A STUDY ON CUSTOMER PERCEPTION TOWARDS INGREDIENT

BRANDING WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TIRUPUR CITY

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Ingredient Branding has only started to thrive. Since the late 1980s as an accepted
marketing concept. In the global economy, companies need to not only establish, but also
maintain, their competitive advantage, as well as create commercial success in their market
and provide criteria for their customers to differentiate them from their competition. Until the
early 80s, most companies were focused on tangible resources due to material or production
technology restraints. Now, however, we see a considerable shift towards a focus on intangible
resources such as brand management and customer loyalty.

Many current publications consider one of the most valuable assets for any firm as the
intangible asset represented by its brands. Companies and organizations are beginning to
embrace Branding efforts that create value for both the consumer and the company. With the
establishment of brand management, companies attempt to attract and retain customers by
creating and promoting value for money, image, corporate social responsibility and other
values important for the understanding and use of the product. Including brand identity in their
offering enables companies to differentiate themselves in a continuously overcrowded market.
With the entry of new participants in the market, existing manufacturers must continually
search for new and better means of exploiting their existing brands.

1.1.1 INGREDIENT BRANDING IS A STRATEGY

According to recent publications, the two strategies, which are most commonly used in
order to maximize brand potential, are brand extension and co-branding. As mentioned
previously, Ingredient Branding is a more recent strategy, which fits under the umbrella of
cobranding. Early research in this area has shown both positive and negative effects for the
brands, which employ an Ingredient Branding strategy, as well as an impact on consumer
product evaluations. The newest research, in contrast, illustrates that Ingredient Branding
offers a potential for successful brand management and increased profits for companies along
with product offerings that create added value for the customer. If a customer knows and
understands the function, features and benefits of a component (ingredient), he or she will pay
more attention to this offering, and, if it creates a unique product offering, this can lead to loyal
and profitable customer relationships.
 This approach surpasses the limitations and dangers of a too narrow and single-sided
customersupplier relationship. The traditional B2B (Business-to-Business) brand strategy of
marketing activities is only geared towards the next link in the OEM value chain, but Ingredient
Branding can help to overcome this. The Intel Corporation demonstrated the marketing
possibilities of Ingredient Branding for both component manufacturers, as well as the
manufacturers of finished goods. Since then, numerous suppliers have tried to implement their
own marketing concepts modelled on the Intel case in order to escape anonymity and
substitutability of supplying a part or a component.

1.1.2 THEORETICAL BASIS FOR INGREDIENT BRANDING

In both theory and practice, Ingredient Branding is often defined as the marking or
labelling of components or other industrial goods. A more detailed view of the particular goods
considered possible targets for Ingredient Branding is given in the following systematic
classification approach for industrial goods. According to this approach, industrial goods can
be distinguished according to the criterion “institutional whereabouts” in capital goods and
consumer goods.

In general, industrial goods can be Ingredient Brands, depending on functionality and

the importance to the end user. Hence, materials and parts, which enter the end product,
unchanged or are fabricated, further are possible targets for Ingredient Branding. Materials and
parts, for instance, can be raw materials, e.g. wool (example Wool mark) or manufactured
materials and parts, (bicycle gears Shimano, sweetener NutraSweet or microfiber Gore-Tex).
Consumer goods, on the other hand, serve as end products for the immediate satisfaction of
human needs and are not considered as possible targets of Ingredient Branding. Examples of
these goods are food, clothes, television, and private cars. In addition to the Branding of
materials and parts, it is also possible to brand the manufacturing company as an “institution”.

1.1.3 CORPORATE BRANDING

In this case the Branding approach is part of corporate Branding. In Branding and
corporate Branding are not mutually exclusive so there is the possibility of an overlap of both
approaches. An example is McNeil Nutritionals NutraSweet Inc. By labelling their products
with the logos “NutraSweet”, they market the contained materials and their company, at the
same time. Most businesses, however, develop independent brands for their products, making
it rare to find a correlation of ingredient and corporate Branding. In Branding in the automobile
industry is an exception to the rule. Ingredient Branding is strategic brand management for
materials, components, parts, services, etc. In recent years the Branding efforts have increased
and cover not only components, but also manufactured parts and services, Ingredient Branding
applications lead to more sophisticated applications and they have gained more complexity.
For simplicity’s sake, we will use the term “components” or “ingredient” synonymously. By
labelling single component parts or component systems, a company can draw the attention of
end users and customers to their In Brands within the manufacturer brands. The majority of
suppliers and other preliminary product manufacturers form an essential part of the finished
goods, yet become invisible to the following market stages.

1.1.4 MULTI – STAGES IMPLEMENTATION

By the implementation of a multi-stage (multi-level) brand policy, component

manufacturers strive for a significant competitive advantage. As suppliers, they want to escape
the interchangeability of their products and develop, strengthen, and extend their market
position. Ingredient Branding also opens up opportunities to the manufacturers of finished
goods – they can further enhance their products by using branded components. This form of
Ingredient Branding is called “Inverse Ingredient Branding” in marketing literature. As
mentioned previously, the Intel Corporation was one of the pioneers in the area of Ingredient
Branding.

Intel has defined Ingredient Branding briefly and concisely as the “…Promotion of a
brand within a brand to the end user.” Another possible definition of Ingredient Branding is
focused on the increased brand value of the supplier component: “Pars pro toto”. A part
represents the whole: in some cases, an unknown (invisible) component of a product becomes
more well-known (visible) than the product itself. Thereby the part becomes the trigger for the
buying decision in favour of the final product. A more comprehensive definition is found in
the following:

1.1.5 BRAND POLICY

Ingredient Branding is the brand policy (goals, strategies, instruments) concerning a

branded object (necessary condition) of materials, components, or parts (raw materials,
component materials, or component parts) that represents a brand for the respective target
group (sufficient condition). Some authors consider components as an Ingredient Brand when
they cannot be sold separately, but we experience in practice that most of the Ingredient Brands
did not followed this rule; instead most of them sold their products separately, particularly in
the aftermarket for automobiles.
 1.2 INTRODUCTION TO THE INDUSTRY

A brand is a name, term, design, symbol, or other feature that distinguishes an

organization or product from its rivals in the eyes of the customer. Brands are used in business,
marketing, and advertising. Name brands are sometimes distinguished from generic or store
brands.

1.2.1 HISTORY

The practice of branding is thought to have begun with the ancient Egyptians who were
known to have engaged in livestock branding as early as 2,700 BCE. Branding was used to
differentiate one person’s cattle from another’s by means of a distinctive symbol burned into
the animal’s skin with a hot branding iron.

