Brand Preference and Customer Satisfaction of Branded Milk in India

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: 08, 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 (Nonprobability sampling method) used. Research Findings www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 08, 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: 08, 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: 08, 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 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 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 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 Interpretation: The above table depicts about the Opinion on Brand Preference by Respondents www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 08, 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 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 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 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 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 Interpretation: The above table depicts about the Frequency of Purchase of Respondents www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 08, 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 ---- - 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 Purchase Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative 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 ---- ---- 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 Percent Cumulative 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 ---- ---- Interpretation: The above table depicts about the influencing Factors of Purchase by Respondents www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 08, 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 ---- ---- 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 ---- ---- 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 ---- ---- 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: 08, December 2015 Page 209

6. Not purchased 10 10.00 ---- ---- 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 ---- ---- 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 ---- ---- 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 ---- ---- 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 ---- ---- www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 08, 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 ---- ---- 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 ---- ---- 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 ---- ---- www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 08, December 2015 Page 211