Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management, Delhi

LBSIM Working Paper Series

LBSIM/WP/2020/09

Analysis of Growth Trend of

Chocolates Over Sweet Industry
with Reference to NCR

shelendra K Tyagi
August,2020

1
LBSIM Working Papers indicate research in progress by the author(s) and are brought out to elicit ideas,
comments, insights and to encourage debate. The views expressed in LBSIM Working Papers are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the LBSIM nor its Board of Governors.

2
 WP/August2020/09

LBSIM Working Paper

Research Cell

ANALYSIS OF GROWTH TREND OF CHOCOLATES

OVER SWEETS INDUSTRY WITH REFERENCE TO
NCR

(Shelendra K Tyagi)
Abstract:

The primary purpose of this research is to study the consumer preference pattern of chocolates over
traditional sweets and develop a model for profiling the consumer as per their preference. The total no
of 152 respondents were chosen from Nation Capital Region (NCR) of India to study this preference
pattern a develop a model for profiling the consumer as per their preference. The primary data has
been collected through a questionnaire by using continuous rating scale, 5-point Likert scale and
factor analysis, logistic regression and discriminant analysis has been used for fulfilling the objective
of the research.

The major outcomes of the study are that the five main factors Originality, Assortment, Premiumness,
Packaging and Brand Awareness were identified that are driving chocolates sales growth in India, it
was also found that Price, Freshness of Stock, Ingredients, Taste, Brand Name, Packaging and gifting
tradition are the significant variables in explaining shift in preference towards chocolates from
traditional sweets. The result also indicated that preference for chocolates is increasing due to Product
Ingredients, Taste, Packaging and Gifting Tradition. The discriminant model identified Brand Name,
Taste, Tradition and Freshness of stock as the best predictors to explain the variability in the
preference or choice of individuals for Chocolates or Sweets. By using the discriminant score, a
decision rule was developed to profile a consumer and predict their preference for chocolates or
sweets. These findings have implications for practicing marketing managers and the above decision
rule can be used to profile chocolate and sweet consumers. Marketing Manager needs to emphasize on
Product Ingredients, Taste, Packaging and Gifting Tradition in their marketing communications to
increase sales of chocolates further.

Keywords: Chocolates, Sweets, Preference, Discriminant Analysis, Logistic Regression, Gifting

Tradition, Taste, Packaging, Freshness of stock, Product Ingredients, Brand Awareness

3
 ANALYSIS OF GROWTH TREND OF CHOCOLATES
OVER SWEETS INDUSTRY WITH REFERENCE TO
NCR

Introduction:

Chocolates and Confectionery have indulged the mankind, in its various tastes and forms,
ever since it was first made. Chocolates means " Food of the God” (The scientific name of the
Chocolate - cacao tree's fruit is "Theobroma Cacao" which means "food of the gods.").
Consumers of all age groups prefer chocolate and confectionery products because of their
attractive appearance and colour. Now-a-days varieties of products have gained importance
due to their delicious taste and better keeping quality making a direct impact on demand. All
of these delicious products ranges from fancy boxed chocolates to chocolate bars, baking
chocolate to cocoa powder. Over the years, Mithai and dry fruits have been replaced by boxes
of chocolates and biscuits and are being consumed with equal gusto by Indian consumer. It is
a small but significant development that may have far reaching implications for Indian sweets
Industry.

Chocolates are being bought as an impulse purchase item, competing with other categories
like soft drinks, snacks, beverages for a share of consumer’s wallet, but the factors like
growing income of average Indian family, and other macro-economic conditions have had a
positive impact on consumer spending. The per capita consumption of chocolates has
increased from 40 Gms in 2005 to 100-200 Gms now and there is still ample scope to grow
this consumption further. Mondelez India Foods Limited has been the market leader in
chocolates category since last 64 years in India. The chocolates market in India is approx. $
1.495 billion, Cadbury Kraft Foods has 66% market share, Nestle has 21% market share and
the remaining 12% by other chocolates manufacturers like Ferrero India etc. The Indian
chocolates market has been forecast to increase at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR)
of 10% over the next five years, reaching an estimated value of $ 3.0 billion by 2024. Over
the years, change in consumers' preferences, eating habits and their global exposure has given
a boost to the chocolate industry, chocolate market is registering high growth mainly because
of availability, affordability, anytime-anywhere consumption and convenience. Chocolates
are now considered a fun-to-eat snack rather than occasional luxuries and an important item
in consumers' grocery baskets. Until early 90’s, Cadbury had a market share of over 80% but
then Nestle appeared on the scene with its offerings like Kit Kat, Lions and gained market
share rapidly. The other two companies operating in this segment are Gujarat Co-Operative
Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF) and Central Arecanut and Cocoa Manufacturers and
Processors Co-Operation (CAMPCO). Competition in this segment is likely to intensify with
the entry of MNC giants like Hershey’s and Mars.