If a person stole any of the cattle, anyone else who saw the symbol could deduce the
actual owner. However, the term has been extended to mean a strategic personality for a
product or company, so that ‘brand’ now suggests the values and promises that a consumer
may perceive and buy into.

Over time, the practice of branding objects extended to a broader range of packaging
and goods offered for sale including oil, wine, cosmetics and fish sauce.

1.2.2 MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION

Branding is a set of marketing and communication methods that help to distinguish a

company or products from competitors, aiming to create a lasting impression in the minds of
customers. The key components that form a brand’s toolbox include a brand’s identity, brand
communication [such as by logos and trademarks], brand awareness, brand loyalty, and various
branding [brand management] strategies.

Many companies believe that there is often little to differentiate between several types
of products in the 21st century, and therefore branding is one of a few remaining forms of
product differentiate.

1.2.3 MARKETING TECHNIQUE

Brand equity is the measurable totality of a brand’s worth and is validated by assessing
the effectiveness of these branding components. As markets become increasingly dynamic and
fluctuating, brand equity is a marketing technique to increase customer satisfaction and
customer loyalty, with side effects like reduced price sensitivity.

A brand is in essence a promise to its customers of they can expect from their products,
as well as emotional benefits. When a customer is familiar with a brand, or favours it
incomparably to its competitors, this is when a corporation has reached a high level of brand
equity. Special accounting standards have been devised to assess brand equity. In accounting,
a brand defined as an intangible asset, is often the most valuable asset on a corporation’s
balance sheet.

1.2.4 VALUE AND VALUATION

Brand owners manage their brands carefully to create shareholder value, and brand
valuation is an important management technique that ascribes a monetary value to a brand, and
allows marketing investment to be managed [e.g. prioritized across a portfolio of brands] to
maximize shareholder value. Although only acquired brands appear on a company’s balance
sheet, the notion of putting a value on a brand force marketing leaders to be focused on long
term stewardship of the brand and managing for value.

The word ‘brand’ is often used as a metonym referring to the company that is strongly
identified with a brand. Marque or make are often used to denote a brand of motor vehicle,
which may be distinguished from a car model. A concept brand is a brand that is associated
with an abstract concept, like breast cancer awareness or environmentalism, rather than a
specific product, service, or business. A commodity brand is a brand associated with a
commodity.
 1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

To identify the customer perception towards ingredient branding.

To study about the attitude towards buying the ingredient branding products.

To identify whether ingredient branding influence customer satisfaction and brand loyalty.
To make possible suggestions based on inquiry and analysis for effective ingredient branding
approach.

1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The primary objective is to study the customer perception towards ingredient branding and
also to give proper conclusion for the study.

The questionnaire is designed to find the customer perception towards ingredient branding.
The questionnaire was given to 125 respondents and data was collected from them and valuable
suggestions were given.

In this research it is found that most of the respondents says that ingredient branding will
give positive perception of efficiency of the product to the customer.

This study can be used for future reference and can be considered as a secondary data for
further development. To an extent this research will help the concern for bringing more changes
in customer perception towards ingredient branding.
 1.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The study depicts the present scenario in the selected city Tirupur and hence the result may
not be applicable to another period of time.

The sample was collected using convenience-sampling techniques. As such result may not
give an exact representation of the population.

The employees were reluctant to give correct information.

The respondents do not get enough time to fill the questionnaire due to their busy schedule
in work. The study is limited to 125 respondents.

The study is confined to Tirupur District alone.

 2.1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Donald G. Norris,1 (1992) in his study entitled "Ingredient Branding: A Strategy Option with
Multiple Beneficiaries", he Analysed that strategy of ingredient branding and its implications
on the distribution channel members, in addition to its potential for aiding product introduction
and adoption. Considers the benefits and the drawbacks for the supplier, manufacturer, retailer
and consumer. Concludes that the appropriateness of ingredient branding depends on
manufacturer‐supplier relationship, the need to differentiate the brand, and the ability to
implement the new branding strategy.

Rajiv Vaidyanathan,2 Praveen Aggarwal, (2000) in his study entitled ‘‘Strategic brand
alliances: implications of ingredient branding for national and private label brands” they
analysed Current research on brand alliances has focused primarily on alliances between two
known, national brands. However, there is significant benefit to both parties in an alliance
between a national brand and a private brand. Such alliances are gaining importance in the
industry but have not been studied by marketers. The basic question explored in this study is
whether using a national brand ingredient can benefit a private brand without hurting the
national brand. First, a theoretical framework to explain how consumers may react to such an
alliance is presented. Next, an experiment was conducted which showed that a private brand
with a name brand ingredient was evaluated more positively. However, the evaluation of the
national brand was not diminished by this association. Implications and future research
directions are discussed.

1 Donald G. Norris, (1992) ‘‘Ingredient Branding: A Strategy Option with Multiple

Beneficiaries”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9(3), page no.:19-31.

2 Rajiv Vaidyanathan, Praveen Aggarwal, (2000) ‘‘Strategic brand alliances: implications of

ingredient branding for national and private label brands”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 9(4), page no.:214-228.
Carl-Fredrik of sandebergand and Johan Ostlund,3 (2003), in their Post-Graduation research
work titled, ‘‘Ingredient co-branding of private labels – from a consumer derived management
perspective’’, analysed about ‘how could manufactures use ingredient co-branding to launch
private labels with retailers’? And also analysed how consumers perceive the ingredient
cobranded private labels:. The finding of this study was the ingredient co-branding of private
labels might be a possible strategy in the near future. Both manufactures & retailers
apprehended that the strategy offers add additional revenue.

Rid, Johannes Sigurdsson,4 (2003) in their master thesis titled, ‘‘Ingredient branding: a strategy
option: a comparative case study of intel, govel , autdiv and bosch”,Investigated the ingredient
branding more specifically when and under what circumstances ingredient branding is
appropriate. The finding of this research was the ingredient branding strategy is only to
recommend if the right timing is give.

