SSRN Id3952746

ASSESSMENT OF CONSUMERS’ BRAND PREFERECE OF SOFT
DRINKS: A COMPARATIVE ANALSYIS OF PEPSI COLA AND

COCA-COLA PRODUCTS AMONG HAWASSA TABOR HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS
A THESIS PREPARED TO THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR MBA DEGREE
BY
ABEBAW GEBREHANNA
MAJIOR ADVISOR: Dr. ARVIND SOUDIKAR
CO-ADVISOR: ATO YILMA GELETA
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING
HAWASSA UNIVERSITY
OCTOBER 2016
HAWASSA, ETHIPOIA
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3952746

ASSESSMENT OF CONSUMERS’ BRAND PREFERECE OF SOFT
DRINKS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PEPSI COLA AND
COCA-COLA PRODUCTS AMONG HAWASSA TABOR HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS
ABEBAW GEBREHANNA
MAJIOR ADVISOR: Dr. ARVIND SOUDIKAR
CO-ADVISOR: ATO YILMA GELETA
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND

ECONOMICS SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING
HAWASSA UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION IN MARKETING

MANAGEMENT
OCTOBER 2016
HAWASSA, ETHIPOIA

DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this MBA thesis entitled” Assessment of Consumers’ Brand
Preference of Soft Drinks: A Comparative Analysis of Pepsi Cola and Coca-Cola Products
among Hawassa Tabor High School Students” is my original work and has not been
presented for a degree in any other university, and all source of materials used for the
thesis have been duly acknowledged.
Name: Abebaw Gebrehanna
Signature: ________________________
Date: ____________________________
iii

ADVISORS’ APPROVAL SHEET
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Assessment of Consumers’ Brand Preference of
Soft Drinks: A Comparative Analysis of Pepsi Cola and Coca-Cola Products among
Hawassa Tabor High School Students” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Business Administration and has been carried out by Abebaw
Gebrehanna under my supervision. Therefore, I recommend that the student has fulfilled
the requirements and hence hereby can submit the thesis to the school.
______________________ _____________________ _________________
Name of Principal Advisor Signature Date
______________________ _____________________ _________________
Name of Co-advisor Signature Date
iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The completion of this research is a result of so many people’s efforts that deserve
appreciation. My foremost thanks go to my principal advisor, Dr Aravind Soudikar for his
close supervision, valuable comments, professional advice and encouragement during the
research work. My great appreciation also goes to my co- advisor Mr. Yilma Geleta for
every helps he made for me.
My thank goes to Hawassa city education office officers and Hawassa Tabor high school
supervisors, principals, teachers and students for helping me the relevant information at
data collection moment. And also to all data collectors and respondents who participated in
this study.
At last but not least, I would like to take this opportunity to express my immense gratitude
to my friends, my family and other individuals who helped me in the course of my study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS PAGES
DECLARATION ..................................................................................................................iii
ADVISORS’ APPROVAL SHEET ...................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... x
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................. xi
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background of the Study ............................................................................................. 1
1.2. Statement of the problem ............................................................................................ 2
1.3. Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................... 3
1.3.1. General objective .................................................................................................. 3

1.3.2. Specific objectives ................................................................................................ 3
1.4. Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 4
1.5. Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 4
1.6. Scope of the study ....................................................................................................... 5
1.7. Limitations of the study ............................................................................................... 5
1.8. Organization of the study ............................................................................................ 6
CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................... 7
LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 7
2.1. The Concepts and Definitions of Brand ...................................................................... 7
2.2. Consumer Brand Preferences ...................................................................................... 8
vi

2.3. Brand Equity................................................................................................................ 9
2.31. Brand Loyalty ...................................................................................................... 12

2.3.2. Brand Awareness ................................................................................................ 13
2.3.3 Brand Association ................................................................................................ 15
2.3.4 Perceived Quality................................................................................................. 16
2.3.4. Satisfaction ......................................................................................................... 17
2.3.5. Price .................................................................................................................... 18
2.4. Brand Identity ............................................................................................................ 18
2.4.1 Brand Personalities .............................................................................................. 20

2.4.2. Culture ................................................................................................................ 21
2.4.3. Self-Image........................................................................................................... 22
2.5. Conceptual Framework of the Study ......................................................................... 23
CHAPTER THREE.............................................................................................................. 25
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 25
3.1. Description of the Study Area ................................................................................... 25
3.2. Research Design ........................................................................................................ 27
3.3. Data Sources .............................................................................................................. 27
3.4. Sampling Design ....................................................................................................... 27
3.4.1. Sample Size Determination ................................................................................ 27

3.4.2. Sampling Technique ........................................................................................... 28
3.5. Data Collection Instruments ...................................................................................... 30
3.5.1. Questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 30

3.6. Methods of Data Processing and Analysis ................................................................ 32
3.7. Ethical Consideration ................................................................................................ 32
CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................ 33
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 33
4.1. Background Information of Respondents .................................................................. 33
vii

4.2. Descriptive Analysis .................................................................................................. 35
4.3. Comparative Analysis of Pepsi Cola and Coca-Cola Products ................................. 38
4.4. The Relationship between Brand Preference and Students Background Information
................................................................................................................................ 61
CHAPTER FIVE.................................................................................................................. 64
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 64
5.1. Summary of Major Findings ..................................................................................... 64
5.2. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 68
5.3. Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 69
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 71
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................I
viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table: Page
Table 1: Reliability test for the developed questionnaire .................................................... 31
Table 2: Sex and Age of Students (n=374) .......................................................................... 33
Table 3: Students Preferred Brand and Their Reasons for Brand Preference ...................... 34
Table 4: Frequency of soft drink consumption in a week and reasons for consuming ........ 35
Table 5: Descriptive analysis on students brand equity and brand identity ......................... 36
Table 6: Brand Loyalty of Students on their preferred Soft Drink ...................................... 39
Table 7: Perceived Quality of Students on their preferred Soft Drink ................................. 42
Table 8: Price of a soft drink preferred by students ............................................................. 44
Table 9: Brand Awareness of Students on their Preferred Soft Drink ................................. 46
Table 10: Satisfaction of Students on their Preferred Soft Drink ........................................ 50
Table 11: Culture of Students on their Preferred Soft Drink ............................................... 52
Table 12: Self Image of Students on their Preferred Soft Drink .......................................... 54
Table 13: Brand Personality of Students on their Preferred Soft Drink .............................. 57
Table 14: Background Information of Students and their Preferred Soft Drink (n=374) .... 61
ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure: Page
Figure 1: The Conceptual model for brands preference ...................................................... 24
Figure 2: Administrative Map of Hawassa City Administration ......................................... 26
Figure 3: Schematic representation used to select study participants in Tabor secondary and
preparatory school students ................................................................................... 29