4
 India is a culturally rich nation and it is considered auspicious to have sweets on the occasion
of any good news, events or festivals. This vast country has diverse cuisines and this diversity
also shows up in the variety of sweets available in different regions. The finger licking gulab
jamun, coconut burfi, rosogulla and other milk sweets can make anyone’s mouth water. This
is not all, there is widely held belief that milk sweets and various other sweets when taken
after a meal help in digestion. Many people prefer having sweets at any time of the day, even
with tea, milk, juice or other beverages not only at restaurants but also at homes. However,
chocolates in India are slowly and steadily substituting the mithai or traditional Indian sweets.
Due to increased social consciousness and fear of adulteration, people prefer gifting well
wrapped chocolate packets rather sweets on special occasions and festivals. Taking advantage
of this trend the top chocolate brands are now concentrating on large pack sizes or special
packaging for special occasions. This very key trend has led to the key insight based on
which Cadbury has repositioned the chocolates with the tagline “Shubaranbh” (Kuch Meetha
Ho Jai).

Review of Literature:

Dodds (1991) defined the willingness to buy as the probability linked to a purchaser’s intent
to purchase a product. Purchase intention is thus synonym with willingness to buy. Purchase
Intention is the best predictor of individual behavior as it reflects a consumer’s purchase
probability, independently of other relevant factors that could influence consumer behavior
and decisions (Young, 1998). Purchase intention also relates to one’s purchase behavior even
though it does not necessarily lead to consumers purchase behavior (Chandon, 2005). Rui
Wu (2009) examined the purchase intention of Chinese consumers for a specific foreign-
branded product; Dove chocolate and found that enhanced perceived value for money can
lead to a stronger willingness to buy foreign-branded products. Jonah Berger, Michaela
Draganska, Itamar Simonson (2007) proposed that the variety a brand offers often serves as
a quality cue and thus influences which brand consumers choose and findings suggest that in
addition to directly affecting brand choice share through influencing the fit with consumer
preferences, product line length can also indirectly affect brand choice through influencing
perceived brand quality. Emari Hossien (2011) studied the direct and indirect effects of
brand equity dimensions on the development and building of brand equity of various products
in chocolate industry. DR. B. C. M. Patnaik; Pradeep Kumar Sahoo (2012) carried out the
emperical study on consumer behaviour towards CADBURY’S INDIA LTD. and NESTLE
INDIA LTD in Cuttack and Bhubaneswar and found out that the satisfaction level was just
satisfactory. Di Mo, Johan Swinnen, Linxiu Zhang and Scott Rozelle (2012) conducted an
experiment testing whether the preferences of Chinese consumers towards four chocolate
brands change when they are informed about the brands from the case when they are blind
about the brands. The results suggest that brand information does influence Chinese

5
 consumers’ preferences for chocolate. Debajani Sahoo, Shreya Garg (2012) analyzed the
buying motives in the purchase of Cadbury Chocolate among Young Indians and found that
Product Experience, Product Endorsement and Product Values are the major motivational
factors in the purchase of Cadbury chocolate. Shekhar, S & Raveendran, P. (2013)
explored different chocolate packaging cues that could possibly influence the purchase
decision of young consumers and found that an attractive package design was of paramount
significance in first purchase of chocolate bars. The important factors which affected the
buying decision were ‘Information’ and ‘Visual aesthetics’. Park Thaichon, Charles
Jebarajakirthy, Puja Tatuu & Rahul Gautam Gajbhiyeb (2018) examined the factors
affecting repurchase behavior of chocolate brands and, consequently, customer retention and
acquisition. The factors identified in the extant literature as antecedents of customers
repurchase intention in the chocolate industry, including brand recognition, sales promotion,
product price value, variety, taste, texture, size, packaging, and customer satisfaction, were
confirmed. The results also indicated that functional value, product selection value, self-
gratification value, socialization value, and transactional value were also considered during
the consumer decision-making process. Seon-Hee Kim & Hyeon-Mo Jeon (2020) measured
the influence of consumers’ chocolate choice motives on their attitude and repurchase
intention and the results indicated the positive influences of mood on craving and
chocoholism, health on chocoholism, and craving on repurchase intention, Neena Sondhi &
Deepak Chawla (2017) profiled chocolate consumers and found three distinct clusters:
the innovative national; the conservative patriot; and the global seeker. All three groups were
buying chocolates for gifting purpose, while the young innovators liked to buy for self-gifts
as well. Point of sales display had maximum impact on their purchase decision. The global
seeker was buying more foreign brands versus the other two, who bought chocolate brands of
national origin.