Abbo..,5 (2005) in her study working paper entitled ‘‘An exploratory study on the impact of
two ingredient branding strategies on the host brand ” in this paper , the author focused to
examine the impact of an ingredient branding strategy on the attitude towards and perceived
quality of the host brand, depending on the partner brands ‘initial levels on the former variables,
the study finding says that, pairing a host brand with an ingredient brand of higher initial overall
evaluation entails better evaluations of the co-branded product than when this host brand
partners with an ingredient brand of similar initial overall evaluation .However ,positive
evaluation of an co-branded product do not necessarily mean that the host brand’s overall
evaluation will improve ,as it is the case after the presentation of both co-branded products(at
a significance level of α=0.05).therefore to understand and measure the impact of an ingredient
branding strategy ,brand manager should not only examine the co-branded products evaluation
,but also the evolution of the host brand’s overall evaluation is required.

3 Carl-Fredrik of sandebergand and Johan Ostlund (2003) , ‘‘Ingredient co-branding of private

labels – from a consumer derived management perspective”, post graduate dissertation
,Stockholm university ,school of business , June 2003.

4 Rid,Johannes Sigurdsson (2003) ‘‘ Ingredient branding: a strategy option :a comparative case

study of intel ,govel ,autdiv and bosch” independent thesis advanced level,2003.

5 Marie Helene Abbo (2005) “ An exploratory study on the impact of two ingredient branding
strategies on the host brand ”,Department of marketing at pau business school ,university of
pau & pays ,june,2005.
Birgersson et al.,6 [2006] In their study working paper entitled “Ingredient branding: in high
involvement and high cost product categories” in this paper, the authors focused to see if the
use of an ingredient brand can bring forth the same positive effects on consumers attitudes,
perceptions of quality and risk perception, in high cost and high involvement product
categories, as in low involvement and low cost product categories”. Their findings says that,
the use of ingredient brands within high involvement and high cost product categories had no
significant effect. It was only the perceived quality that showed a minor change, but this change
was too minor to be considered considerable.

Aghdaie et al..,7 (2006) in their research article entitled ‘‘ An analysis of impact of brand
credibility and perceived quality on consumers ’evaluations of brand alliance’’ in this paper
,the authors focused to analyse the effects of brand credibility and perceived quality on
consumers ’evaluation of brand alliances and also to examine the impact of constituents brands
credibility on co-brand overall credibility , effect of perceived quality of the constituent brands
on co-branded product perceived quality and constituent brands credibility and perceived
quality on perceived price and purchase intention of co-branded product as the hypotheses of
the study .Their finding identified that ,credibility of constituent brands(i.e., brand A and brand
B the allied brand ) positively affect co-brand credibility ,co-branded product perceived price
and purchase intention .Secondly, the perceive quality of constituent brands effect co-branded
product perceived quality and perceived price. Thirdly, only perceived quality of one of
constituents brands (brand B) has positive influence on co-branded product purchase intention
whereas the perceived quality of the other brand (brand B ) has no effect.

6 Stefan Birgersson , David goransson and Mikael sward [2006]”ingredient branding: in high
involvement and high cost product categories”, Vaxjo university, school of management and
economics, 2006, November 004.

7 Syed fathollas amiri aghdaie,hossein rezaei dolatabadi and vahid shokri aliabai(2006) ‘‘An
analysis of impact of brand credibility and perceived quality on consumers ’evaluations of
brand alliance’’, International journal of marketing ,April,2012,Vol.4;Number 2.
Sunil evevelles ,Thomas H.stevenson ,shuba Srinivasan and Nobuyuki fukawa,8 (2007) in their
research article titled, ‘‘An analysis of b2b ingredient co-branding relationships” ,they analysed
about the use of ingredient co-branding and uses an econometric modelling approach to offer
a relationships with and without advertising support. They suggested that participating
suppliers and manufacturers both benefit from the relationship is better with advertising when
compared to without advertisement.

Na xioa and fang wan,9 (2010) had done a research on “Identify threat and identify defending
strategies in ingredient branding” in this research they analysed how consumers evaluate the
ingredient branding in which one brand provides emotional and another efforts functional value
to customers .For this study the researchers has taken apple macintosh computers and intel
chips.in June 2005, apple company made an announcement that it would use intel chips in its
future. This is automatically raised the sale of apple computers.as Intel separately represents
emotional brand and functional brands the introduction of Intel became a serious affront to the
computers.

Maguru,10 (2011) in his study working paper entitled ‘‘ Influence of co-branding on customer
perception: a case of M-kesho customer in kariobangi area” in this paper ,the author focused
to establish whether co-branding influence customer satisfaction and to determine the influence
of co-branding on perception of customers of M-kesho product. The study finding says that,
there is need to create awareness of the product to the customer through marketing and
unpacking the product to customer, this will make more customer even those with primary
level of education easily use the product without complications. Secondly, to improve the
quality of the already existing products hence attracting more customers to the products leading
to higher profits to the companies involved, introduction of more co-branded products should
be reliable in the sense that one can use the facility at any time without delays. Finally, it
ensures that customers have a positive perception on the product and also customers are more
satisfied by such products.

8 sunil Evevelles, Thomas H.stevenson, shuba Srinivasan and nobuyuki fukawa (2007):”An
analysis of b2b ingredient co-branding relationships”, Elsevier-science direct, 2007 volume.

9 Na xiao and fang wan (2010) “Identify threat and identify defending strategies in ingredient
branding”, ASAC 2010.

10 Anthony maina maguru (2011) ‘‘Influence of co-branding on customer perception: a case

of M-kesho customer in kariobangi area”, University of Nairobi, November, 2011.
Tiwari and singh,11 (2012) in their research article entitled ‘‘Perceived impact of ingredient
branding on host brand equity” in this paper the authors’ aim of study is to discuss and estimate
the perceive impact of ingredient branding on host brand in terms of brand equity. The study
results conclude that the co-branding, perceived quality attitude towards the brand, brand
esteem ,memorability ,reduce market outlay ,reliable and likeability are major factors which
ultimately found under ingredient branding as a result of which the host brand equity gets
supported.

Ranu and Rishu,12 (2012) in their research article entitled “Ingredient branding: differentiation
strategy for FMCG companies” in this paper the authors focused on studying the effectiveness
of ingredient branding in consumer durables and to examine the scope of ingredient branding
for FMCG firms. The study results conclude that the firms considering an ingredient branding
strategy must evaluate the customer’s perception of each brand prior to alliances. Secondly,
the perceived fit of the products as well as the brands must be understood , and the level of
customer familiarity with each brand must be gauged.