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CSA Central Statistics Agency
HCAFEDD Hawassa City Administration Finance and Economic Development Department
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
PPS Probability Proportional to Size
SABCo South African Beverage Company
SNNPR Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples’ Region
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
U.K. United Kingdom
U.S. United States
xi

ABSTRACT
Despite their popularity, studies concerning soft drinks are lacking. Hence, this study was
conducted to assess the consumers’ brand preference of soft drinks: A comparative
analysis of Coca cola and Pepsi cola products among Hawassa Tabor high school
students. Both primary and secondary data sources were used in the study. The required
data were collected from 374 students of soft drink customers selected by adopting a
multistage sampling technique. Descriptive research design with quantitative method was
used. The data collected through questionnaire were analyzed using SPSS software version
21. Descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentage, mean and standard deviation
were applied. Furthermore, inferential statistics such as independent sample t-test and
Chi-square analysis were used to compare the coca cola and Pepsi cola brands based on
brand equity, brand identity and background characteristics of students. The findings of
the study show that Coca cola is the best brand for high school students. The reasons of
consumers to prefer Coca cola were its taste, refreshment and frequency of advertisement.
Coca cola customer used the brand not only to fill their basic thirst but also for study
purpose. Coca cola has built strong brand on the three component of brand equity such as
perceived quality, brand awareness and satisfaction. This provides value to the customer
by enhancing satisfaction and confidence in purchase decision and to the firm by
enhancing competitive advantage. Coca cola has also strong brand on the two component
of brand identity such as self-image and brand personality. Those students from rural area
were Pepsi Cola brand customers and those students from urban area were Coca Cola
brand customers. Coca Cola brand customers consume frequently than Pepsi Cola
customers. The study therefore recommends that Pepsi cola brand producers should
concentrate on brand loyalty and perceived quality. Students have high brand loyalty
towards a brand if they are satisfied with the product delivered by it.
Key words: Brand Preference, Brand Equity, Brand Identity, Consumer, Soft drink
xii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study
In our modern world, living pattern and life style of the people have been changed a lot.
Soft drinks are common preference among all the individuals with the changing life style
and income levels, people are shifting their consumption patterns. Market research is based
on consumer’s buying preference towards soft drinks. Soft drink is an important product
item in modern society both urban and rural and becoming more popular in the consumer
world (Andersson, Arvidsson, and Lindström, 2006).
The world's soft drinks market is totally subject by just two players: - Coke & Pepsi. Coke,
'The genuine thing' other than a century old was born eleven years more on of its
competitor & a century later on, still maintains the original lead. Pepsi, 'The challenger',
even now poses as the hurried, young upstart & is struggle the cola was as the drink for the
younger age group. The soft-drink industry comprises companies that manufacture
nonalcoholic beverages and carbonated mineral waters or concentrates and syrups for the
manufacture of carbonated beverages. Soft drink products have been well accepted by
consumers and gradually overtaking hot drinks as the biggest beverage sector in the world
(Paracha, Waqas, Khan, and Ahmad, 2012).
In the midst of the rapidly growing soft drink demand, the industry on the whole is
encountering new opportunities and challenges. Changing consumer demands and
preferences require new ways of maintaining current customers and attracting new ones.

Between ever increasing competition, beverage companies must intensely court customers,
offer high quality products, efficiently distribute them, ensure safety and keep prices low
all while staying nimble enough to exploit new markets by launching new products. Recent
developments in soft drink consumption and challenges in marketing have heightened the
need for searching the consumers' needs and preferences (Belay, 2013).
At present soft drink market is one of the most competitive markets in the world. In which
billions of Birr on advertisement and other promotion activities are being spent. In Ethiopia
the soft drink industry is flourishing well with a wide range of brand comprising both
popular international, national and regional branded soft drinks. The study on brand
preference becomes necessary. The purchase decision largely depends upon Taste,
Quality, Quantity, Price, Availability and the like. Due to globalization, there are many soft
drink brands available in the market such as Coca- cola, Pepsi-cola, Red Bull, Ambo
mineral water and etc. (Andersson, Arvidsson, and Lindström, 2006).
Soft Drinks Industry is one of the processing industries that play an important role in the
economic development, especially for developing countries like Ethiopia. A soft drink is a
cold beverage, usually sweet drink, which does not contain alcohol. In Ethiopia, soft drinks
are known by the Amharic word "leslassa", meaning literally "smooth".
1.2. Statement of the problem
Soft drink is an important product item in the modern society. Due to the development of
science and technology, many new brands of soft drink products flood the market every
year. However, there are two soft drink brands are available in Ethiopia and consumers in
Ethiopia switch over from one brand to the other (Aregawi, 2006).

Among all the soft drink brands customers have to judge the other factors such as price,
quality, packaging, availability, variety and taste before making their buying decision.
After satisfied with the above factors they have to select the right drinks. Today’s market is
open market, consumer taste and preference is always changeable in condition, company’s
strategy should be high (Belay, 2013).
Generating timely and appropriate information on the brand preference, brand equity and
brand identity of soft drink consumers in the study area is important preconditions for any
intervention schemes for soft drink product industries. However, there is a dearth of
scientific research evidence in the concerned area to support the present brand preference,
brand equity and brand identity of soft drink consumers. Therefore, this study was
conducted to fill this gap and to add some drops of knowledge to the existing knowledge in
the study area.
1.3. Objectives of the Study
1.3.1. General objective
The general objective of this study is to assess the consumers’ brand preference of soft
drinks among Hawassa Tabor high school students in Hawassa City.
1.3.2. Specific objectives
1. To identify the more favorable types of soft drink brand in the eyes of students.
2. To compare the brand preferences of students based on their brand equity and brand
identity dimensions.
3. To find out the relationship between socio demographic characteristics of students and
their brand preference.