Objectives of the Study:

This study is designed to fill the voids of prior studies as discussed above. The prime
objective of the study is to find out the impact of Chocolates over Sweets Industry.

 To understand the underlying factors of chocolates sales growth in relation with

sweets.

 To study the consumer preference pattern of chocolates over traditional sweets.

 To develop a model for profiling the consumer as per their preference.

6
Research Methodology:
Descriptive research design was used for this study. In order to elicit the drivers of buying
chocolates, exploratory research was used, mainly, focus group settings are utilized. Students
who were frequent buyer and user of Cadbury chocolates are invited for focus group
discussion having member of 8 to 10 per group; they were then asked to describe their
experiences and timing of chocolate consumption. By the end of fourth focus group, there
was evidence of saturation of information and the focus group exercise was then called off. It
was found that most of them preferred to eat chocolates as a sweet item rather than bakery
products or sweets (Mithais). This exercise yielded 12 drivers of purchase decision, which
were then used for questionnaire design.

Questionnaire Design:

A questionnaire was developed to analyze the consumer buying behavior and determining the
preference of chocolates over sweets (Mithais). Moreover, the variables that persuade an
individual to prefer chocolates over sweets were asked in the questionnaire using a
continuous rating scale 1 to 10, followed by the demographic details of the respondent.
Statements were structured to assess respondent’s level of agreement/ disagreement to the
statements representing these attributes. Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert Scale
in which “1” represented strong agreement and “5” represented strong disagreement.

Sample size calculation:

N = (Zs/e)2

Z score for 95% confidence level is 1.96, there were two scales used for measurement – non
comparative continuous rating scale 1 to 10 and 5 point Likert scale, so range is (10-1)=9,
standard deviation s = Range/6=9/6 or 1.5, tolerable error was kept as 0.25. We got the
sample size of 138.

N= (1.96*1.5/0.25)2 = 138

For this research population was defined as people consuming chocolates and sweets in Delhi
NCR. Sampling element was individuals visiting grocery shops/sweet shops for shopping.
Sampling unit for this research was grocery shops/sweets shops from where the elements
were to be drawn. Sampling frame could not be developed for this research as it was neither
possible nor advisable to compile a list of all chocolate and sweet shoppers in Delhi NCR.
Therefore, non-probability sampling techniques were used, 152 completely filled up
responses are considered for data analysis. Factor analysis, discriminant analysis and logistic
regression was used to analyze the data.

7
Data Interpretation and Analysis:
Factor analysis was used to identify the common underlying factors from a set of 12 variables
that is driving sales growth of chocolates.

KMO > 0.5 indicates the appropriateness of factor analysis (Table 1). All the variables have
been explained by the underlying factors obtained through the analysis (Communalities
Table 2). In all 5 factors have been obtained and we will consider all 5 factors for analysis
purpose (The underlying factors are explaining 65% of the variance, Table 3). Factor 1 is
the most important factor (Eigenvalue is 2.475 as it explains 15.78% of the total variance,
table 4 & 5) followed by Factor 2, 3, 4 & 5.

 Factor 1 named as Originality (variable loadings of Product Ingredients & hygiene,

Shelf Life, Freshness of stocks attributes, table 5)

 Factor 2, named as the Assortment (variable loadings of Varieties, Visibility, Fun &
Trendy (Modern) table 4 & 5)

 Factor 3 named as Premiumness (variable loadings of Shape/design, Occasions &

festivities).

 Factor 4 named is Packaging.

 Factor 5 named as Brand Awareness (variable loading availability and brand name).

