%).
189

10 Chapter 4

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

10 Chapter 4

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CHAPTER-4

Analysis and Interpretation:

% - Percentage: * - Significant at 5% level: **Significant at 1% level

Table 1: Gender distribution of the respondents

Table 4: Occupation of the respondents

Table 6: Family type of the respondents

140 Don't read

120 The Hindu

120 India Today

Colour TV 400 100.0

Washing Machine 183 45.8

Refrigerator 175 43.8

Micro Wave Oven 22 5.5

DVD Player 267 66.8

Vacuum Cleaner 13 3.3

Dish Washer 11 2.8

Table 10: CTV brand owned by the respondents

Onida 123 30.8

Total 400 100.0

Yes 231 57.8

Total 400 100.0

Washing Machine 20 8.7

DVD 156 67.7

Friends 113 28.2

Total 400 100.0

Table 15: Respondents opinion on attachment to a brand prompts purchase

Strongly disagree 12 3.0

Yes 359 89.7

Total 400 100.0

Yes 351 87.8

Total 400 100.0

Table 18: Respondents who would recommend this brand to others

Yes 370 92.5

Total 400 100.0

Table 19: Loyalty factor score of the brand

6.00 118 29.5

7.00 105 26.3

Total 400 100.0

Strongly disagree 5 1.3

Agree 249 62.2

Strongly Agree 66 16.5

Total 400 100.0

Strongly disagree 8 2.0

Neutral 134 33.4

Agree 138 34.5

Strongly Agree 55 13.8

Total 400 100.0

Table 22: Respondents source of awareness to the CTV

Television 186 46.5

Total 400 100.0

Table 23: Respondents awareness of other durables made by the company

Moderate 178 44.5

Low 169 42.2

Total 400 100.0

6.00 147 36.8

Total 400 100.0

Table 25: Celebrity advertisement is important for CTV products

Yes 364 91.0

Total 400 100.0

The look 55 13.7

Picture quality 149 37.3

Sound 172 43.0

Remote set 24 6.0

Total 400 100.0