1.4. Research Questions
1. Which soft drink brand is more favorable in the eyes of the students?
2. What are the brand preferences of students based on brand equity and brand identity
dimensions?
3. What are the relationship between socio demographic characteristics of students and
their brand preference?
1.5. Significance of the Study
The objective of this study is to compare between Coca and Pepsi cola soft drinks on the
basis of their brand components and how different components of brand equity and identity
influence students in choosing a particular brand of soft drink. A good knowledge of
students brand preference in soft drink would help in understanding how brand shape
students buying decision and preferences.
Customer perception of any product is an important point to decide the success of an
organization. The significance of this paper can provide a clear picture of the consumer’s
attitude towards soft drinks of Coca Cola and Pepsi Products, factors that contributed in the
formation of these attitudes the opportunities and challenges to the product with respect to
understanding, improving and preserving its image.
The study will identify how soft drink producer could improve or maintain its customer’s
attitudes and get the maximum out of it and could be useful to other business organizations
according to their context.

Taking into account the shortage of clear document concerning consumer’s soft drink
brand preference among students, the study will help to enhance the knowledge of
marketing managers, scholars and researchers with regard to the concept of consumer
perception, attitude and their importance for the success of similar business.
1.6. Scope of the study
The study focused on assessing the consumers’ brand preference of soft drinks. That mean
to identify the more favorable types of soft drink brand in the eyes of students, to compare
the brand preferences of students based on their brand equity and brand identity
dimensions and to find out the relationship between socio demographic characteristics of
students and their brand preference. This investigation is only concerned with Hawassa
Tabor high school students. This is one of public school that are found in southern regional
state and it is located in Sidama Zone specifically in Hawassa City which is found at a
distance of 275 Km from Addis Ababa, the capital city of the country. The study is
descriptive with quantitative approach. The time scope of the study is limited to the year
2016.
1.7. Limitations of the study
It is unthinkable that a research could be free from any challenges through over the study
periods which have possibility of bringing adverse effects on the results of the study. To
mention some of the expected limitation of the study: misunderstanding of students about
the purpose of this study. In addition, some students were busy and have little time to
respond to the questions. The research is purely quantitative; it may not give an
opportunity to listen respondents’ reason in person. Nonetheless the researcher took the

following measures to minimize the effect of these limitations on the quality of the
research. First, probability sampling techniques were designed and more sample size was
taken from the targeted population to have representative sample. Second, the researcher
arranges programs together with school teachers.
1.8. Organization of the study
The researcher has designed his studies as follows:-
Chapter One: Introduction of the Study: An introductory chapter where back ground of
the study, statement of the problem, objective of the study, scope of the
study, significance of the study, and limitation of the study are presented.
Chapter Two: Review of Literature: This chapter deals with the review of literatures on
brand preference of soft drinks. All theories tending to support this study are
incorporated in the review of literature.
Chapter Three: Research Methodology: On this part of the paper, research design,
descriptive of the research area, sample size, sampling design, data type and
sources of data, method of data analysis and interpretation, questionaries’
design/Measurement are presented.
Chapter Four: Result and Discussion: This chapter investigates the analysis and results
of the study.
Chapter Five: Conclusion and Recommendation: This part of the thesis is used to
forward the summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. The Concepts and Definitions of Brand
According to Kapferer (2004), brand as a name that influences buyers. He further notes
that brand command people’s attention because they have element of saliency,
differentiability, intensity and trust. Successful brand conveys a consistent message and
create an emotional bond with consumers.
“ A brand is the total emotional experience a customer has with your company and its
product or service” the author describes the brand to be an experience that’s implanted in
the mind of customers that have experienced an interaction with a company or that got in
contact with the company’s staff, product or service. In case the customer experience is
different from what the company illustrate its brand. In that case the company is losing.
However other parts of the brand such as “logos, advertising campaigns, mission
statements, colors holds also great importance but they should always come after the
customer, it is vital to put the customer and the company’s relationship with him/her in the
first position and think how to develop this relationship and then as a second stage a
company can use all important tools like logo’s, color’s and advertising campaigns
(Hammond, 2008, p.14).
A brand has also been defined as “a product offer from a known source” (Kotler, 2000).
Keller (2003) defines a brand as a product that adds other dimensions that differentiate it
from other products and services designed to satisfy the same need. A brand is also an

intangible but critical component of what a firm means; a set of promises (Davis, 2002).
Finally, Bedbury and Fenichell (2002) say that “a brand is, if it is something, the result of a
synaptic process in the brain. They are sponges for content, images, feelings, sensations,
experiences, and psychological concepts inside consumers’ minds. There are so many
definitions that have been developed for a “brand”, based upon consumer perceptions of
brands due to their own feelings, associations, and relationships with them.
2.2. Consumer Brand Preferences
The consumer market amounts to a total of 6.3 billion people, and thus there is great
demand for an enormous variety of goods and services, especially as consumers differ from
one another in that of age, gender, income, education level, and tastes. Moreover, the
relationships between different consumers, as well as their contact with other elements of
the world surroundings, affect their choice of products, services, and companies (Kotler
and Keller, 2006).
Brand Preference refers fundamental step in understanding consumer choices. A deeper
understanding of such preference dynamics can help marketing manager’s better design
marketing program and build a long term relationship with consumers. Despite the
existence of some investigation how brand preference is built and changed, most of them
focus on examine factors from consumer behavior perspective or advertising perspective
(Schiffman and Kanuk, 2000).
The reason why consumers buy what they do is often deeply rooted in their minds,
consequently consumers do not truly know what affects their purchases as “ninety-five

percent of the thought, emotion, and learning [that drive our purchases] occur in the
unconscious mind- that is without our awareness” (Kotler and Armstrong, 2005).
Consumers’ purchase process is affected by a number of different factors, some of which
marketers cannot control, such as cultural, social, personal, and psychological factors.
However, brand preference in terms of brand equity measures such as loyalty, awareness,
association, perceived quality and brand identity measures such as personality, physique,
relationship, culture were discussed were reviewed as follows.
2.3. Brand Equity
As pointed out by Aaker (1991, p.24) brand equity is among the few strategic assets
available to the companies that provide a long-lasting competitive advantage to the
company. Brand equity constitutes the assets and the liabilities that is link to a particular
brand, like name, or logo. It comprises of brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand
association, brand assets, and perceived quality. Creating strong, favorable and unique
brand association is a real challenge for markets but it is essential in building strong brand.
Strong brands typically have firmly established strong, favorable and unique brand
association with customer (Aaker, 1991, p.25).
Aaker (1996, p.8) acknowledge that brand equity is a set of asset and legal responsibility
connected to the brand’s name and figure that add to (or take away from) the value
presented by the product or service to a company and/or that company’s customers,
according to Aaker (1996, p.16) the main assets are grouped in the followings:
• Brand name awareness