The logistic regression (logit model) estimates the probability of an observation belonging to
a particular group. Through logit model, we can estimate the probability of a binary event
taking place.The Cox & Snell R square and Negelkerke R square measures indicate a
reasonable fit of the model to the data (Table 6). This is further verified by the classification
table that reveals that 120 out of the 152, that is, 78.9% of the cases, are correctly classified.
(Table 7). The significance of the estimated coefficients is based on Wald’s statistic. We note
that Price, Freshness of Stock, Ingredients, Taste, Brand Name, Packaging and gifting
tradition are the significant variables in explaining shift in preference towards chocolates.
(Table 8). The positive sign of the coefficients indicate that the preference for chocolates
increasing due to Product Ingredients, Taste, Packaging and Gifting Tradition. (Table 8)

The discriminant analysis indicates which group an observation is likely to belong to. The
discriminant model used for the purpose of our study is reasonably good. The model is able
to predict the group membership with an accuracy of 75% (Hit Ratio) (Table 11) This
essentially means it is able to discriminate/predict with 75% accuracy the group
membership of observed objects. From the table it is inferred that Brand Name Taste,
Tradition and Freshness of stock are the best predictors to explain the variability in the
preference or choice of individuals for Chocolates or Sweets. (Table 10).

8
Table 1

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .580

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 272.617
Df 66
Sig. .000

Table 3

Total Variance Explained

Component Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared

Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance %

1 2.475 20.621 20.621 2.475 20.621 20.621 1.894 15.786 15.786

2 1.543 12.861 33.482 1.543 12.861 33.482 1.732 14.436 30.222
3 1.452 12.097 45.579 1.452 12.097 45.579 1.472 12.267 42.489
4 1.290 10.749 56.328 1.290 10.749 56.328 1.415 11.791 54.280
5 1.039 8.657 64.985 1.039 8.657 64.985 1.285 10.704 64.985
6 .879 7.321 72.306

7 .723 6.029 78.335

8 .705 5.873 84.208
9 .623 5.189 89.397
10 .495 4.129 93.525
11 .394 3.286 96.811
12 .383 3.189 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

9
Table 5

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5

(a) I feel buying chocolates as gifts are cheaper .523 -.078 .010 .584 .138
as compared to sweets.
(b) I believe packaging of chocolates (in terms -.119 .151 -.021 .858 -.007
of both size and attractiveness of the pack) is
better as compared to that of branded sweets.
(c) I feel the quality of chocolates is superior to .656 .250 -.082 -.213 .261
sweets in terms of ingredients and hygiene.
(d) I believe the ease of availability of .231 .301 .153 -.094 .649
chocolates makes me buy more of chocolates
than sweets.
(e) I get more varieties in chocolates than what -.153 .741 -.043 .182 -.039
I get in sweets.
(f) I buy more chocolates because it has a .611 .255 .148 -.094 -.234
longer shelf life as compared to that of Sweets.
(g) I believe eating chocolates is fun and trendy .226 .764 .033 -.125 -.027
whereas eating sweets is boring and old
fashioned.
(h) I buy more chocolates as I get to hear about .359 .550 .024 .381 .205
them (across different media) a lot more than
branded sweets.
Brand reputation of chocolates is an influence .138 .192 .018 -.140 -.740
during buying process as compared to sweets
I buy chocolates as their stock is fresh as .725 -.108 -.086 .168 -.018
compared to sweets
I feel the shape and design of chocolates is .009 .020 .877 -.123 -.155
attractive as compared to the sweets
shape/design
I buy chocolates anytime whereas I buy sweets -.053 -.024 .799 .133 .326
only on special occasions/festivities

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.

10
Table 6
Model Summary

Step -2 Log Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R

likelihood Square Square
1 128.064a .413 .553

a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 6 because

parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

Table 7

Classification Tablea

Observed Predicted

Q2.What do you prefer to have or

to gift during festivities: Percentage
Sweets Chocolates Correct

Step 1 Q2.What do you prefer to Sweets 66 18 78.6

have or to gift during Chocolates 14 54 79.4
festivities:
Overall Percentage 78.9

a. The cut value is .500

Table 8

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Step 1a Price -.377 .135 7.766 1 .005 .686

