Brand Performance of Jeans Trouser

A STUDY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION & BRAND PERFORMANCE OF JEANS TROUSER

PRESENTED BY:-

Vivek Kumar

([email protected]) (+91‐9163902878)

IBS, KOLKATA 15 JANUARY 2009

AUTHORISATION

The report is submitted as a partial fulfillment of the requirement of

internal evaluation for MBA program conducted by IBS Kolkata.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank Prof. Ashim Ghosh,Director,IBS , Kolkata for giving us permission to carry

out our project.

With immense pleasure and deep sense of gratitude, we wish to express our sincere thanks to our

class lecturer and project guide Mr. Kalyan Sen Gupta, Lecturer, Business Research Method

IBS, Kolkata for his constant interest, encouragement and expert guidance throughout the course

of this project, which provide the necessary driven force that enabled me to pursue our work with

vigor and keen interest.

At last, we express our sincere gratitude to our peers for their moral support and the love

rendered during the course of our dissertation work.

A Study on Customer Satisfaction & Brand Performance of Jeans Trouser

0 | P a g e

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: ......................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Methodology: ........................................................................................................................................ 1

3. Findings and Managerial Implication .................................................................................................... 3

4. Limitation .............................................................................................................................................. 5

5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 5

Appendix 1: Demographic profiling of respondent ...................................................................................... 6

Appendix 2: Analysis Result .......................................................................................................................... 7

Appendix 3: Questionnaire used for Survey ............................................................................................... 14


1 | P a g e

Jeans trouser has been innovated during 1950s for a coal mines worker by Denim. By

looking over the popularity of jeans trouser and changing trend in fashion made it

essential to understand the factor which is desirable to make customer satisfied.

The objective of the study was to know the characteristic and significance of Fashion &

offer, generic requirement, efficient quality, Value for money, services and maturity of

person which may generate satisfaction in the customer’s mind.

We have conducted survey and used the data collected trough respondents. Our

sample size was 108 and our all respondent were from city of Kolkata, India. We used

suitable multivariate technique to conclude the result of survey.

1. Introduction:

After globalization in India several MNCs came here and they changed the overview of

culture of organization. Now a days, most of the organization does not force their

employee to come in strictly formal wear rather they feel comfortability of employee is

more essential. This is an important reason why in last one and half decade demand for

jeans trouser has been increased significantly in India.

Now it is interesting to know the test and preferences of consumer of jeans trouser in

term of finding out the reason, how market leader is capturing the market with respect to

other competitors.

2. Methodology:

We tried to measure customer satisfaction of five major players of Jeans trouser. We

collected information from different shop (15 shops) and try to find out which is most

salable brand in Kolkata, India. For this part of survey we never include the exclusive

outlets of any of the brand. We Found Pepe, Levi’s , Wrangler, Splyker and Lee are the


2 | P a g e

brand which is most salable and hence we included this five brand for our survey. Our

survey can be divided in to two steps. We surveyed by the questionnaire. Firstly, we did

pilot survey to validate the question so that there should not be any ambiguity in the

question. For this pilot survey, randomly we selected 20 people from “City Center Mall”,

Kolkata, India. The purpose of this pilot survey was to remove or modify the ambiguous

question from the questionnaire. We modified or removed some of the question and for

final questionnaire we came out with 16 variables which may influence the customer

satisfaction. After this we surveyed for the variable which influence the customer

satisfaction and brand performance. In this survey we conducted interview for 107

consumers who uses jeans trouser in city of Kolkata, India.

This questionnaire was divided in to two section first was personal detail and second

was brand performance (Refer : Appendix 3). In this survey for brand performance we

had taken sixteen variables which were measured on five point likert scales from scale

range “very important” to “not at all important”. From the study we found detail of

demographic profile of respondent (Refer Appendix 1).

We had taken sixteen variables for the questionnaire and used factor analysis to see

the interdependent relationship among variables. For the factor analysis, we selected

“Principal component method”, “Varimax” rotation and Eigen value were used. We have

used scree test (Appendix 2: Figure 1) in which where Eigen value begin to smooth out

after six variable. This helps us to reduce sixteen variables into six factors. We can see

KMO and Bartlett’s test (Appendix 2: Table 1) for the adequacy and appropriation of

factor analysis. Here KMO measure of sampling adequacy is 0.782 which is significantly

high value and show factor analysis is appropriate. We can see rotated component

matrix (Appendix 2: Table 6) and we can see underline for every variables which is most

correlated with particular factor. Detail explanation of variable and factor is given below

in the table.


3 | P a g e

Factor No. Name Variables

1 Fashion & Offers Style, Verity, color, sale (offer)

2 Generic Requirements Fitting ,Availability of size, Gender

3 Efficient quality Fabric quality, Comfort

4 Value for money Income, Price

5 Services Alteration Facility, Services (e.g. replacement )

6 Maturity of person Age , Education

Based on above factor it is desirable to do a cluster analysis to segment the customer.

