See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288990404

Brand Preference and Customer Satisfaction of Branded Milk in India

Article · December 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 2,578

1 author:

Kameswara Rao Poranki

Dire Dawa University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
25 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

project at Visakhapatnam View project

project at hyderabad View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kameswara Rao Poranki on 02 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Brand Preference and Customer Satisfaction of Branded Milk in India
Kameswara Rao Poranki
Professor in Department of Marketing, FAFS, Al Baha University, Saudi Arabia (KSA)

Abstract
Brand Preference is a compulsory ingredient for customer satisfaction. Interestingly, the term
'Customer satisfaction' is most important for any marketing manager who wishes to improve the
market share by improving the brand preference through customer satisfaction. The researcher of this
paper focuses on the brand preference and its linkage to customer satisfaction by considering the
various aspects of Customer Satisfaction of branded Milk in India.
Keywords: Brand Preference, Customer Satisfaction, Brand Preference Mix etc.

Originality/value: The researchers have conducted the survey at Bangalore, India to assess the
Customer Satisfaction through Brand Preference of Nandini Shubham Milk at Bangalore, India to get
the desired results.

Introduction
It is very Interesting to measure the brand loyalty in which a consumer will choose a particular brand
in the plethora of available of competing brands, but will accept substitutes if that brand is not
available (http://www.businessdictionary.com). Also the more frequently used term in marketing
research is the customer satisfaction as it can be defined as the degree of satisfaction provided by the
goods or services of a company which measured by the number of repeat customers. This is because
brand loyalty can be an outcome of habit. Brand preference goes one step further by ensuring that
brand loyalty is linked to a number of preference drivers. Pharmaceutical companies can act on those
specific drivers once they have been identified. Here, we have the taken the example of the Brand
Preference Mix (BPM) is a framework that should allow pharmaceutical companies to identify the
drivers of preference most relevant to their brands/products, as perceived by the users. The below
figure explains the BPM is made up of three components that each includes a number of preference
drivers:

Source: http://www.smart-pharma.com
This conceptual example may be better suited to any product. But the perceived value of their
brand/product attributes (i.e. efficacy, safety, convenience, scope of indications, price, first-to-launch
status). Interestingly, the perceived quality of the services they offer and deliver to physicians
(scientific information, sponsorship, professional trainings, scientific grants, career development
support). The components and the links between them should be well established in the minds of
prescribers to guarantee that promotional actions will have maximum impact. The Brand Preference
Mix Index (BPM Index) is a synthetic measurement tool that captures a brand/product performance on
the criteria that carry the most importance to the users of Milk Products also can be studied with this
concept.

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 0 8, December 2015 Page 202
Review of Literature
We need to understand that a brand in its simplest form is a mark of differentiation. However, it is
noted that the evolution of brands shifted its focus from differentiation to representation and
furthermore from embodiment to meaning (Berthon et al., Simon 2011). Notably, the consumers in
developed markets found numerous ways of satisfying their basic consumption needs, they focused on
higher meaning in making brand choices which is an important implication for brand management is
more relevant in this research. The researcher (Kameswara Rao Poranki,2015) has noted in his earlier
research for any company the brand orientation and brand preference of consumers are important while
identifying the importance of brand management and the spectrum of brand has been broadened
beyond marketing communication and the resource-based theory of marketing strategy (Wong and
Merrilees, 2007). Doyle (1989). According to Wong that there are multiple roles played by brands for
any modern company and also according to the research of Doyle, building successful brands leads to
success of any company. It is important that the researcher in this research he have just not dealt with
the cause-and-effect relationship between attitude change and change in brand preference. As per the
findings of (Festinger, Leon 1964) he has raised questions concerning the nature and direction of
causation in relations between attitudes and behavior. In some other research studies related to
segmentation on the basis of personality characteristics have had negative or inconclusive results.
However, it is identified as long as in 1959 that Psychological and Objective Factors are more useful in
the Prediction of Brand Choice. (Evans, Franklin B,1959) along with it is important to find out the
types of consumers (Koponen, Arthur,1960), apart from personality and product use by the end of
1961 (Tucker, W. T. and John J. Painter,1961). We therefore, understood that the customer satisfaction
is the key determinant of success in the service industry as well as product industry (Bigne JE, Sanchez
I.,ndreu L& Bruhn M. Georgi D). It is interesting to note that the satisfaction, is achieved when the
needs and expectations of customers are met or exceeded. Generally, the marketing research on
customer satisfaction can be broadly classified into two categories: one focuses on studying the
customer satisfaction of various gaps while the other focuses on the antecedents of customer
satisfaction (Kotler P, Armstrong G, Nahmens I, Ikuma LHa7 Kaplan AM, Schoder D, Haenlein M).
While conducting the market survey, about the customer satisfaction research is diagnostic in nature,
aimed at discovering the service gaps that cause customer dissatisfaction using a wide range of
methods (Ramamoorthy C, Selladurai V, Ranganathan R& Gu H, Ryan C). The other variety of
customer satisfaction research explores the antecedents or consequences of customer satisfaction and
the moves to be taken to manage the antecedents so that the best consequences can be realized as noted
above. The ultimate aim of both research categories is to improve and enhance customer satisfaction
by providing customer-centric services, the two approaches are in fact complementary instead of
mutually exclusive to one another according to various researchers (Haghighi M, Dorosti A, Rahnama,
A. Hoseinpour A., Hau LN, Thuy PN, Anderson EW, Sullivan MW).