Freshnessofstock -.625 .151 17.082 1 .000 .535
Ingredientswhethernaturalor .340 .130 6.781 1 .009 1.405
synthetic
BrandName -.804 .183 19.259 1 .000 .447
Taste .932 .217 18.484 1 .000 2.538
Variety -.157 .138 1.300 1 .254 .854
Packaging .374 .146 6.592 1 .010 1.454
Shelflife -.166 .116 2.065 1 .151 .847
Tradition .405 .138 8.654 1 .003 1.499
Easeofaccessibility -.055 .167 .107 1 .744 .947
ModernTrends -.158 .113 1.932 1 .165 .854
Constant 1.297 1.856 .489 1 .484 3.659

11
 a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Price, Freshnessofstock, Ingredientswhethernaturalorsynthetic, BrandName, Taste,
Variety, Packaging, Shelflife, Tradition, Easeofaccessibility, ModernTrends.

Table 9

Wilks' Lambda

Test of Function(s) Wilks' Lambda Chi-square df Sig.

dimensi on0
1 .621 69.138 10 .000

Table 10

Standardized Canonical Discriminant

Function Coefficients
Function

Freshness of stock .915

Ingredients (whether natural -.378
or synthetic)
Brand Name 1.228
Taste -1.356
Variety .079
Packaging -.348
Shelf life .269
Tradition -.604
Ease of accessibility .115
Modern Trends .158

12
Table 11

Classification Resultsa

Q2.What do you prefer to Predicted Group Membership

have or to gift during
festivities: Sweets Chocolates Total

Original Count Sweets 58 26 84

dimensi on2

Chocolates 12 56 68

% Sweets 69.0 31.0 100.0

dimensi on2

Chocolates 17.6 82.4 100.0

a. 75.0% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

Table 12

Functions at Group Centroids

Q2.What do you prefer to Function

have or to gift during
festivities: 1

Sweets .699
Chocolates -.863

Unstandardized canonical discriminant

functions evaluated at group means

13
Findings and Conclusion:
Originality, Packaging, Brand Awareness, Premiumness and assortment are the
underlying drivers of growth in sales for chocolates in Delhi NCR. This study also confirms
already identified factors in extant literature like Brand Awareness/ Brand Recognition,
Variety, and Packaging driving sales growth of chocolate. However, this study discovers two
additional factors Originality and Premiumness influencing sales growth of chocolate.

The logit modeling of choice behaviour between chocolate and traditional sweets in
Delhi/NCR identified Price, Freshness of Stock, Ingredients, Taste, Brand Name, Packaging
and gifting tradition as the significant variables that explains shift in preference for
chocolates over sweets. The preference for chocolates is increasing due to Product
Ingredients, Taste, Packaging and Gifting Tradition.

The discriminant model identified Brand Name, Taste, Tradition and Freshness of stock
as the best predictors to explain the variability in the preference or choice of individuals for
Chocolates or Sweets. Consider if we want to check whether the consumer prefer chocolate
or branded sweets? If the discriminant score lies between -0.087 to + 0.699 we can say that
the consumer has a preference for sweets, if its score lies between -0.087 to - 0.863, the
respondent will have a preference for chocolates. (Table 12)

-0.087

These findings have implications for practicing marketing managers and the above decision
rule can be used to profile chocolate and sweet consumers. Marketing Manager needs to
emphasize on Product Ingredients, Taste, Packaging and Gifting Tradition in their marketing
communications to increase sales of chocolates further.

14
Limitations:
The present study was conducted using a non-probability sample of chocolate buyers in Delhi
NCR. The results of the same, if conducted in other part of the country may vary. India is a
very diverse country and has geographically, economically, socially and culturally very
different regions so this difference is too significant to be ignored.

There are two main limitations of the present study

1. First, generalization of the results is limited by the small sample size. The same
model should therefore be tested on a larger sample.

2. A non-probability sampling method is applied in this research.

15
Bibliography:
Byoungho Jin, Yong Gu Suh, (2005) ,“Integrating effect of consumer perception factors in
predicting private brand purchase in a Korean discount store context”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 22 Issue 2, pp. 62–71

Jonah Berger, Michaela Draganska, Itamar Simonson (2007): The Influence of Product
Variety on Brand Perception and Choice, Marketing Science 26(4), pp. 460–472

Shampanier, Mazar, and Ariely (2007): Zero as a Special Price: The True Value of Free
Products, Marketing Science 26(6), pp. 742–757

Allen, L. L. (2010). Chocolate Fortunes: The Battle for the Hearts, Mind and Wallets of
Chinese Consumers. Thunderbird International Business Review, 52 (1): 13-20.