We did K-Mean cluster analysis followed by Hierarchical method by Ward’s clustering

method and “Squared Euclidean distance” .By hierarchical method we analyses that six

cluster is needed . We refer Appendix 2: Table 1 for the final centre of all six variables in

six clusters.

3. Findings and Managerial Implication

While explain the all six Cluster Refer Appendix 2: Table 12, 14,16,18,20 for the

percentage of respondent in different clusters and for Chi-square test for dependency

Refer: Appendix 2: Table 13,15,17,19 and 21

Cluster 1: Twenty two is the size of this cluster (Refer Appendix 2: Table 10).All consumer less

than 20 year belongs from this cluster where as 20.6 % of total sample belongs from

this cluster (Refer: Appendix 2: Table 12). Also around 39 % of population who are in

age of 20-40 belongs from this Cluster. In this cluster around 31.7 % of the customer

preferred Levi’s over other brand. Also it is found that this group is dominated by

Female.


4 | P a g e

Cluster 2: Twelve is the size of this cluster (Refer Appendix 2: Table 10).This cluster is dominated

by age group of 40-50 year with average monthly income less then Rs 5000. These

consumer prefer Spyker brand compare to others

Since Spyker is available in comparatively low price hence this market segment that is

having less then Rs. 5000 average monthly income is going for this brand of jeans

trousers. it can be suggested for other brand to reduce price to target this segment of

customer.

Cluster 3: Twenty four is the size of this cluster (Refer Appendix 2: Table 10).This cluster is

dominated by age group of 30-40 year with average monthly income Rs. 15000-20000 .

Most of respondent under this cluster is Male and they prefer Pepe jeans trouser

compare to others.

Cluster 4: Twenty one is the size of this cluster (Refer Appendix 2: Table 10).All customer under

this cluster are male and they prefer wrangler compare to other brand. This group is

dominated by age group of 30-50 year.

Cluster 5: Seventeenth is the size of this cluster (Refer Appendix 2: Table 10).Educational level of

most of the customer are Post graduate. Most of consumers under this segmet are

earning more than Rs. 2000. And they prefer Levi’s. These clusters represent 15.9% of

whole sample.

Cluster 6: Eleven is the size of this cluster (Refer Appendix 2: Table 10).In this cluster most of the

consumer are age group of 40-50 year. They are in income group of Rs. 15000 -20000

and they prefer Spyker and Wrangler equally.


5 | P a g e

4. Limitation

This survey is conducted in city of Kolkata, India. There is possibility that perception of

whole Indian market will be not as similar as perception of Kolkata’s people. Also

perception in semirural area may be different.

5. Conclusion

It is found that most of the consumer are not brand royal and shift from one brand to

another. Also from study it is found all six factors Fashion & offer, generic requirement,

efficient quality, Value for money, services and maturity of person determining the

satisfaction of customer.


6 | P a g e

Appendix 1: Demographic profiling of respondent

Age

2 1.9 1.9 1.952 48.1 48.1 50.026 24.1 24.1 74.119 17.6 17.6 91.7

9 8.3 8.3 100.0108 100.0 100.0

<2020-3030-4040-50>50Total

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

Educational qualification

4 3.7 3.7 3.7

20 18.5 18.5 22.2

17 15.7 15.7 38.018 16.7 16.7 54.649 45.4 45.4 100.0

108 100.0 100.0

Primary school(till V)Senior School(class VI to X)Higher SecandryGradutePost GraduteTotal


CumulativePercent

Gender

69 63.9 63.9 63.939 36.1 36.1 100.0

108 100.0 100.0

MaleFemaleTotal


CumulativePercent

Income(Avg. Monthly)

78 72.2 72.2 72.212 11.1 11.1 83.3

9 8.3 8.3 91.79 8.3 8.3 100.0

108 100.0 100.0

< 50005000-1000015000-20000>20000Total


CumulativePercent

Table 1: Frequency on age Category

Table 4: Frequency on Income

Table 3: Frequency on Gender

Table 2: Frequency on Educational qualification


7 | P a g e

Appendix 2: Analysis Result

1. Factor analysis

Table 6: Rotated Component Matrixa

-3.71E-03 2.012E-02 .108 -5.79E-02 -8.69E-02 -.6111.001E-02 2.033E-02 .123 1.452E-02 -.164 .790

-.106 -.599 -.190 .113 .251 .413-.203 -4.18E-02 -5.54E-02 .706 -.139 7.177E-02

-1.59E-02 -8.61E-02 8.790E-03 .840 .104 5.952E-02-.104 -1.41E-02 .904 -6.50E-02 -3.67E-02 -.115

3.088E-02 .690 3.396E-02 -5.09E-02 -8.52E-02 4.426E-02.585 .316 .163 -.233 -.102 2.401E-02.190 8.940E-02 .736 4.417E-02 .404 .101.859 .117 .260 -.150 9.357E-02 4.101E-02