Jeffry P.Radighieri ,Babujhonmariadoss, yanygregoire, Jean L.Johnson,13 (2013),in their

article titled, ‘‘Ingredient branding and feedback effects : the impact of product outcomes,
initial parent brand strength asymmetry and parent brand role,” they analysed how brand
feedback effects are influenced by (1) the initial brand strength among the parent
brand.(2)parent brand roles and (3)(ingredient branding offering)success and failure. The result
was that IBO success positively affects both parent brands, but then positive feedback is much
more substantial for the weaker brand.

11 Kavitha Tiwari and Rajendra Singh (2012) ‘‘Perceived impact of ingredient branding on
host brand equity”, Journal of marketing and management, May 2012, Vol.3(1);Pages 60-77.

12 Gupta Renu and Roy Rishu (2012) ‘‘Ingredient branding-a differentiation strategy for
FMCG companies”, Asian journal of management research, 2012, Vol.2; Issue 2.

13 Jeffry P.Radighieri, Babujhonmariadoss, Yanygregoire, Jean L.Johnson,(2013),

‘‘Ingredient branding and feedback effects: the impact of product outcomes,initial parent brand
strength asymmetry and parent brand role,” marketing letter,springer,5 mar 2013.
Cali R.Skalski,14 (2014), in his study field, ‘‘The effects of ingredient branding on restaurant
menu items” examined the effects of ingredient branding with the context of restaurant menus
in order to understand of how the use of brand name ingredients influence consumer behaviour
towards menu items. The research has proven the positive influence of ingredient brands have
on consumer goods. The results indicate brands influenced attitudes and quality perceptions
but did not have a strong influence on participant’s behaviours.

Abhilash Ponnam, Sreejesh S, M.S. Balaji,15 (2015) in his study titled ‘‘Investigating the
effects of product innovation and ingredient branding strategies on brand equity of food
products” examined that IB strategy should be preferred when the product category is
perceived as low involvement or when parent brand equity of the brand is low. The IPI strategy
should be preferred when the parent brand equity is high. Either of strategies may be favoured
in case of high involvement products.

14 cali R.Skalski,(2014), ‘‘The effects of ingredient branding on restaurant menu items” thesis,
the honours tutorial college, ohio university, April 2014.

15 Abhilash Ponnam, Sreejesh S, M.S. Balaji, (2015) ‘‘Investigating the effects of product
innovation and ingredient branding strategies on brand equity of food products”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 117 (2), page.523-537.
 3.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research can be defined as “an activity that involves finding out, in a more or less systematic
way, things you did not know”

Methodology is the philosophical framework within which the research is conducted or the
foundation upon which the research is based.

Research Methodology chapter of a research describes research methods, approaches and

designs in detail highlighting those used throughout the study, justifying my choice through
describing advantages and disadvantages of each approach and design taking into account their
practical applicability to our research.

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

The research design is the conceptual structure within which research is conducted. It
constitutes the blueprint for collection, arrangement and analysis of data. A research design
includes an outline of what the researcher will do from writing the hypothesis and its
operational implication to the final analysis of the data. I have used the descriptive research
design in this study.

3.3 SAMPLING DESIGN

As the area of study is limited to Tirupur district of Tamil Nadu. Convenience sampling
procedure was used to collect the data from respondents.

3.3.1 Questionnaire

A set of questionnaire was prepare to conduct the field survey. Close ended questions were
used.

3.3.2 Sample size:

The sample of 125 respondents taken.

3.3.3 Method Of Data Collection

Questionnaire and interview techniques used depends on the respondents.

3.4 AREA OF THE STUDY

The study focuses on Tirupur District of Tamil Nadu.

3.5 SOURCES OF DATA COLLECTION

The study uses both primary and secondary data.

3.5.1 Primary data:

A primary data source is an original data source, that is, one in which the data are collected
first hand by the researcher for a specific research purpose or project. Primary data can be
collected in a number of ways. However, the most common techniques are selfadministered
surveys, interviews, field observation, and experiments.

3.5.2 Secondary data:

Secondary data refers to data that was collected by someone other than the user. Common
sources of secondary data for social science include censuses, information collected by
government departments, organisational records newspapers magazines journals literature and
data that was originally collected for other research purposes etc..,

3.6 TOOLS USED FOR ANALYSIS:

3.6.1 Percentage Analysis

Percentage are used to obtain a kind of ratio, which are used in making comparison between
two or more series of data. Percentage are used to describe relationships.

3.6.2 Chi-square:

Among various test used in the statistics for judging significance of the sample data, chi square
test was used by Karl Pearson.

Formula

Chi – square = (0-E) / E

O – Observed frequency

E – Expected frequency

Uses of chi-square
1. As a test of independence.

2. We can find out whether two or more attributes are associated or not.

3. As a test of goodness of fit.

Four stages in the chi-square

Stage 1: Setting hypothesis- null hypothesis Ho and alternative hypothesis H1. In Ho, there is
no significant difference between the given variables. In H1, there is significant difference
between the given variables.

Stage 2: Finding the calculated value from the chi-square values using the formula.

Stage 3: Finding the tabulated value from chi-square table foe the level of significance 5% of
freedom (N-1).

Stage 4: Decision if calculated value is less than the table value, Ho is accepted. If calculated
value is greater than the table value Ho is rejected.

3.6.3 Henry Garrett Ranking

To find out the most significant factor which influences the respondent, Garrett’s ranking
technique was used. As per this method, respondents have been asked to assign the rank for all
factors and the outcome of such ranking have been converted into score value with the help of
the following formula:

Percent position = 100 (Rij – 0.5) / Nj

Where, Rij = Rank given for the ith variable by jth respondents

Nj = Number of variable ranked by jth respondents

With the help of Garrett’s Table, the percent position estimated is converted into scores. Then
for each factor, the scores of each individual are added and then total value of scores and mean
values of score is calculated. The factors having highest mean value is considered to be the
most important factor.

3.6.4 Weighted Average Method

 Mean in which each item being averaged is multiplied by a weight based on
the item's relative importance. The result is summed and the total is divided by the sum of the
weights.
 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 SIMPLE PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS

TABLE : 4.1.1

Table showing the age of the respondents

Age Number of respondents Percentage

Below 25 75 60.0
25-50 44 35.2
50-75 6 4.8
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 60% of the respondents are below 25 years, 35.2% of the
respondents are between 25-50 years and 4.8% of the respondents are between 50-75 years.

Inference
Majority of the respondents are below 25 years of age.

CHART : 4.1.1

Chart showing the age of the respondents

Age
70
60
60

50

40 35.2

30

20

10 4.8

0
Below 25 25-50 50-75

Age
 TABLE :4.1.2
Table showing the gender of the respondents
Gender Number of respondents Percentage
Male 42 33.6
Female 83 66.4
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 33.6% of the respondents are male and 66.4% of the
respondents are female.