Patwardhan Manoj, Flora Preeti, and Gupta Amit (2010). Identification of Secondary Factors
that Influence Consumer’s Buying Behavior for Soaps and Chocolates, The IUP Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. IX, No. 1 & 2.

Emari Hossien (2011), “Determinants of Brand Equity: Offering a Model to Chocolate

Industry”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 59 2011

Debajani Sahoo, Shreya Garg (2012), “Buying Motives in the purchase of Cadbury Chocolate
among Young Indians”, Romanian Journal of Marketing, 4, pp

Chuin, T.P., Mohamad, O. (2012). ‘Young Malaysians’ chocolate brand familiarity: The
effect of brand’s country of origin and consumer consumption level. Business Strategy
Series, 13(1), 13–20.

DR. B. C. M. PATNAIK; PRADEEP KUMAR SAHOO (2012), “An empirical study on

consumer behaviour towards Cadbury’s India Ltd and Nestle India Ltd. (A case study of
Male and Female of Cuttack and Bhubaneswar of Odisha)”,TRANS Asian Journal of
Marketing & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 1, September 2012 ISSN (online)

Shekhar, S & Raveendran, P. (2013). Chocolate packaging cues and first moment of truth: An
exploratory study on young consumers’ mind, Management Science Letters , 3(7), 1851-
1862.

Neena Sondhi & Deepak Chawla (2016) Attitude and Consumption Patterns of the Indian
Chocolate Consumer: An Exploratory Study, Global Business Review, Volume 17 Issue 6,
December 2016 pp. 1412–1426

Neena Sondhi & Deepak Chawla (2017) Segmenting and Profiling the Chocolate Consumer:
An Emerging Market Perspective, Journal of Food Products Marketing, 23:2, 123-143

16
Park Thaichon, Charles Jebarajakirthy, Puja Tatuu & Rahul Gautam Gajbhiyeb (2018) Are
You a Chocolate Lover? An Investigation of the Repurchase Behavior of Chocolate
Consumers, Journal of Food Products Marketing, 24:2, 163-176

Seon-Hee Kim & Hyeon-Mo Jeon (2020) Chocolate choice motives and attitudes in
foodservice market: Fine store product vs. manufactured product consumers, Journal of
Foodservice Business Research, 23:2, 149-168,

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-0801/news/40963259_1_chocolate-
consumption-chocolate-market-indian-consumers retrieved on 22/03/2020

http://www.exchange4media.com/53406_indians-prefer-snacking-on-chocolate-over-
traditional-indian-savouries.html retrieved on 24/03/2020

http://www.livemint.com/Companies/5NnJK87FxsWn7MZUvTq2HI/Cadbury-India-hopes-
to-sustain-20-growth.html retrieved on 31/03/2020

http://www.livemint.com/Industry/JAAQ4OuYXMmB4m7ZsHm2SI/Nestle-to-introduce-
premium-chocolate-brands-in-India.html retrieved on 21/3/2020

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-11-06/news/43733107_1_samsung-india-
iphone-ferrero-rocher retrieved on 29/03/2020

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-23/news/38763395_1_nestle-india-
ferrero-rocher-kinder-joy retrieved on 24/03/2020

http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/2422487/india_chocolate_market_forecast_and
retrieved on 27/03/2020

https://www.outlookbusiness.com/the-big-story/lead-story/cocoa-crossfire-3220 retrieved on
02/04/2020

17
Annexures

Table 2

Communalities
Initial Extraction

(a) I feel buying chocolates as gifts are cheaper as compared to sweets. 1.000 .639
(b) I believe packaging of chocolates (in terms of both size and attractiveness 1.000 .774
of the pack) is better as compared to that of branded sweets.
(c) I feel the quality of chocolates is superior to sweets in terms of ingredients 1.000 .613
and hygiene.
(d) I believe the ease of availability of chocolates makes me buy more of 1.000 .597
chocolates than sweets.
(e) I get more varieties in chocolates than what I get in sweets. 1.000 .610
(f) I buy more chocolates because it has a longer shelf life as compared to 1.000 .523
that of Sweets.
(g) I believe eating chocolates is fun and trendy whereas eating sweets is 1.000 .651
boring and old fashioned.
(h) I buy more chocolates as I get to hear about them (across different media) 1.000 .619
a lot more than branded sweets.
Brand reputation of chocolates is an influence during buying process as 1.000 .623
compared to sweets
I buy chocolates as their stock is fresh as compared to sweets 1.000 .573
I feel the shape and design of chocolates is attractive as compared to the 1.000 .809
sweets shape/design
I buy chocolates anytime whereas I buy sweets only on special 1.000 .766
occasions/festivities
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