• Brand Loyalty
• Perceived quality
• Brand associations
Aaker (1996, p.8) demonstrate in the below figure how brand equity generates value,
through investment these assets can be created and improved. Each one of the five brand
equity assets produces value in a diverse way; seventeen of these values are listed in the
figure below. It is essential to be aware of the ways in which well-built brands forms value,
in order to take important decisions about brand building activities.
Brand equity forms value for both the customer and the firm; however the brand equity
should be expressed and linked by the name and symbol of the brand.
Aaker (1991, p.15) define a brand as a distinguishing name or symbol intended to identify
the goods or service of either one seller or group of seller and to differentiate those goods
or service of product and protect both the customer and the producer and product from
competitors.
According to Keller (2008), strong brand can command price premiums; on the other hand
strong brand cannot command an excessive price premium. Keller (1998, p.64) view on
brand equity suggest that brand equity occurs when consumer response to marketing
activity differs when consumer know the brand from what they do not.
Mallik (2009, p.31) explain that “brand equity is the value built-up in a brand” it can be
calculated by comparing the anticipated potential or future income from the branded
product or service with the anticipated or future income from non-branded similar product
10

or service. Brand equity can be positive or negative, positive brand equity is often when a
company exceeds their costumer expectation. It formed by past efficient and successful
advertising. Negative brand equity is created by usually bad management. Positive brand
strategy usually is a strong barrier to entry for potential rival and competitor.
Aaker (1991, p.15.) notes that brand can be nurtured and maintained through
advertisement. Kapferer (2004, p.95) comment that the more a brand is known, the more its
advertisement are noticed and remembered. Brand equity can provide the company with a
high potential of future growth.
Aaker (1991, p.23) Acknowledge that consumers are will to pay high price companies with
brand. Brand equity such as brand awareness, image, trust, and reputation are painstakingly
built up over many years. Kapferer (2004, p.95) also mention that branding requires a long
term corporate involvement, a high level of resource and skills. Brand equity incorporates
several advantages like, it ability to attract new customers, resist competitive activity,
lower advertising /sale ratios, brand loyalty, trade leverage and premium pricing (Keller
1998, p.53).
Keller (1998, p.7) Brand allows consumers to lower search costs for product both
internally (regarding how much they have to think) and externally (in terms of how much
they have to search around).It also help consumers make assumption of the product base
brand quality and characteristics, thereby forming a reasonable expectation about what they
do not know about the brand. It conveys a certain level of quality so that satisfied buyer
can chose the product again.
11

Brand equities is said to be the most intangible assets that a company possess that is not
reflected in the balance sheet, given that it provide competitive advantage for the company.
Having a brand guarantees future earnings. Despite the fact that the corporate balance sheet
display only assets of the company without mentions of the brand equity does not change
the fact that it is precious assets to the company. While a competitor can copy a company’s
product but its brand is unique.
2.31. Brand Loyalty
According to Keller (1998, p.54) brand loyalty is often ascribe to a behavioral sense
through the number of repeat purchases, it entails consumer sticking with the brand and
reject the overture of competitors. Strong brand equity holds consumer loyalty because
consumer values the brand on the basis of what it is and what it represents. Brand loyalty is
attributed to brand image and brand equity. It is also worth noting that brand commitment
is the substantial expression of brand preference and brand loyalty.
Aaker (1991,p.39) pointed out that brand loyalty ascertains that extent the customer is
attached to a brand and speculate how likely the customer will switch to another brand,
when the brand changes either in product price or features.
Brand loyalty of current customers represents a strategic assets, and when properly
managed would provide the company with several values. Brand loyalty it associated more
closely to the use experience, in the sense that it does not exist without prior purchase and
use experience (Aaker, 1991, p.41).
There are five different level of brand loyalty; each level poses different challenges and
different to companies. The bottom loyalty level is the nonlocal buyers who have no
12

preference for any brand. These groups of buyers place no value on the brand name and
consider any brand as adequate. Brand does not play any role in the buyer purchase
decision (Aaker, 1991, p.40).
The second level includes buyers who are satisfied with pleased with the product. These
groups of buyer are vulnerable to a competitor who offers them a visible benefit to switch;
hence they are classified as habitual buyers (Aaker, 1991, p.40)
The third levels are class of buyers who are please with the brand, these buyer might
switch brand if competitors overcome the switching cost by inducing the buyer to switch to
their brand (Aaker, 1991, p.40).
The fourth levels of brand loyalty are the category of loyal customer that really likes the
brand. Their preference for the brand is on the symbol, previous experiences or the logo of
the company (Aaker, 1991). The top levels are category of buyers who are committed to
the brand, because of the brand functionality or because the brand is the expression of
whom they are (Aaker, 1991, p.40).
2.3.2. Brand Awareness
Aaker (1996, p.10) explains that awareness is the power and force of the brand’s presence
in the consumer’s mind, consumer, and this awareness is measured by how consumer
keeps in mind the brand and how they recall it, acknowledgment measures such as “Have
you been exposed to the brand before?, What brands of the product class can you recall?,
“top of mind” (the first brand recalled) or (the only brand recalled).
13

Aaker (1996, p.10) clarifies that Recognition of a brand is based on the knowledge added
from earlier exposure, it is not essential to remember where the brand was seen or why it is
diverse from other brands neither it needs to be remembered the class of the brand,
remembering the earlier exposure is the most important thing. Economist explains that
when costumers recall being exposed to a brand this will be transmitted in their brain to be
a “signal” of a good brand because they believe that companies don’t pay out large amount
of money on bad product.
Aaker (1996, p.15) shows that the crucial part of brand awareness is the brand name
dominance because when a recall test is made for customers, it illustrated that customers
can remember one brand only, this becomes a risky factor if the brand name is not
distinguished and is a common tag for products that are legally protected. This is why
companies should start protecting at the beginning of its existence. When choosing a brand
name firms should beware of descriptive names, such as Windows because this makes it
harder for customers to differentiate from the generic product.
Due to the fact that customers are being exposed to more and more brands and messages,
creating brand awareness is a big challenge illuminate that there is two way to create the
awareness (Aaker, 1996, p.16):
First is by creating “healthy awareness levels” this wide trade base is typically an asset, but
it is expensive and for small unit sales and for life measured in years and not in decades
this can be impossible. This is why huge companies have an advantage in building the
awareness. Multiple businesses sustain and back up the brand name.
14