Research objectives
1) To identify the awareness of Nadini Shubham Milk
2) To measure the Customers' Brand Preference while buying the Milk
3) To compare the Pricing of Nandini Shubham Milk with other.
4) To Understand the factors influence to purchase Shubham Milk
5) To assess the customer perception and satisfaction towards Shubham Milk

Research Method
In order to conduct this research within the limited time, available the convenience sampling survey
method was adopted for the purpose of the study with a sample size of 100 was chosen for the purpose
of the study within the Bangalore city of India. The Sampling method is Convenience Method (Non-
probability sampling method) used.

Research Findings

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 0 8, December 2015 Page 203
This research has find out the Customer satisfaction through brand preferences of the consumers of the
Nandini Shubham Milk in Bangalore, city of India are as follows:

1) Most of the customers age is between 20-50 years

2) 55% Males are purchasing milk
3) 29% of the people are Job holders
4) 28% of the respondents have below Rs5000 income
5) 77% of the people are using branded milk.
6) 42% of the people are taking (prefer) Nandini Milk
7) 97% 0f the people are know about the Nandini Shubham Milk
8) 33% of the people are know the Nandini Shubham Milk from 2 or more sources
9) 25% the people are knows Nandini Shubham Milk from the Family and Friends
10) 90% of the people are purchased the Nandini Shubham Milk
11) 51 % of the people are using Nandini Shubham Milk daily
12) 37% of the people are taking milk from the Milk parlor
13) 41% of the people are using 1Ltr Nandini Shubham Milk
14) 43% of the people are influenced by the word of mouth factor
15) 87% of the respondents give the 1 rate the Taste
16) 62% of the respondents give the 1 rate the Freshness
17) 52% of the respondents give the 2 rate the Packaging
18) 74% of the respondents give the 1 rate the Availability
19) 81% of the respondents give the 1 rate the Thickness
20) 49% of the respondents says that the availability of the Nandini Shubham Milk is Good
21) 1% of the respondents says that the availability of the Nandini Shubham Milk is Bad

Conclusion
This piece of research is concluded that the customers of the Bangalore City of India are satisfied with
the Nandini Shubham Milk and they still needs good offers and discounts as well as quality product in
future days. The Nandini Shubham Milk is a good product it can fulfill the requirement or expectation
of the customers in their mind. Due to non-availability of this brand in many places, the customers are
unable to buy even though it is good according to them. Therefore, the company has to focus on better
distribution channels to cover various parts of Bangalore, India. In general most of the customers
purchase milk which is available easily and don‘t think about the brand or quality of the product. In
many cases, the retailers are also influencing them while purchasing milk. It is interesting to note that
the company has understood the situation and they are planning for further improvements in the
product quality in order to enhance the brand preference of the customers. This in turn leads to
customer satisfaction with respect to their brand preferences. It is directed to future researchers could
conduct research on comparative analysis of neighboring cities in India then, it would be helpful to
find out the brand preferences and its impact on customer satisfaction.