Inference
Majority of the respondents are female.

CHART : 4.1.2
Chart showing the gender of the respondents

Gender
70 66.4

60

50

40
33.6

30

20

10

0
Male Female
Gender
 TABLE 4.1.3
Table showing the residence of the respondents
Residence Number of respondents Percentage
Urban area 46 36.8
Rural area 59 47.2
Semi urban area 18 14.4
Others 2 1.6
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 36.8% of the respondents belongs to urban area, 47.2% of
the respondents belongs to rural area and 14.4 of the respondents belongs to semi urban area
and 1.6% of the respondents belongs to other category.

Inference
Majority of the respondents are from rural area.

CHART : 4.1.3
Chart showing the residence of the respondents

Residence
50 47.2
45
40 36.8
35
30
25
20
14.4
15
10
5 1.6
0
Urban area Rural area Semi-urban area Others

Residence
 TABLE 4.1.4
Table showing the marital status of the respondents
Marital status Number of respondents Percentage
Married 37 29.6
Unmarried 88 70.4
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 37% of the respondents are married and 88% of the
respondents are unmarried.

Inference
Majority of the respondents are unmarried.

CHART : 4.1.4
Chart showing the marital status of the respondents

Marital status
80
70.4
70

60

50

40
29.6
30

20

10

0
Married Unmarried

Marital status
 TABLE 4.1.5

Table showing the nature of the family of the respondents

Nature of the family Number of respondents Percentage
Nuclear family 69 55.2
Joint family 55 44.0
Others 1 .8
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 55.2% of the respondents belongs to nuclear family,44%
of the respondents belongs to joint family and 0.8% of the respondents belongs to other
category.

Inference
Majority of the respondents are from nuclear family.

CHART : 4.1.5
Chart showing the nature of the family of the respondents

Nature of the family

60 55.2

50
44

40

30

20

10
0.8
0
Nuclear family Joint family Others

Nature of the family

 TABLE 4.1.6
Table showing the size of the family of respondents
Size of the family Number of respondents Percentage
Below 5 88 70.4
6 19 15.2
7 8 6.4
Above 7 10 8.0
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 70.4% of the respondents are below 5 in a family,15.2%
of the respondents are 6 in a family,6.4% of the respondents are 7 in a family and 8% of the
respondents are above 7 in a family.

Inference
Majority of the respondents are below 5 in a family.

CHART : 4.1.6
Chart showing the size of the family of respondents

Size of the family

80
70.4
70

60

50

40

30

20 15.2

6.4 8
10

0
Below 5 6 7 Above 7

Size of the family

 TABLE 4.1.7
Table showing the education of the respondents
Education Number of respondents Percentage
Illiterate 6 4.8
School level 26 20.8
Diploma 12 9.6
Graduate 81 64.8
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 4.8% of the respondents are illiterate, 20.8% of the
respondents are comes under school level, 9.6% of the respondents are comes under diploma
level, 64.8% of the respondents are graduate.

Inference
Majority of the respondents are graduate.

CHART : 4.1.7
Chart showing the education of the resppondents

Education
70 64.8

60

50

40

30
20.8
20
9.6
10 4.8

0
Illiterate School level Diploma Graduate

Education
 TABLE 4.1.8
Table showing the occupation of the respondents
Occupation Number of respondents Percentage
Agriculturist 12 9.6
Business man 18 14.4
Home maker 7 5.6
Self employed 17 13.6
Government employee 1 .8
Private employee 37 29.6
Professional 6 4.8
Others 27 21.6
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 9.6% of the respondents are agriculturist,14.4% of the
respondents are business man,5.6% of the respondents are home maker,13.6% of the
respondents are self employed,0.8% of the respondents are government employee,29.6% of
the respondents are private employee,4.8% of the respondents are professionals and 21.6% of
the respondents belongs to other category.

Inference
Majority of the respondents are private employee.
CHART : 4.1.8
 TABLE : 4.1.9
Table showing the income of the respondents
Income of the Number of Percentage
respondents respondents

Below 20,000 81 64.8

20,001-40000 36 28.8
40,001-60,000 7 5.6
Above 60,000 1 .8
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 64.8% of the respondents income are below 20,000,
28.8% of the respondents income are between 20,001-40,000,5.6% of the respondents income
are between 40,000-60,000 and 0.8% of the respondents income are above 60,000.

Inference
Majority of the respondents income are below 20,000.
CHART : 4.1.9
Chart showing the income of the respondents

INCOME
70 64.8

60

50

40
28.8
30

20

10 5.6
0.8
0
Below 20,000 20001-40000 40001-60,000 Above 60,000

INCOME

28
 TABLE 4.1.10
Table showing the company preference of the respondents
Company lead to Number of respondence Percentage
preference for such
products

Sometimes 76 60.8
Always 37 29.6
Never 12 9.6
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 60.8% of the respondents says sometimes, 29.6% of the
respondents says always and 9.6% of the respondents says never to the company lead to the
preference for such products.

Inference
Majority of the respondents sometimes prefer product which associate with particular
group of company.

CHART : 4.1.10
Chart showing company preference of the respondents

Company preference
70
60.8
60
50
40
29.6
30
20
9.6
10
0
Sometimes Always Never

Company preference
 TABLE : 4.1.11
Table showing preference of the respondents
Preference Number of Percentage
respondents
Big companies with wider 21 16.8
availability and distribution
Company with good warranty and 59 47.2
after sales service
Local companies with better price 12 9.6
lesser quality
Companies with good brand image 13 10.4
Product just fulfil the need 20 16.0
125 100.0
Total

Interpretation
The above table shows that 16.8% of the respondents prefer big companies with
wider availability and distribution,47.2% of the respondents prefer good warranty and
service,9.6% of the respondents prefer better price lesser quality,10.4% of the respondents
prefer good brand image and 16% of the respondents prefer product just fulfil the need.

Inference
Majority of the respondents prefer product with good warranty and services.
CHART : 4.1.11
Chart showing the preference of the respondents

preference
50 47.2
45
40
35
30
25
20 16.8 16
15 9.6 10.4
10
5
0
Big companies with Company with Local companies Companies with Product just fulfil
wider availability good warranty and with better price good brand image the need
and distribution after sales service lesser quality

preference
 TABLE 4.1.12
Table showing care about brands of the respondents
Care about brands Number of respondents Percentage
Very strongly 46 36.8
Strongly 58 46.4
Not much 21 16.8
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 36.8% of the respondents very strongly care about
brands,46.4% of the respondents strongly care about brands and 21% of the respondents are
not much care about brands.