Second in future companies will experts in working outer the usual media channels, by
using occasion promotions, sponsorships, advertising and sampling, these companies will
be the most successful companies in creating the brand awareness.
According to Aaker (1996, p.16) however, companies should always put in mind while
managing the brand that it is necessary that brands are managed not for “general
awareness” but for “strategic awareness” it is important that customers recall this brand for
good reasons and not for bad ones.
2.3.3 Brand Association
Brand associations are representations of what a brand means for a consumer and are
“anything linked in memory to a brand” (Aaker, 1991). Any contact or experience a
consumer has with a brand can create, change, or reinforce certain favorable or unfavorable
associations (Keller, 2003), in order for associations to have a positive effect on brand
equity, they must be unique, strong, and favorable. Aaker (1991) defines brand associations
as “anything linked in memory to a brand. Brand associations are believed to contain the
meaning of the brand for consumers (Keller, 1993).
Aaker (1991) asserted that brand association is “the category of brand’s implication which
includes anything linked in memory to a brand”. According to Keller (1998), it is set of
information nodes attached with the brand in mind of consumers, which can be classified
as attributes, attitudes & benefits related to the brand. It is helpful to customers to retrieve
information about some brands from their memory. When they are confronted with the
brand, the associated benefits or experience or features will be reflected in customer’s
mind.
15

Laptop firms need to increase brand awareness to increase the familiarity of brands in the
mind of consumers; high level of brand association can moderately work to increase
buying behavior of Chinese customers (Liu Z, 2007). Brand association is the
informational nodes linked to the brand in memory and the meaning of the brand for
consumers (Henry, 2004). CBBE is measured from the consumer perspective based on
consumers’ memory based brand associations (Chen, 2010). It indicates that in the
consumer’s memory, for all associate with the brand, if these associations can be
assembled all together with some signification, then the impression on this signification
would become a brand image (Aaker, 1996).
Strong and favorable brand associations contribute toward brand equity. Aaker (1991,
quoted in (Atilgan, 2005)) suggests that brand association creates value for customers as
well as marketers because brand associations help consumer process information,
differentiate an offering, and provide reason to buy and a basis for extension.
2.3.4 Perceived Quality
Perceived quality of brand is defined as the consumer’s judgment about a brand’s overall
excellence or superiority with respect to its intended purpose, relative to alternatives
(Zeithaml, 1988; Aaker and Jacobson, 1994). Perceived quality is believed to be a type of
association warranting elevation to the status of a separate dimension of a brand’s equity
(Pappu and Quester, 2006). The customers will have a subjective satisfaction at the
comprehensive quality or recognition level against the product or service offering under
such brand which is perceived quality (Hu et al., 2010).
16

According to Aaker perceived quality as “the customer’s perception of overall quality or
superiority of a product or service with respect to the intended purpose, relative to
alternatives”. Consumers always want to spend less time & efforts in selection of brand, so
they mostly rely on feelings about the characteristics of products of particular brands
(Aakers, 1991, p 7). Here their perception is driving the decision making process. It also
depends on the willingness of the customer for purchase decision. Tsai (2004) Suggests
those brands with lower emotional ratings may redirect marketing resources and efforts to
increase consumer’s emotional perceptions, which will give higher satisfaction.
Perceived quality is related to a consumer’s judgment of a product or brand’s overall
superiority or excellence (Zeithaml, 1988). Therefore, firms have to genuinely increase the
real quality of their brands and then communicate this quality through their marketing
actions in order to affect perceived quality in a positive manner. High perceived quality
allows for consumers to be convinced about buying the brand; for differentiation of the
brand from competition; and for the firm to charge a premium price and then extend the
brand equity (Aaker, 1991).
2.3.4. Satisfaction
Customers are always aiming to get maximum satisfaction from the products or services
that they buy. Willing in today’s market place entails the need to build customer
relationship and not just building the products building customer relationship means
delivering superior value over competitors to the target customers. Whether an
organization provides quality services or not will depend on the customers’ feedback on
17

the satisfaction they get from consuming the products, since higher levels of quality lead to
higher levels of customer satisfaction (Kotler and Keller, 2009).
2.3.5. Price
As quoted by Kotler and Armstrong (2008), described price as the amount of money
charged for a product or service or the total values that consumers exchange for the
benefits of having or using the product or service prices should be set in relation to specific
pricing objectives. Decisions concerning the pricing of a product or services include
payments, terms, discounts, contract and pricing. Prices have to reflect the costs of
production and marketing as well as targeted profit margins. A variety of approaches may
be taken to pricing including cost based, demand based, competitor based and market
based. Price is a key element of the marketing mix because it represents on a unit basis
what the company receives for the product or service which is being marketed (David,
2001).
2.4. Brand Identity
Kapferer (2004, p.107) postulated the brand Identity Prism. It is a hexagonal prism which
comprises of six facets of brand identity namely Physique, personality, relationship,
reflection, and self-image. The brand identity prism illustrates that these facets are all
interrelated and form a well-structured entity. The significance of the brand prism is to help
in understanding the essence of brand and retailer identities. Kapferer (2004, p.107) further
notes that brand identity reflects the strength of the brand. The essence of brand identity is
that they communicate. Brand is a physique. A physique deal with the physical aspect of
the brand .It is a combination of the prominent objective features which comes to mind
18

when the brands is mentioned. It represents the backbone and its tangible added value. The
physical aspect of the brand is one of the things that define a brand. It also consists of
brand´s photo type (Kapferer, 2004, p.108).
Brand is a culture. In the sense that it has its own separate culture which is derive from
products. A product embodies not only culture but also is a means of communication.
Brand conveys culture and is driven by culture in the sense that they convey the culture of
the society they originate from. Country of origin is the reservoirs for brands. One vital
role of culture is that it link brand to the firm and play essential role in differentiating brand
(Kapferer, 2004, p.108)
Brand is a relationship: This facet of brand, has implication for the way the brand act
,delivers service ,or relate to its customer .Brand are sometimes the crux of transactions
and exchange between people. Brand relate its name to a theme .E.g. Like Nike beer a
Greek name that relate it to specific cultural values, to the Olympic games (Kapferer, 2004,
p. 107).
Brand has a personality. People usually ascribe brand with certain personality. The way in
which it speaks of its product or service shows what kind of person it would be if it were
human. It also pointed out that brand personality is described and measured by those
human personality traits that are relevant for brands (Kapferer, 2004, p. 108).
Brand is a customer reflection. Brand reflects the individual who use it. A brand always
tends to reflect or build an image of the buyer or the user which it seems to be addressing.
It does reflect the customer as he or she wishes to be seen as a result of using a brand.
19