3.777E-02 .633 .140 -.113 .410 .168.698 .388 -.183 -.253 -1.98E-02 9.530E-02.760 -.179 -.277 .186 .129 -.147

6.012E-02 -.144 -7.60E-03 -.427 .663 .145

.256 .743 -.151 7.689E-02 .157 -9.86E-02

2.247E-02 .130 .160 .166 .803 -.166

AgeEducational qualification Gender Income(Avg. Monthly)PriceFabric Quality Fitting Style Comfort VerietyAvailabilty of Sizes Avaibility of ColorSale (Offers) Alteration FacilityAvailability of Changing Rooms Services(e.g:-replaceme nt)

1 2 3 4 5 6 Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Rotation converged in 6 iterations.a.

Scree Plot

Component Number

16151413121110987654321

Eig

enva

lue

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5

0.0

Table 5

Figure 1: Scree Plot


8 | P a g e

Table 7:


9 | P a g e

2. Cluster analysis

Initial Cluster Centers

1.20766 -.25740 -1.55942 .58804 -.62177 1.73489.37095 -.52835 .64075 2.39414 -.53685 .35984

-1.39342 1.47148 1.10447 -.59107 -.97570 1.35629-1.18410 -1.81761 -.26748 -.43832 2.25108 1.67507

.71197 -1.79750 1.62515 -.86739 .34792 .39440-1.07953 -.00563 -1.10817 1.27510 1.19227 -1.60952

Fashion & OffersGeneric RequirmentEfficient QualityValue For MoneyServicesMaturity of Person

1 2 3 4 5 6Cluster

Number of Cases in each Cluster

22.00012.00024.00021.00017.00011.000

107.0001.000

123456

Cluster

ValidMissing

Iteration Historya

1.587 1.505 1.277 1.328 1.534 1.534.392 .000 .130 .387 .161 .536.258 .125 .148 8.455E-02 .244 .257.216 .228 .236 .179 .166 .521.106 .135 9.330E-02 .000 .166 .356.217 .000 8.704E-02 .000 .000 .376.131 .000 .225 .119 .000 .000

8.796E-02 .257 .175 .000 .000 .000.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Iteration123456789

1 2 3 4 5 6Change in Cluster Centers

Convergence achieved due to no or small distance change. The maximumdistance by which any center has changed is .000. The current iteration is 9.The minimum distance between initial centers is 3.703.

a.

Final Cluster Centers

.07650 -.19529 -.63647 .14316 -.59567 2.09596-.48217 -.29431 -.19793 1.55253 -.48384 -.49889-.49184 1.45637 .37415 -.44615 -.42666 .08971-.96339 -.84674 .02467 -.03516 1.40064 .69918.44561 -1.11816 .58566 -.05756 -.39823 -.22388.62173 .38447 -.97885 .09212 .44672 -.39348

Fashion & OffersGeneric RequirmentEfficient QualityValue For MoneyServicesMaturity of Person

1 2 3 4 5 6Cluster

Table 11

Table 10Table 9

Table 8


10 | P a g e

3. Crosstabs a. Customer age

Table 14: Educational qualification Crosstab

3 1 4

75.0% 25.0% 100.0%

1 10 4 2 2 19

5.3% 52.6% 21.1% 10.5% 10.5% 100.0%

4 2 4 3 2 2 17

23.5% 11.8% 23.5% 17.6% 11.8% 11.8% 100.0%

6 2 3 3 2 2 18

33.3% 11.1% 16.7% 16.7% 11.1% 11.1% 100.0%

11 8 4 11 11 4 49

22.4% 16.3% 8.2% 22.4% 22.4% 8.2% 100.0%

22 12 24 21 17 11 107

20.6% 11.2% 22.4% 19.6% 15.9% 10.3% 100.0%

Count % within Educationalqualification Count % within Educationalqualification Count % within Educationalqualification Count % within Educationalqualification Count % within Educationalqualification Count % within Educationalqualification

Primary school(till V)

Senior School (class VI to X)

Higher Secandry

Gradute

Post Gradute

Educational qualification

Total

1 2 3 4 5 6Cluster Number of Case

Total

Table 12 : Customer Age* Cluster Number Crosstab

2 2100.0% 100.0%

14 6 4 11 12 5 5226.9% 11.5% 7.7% 21.2% 23.1% 9.6% 100.0%

3 2 11 5 1 3 2512.0% 8.0% 44.0% 20.0% 4.0% 12.0% 100.0%

1 4 5 3 3 3 195.3% 21.1% 26.3% 15.8% 15.8% 15.8% 100.0%

2 4 2 1 922.2% 44.4% 22.2% 11.1% 100.0%

22 12 24 21 17 11 10720.6% 11.2% 22.4% 19.6% 15.9% 10.3% 100.0%

Count% within AgeCount% within AgeCount% within AgeCount% within AgeCount% within AgeCount% within Age

<20

20-30

30-40

40-50

>50

Age

Total


Total

Chi-Square Tests

32.857a 20 .03534.901 20 .021

.320 1 .572

107

Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood RatioLinear-by-LinearAssociationN of Valid Cases

Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

22 cells (73.3%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is .21.

a.

