A study on Digital Influencers in regards

of the buying decision of youth for gadgets.

MBA program 2021-23.

Submitted By:

1. Aarushi Shah 202100620010238

2. Devarsh Shah 202100620010242
3. Khushaal Shah 202100620010252
4. Pratik Desai 202100620010131
5. Riya Nandha 202100620010192
6. Swapnil Shah 202100620010260

Submitted to:
Dr. Gurmeet Singh - Associate Professor, GLS University
 Univariate Analysis

Table No.1 Age

Frequency Percent

16-20 20 19.6
21-25 60 58.8
26-30 5 4.9
31-35 17 16.7
Total 102 100

Table No. 1 exhibited the age classification of the respondents. There were total 102
respondents. Out of which majority of the respondents of the study i.e. 58.8% respondents was
of the age group 21-25 years, followed by 19.6% respondents which belonged to the age group
of 16-20 years and 17 respondents belonged to the age group of 31-35 years, whereas there
were 5% respondents in the age group of 31-35 years.
.

Age
60
60

50

40

30 Age
20
17
20

10 5

0
16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35

Figure 1 Age
 Table No 2 Gender

Frequency Percent

Male 59 57.8
Female 43 42.2
Total 102 100

Table No. 2 showed the classification of respondents on the basis of the gender. Out of 102
respondents, 57.8% respondents were Males and 42.2% respondents were Females.

Gender

59
60

50 43

40
Gender
30

20

10

0
Male Female

Figure 2 Gender
 Table 3 Occupation
Frequency Percent
Business 10 9.8
Service 22 21.6
Professional 9 8.8
Student 44 43.1
Working Student 17 16.7
Total 102 100

Table No. 3 indicated the occupation of respondents. Out of 102 respondents, majority of
43.1% were students, 16.7% were Working Students, 21.6% and 8.8% respondents were
Service and Professional respectively. 9.8% respondents had business.

Occupation

50 44

40

30 22
17
20
10 9
10
Occupation
0
Business Service Professional Student Working
Student

Figure 3 Occupation
 Bivariate Analysis

Table No.4 Cross Tabulation of Gender & Age

Gender Total
Male Female
16-20 14 6 20
21-25 39 21 60
Age
26-30 4 1 5
31-35 2 15 17
Total 59 43 102

Table No. 4 presented Cross-tabulation of Gender and Age. Majority of the respondents were
age group of 16-20 and that to Male 39 male out of 59 and 60 number were 21-25 out of 102
and the least age group were 26-30 and that to female 1 female in 26-30 age group.

Table No.5 Cross Tabulation of Gender & Occupation

Occupation
Working
Business Service Professional Student
Student Total
Male 10 8 4 23 14 59
Gender
Female 0 14 5 21 3 43
Total 10 22 9 44 17 102

Table No. 5 exhibited the cross tabulation of Gender and Occupation. It clearly showed that
majority of respondents’ i.e., 59 and 44 are Male and Student respectively, from all 102
respondents’ majority are Male Students and there are no female respondents who are in
Business, Male working Student are 14 and Female working Students are 3 becomes total
working students to 17, Total Service respondents are 22 from which 8 are male and 14 are
female.
 Table No.6 Cross Tabulation of Occupation & Age
Occupation
Working
Business Service Professional Student
Student Total
16-
3 1 0 11 5 20
20
21-
6 6 3 33 12 60
25
Age
26-
1 2 2 0 0 5
30
31-
0 13 4 0 0 17
35
Total 10 22 9 44 17 102

Table No. 6 exhibited the cross tabulation of Occupation and Age, Out of 102 respondents majority
were age group of 21-25 and students whose frequencies are 60 and 44 respectively and students of age
group of 21-25 are 33. And the least respondents were from age group 26-30 which is 5 out of 102 and
professional are 9, the age group of 31-35 who are in service are 13 and total service are 22 and total of
31-35 age group were 17, it means majority of age group of 31-35 are in services. In age group of 21-
25 working students are 12 and total of working students are 17 and total of age group of 21-25 are 60,
it means from total working students majority falls under age group of 21-25.
 Multivariate Analysis

Table No. 7 Crosstab Of Gender, Respondents’ Reference Of Digital

Influencer While Buying Gadgets And Age
Do you refer Digital
Influencers while
Age buying gadgets?
Yes No Total
Male 13 1 14
Gender
16-20 Female 4 2 6
Total 17 3 20
Male 32 7 39
Gender
21-25 Female 18 3 21
Total 50 10 60
Male 4 4
Gender
26-30 Female 1 1
Total 5 5
Male 2 0 2
Gender
31-35 Female 14 1 15
Total 16 1 17
Male 51 8 59
Gender
Female 37 6 43
Total Total 88 14 102