Consumers use brand to build their own identity. Customers want to be seen in certain way
as a result of purchasing a given product (Kapferer, 2004, p. 110).
Everything a brand does is communication. “It is impossible not to communicate.” The
way the packs are designed, the words used, the way the phones are answered (or not), and
the products the name is put to, the shops in which these are sold: all these can say
powerful things about a brand. Clifton, Simmons, Ahmad, & Allen (2003, p. 127)
disclosed that brand speaks to our self-image. This facet of brand identity deals with our
relationship the inner self-image that is built through our attitude towards certain brand
(Kapferer, 2004, p. 111).
2.4.1 Brand Personalities
Aaker (1996, p. 141) defines the brand personalities to be “the set of human characteristics
associated with a given brand”. Thus it includes such characteristic as gender, age, and
socioeconomic class, as well as such classic human personality traits as warmth, concern,
and sentimentality. Brand personalities are similar to human’s personalities; they are
different and permanent or long lasting. Different responses were collected from qualitative
and quantitative research studies on brand personalities based on the fact that it was
collected from two groups first is users group and second is the nonuser group. People
frequently have the habit to interact with brands in the same way as this brand was human,
actions such as given nick names ad thinking that their possession should rest for a while to
feel better.
As mentioned before by Aaker (1996, p. 142) brand personalities can be described by the
following:
20

• Described by demographics such as: age, gender, social class and race.
• Described by life style such as: activities, interests and opinions.
• Described by human personality traits such as: extroversion, agreeableness and
dependability.
Further to Aaker (1996, p. 143) Studies that tests the brand personality scale (BPS), has
noticed that five personality factors were used while making a study to more than 1000
U.S. respondents, they were asked about the personality of 60 famous brands which have
different characteristics. These five personality factors which were later called “The Big
Five” appeared even after the respondents were divided into groups on age base and gender
base. The Big Five as illustrated in figure 6, it shows personalities of brands, these Big
Fives are separated to aspects in order to provide quality and vivid insight connected to the
nature and structure of the factor.
2.4.2. Culture
Culture is the fundamental determinant of a person’s wants and behavior for example;
growing child acquires a set of values, perceptions, preferences, and behavior through his
or her family and other key institutions. Each culture consists of smaller subcultures that
provide more specific identification and socialization for their members. Subcultures
include nationalities, religions, racial groups and geographic regions (Kotler and Keller,
2006, p.164).
A consumer behavior is influenced by such social factors as reference groups, family, and
social roles and statuses. Reference group is a person’s reference group consists of the
entire groups that have a direct or indirect influence on individual attitudes or behavior
21

(Kilter and Keller, 2006, p.167). There are 2 types of group. Groups having a direct
influence on a person are family, friends’ neighbors and co-workers, these peoples called a
primary group. Another group that peoples also belong to but tend to be more formal and
require less continuous interaction is secondary groups such as religious, professional and
trade-union groups (Hawkins, Best, and Coney, 1998, p.215).
2.4.3. Self-Image
A buyer’s decisions are also influenced by personal characteristics. These include the
buyer age and stage in the life cycle, occupation and economic circumstance, personality
and self-concept and lifestyle and values. Some of these characteristic have a very direct
impact on consumer behavior (Kotler and Keller, 2006, p.170).
People buy different goods and services over a life time. Taste in food, clothes, furniture
and recreation is often age related. Occupation also influence consumption patterns, for
example a blue-collar worker will buy work clothes, work shoes, and lunchboxes while a
company president will buy dress suits, air travel and country club memberships. Product
choice is greatly affected by economic circumstances, spend able income, saving and
assets, borrowing power and attitudes towards spending and saving. If economic indicators
point to a recession, people may change behavior from buying a luxury brand to more
value for money brand instead (Kotler and Keller, 2009, p.172).
Personality and self-concept also key influence on buying behavior. Personality means a
set of distinguishing human psychological traits that lead to relatively consistent and
enduring response to environmental stimuli (product & service, price, distribution and
communication). Personality is a useful variable in analyzing consumer brand choices
22

since brand also have personality (Kotler and Keller, 2009, p.172). Several successful
studies demonstrate empirically the relationship between personality and consumer
behavior, for example found significant positive correlations of scores on measures of
extroversion, emotionalism, tough -mindedness and impulsiveness with alcoholic beverage
consumption (Foxall and Goldsmith,1994, p.127).
A last personal factor is lifestyle and values. People from same subculture, social class and
occupation may lead quite difference lifestyle. A lifestyle is a person’s pattern of living in
the world as expressed in the activities, interests and opinions. Lifestyle is shaped by
whether consumers are money constrained or time constrained. Consumer decision is also
influenced by core values that people desires over the long term (Kotler and Keller, 2006,
p.173-174).
2.5. Conceptual Framework of the Study
The conceptual framework is based on the theoretical framework of this study. It defines
how the models in this study are related to each other and gives a bird eye view of the
frame work which the conceptual model is based on. The various concepts used in this
research like brand equity measures loyalty, awareness, association, perceived quality are
all used in the questionnaire. While the Brand identity measures personality, physique,
relationship, culture were also included. The brand identity and brand equity models are
link together by brand building model.
23

Figure 1: The Conceptual model for brands preference
Source: Adapted from Al-azzawi & Anthony, 2012
24