Table 13 :


11 | P a g e

Table 17:Chi-Square Tests

33.257 a 5 .00039.604 5 .000

.902 1 .342

107

Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

2 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. Theminimum expected count is 4.01.

a.

Table 15:Chi-Square Tests

30.646 a 20 .00033.166 20 .000

.531 1 .006

107

Pearson Chi-SquareLikelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.

Crosstab

8 9 18 21 4 8 6811.8% 13.2% 26.5% 30.9% 5.9% 11.8% 100.0%

14 3 6 13 3 3935.9% 7.7% 15.4% 33.3% 7.7% 100.0%

22 12 24 21 17 11 10720.6% 11.2% 22.4% 19.6% 15.9% 10.3% 100.0%

Count% within GenderCount% within GenderCount% within Gender

Male

Female

Gender

Total


Total

Table 16 :


12 | P a g e

Table 18 : Income(Avg Monthly)* Crosstab

22 11 15 15 6 8 77

28.6% 14.3% 19.5% 19.5% 7.8% 10.4% 100.0%

1 5 6 12

8.3% 41.7% 50.0% 100.0%

4 2 3 9

44.4% 22.2% 33.3% 100.0%

9 9

100.0% 100.0%

22 12 24 21 17 11 107

20.6% 11.2% 22.4% 19.6% 15.9% 10.3% 100.0%

Count% within Income(Avg.Monthly)Count% within Income(Avg.Monthly)Count% within Income(Avg.Monthly)Count% within Income(Avg.Monthly)Count% within Income(Avg.Monthly)

< 5000

5000-10000

15000-20000

>20000

Income(Avg.Monthly)

Total


Total

Chi-Square Tests

78.942a 15 .00070.773 15 .000

18.073 1 .000

107


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.

Table 19


13 | P a g e

Table 21 : Chi-Square Tests

58.400a 20 .00066.080 20 .000

5.880 1 .015

107


Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


a.

Table 20: Brand Choice * Cluster Number of Case Crosstabulation

19 6 16 6 10 3 6031.7% 10.0% 26.7% 10.0% 16.7% 5.0% 100.0%

5 4 2 1145.5% 36.4% 18.2% 100.0%

3 3 3 933.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%

1 5 3 911.1% 55.6% 33.3% 100.0%

3 3 2 3 7 1816.7% 16.7% 11.1% 16.7% 38.9% 100.0%

22 12 24 21 17 11 10720.6% 11.2% 22.4% 19.6% 15.9% 10.3% 100.0%

Count % within Brand ChoiceCount % within Brand ChoiceCount % within Brand ChoiceCount % within Brand ChoiceCount % within Brand ChoiceCount % within Brand Choice

Levi's

Pepe

Spyker

Wrangler

Lee

Brand Choice

Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 Cluster Number of Case

Total


14 | P a g e

Appendix 3: Questionnaire used for Survey

Questionnaire for end user Survey

PERSONAL DETAILS 1. Name : ………………………………………………………………… 2. Email : ……………………………………………............................... 3. Mobile Number : 4. What is your age (in years)?

< 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 50 – 60 > 60

5. What is your level of education?

Primary School (till class V) Senior School (class VI – X) Higher Secondary Graduate Post Graduate

6. What is the average monthly income of your family (in Rs.)?

< 5000 5000 – 10000 10000 – 15000 15000 – 20000

>20000

7. Gender : Male Female

Respondent ID:

BRAND PREFERENCE 8. How frequent do you purchase jeans trouser in a year.

a) Once b)Twice c)Thrice d)Four times e)More than 4 times

9. How important do you think the following parameters are in choosing your preferred brand?

10. Rank the brands you like most for buying jeans.(1 for most likeness and 5 for least

likeness):

Sl Brand Rank 1 Pepe 2 Levi’s 3 Spykar 4 Wrangler 5 Lee

Factors Very Important

Somewhat Important

Moderately Important

Not so Important

Not at all Important

Convenient Location Price Fabric Quality Fitting Style Fitting Comfort No of Variant (Varity) Availability of sizes Color Availability Alteration facility sales (Discount / Offer) Availability of changing room

Service (e.g. Replacement )

Brand Performance of Jeans Trouser

Business

Transcript of Brand Performance of Jeans Trouser