Table No. 7 showed the cross tabulation of Gender, Reference of Digital Influencer and Age, 32
Male respondent from age group of 21-25 agreed with the reference of Digital influencer while buying
gadgets, which is the majority among all the respondents. There are no respondents who disagreed with
this statement and they belong to the age group of 26-30, there are majority of the respondents from age
group of 21-25 which is 60 respondents from these 60 respondents 50 are male and 10 are female and
the least respondents are from age group 26-30 which is 5 respondents and from which all are Male.
Table No. 8 Crosstabulation Of Occupation, How Often Respondents Make Purchase And
Gender
How often you make purchase
Based
Gender Based on
on
Always convincing Rarely
your
skills
needs Total
Business 5 3 0 2 10
Service 1 4 1 2 8
Occupation Professional 0 4 0 0 4
Male Student 2 12 4 5 23
Working
1 6 2 5 14
Student
Total 9 29 7 14 59
Service 1 6 3 4 14
Professional 0 3 0 2 5
Occupation Student 2 10 5 4 21
Female
Working
0 1 1 1 3
Student
Total 3 20 9 11 43
Business 5 3 0 2 10
Service 2 10 4 6 22
Professional 0 7 0 2 9
Occupation
Total Student 4 22 9 9 44
Working
1 7 3 6 17
Student
Total 12 49 16 25 102

Table No. 8 showed the Crosstabulation of Occupation, How Often Respondents Make
Purchase And Gender, Out of 102 respondents 59 were Male and 43 were Female respondents,
where 12 male students responded they make purchase based on their needs and 10 female
students responded they make purchases based on their needs, majority of the respondent
responded that they make purchase based upon their needs. Total respondents who are in
service are 22 out of which 14 are female and 8 are male, out of which 4 male service responded
they make purchase based on their needs and 6 female responded the same.Total working
students are 17 out of which
 BINOMIAL TEST

H0: Respondents do not refer digital influencers while buying gadgets.

H1: Respondents refer digital influencers while buying gadgets.

Table No 5: Cross Tabulation of Reference of Digital Influencers while buying gadgets

by Respondents
Binomial Test
Exact
Observed Test
Category N Sig. (2-
Prop. Prop.
Q1-Do you refer tailed)
Digital Influencers Group 1 No 14 0.14 0.50 0.000
while buying gadgets?
Group 2 Yes 88 0.86
Total 102 1.00

From Table No.5 it was observed that significance p value is 0.000 which is less than 0.05.
Thus null hypothesis is rejected which means respondents refer digital influencers while buying
gadgets.

CHI SQUARE TEST

Hypothesis A:

H0: There is no relation between occupation of the respondents and how often respondents
make purchase based on recommendation from influencer.

H1: There is relation between occupation of the respondents and how often respondents make
purchase based on recommendation from influencer.

Table No 6.1: Cross Tabulation of occupation of the respondents and how often
respondents make purchase based on recommendation from influencer
Based on
Occupation Always Based on your needs Rarely Total
convincing skills
Business 5 3 0 2 10
Service 2 10 4 6 22
Professional 0 7 0 2 9
Student 4 22 9 9 44
Working Student 1 7 3 6 17
Total 12 49 16 25 102
 Table No 6.2: Relation between occupation of the respondents and how often respondents
make purchase based on recommendation from influencer.

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-
21.973a 12 0.038
Square
Likelihood 20.268
12 0.062
Ratio
Linear-by- 2.505
Linear 1 0.114
Association
N of Valid Cases 102

From Table 6.2 it was observed that Pearson Chi Square significance value was 0.038 which
is less than 0.05. Thus null hypothesis is rejected which states that there is relation between
occupation of the respondents and how often respondents make purchase based on
recommendation from influencers.

Hypothesis B:

H0: There is no relation between age of the respondents and type of content that they prefer.

H1: There is relation between age of the respondents and type of content that they prefer.

Table No 6.3: Cross tabulation of relation between age of the respondents and type of
content that they prefer.

Type of Content
Total
Age Blogs Vlogs Both
16-20 4 3 13 20
21-25 10 14 36 60
26-30 0 1 4 5
31-35 4 1 12 17
Total 18 19 65 102

Table No 6.4: Relation between age of the respondents and type of content that they prefer.
 Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.122a 6 0.66

Likelihood Ratio 5.456 6 0.487

Linear-by-Linear Association 0.093 1 0.761

N of Valid Cases 102

Table No 6.4 shows that Pearson Chi-Square significance value is 0.66 which is greater than
0.05. Thus null hypothesis is accepted which states that there is no significance relation
between age of the respondents and type of content that they prefer.