18
 Table 4

Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5

(a) I feel buying chocolates as gifts .502 .017 -.451 -.295 .309
are cheaper as compared to sweets.
(b) I believe packaging of chocolates .221 .081 -.683 .355 .355
(in terms of both size and
attractiveness of the pack) is better as
compared to that of branded sweets.
(c) I feel the quality of chocolates is .618 -.133 .213 -.331 -.243
superior to sweets in terms of
ingredients and hygiene.
(d) I believe the ease of availability of .482 .342 -.009 -.108 -.487
chocolates makes me buy more of
chocolates than sweets.
(e) I get more varieties in chocolates .379 -.045 -.001 .675 -.091
than what I get in sweets.
(f) I buy more chocolates because it .526 -.132 .378 -.150 .252
has a longer shelf life as compared to
that of Sweets.
(g) I believe eating chocolates is fun .593 -.088 .338 .395 -.147
and trendy whereas eating sweets is
boring and old fashioned.
(h) I buy more chocolates as I get to .736 .039 -.189 .201 -.004
hear about them (across different
media) a lot more than branded
sweets.
Brand reputation of chocolates is an .017 -.366 .469 .214 .472
influence during buying process as
compared to sweets
I buy chocolates as their stock is fresh .481 -.218 -.062 -.484 .237
as compared to sweets
I feel the shape and design of .021 .673 .467 .023 .370
chocolates is attractive as compared
to the sweets shape/design
I buy chocolates anytime whereas I .116 .859 .030 -.042 .107
buy sweets only on special
occasions/festivities

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

19
 a. 5 components extracted.

QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Respondent,

We are conducting an academic survey on “Impact of Chocolate sales growth on Indian traditional
Mithais in Delhi NCR”. We solicit your cooperation for this study and request you to kindly fill the
questionnaire given below. The information provided by you shall be kept confidential and shall be
used only for academic purpose.

Q 1. What do you normally prefer to serve to your guests *

o Sweets
o Chocolates

Q 2 What do you prefer to have or to gift during festivities*

o Sweets
o Chocolates
If the answer to the above question is ‘Chocolates’ then why …………………………..

Q 3. Rate (on a scale of 1 to 10) the following attributes based on their importance to you while
making decision to buy a pack of:

Attributes Chocolates Sweets

Price

Freshness of stock

Ingredients (whether natural or synthetic)

Brand Name

Taste

Variety

Packaging

Shelf Life

20
Gifting Tradition

Ease of Accessibility

Modern(Fun, Trendy)

Occasions and Festivities

Shape/Design of Product

21
Q 4. To what extent you do you disagree or agree with the following statements (Please tick the
appropriate option)

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

disagree Agree

I feel buying chocolates as gifts are cheaper

as compared to sweets

I believe packaging of chocolates (in terms

of size and attractiveness of the pack) is
better as compared to that of Sweets

I feel the quality of chocolates is superior to

sweets in terms of ingredients and hygiene

I believe the ease of availability of

chocolates makes me buy more of
chocolates than sweets

I get more varieties in chocolates than in

sweets

I buy more chocolates as it has longer shelf

life than sweets

I believe eating chocolates is fun and trendy

whereas eating sweets is boring and old
fashioned

I buy more chocolates as I get to hear about

them (across different media) a lot more
than sweets

Brand reputation of chocolates is an

influence during buying process as
compared to sweets

I buy chocolates as their stock is fresh as

compared to sweets

I feel the shape and design of chocolates is

attractive as compared to the sweets
shape/design

I buy chocolates anytime whereas I buy

22
sweets only on special occasions/festivities

Q 5. Pl tick on the appropriate category

Age *

o 15-20
o 21-25
o 26-30
o 31-35
o 40 and above

Gender *

o Male
o Female

Annual Family Income *

o Up to 5 lac
o 5 lac - 8 lac
o 8 lac - 10 lac
o 10 lac and above
LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, DELHI
PLOT NO. 11/7, SECTOR-11, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075
Ph.: 011-25307700, www.lbsim.ac.in