References:
1. Anderson EW, Sullivan MW. The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for
Firms, Marketing Science.1993;2(2):125-143.
2. Berthon, P., Pitt,L.F,, Charabarthi, R.Berthon,J.Simson.M(2011) "Brand worlds: From
Articulation to Integration", Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.51,No1.pp.182-194
3. Bigne JE, Sanchez I. ,ndreu L The Role of Variety Seeking in Short and Long Run
Revisit Intentions in Holiday Destinations, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research. 2009;3(2):103-115.
4. Bruhn M. Georgi D. Services Marketing: Managing the Service Value Chain, Harlow,
Prentice-Hall Financial Times;2011.
5. Evans, Franklin B. "Psychological and Objective Factors in the Prediction of Brand
Choice:Ford versus Chevrolet," Journal of Business, 32 (October 1959), 340-69.

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 0 8, December 2015 Page 204
 6. Festinger, Leon. "Behavioral Support for Opinion Change, "Public Opinion Quarterly, 28 (Fall
1964), 404-17.
7. Gu H, Ryan C. Chinese Clientele at Chinese Hotels-Preference and Satisfaction, International
Journal of Hospitality Management. 2008;27(8):337-345.
8. Haghighi M, Dorosti A, Rahnama, A. Hoseinpour A. Evaluation of Factors Affecting Customer
Loyalty in the Restaurant Industry, African Journal of Business Management.
2012;6(14):5039-5046.
9. Hau LN, Thuy PN. Impact of Service Personal Values on Service Value and Customer Loyalty:
A Cross-Service Industry Study, Service Business. 2012;6(2):37-155.
10. Kameswara Rao Poranki, Mukhtar Yahia Ahmed Gumaa, Asif Perwej(2015)," Assessment of
Brand Preference in the Indian Mobile Phones Market " in Research Journal of Social Science
& Management, www.theinternationaljournal.org, ISSN: 2251-1571. RJSSM:Volume:
04,Number: 10,February 2015, pp.128-136.
11. Kotler P, Armstrong G, Principles of Marketing, 13th ed., New Jersey, Prentice Hall;2010.
12. Kaplan AM, Schoder D, Haenlein M, Factors Influencing the Adoption of Mass
Customization: The Impact of Base Category Consumption Frequency and Need Satisfaction,
Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2007;24(2):101-116.
13. Nahmens I, Ikuma LH. Discovering the Variables that Influence New Home-Buyer Service
Satisfaction", International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2009;33(5):581-590.
14. Ramamoorthy C, Selladurai V, Ranganathan R. Investigation of Customer Satisfaction in Pump
Manufacturing Industries through Customer Feedback Approach, International Journal of
Logistics Economics and Globalisation. 2012;4(1):55-75.
15. Tucker, W. T. and John J. Painter. "Personality and Product Use," Journal of Applied
Psychology, 45 (October 1961), 325-9.
16. Wong, H.Y. and Merrilees, B. (2007). Multiple roles for branding in international marketing,
International Marketing Review, 24(4), 384-408.
17. http://www.businessdictionary.com
18. http://www.smart-pharma.com

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 0 8, December 2015 Page 205
 NNEXURE
Table: 01:Age-wise Classification of the Respondents
S.No. Age Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
1. <20 1 1.0 1.0
2. 20-30 25 25.0 26.0
3. 30-40 25 25.0 51.0
4. 40-50 26 26.0 77.0
5. >50 23 23.0 100.00
Total=100 100.00 ----
Interpretation: The above table depicts about the age-wise classification of Respondents

Table: 02:Gender-wise Classification of the Respondents

S.No. Gender Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

1. Male 55 55.00 55.00
2. Female 45 45.00 100.00
Total= 100 100.00 ---

Interpretation: The above table depicts about the Gender-wise classification of Respondents
Table: 03: Occupation-wise Classification of the Respondents
S.No. Occupation Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
1. Home makers 14 14.00 14.00
2. Business People 19 19.00 33.00
3. Professionals 13 13.00 46.00
4. Employees 29 29.00 75.00
5. Other Category 25 25.00 100.00
Total= 100 100.00 ---

Interpretation: The above table depicts about the Occupation of Respondents

Table: 04: Income-wise Classification of the Respondents

S.No. Income in Indian Rupees Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

1. <Rs.5000 28 28.00 28.00
2. Rs.5000-Rs.15000 27 27.00 55.00
3. Rs.15000-Rs.25000 23 23.00 78.00
4. >Rs.25000 22 22.00 100.00
Total= 100 100.00 ---