ONE SAMPLE T TEST

Hypothesis A:

H0: Respondents don’t seek out reviews of influencers before making a purchase.

H1: Respondents seek out reviews of influencers before making a purchase.

Table No 7.1: Respondents seek out / not seek out reviews of influencers before purchasing

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
95%
Confidence
Sig. (2- Mean
t df Interval of
tailed) Difference
the
Difference
Lower Upper
Seek out reviews of
influencers before 8.908 101 0.000 0.833 0.65 1.02
purchasing
From Table No 7.1 it was observed that significance value p is 0.000 which is less than 0.05.
Thus, null hypothesis is rejected which states that respondents do seek out reviews of
influencers before purchasing the gadget.

Hypothesis B:

H0: Influencers are not reliable source of information.

H1: Influencers are reliable source of information.

Table No 7.2: Influencers aren’t/are reliable source of information

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
95%
Confidence
Sig. (2- Mean
t df Interval of
tailed) Difference
the
Difference
Lower Upper
Influencers are
reliable source of 5.103 101 0.000 0.549 0.34 0.76
information

From Table No 7.2 it was observed that significance value p is 0.000 which is less than 0.05.
Thus, null hypothesis is rejected which states that Influencers are reliable source of
information.

INDEPENDENT SAMPLE T TEST

Hypothesis A:

H0: There is no association between respondents refer digital influencer and respondents likely
to try a new brand if influencer recommends.

H1: There is association between respondents refer digital influencer and respondents likely to
try a new brand if influencer recommends.
 Table No 8.1: Association between respondents refer digital influencer and respondents likely to try a new brand if
influencer recommends.
Independent Test

Levene’s t-test
Test for for
equality Equality
of of
variance means
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. 95%
(2- Difference Error Confidence
tailed) Difference Interval of
the
Difference
Lower Upper

Likely to try Equal 0.680 0.411 2.040 100 0.044 0.631 0.310 0.017 1.246
a new brand variances
if influencer assumed
recommends Equal 2.003 17.172 0.061 0.631 0.315 -0.033 1.296
variances
not
assumed

From Table 8.1 it was observed that significance p value 0.044 is less than 0.05, Thus null
hypothesis is rejected which states that there is association between respondents refer digital
influencer and respondents likely to try a new brand if influencer recommends.

Hypothesis B:

H0: There is no association between respondents to trust a product review if sponsored and
Gender

H1: There is association between respondents to trust a product review if sponsored and
Gender.
 Table No 8.2: Association between respondents to trust a product review if sponsored and Gender

Independent Test

Levene’s t-test
Test for for
equality Equality
of of
variance means
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. 95%
(2- Difference Error Confidence
tailed) Difference Interval of
the
Difference
Lower Upper

Likely to Equal 0.773 0.381 -0.887 100 0.377 -0.185 0.209 -0.599 -0.229
trust a variances
product assumed
review if Equal -0.901 95.138 0.370 -0.185 0.206 -0.594 -0.223
sponsored variances
content not
assumed

From Table 8.2 it was observed that significance p value 0.377 is more than 0.05, Thus null
hypothesis is accepted which states that there is no significant association between respondents
to trust a product review if sponsored and Gender.

ONE WAY ANNOVA

Hypothesis A:

H0: There is no association between presentation skills of influencers impacting purchase and
age.

H1: There is association between presentation skills of influencers impacting purchase and age.

Table No 9.1: Association between presentation skills of influencers impacting purchase

and age.
ANOVA
Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between
3.080 3 1.027 1.024 0.385
Groups
Within
98.263 98 1.003
Groups
Total 101.343 101
From Table No 9.1 significance p value 0.385 is more than 0.05. Thus Null Hypothesis is
accepted which states that there is no association between presentation skills of influencers
impacting purchase and age.

Hypothesis B:

H0: There is no association between purchase decisions based on influencers recommendations

and number of times respondents make purchase based on recommendation from influencers.

H1: There is association between purchase decisions based on influencers recommendations

and number of times respondents make purchase based on recommendation from influencers.

Table No 9.2: Association between purchase decisions based on influencers

recommendations and number of times respondents make purchase based on
recommendation from influencers
ANOVA
Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Between
8.957 3 2.986 2.601 0.056
Groups
Within
112.503 98 1.148
Groups
Total 121.461 101

From Table No 9.2 it was observed that significance p value 0.056 is more than 0.05. Thus
Null Hypothesis is accepted which states that there association between purchase decisions
based on influencers recommendations and number of times respondents make purchase based
on recommendation from influencers.