Inference
Majority of the respondents are strongly care about brands.

CHART : 4.1.12
Chart showing care about brands of the respondents

Care about brands

50 46.4
45
40 36.8
35
30
25
20 16.8
15
10
5
0
Very strongly Strongly Not much

Care about brands

31
 TABLE 4.1.13
Table showing buying only branded products of the respondents
Buying only branded Number of respondents Percentage
products

Yes always 44 35.2

Never 14 11.2
Only when quality is 51 40.8
important

Rarely 16 12.8
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 35.2% of the respondents are says yes to branded
products,11.2% of the respondents says never to branded products,40.8% of the respondents
buys branded products only when quality is important and 12.8% of the respondents says
rarely buying to the branded products.

Inference
Majority of the respondents buys branded products only when quality is important.

CHART : 4.1.13
Chart showing buying only branded products of the respondents

Buying only branded products

45 40.8
40 35.2
35
30
25
20
15 11.2 12.8
10
5
0
Yes always Never Only when quality is Rarely
important

Buying only branded products

 TABLE :4.1.14
Table showing loyal customer for the brands of the respondents
Loyal customer Number of respondents Percentage
Yes always 53 42.4
Never 72 57.6
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 42.4% of the respondents always stick to same brand and
57.6% of the respondents keep experimenting new brands.

Inference
Majority of the respondents says that they never stick to same brand.
CHART : 4.1.14
Chart showing loyal customer for the brands of the respondents

Loyal customer
70

60 57.6

50
42.4
40

30

20

10

0
yes always Never

Loyal customer
 TABLE 4.1.15
Table showing price sensitive customer of the respondents
Price sensitive Number of respondents Percentage
Yes 85 68.0
No 40 32.0
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 68% of the respondents says yes and 32% of the respondents
says no.

Inference
Majority of the respondents are price sensitive customers.

CHART : 4.1.15
Chart showing price sensitive customer of the respondents

Price sensitive customer

80

68
70

60

50

40
32
30

20

10

0
Yes No

Price sensitive customer

 TABLE 4.1.16
Table showing proportion of brands used of the respondents
Proportion Number of respondents Percentage
20:80 68 54.4
50:50 32 25.6
80:20 25 20.0
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 54.4% of the respondents are using 20% branded and 80%
unbranded products, 25.6% of the respondents are using 50% branded and unbranded
products and 20% of the respondents are using 80% branded and 20% unbranded products.

Inference
Majority of the respondents are using 20% branded and 80% unbranded products.

CHART : 4.1.16
Chart showing proportion of brands used of the respondents

proportion
60
54.4

50

40

30 25.6
20
20

10

0
20% branded 80% unbranded 50% branded 50% unbranded 80% branded 20% unbranded

proportion
 TABLE 4.1.17
Table showing sticking of the respondents
Stick to same brand when price is Number of Percentage
increased respondents

Up to a certain limit in price increase 40 32.0

Yes irrespective of the price increase 24 19.2

No i may look for different 61 48.8

products/brand

Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 32% of the respondents says upto certain limit,19.2% of
the respondents says irrespective of the price increase and 48.8% of the respondents says no.

Inference
Majority of the respondents says no and they look for different products when the price is
increased.
 CHART : 4.1.17
Chart showing sticking of the respondents

sticking
60
48.8
50
40 32
30
19.2
20
10
0
Upto a certain limit in price Yes irrespective of the price No I may look for different
increase increase products

sticking

TABLE 4.1.18

Table showing the ingredient branding affect the respondents product purchase
decision

Ingredient branding affect Number of respondents Percentage

your product purchase

decision
Yes 76 60.8
No 49 39.2
Total 125 100.0

Interpretation
The above table shows that 60.8% of the respondents says yes and 39.2% of the
respondents says no.

Inference

For majority of the respondents Ingredient branding affect their product purchase
decision.
 CHART : 4.1.18

Chart showing the ingredient branding affect the respondents product purchase
decision

IB affect your product purchase decision

70
60.8
60
50
39.2
40
30
20
10
0
Yes No

IB affect your product purchase decision

37
 4.2 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS
4.2.1 Relationship Between Gender And Loyal Customer
Null hypothesis(ho):

There is no significance difference between gender and loyal customer.

Alternative hypothesis(h1):

There is a significance difference between gender and loyal customer.

TABLE : 4.2.1
Gender * Loyal Customer For The Brands
Crosstabulation

Gender Loyal customer for the brands Total

Yes Never

Male 14 28 42

Female 39 44 83

Total 53 72 125

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df Asymp. Sig.

(2sided)

Pearson 2.129A 1 .145

chisquare

Continuity 1.607 1 .205

correctionb

Likelihood ratio 2.159 1 .142

Fisher's exact
test
 N of valid cases 125

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 17.81. b.
Computed only for a 2x2 table

Interpretation
From the above table of chi-square statistic the calculated value is χ2 2.129 and
assumption significant level is .145 which is higher than the alpha value (.145>0.05). There is
null hypothesis is accepted.

Inference

There is no significance difference between gender and loyal customers.

 4.2.2 Relationship Between Gender And Price Sensitive Customer
Null hypothesis (ho):

There is no significance difference between gender and price sensitivity customer.

Alternative hypothesis (h1):

There is a significance difference between gender and price sensitivity customer.

TABLE : 4.2.2
Gender * Price Sensitive Customer Crosstabulation

Gender Price sensitive customer Total

Yes No

Male 23 19 42

Female 62 21 83

Total 85 40 125

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df Asymp. Sig.

(2sided)

pearson chisquare 5.094A 1 .024

continuity 4.219 1 .040

correctionb

likelihood ratio 4.982 1 .026

fisher's exact test

n of valid cases 125

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 13.44. b.
Computed only for a 2x2 table

Interpretation
 From the above table of chi-square statistic the calculated value is χ 2 5.094 and
assumption significant level is .024 which is higher than the alpha value (.024>0.05). There is
null hypothesis is accepted.

Inference

There is no significance difference between gender and price sensitivity customer.

 4.2.3 Relationship Between Gender And Buy Only Branded Products
Null hypothesis (ho):

There is no significance difference between gender and buy only branded products.