Interpretation: The above table depicts about the Income of Respondents

Table: 05: Opinion of Respondents on Branded Milk
S.No. Opinion on Branded Milk Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
1. Yes 77 77.00 77.00
2. No 23 23.00 100.00
Total= 100 100.00 ---

Interpretation: The above table depicts about the Opinion on Brand Preference by Respondents

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 0 8, December 2015 Page 206
 Table: 06: Brand Preference of Respondents

S.No. Brand Preference Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

1. Nandini 42 42.00 42.00
2. Arokya 05 05.00 47.00
3. Srikrishna 04 04.00 51.00
4. Bharat 10 10.00 61.00
5. Others 14 14.00 75.00
6. Two or more Brands 25 25.00 100.00
Total= 100 100.00 ---

Interpretation: The above table depicts about the Opinion on Branded Milk of Respondents
Table: 07: Brand Awareness of Respondents (Company Brand)
S.No. Brand Awareness Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
1. Yes 97 97.00 97.00
2. No 3 03.00 100.00
Total= 100 100.00 ---

Interpretation: The above table depicts about the Opinion on Brand Awareness of Respondents

Table: 08: Source of Brand Awareness of Respondents (Company Brand)

S.No. Source of Brand Awareness Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
1. Through TV Advertisements 24 24.00 24.00
2. Through News Papers 07 07.00 31.00
3. Through Family and Friends 25 25.00 56.00
4. Through Doctors 01 01.00 57.00
5. Through other Sources 10 10.00 67.00
6. Through more than two sources 33 33.00 100.00
Total= 100 100.00 ---

Interpretation: The above table depicts about the Source of Brand Awareness of Respondents
Table: 09: Whether the respondent ever purchased the Company Product or not

S.No. Purchased or not Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

1. Yes 90 90.00 90.00
2. No 10 10.00 100.00
Total= 100 100.00 ---

Interpretation: The above table depicts about the respondents purchase

Table: 10: Frequency of Purchase by the Respondents (Company Brand)

S.No. Frequency of Purchase Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

1. Daily 46 46.00 46.00
2. As and when required 44 44.00 90.00
3. Not willing to purchase 10 10.00 100.00
Total= 100 100.00 ---
Interpretation: The above table depicts about the Frequency of Purchase of Respondents

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 0 8, December 2015 Page 207
 Table: 11: Source of Purchase by the Respondents (Company Brand)

S.No. Source of Purchase Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

1. Milk Parlours 33 33.00 36.70
2. Door to Door Delivery 24 24.00 63.30
3. Milk Agents 30 30.00 96.70
4. Others 03 03.00 100.00
5. Sub Total 90 90.00 ----
6. Not Purchased 10 10.00 ----
Total= 100 100.00 ----
Interpretation: The above table depicts about the Source of Purchase of Respondents

Table: 12: Daily Average Consumption by Respondents (Company Brand)

S.No. Daily Average Quantity of Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Purchase Percent Percent
1. 250ml 06 06.00 06.70 6.70
2. 500ml 33 33.00 36.70 43.30
3. 1000ml 36 36.00 40.00 83.30
4. 2000ml 09 09.00 10.00 93.30
5. >2000ml 06 06.00 06.70 100.00
6. Sub total 90 90.00 100.00 ----
7. No systematic quantity purchased 10 10.00 ---- ----
Total= 100 100.00 ---- ----

Interpretation: The above table depicts about daily average quantity of Purchase by Respondents
Table: 13: Factors influencing the Purchase behaviour of Respondents (Company Brand)
S.No. Influencing Factors Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
1. Through Advertisements 23 23.00 25.60 25.60
2. Through word of mouth 39 39.00 43.30 68.90
3. Product Availability 08 08.00 08.90 77.80
4. Recommended by Family Doctor 01 01.00 01.10 78.90
5. Others 19 19.00 21.10 100.00
6. Sub total 90 90.00 100.00 ----
7. Not purchased 10 10.00 ---- ----
Total= 100 100.00 ---- ----

Interpretation: The above table depicts about the influencing Factors of Purchase by Respondents

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 0 8, December 2015 Page 208
 Table: 14: Respondents rating on taste of the Company Branded Milk while Purchasing