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The main objective of this section is to present how the study was carried out. It covered
the research design, sources of data, sampling design, data collection instruments, data
processing analysis which were used in the study.
3.1. Description of the Study Area
The study was conducted in Hawassa City Administration. Hawassa is located in Southern
Nations Nationalities and Peoples Regional state on the shores of Lake Hawassa in the Great
Rift Valley and served as the capital of the SNNPRS and Sidama Zone. It is situated at
distance of 275 km south of Addis Ababa. The city lays on the Trans-African High way-4 an
international road that started from Cairo (Egypt) to Cape Town (South Africa).
Geographically the city lays between 6054’-7060’ latitude north and 38048’-38033’ longitude
east and the area is 157.25 Sq.Kms. which is divided in to eight sub cities and 32 kebeles
(Hawassa City Administration Finance and Economic Development Department
[HCAFEDD], 2016).
The City Administration of Hawassa is structured in eight Sub-Cities and 21 urban and 11
rural kebeles. The highest decision making body is the city council which has 176 council
members. All political, economic, social as well as governance duties are carried out by the
mayor’s committee members who are heads of the departments (HCAFEDD, 2016).
25

Figure 2: Administrative Map of Hawassa City Administration
Source: HCAFEDD, 2016
26

3.2. Research Design
Descriptive survey research design was employed to carry out the study. According to
Abiy et al. (2009), the advantages of descriptive survey method stated as follows: (a) it is
used to gather data in an economic way and it is convenient to collect detailed description
of the problems. (b) It represents wide target population. (c) It provides descriptive,
inferential, and explanatory information on subject. (d) It is used to manipulate key factors
and variables. Therefore, to assess and investigate the brand preferences of soft drinks
among high school students, descriptive survey design was more relevant to collect data
from students in an economical way, to represent the total number of secondary and
preparatory students and to analyze the collected data using descriptive and inferential data
analysis methods.
3.3. Data Sources
The study employed both primary sources of data. The data were collected from Tabor
high school students.
3.4. Sampling Design
A sample design is a definite plan for obtaining a sample from a given population. It refers
to determining the number of respondents to be included in the sample and the sampling
technique or the process of taking a sample from a population (Kothari, 2012).
3.4.1. Sample Size Determination
According to Hawassa city Education Office (2016), the total number of students in Tabor
secondary and preparatory school was 5627. This data were used as benchmark to
27

determine the representative sample size. The number of sampled students included for
collecting data was determined by using the formula developed by Yamane as cited in
Amsalu and Wondimu (2014) as follows:
N
n Where: n = Sample size
1  N (e) 2
5627 N = Total Population
n
1  5627 (0.05) 2
5627 e=Sampling Error
n
1  5627 (0.0025)
n  374
Thus, 374 respondents were arrived as sample for eliciting the required data.
3.4.2. Sampling Technique
The study used multistage sampling technique to select sample school and students to be
included in the study. In the first stage Hawassa Tabor High School was purposively
selected on the base of different factors such as accessibility of the school to the researcher,
and the school combines both rural and urban students other than other schools in the city.
In the second stage, stratified random sampling was used to divide the school in to four
grades such as Grade 9, Grade 10, Grade 11 and Grade 12. In the third stage, the sample
size from each category is allocated by using Probability Proportional to Size (PPS)
technique (Figure 3). Finally, the researcher used students list in each class as sampling
frame to choose sample students using systematic random sampling technique. This
technique is preferred since it gives an equal opportunity for each member of the
population to be selected in the sample size.
28

Figure 3: Schematic representation used to select study participants in Tabor secondary
and preparatory school students
29

3.5. Data Collection Instruments
The task of data collection begins after a research problem has been defined and the
research design checked out. While deciding about the method of data collection to be
used, the study data were collected through questionnaire. Below, the instrument is
discussed in detail.
3.5.1. Questionnaire
To collect relevant and reliable data from the selected sample respondents, closed ended
questionnaire was prepared and administered. To assess the brand preference of soft drinks
among high school students, a five point Likert-type scale was used. The five points on the
scale were weighted according to the degree of relevance. The following scaling procedure
was adopted: Strongly agree=5; agree=4; undecided=3, disagree=2 and strongly
disagree=1. The values of the five responses were added and further divided by 5 to obtain
the population mean, which was 3.0. It was prepared in English language and translated
into the local language (Amharic) in order to make the questions clear, avoid ambiguity as
well as to be easily understood by the respondents. The questionnaire was edited by
English language teachers to check the equivalency of translation to the Amharic meaning.
The data collection process was managed by the researcher and other enumerators who
were trained by the researcher on how to collect the data.
Pre Test
After selecting the instrument for the study based on the basic research questions, a pre-test
were conducted at Addis Ketema secondary and preparatory school students. The
questionnaire was distributed to 38 students. Before distributing the questionnaires, brief
30

orientation were given regarding the aim of the questionnaires and the method how to fill
the questionnaire. After collecting the questionnaires from the respondents the researcher
were examined it carefully. To test the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach alpha (  )
was used. Furthermore, the researcher consulted his advisor to keep the validity of the data.
Both reliability and validity of the instrument helped the researcher to assess the content,
clarity, and logical flow of the questions and know the time needed on average to fill out a
single questionnaire.
Table 1: Reliability test for the developed questionnaire
Variables Cronbach’s Alpha Number of Items

Brand Identity
Culture 0.746 3
Self-Image 0.760 4
Brand Personality 0.855 5
Brand Equity
Brand Loyalty 0.789 4
Perceived Quality 0.856 3
Price 0.755 2
Brand Awareness 0.865 5
Satisfaction 0.729 3
Source: Survey Questionnaire, 2016
According to Kline (1993) reliabilities should ideally be high, around 0.9 but should never
drop below 0.7. Accordingly, the three dimensions of Brand Identity such as culture, self-
image and brand personality had a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.746, 0.760 and 0.855
respectively. Similarly, the five dimensions of brand equity such as brand loyalty,
31

perceived quality, price, brand awareness and satisfaction had a Cronbach’s alpha value of
0.789, 0.856, 0.755, 0.865 and 0.729 respectively. Therefore, all above principle
components were acceptable and reliable because of the Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.7.
3.6. Methods of Data Processing and Analysis
Data which were collected through questionnaire were coded, entered, cleaned and
analyzed using SPSS software version 21. Frequencies, percentages, mean and standard
deviations were employed to describe the back ground information of students and other
related variables. Furthermore, independent sample t-test was used to compare the brand
preference of students and finally Chi-square test was used to see the relationship between
students’ background characteristics and brand reference.
3.7. Ethical Consideration
In ethical consideration the researcher informed the participants about the aim of the study
and they were participated based on their own willingness. Privacy and confidentiality
were maintained. In the beginning all legal permissions were secured. As per the work plan
and schedule procedures were followed by effectively undertaking the research process.
Confidentiality was censured by making the questionnaires anonymous and avoiding
personal identifications. The study participant was provided the right to discontinue filling
questionnaires if they want
32