Alternative hypothesis (h1):

There is a significance difference between gender and buy only branded products.

TABLE : 4.2.3

Gender * Buy Only Branded Products Crosstabulation

Gender Buy only branded products Total

Yes Never Only Rarely

always when
quality is
important

Male 15 6 15 6 42

Female 29 8 36 10 83

Total 44 14 51 16 125

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df Asymp. Sig.

(2sided)

Pearson 1.053A 3 .789

chisquare

Likelihood ratio 1.040 3 .792

N of valid cases 125

a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 4.70.
Interpretation

From the above table of chi-square statistic the calculated value is χ 2 1.053 and
assumption significant level is .789 which is higher than the alpha value (.789>0.05). There is
null hypothesis is accepted.

Inference
There is no significance difference between gender and buy only branded products.

4.3 HENRY GARRETT RANKING

TABLE : 4.3.1
Henry Garrett Ranking

Particulars Scores Total Mean Rank

Scores

Price 702 4158 1218 850 215 204 88 7435 59.48 2

Taste 546 792 638 3350 602 238 154 6320 50.56 4

Durability 78 462 232 300 430 2652 418 4572 36.58 6

After sales service 1092 330 232 500 215 374 1672 4415 35.32 7

Quality 6474 792 348 50 602 34 176 8476 67.81 1

Brand 624 330 406 550 2924 612 176 5622 44.98 5

Availability 234 1386 4176 650 387 136 66 7035 56.28 3

Inference

From the above table it is inferred that, the respondents gave high importance to
quality followed by price, availability, taste, brand, durability and the customer gave least
importance to after sales service.
 4.4 WEIGHTED AVERAGE METHOD
TABLE : 4.4.1

S.no Statement 5 4 3 2 1 Weighted

score

1 Ingredient branding will give positive 64 39 11 9 2 4.23

perception of efficiency of the product to
the customer

2 Ingredient branding will give positive 41 55 24 3 2 4.04

perception on the quality of the product to
the customer

3 Ingredient branding will give positive 41 40 36 6 2 3.89

perception on the reliability of the product
to the customer

4 Ingredient branding will give positive 42 41 28 12 2 3.87

perception on the image of the product to
the customer

5 Ingredient branding adds quality to the host 33 32 28 22 10 3.44

brands

6 Ingredient branding increases 38 41 25 10 11 3.68

trustworthiness of the host brand

7 Ingredient branding reduces marketing 38 39 26 14 8 3.68

Cost of host brand
8 Ingredient branding creates familiarity of 48 33 33 9 2 3.92
the host brand

9 Ingredient branding improves the quality of 45 36 24 15 5 3.80

product

10 Ingredient branding attracts more customer 54 34 15 5 17 3.82

to the product
[ 5 - Strongly agree, 4 – Agree, 3 – Neutral, 2 – Disagree, 1- Strongly disagree ]

Interpretation
From the above table it is observed that, Ingredient branding will give positive
perception of efficiency of the product to the customer was given first weightage with the
score of 4.23. Ingredient branding will give positive perception on the quality of the product
to the customer which was placed second with the weightage score of 4.04. Ingredient
branding creates familiarity of the host brand was given third place with the score of 3.92.
Ingredient branding will give positive perception on the reliability of the product to the
customer was given fourth place with the score of 3.89. Ingredient branding will give positive
perception on the image of the product to the customer was given fifth place with the score of
3.87. Ingredient branding attracts more customer to the product was given sixth place with
the score of 3.82. Ingredient branding improves the quality of product was given seventh
place with the score of 3.80. Both Ingredient branding increases trustworthiness of the host
brand and Ingredient branding reduces marketing Cost of host brand was given eight place
with the score of 3.68. Ingredient branding adds quality to the host brands was given tenth
place with the score of

3.44.

Inference
Majority of the respondents feels that ingredient branding will give positive
perception of efficiency of the product to the customer.
 TABLE : 4.4.2

S.No Statement 5 4 3 2 1 Weighted

Score
1 Intel(computer) 175 104 66 22 31 3.18
2 Android(smart 80 80 27 46 57 2.32
phones)

3 k-series(car) 195 120 78 20 20 3.46

4 Pspo(fan) 205 100 33 32 32 3.21
5 Rtr series(bike) 185 92 60 36 27 3.20
6 Teflon(cookware) 105 104 87 38 30 2.91
7 Vibram(shoes) 225 84 63 38 19 3.43
8 Siri- 235 68 78 34 18 3.46
powered(iphone)

[ 5- Never heard, 4- Heard, but know nothing, 3- Know something,but never used,
2- Used ,but not in the last 12 months, 1- Used their products in the last 12 months ]

Interpretation
From the above table it is observed that, k-series (car) and Siri-powered (i-phone)
was given first weightage with the score of 3.46. Vibram (shoes) which was placed second
with the weightage score of 3.43. Pspo (fan) was given third place with the score of 3.21. Rtr
series (bike) was given fourth place with the score of 3.20. Intel (computer) was given fifth
place with the score of 3.18. Teflon (cookware) was given sixth place with the score of 2.91.
Android (smart phones) was given seventh place with the score of 2.32.

Inference

Majority of the respondents gives high weightage to k-series (car) and siri-powered
(iphone).
 5.1 FINDINGS

Simple Percentage Analysis

 A majority of the respondents are below 25 years of age.
 A majority of the respondents are female.
 A majority of the respondents are from rural area.
 A majority of the respondents are unmarried.
 A majority of the respondents are from nuclear family.
 A majority of the respondents are below 5 in a family.
 A majority of the respondents are graduate.
 A majority of the respondents are private employees.
 A majority of the respondents income are below 20,000.
 A majority of the respondents sometimes only prefer product associate with particular
group of company.

 A majority of the respondents prefer company with good warranty and after sales
services.

 A majority of the respondents strongly care about using brands.

 A majority of the respondents buy branded products only when the quality is
important.
 A majority of the respondents are not a loyal customer for the brands.
 A majority of the respondents are price sensitivity customers.
 A majority of the respondents are using 20% branded and 80% unbranded products.
 A majority of the respondents are not ready to stick to a single product.
 For majority of the respondents Ingredient branding affect their product purchase
decision and Ingredient branding helps them to recall the name of the host product.

 Majority of the respondents says good for using celebrities in their advertisement.

Chi-Square
 There is no significant difference between the gender and loyal customer.
 There is no significant difference between the gender and price sensitive customer.
  There is no significant difference between the gender and buy only branded products.