S.No Rank Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1. 1 78 78.00 86.70 86.70
2. 2 09 09.00 10.00 96.70
3. 3 02 02.00 02.20 77.80
4. 4 01 01.00 01.10 98.90
5. Sub total 90 90.00 100.00 100.00
6. Not purchased 10 10.00 ---- ----
Total= 100 100.00 ---- ----

Table: 15: Respondents rating on Freshness of the Milk while Purchasing

S.No Rank Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1. 1 56 56.00 62.20 62.20
2. 2 27 27.00 30.00 92.20
3. 3 07 07.00 07.80 100.00
4. Sub total 90 90.00 100.00 ----
5. Not purchased 10 10.00 ---- ----
Total= 100 100.00 ---- ----

Table: 16: Respondents rating on Packaging of the Milk while Purchasing

S.No Rank Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1. 1 38 38.00 42.20 42.20
2. 2 47 47.20 52.20 94.40
3. 3 04 04.00 04.50 98.90
4. 4 01 01.00 01.10 100.00
5. Sub total 90 90.00 100.00 ----
6. Not purchased 10 10.00 ---- ----
Total= 100 100.00 ---- ----
Table: 17: Respondents rating on Availability of the Milk while Purchasing

S.No Rank Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1. 1 67 67.00 42.20 42.20
2. 2 18 18.00 52.20 94.40
3. 3 03 03.00 04.50 98.90
4. 4 02 02.00 01.10 100.00
5. Sub total 90 90.00 100.00 ----

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 0 8, December 2015 Page 209
 6. Not purchased 10 10.00 ---- ----
Total= 100 100.00 ---- ----

Table: 18: Respondents rating on Thickness of the Milk while Purchasing

S.No Rank Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1. 1 73 73.00 81.10 81.10
2. 2 11 11.00 12.20 93.30
3. 3 05 05.00 05.60 98.90
4. 4 01 01.00 01.10 100.00
5. Sub total 90 90.00 100.00 ----
6. Not purchased 10 10.00 ---- ----
Total= 100 100.00 ---- ----

Table: 19: Which are the parameters is important while purchasing Milk by Respondents

S.No Parameters Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1. Brand 28 28.00 31.10 31.10
2. Cost 06 06.00 06.70 37.80
3. Quality 49 49.00 54.40 92.20
4. Ingredients 02 02.00 02.20 94.40
5. Fat content 05 05.00 05.60 100.00
6. Sub total 90 90.00 100.00 ----
7. Not purchased 10 10.00 ---- ----
Total= 100 100.00 ---- ----

Table: 20: Schemes offered by Company, which influenced the purchase by rspondents

S.No Response Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1. Yes 07 07.00 07.80 07.80
2. No 83 83.00 92.20 100.00
3. Sub total 90 90.00 100.00 ----
4. Not purchased 10 10.00 ---- ----
Total= 100 100.00 ---- ----

Table: 21: Is there any discounts or other offers are given by the retailers

S.No Response Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1. Yes 17 17.00 18.90 18.90
2. No 73 73.00 81.10 100.00
3. Sub total 90 90.00 100.00 ----
4. Not purchased 10 10.00 ---- ----
Total= 100 100.00 ---- ----

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 0 8, December 2015 Page 210
 Table: 22: Do you think the pricing of the company is worth of these products

S.No Response Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1. Yes 71 71.00 78.90 78.90
2. No 19 91.00 21.10 100.00
3. Sub total 90 90.00 100.00 ----
4. Not purchased 10 10.00 ---- ----
Total= 100 100.00 ---- ----

Table: 23: Rate the Satisfaction level of the company with respect to others

S.No Rating Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1. 1 36 36.00 40.00 40.00
2. 2 29 29.00 32.20 72.20
3. 3 23 23.00 25.60 97.80
4. 4 02 02.00 02.20 100.00
5. Sub total 90 90.00 100.00 ----
6. Not purchased 10 10.00 ---- ----
Total= 100 100.00 ---- ----

Table: 24: What is your overall opinion about the Company

S.No Response Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent

Percent
1. Completely Satisfied 21 21.00 23.30 23.30
2. Satisfied 48 48.00 53.40 76.70
3. Partial 18 18.00 20.00 96.70
4. Not Satisfied 03 03.00 03.30 100.00
5. Sub total 90 90.00 100.00 ----
6. Not purchased 10 10.00 ---- ----
Total= 100 100.00 ---- ----

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 0 8, December 2015 Page 211
View publication stats