Henry Garrett Ranking

 Majority of the respondents gave high importance to the quality of the product.

Weighted Average Method

 Ingredient branding will give positive perception of efficiency of the product to the
customer was given first weightage with the score of 4.23.

 Majority of the respondents gives high weightage to k-series (car) and siri-powered
(iphone).
 5.2 SUGGESTION
 The study reveals that, the most of the respondents are not aware of ingredient branding.
Hence the company should try to educate the customer regarding the ingredients.

 The communication efforts on ingredient branding should be carried out in effective

media.

 The study reveals that, comparing to Intel, Android, PSPO, RTR Series, Teflon, and
Vibram. The K-Series and Siri-Powered is known by some respondents. Hence these
companies should continue their efforts to become more successful.

 The study reveals that, majority of the respondents pays more attention towards the
quality of the products rather than price and availability of the products. Hence the
company should stay focus on the quality of the products.

 By labelling their products with the logos, they market the contained materials and their
company, at the same time. This will help the customer to know about both the
ingredient and the host product.
 5.3 CONCLUSION
The customer feels that ingredient branding will give positive perception of efficiency of the
product to the customer. The customer also wants to understand that the ingredient branding
is to illustrate to the consumer that there are quality ingredients used to build, develop or
produce the product. If a customer knows and understand the function, features and benefits
of a component (ingredient), he or she will pay more attention to this offering and , if it
creates a unique product offering, this can lead to loyal customer relationships.

The ingredient branding strategy is only to recommend if the right timing is give. The co-
branding, perceived quality attitude towards the brand, brand esteem, memorability, reduce
market outlay, reliable and likeability are major factors which ultimately found under
ingredient branding as a result of which the host brand equity gets supported. The
appropriateness of ingredient branding depends on manufacturer – supplier relationship, the
need to differentiate the brand and the ability to implement the new branding strategy.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Reference Book
 Kothari C.R., Research Methodology, New Age International (P) Ltd, 2nd edition,
2004.

 Saravanavel P, Research Methodology, 16th edition, 2005.

Website
 www.google.com
 https://www.wikipedia.org
 http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/.
 APPENDIX
A STUDY ON CUSTOMER PERCEPTION TOWARDS INGREDIENT
BRANDING WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TIRUPUR CITY

1. Name: _____________________________

2. Age: _________

(a) Below 25 (b) 26-50 (c) 51-75 (d) Above 75

3. Gender:

(a) Male (b) Female

4. Residence situated at:

(a) Urban Area (b) Rural Area (c) Semi Urban Area (d) Others

5. Marital status:

(a) Married (b) Unmarried

6. Nature of the family:

(a) Nuclear family (b) Joint Family (c) Others

7. Size of the family:

(a) Below 5 (b) 6 (c) 7 (d) Above 7

8. Educational qualification:

(a) Illiterate (b) School level (c) Diploma (d) Graduate

9. Occupational status:
 (a) Agriculturist (b) Businessman (c) Home Maker (d) Self-employed (e)
Government Employee (f) Private Employee (g) Professional (h) Others

10. Monthly income:

(a) Below 20000 (b) 20,001-40,000 (c) 40,001-60,000 (d) Above 60,000

11. Please tick all types of durable yours house owns in column A, how many in column B,
and if your house plans to purchase a type of durable within the next 12 months in
column C.
S.no Type A B c
Owns How many? Plans to
purchase

1. Television
2. Refrigerator
3. Air conditioner
4. Desktop
5. Laptop
6. Washing
machine

7. Vacuum cleaner
8. Bike
9. Car
10. Fan

12. Does association of product with a particular group of company lead to preference for
such products?

(a) Sometimes (b) Always (c) Never

13. Which of the following do you prefer?

(a) Products from bigger companies with wider availability and distribution
 (b) Products from companies with good warranty and after sales services

(c) Products from local companies with better price and slightly lesser quality

(d) Products belonging to companies with good brand image

(e) Products just fulfil the need

14. How much do you care about using brands? (a) Very strongly (b) Strongly (c) Not
much

15. Do you buy only branded products?

(a) Yes always (b) Never (c) Only when quality is important (d) Rarely
16. Are you a loyal customer for the brands you buy?

(a) Yes, always I stick on to the same brands (b) Never, I keep experimenting
with the new brands

17. Are you a price sensitive customer?

(a) Yes (b) No

18. What the proportion is branded to unbranded products in your house?

(a) 20:80 (b) 50:50 (c) 80:20

19. Will you stick to the same product or brand if their price is increased (and you are a loyal
customer to the product or brand)?

(a) up to a certain limit in price increase

(b) Yes, irrespective of the price increase

(c) No, I may look for different products/brand

20. What attribute according to you are important for the consumer? Kindly rank.
 Attributes Rank
Quality
Price
Availability
Taste
Brand
Durability
After sales
service

21. Does ingredient branding affect your product purchase decision? (a) Yes (b) No

22. When you heard about ingredient branding can you recall the name of the host product?

(a) Yes (b) No

23. What is your level of familiarity and involvement with each of the ingredient branding or
companies listed below?

S.no Ingredient Never Have Know Have used Have used

branding(host heard of heard the something their their
product)
name,but about
products,but products in
know
them,but not in the the last 12
nothing never used last 12 months
about their
them products months

1. Intel(computer)
2. Android(smart
phones)

3. k-series(car)
4. Pspo(fan)
5. Rtr series(bike)
6. Teflon(cookware)
7. Vibram(shoes)
 8. Siri-
powered(iphone)

24. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

S.no Statement 5 4 3 2 1
1 Ingredient branding will give positive
perception of efficiency of the product to

the customer
2 Ingredient branding will give positive
perception on the quality of the product to

the customer
3 Ingredient branding will give positive
perception on the reliability of the product

to the customer
4 Ingredient branding will give positive
perception on the image of the product to

the customer
5 Ingredient branding adds quality to the host
brands

6 Ingredient branding increases

trustworthiness of the host brand

7 Ingredient branding reduces marketing

Cost of host brand
8 Ingredient branding creates familiarity of
the host brand

9 Ingredient branding improves the quality of

product

10 Ingredient branding attracts more customer

to the product

[5-strongly agree,4-agree,3-neutral,2-disagree,1-strongly disagree]

25. What do you think about the fact that companies use celebrities in their advertisement
campaigns?

(a) Very good (b) good (c) neither good nor bad (d) bad (e) very bad.

Suggestion: ______________________________________________