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the data which was collected from secondary and preparatory school
students through closed ended questionnaire was analyzed using the analysis techniques of
frequency, percentage mean, standard deviation, Independent sample t-test and Chi-square
analysis. The purpose of the study was to assess the brand preference of soft drinks. To
achieve the objective of the study, 374 students were selected to participate in responding
the questionnaire and got 100% response rate.
4.1. Background Information of Respondents
In this section of the analysis, background information of the respondents such as sex, age,
educational level, families living place, students preferred brand, frequency of
consumption in a week and reasons for consumption are discussed Tables 2-5.
Table 2: Sex and Age of Students (n=374)
Variables Category n % Mean(+SD)

Sex Male 214 57.2
Female 160 42.8
Age 15-16 91 24.3 18.7(+2.3)
17-18 108 28.9
19-20 140 37.4
Above 20 35 9.4
Education Grade 9 86 23.0
Level Grade 10 122 32.6
Grade 11 92 24.6
Grade 12 74 19.8
Family Living Urban 233 62.3
Place Rural 141 37.7
33

As indicated in Table 2, the majority (57.2%) of respondents were male students whereas
42.8 % of them were female students. Furthermore, 37.4% of sampled students were under
the age group of 19-20 and 28.9% were in the age group of 17-18. The average age of
sampled students in the selected school was 18.7 with a standard deviation of 2.3.
Table 2 exhibits that 32.6 % of students were studying grade 10, 24.6% of students
studying grade 11, and 23% of students studying grade 9 and 19.8 % of students were
attending grade 12. Likewise, 62.3 % of students’ parents live in urban area whereas
37.7% of students’ parents live in rural area.
Table 3: Students Preferred Brand and Their Reasons for Brand Preference
Variables Category n %
Preferred Brand Coca Cola 207 55.3
Pepsi Cola 167 44.7
Total 374 100
Preference to the Taste 289 77.3
brand Price 18 4.8
Packaging 30 8.0
More popular 37 9.9
Total 374 100
According to Table 3, the empirical data obtained from the survey indicate that 55.3% of
students preferred Coca Cola brand while 44.7% respondents implying that Pepsi Cola is
their preferred brand. An interesting observation made in this report is that the majority
(77.3%) of soft drink consumers preferred their brand based on its taste. In connection to
this finding Yglesias (2013) argue that Coke just has a flavor that most people like better,
and decades of brand-on-brand combat can’t change that.
34

Table 4: Frequency of soft drink consumption in a week and reasons for consuming
Variables Category n %
Frequency of Once 154 41.2
consumption 2-3 97 25.9
in a week 4-5 67 17.9
6-7 56 15.0
Total 374 100
Reason for Feeling of thirst 65 17.4
Consuming Soft Parties and Celebration 155 41.5
Drinks With fast food 94 25.1
Without any reason 60 16.0
Total 374 100
As shown in Table 4, a large number (41.2%) of soft drink consumers consume soft drinks
once in a week and 25.9% of them drink 2-3 times a week. The other 17.9% and 15.0% of
students consume soft drinks 4-5 and 6-7 times a week respectively. In the same table the
reasons for consuming soft drinks were indicated. Accordingly, 41.5% of the respondents’
reason for consuming soft drinks is parties and celebration, and 25.1% of respondents’
reason for consuming soft drinks is with fast foods. The other 17.4% and 16.0% of students
consume when feeling thirsty and without any reason respectively.
4.2. Descriptive Analysis
Under this topic descriptive analysis was used to summarize the variables regarding brand
equity and brand identity in terms of mean and standard deviation (SD). Moreover,
skewness and kurtosis were used to check whether the data is normally distributed or not
before comparing the students’ preference on Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola products using
independent sample t-test.
35

Table 5: Descriptive analysis on students brand equity and brand identity
Skewness Kurtosis
Variables n Mean SD Std. Std.
Statistic Error Statistic Error
Brand Loyalty 374 3.844 .8038 0.353 0.181 0.180 0.359
Perceived Quality 374 3.623 .7084 0.182 0.181 -0.360 0.359
Price 374 3.836 .8635 -0.217 0.181 -0.276 0.359
Brand Awareness 374 3.820 .7641 0.253 0.181 -0.198 0.359
Satisfaction 374 3.423 .8773 0.324 0.181 0.224 0.359
Culture 374 3.321 .8864 0.202 0.181 -0.379 0.359
Self-Image 374 3.674 .7269 -0.311 0.181 -0.312 0.359
Brand Personality 374 3.600 .7583 0.272 0.181 -0.203 0.359
Since the data collected with five point Likert Scale, the descriptive analysis is made by
using techniques of mean proposed by Al-Sayaad et al. (2006) based on the mean score
ranges as follows: From 1.00 to less than 1.80 “Strongly Disagree”, from 1.80 to less than
2.60 “Disagree”, from 2.60 to less than 3.40 “Neutral”, from 3.40 to less than 4.20 “Agree”
and from 4.20 to less than 5.00 “Strongly Agree”.
Brand loyalty is usually used to describe the often repeated purchase behavior of a
customer towards certain brand. The brand loyalty is measured when customer purchases
the product of a certain brand despite that other competitors brands have the same product
with the same function. Accordingly, Table 6 depicts that the mean value for brand loyalty
is 3.844. Thus it can be identified as respondents were loyal with their preferred brand. The
36

Skewness and Kurtosis of the distribution were 0.353 and 0.180, which indicate that the
data recorded for the brand loyalty is approximately normally distributed.
Perceived quality is used to measure the level of student perceived quality of soft drink
brand, since customers are contented with a product when the product quality is good. The
mean value of perceived quality was 3.623. Thus, it can be identified that the preferred
brand were quality to the students. The Skewness and Kurtosis of the distribution were
0.182 and -0.360, which indicate that the data recorded for the perceived quality were
approximately normally distributed.
Price is designed to measure the soft drink value for money, if the customer thinks that the
product is worth the money or price they paid for. When considering the descriptive
analysis for price of a soft drink, the mean value of the distribution was 3.836. Thus it can
be identified that the respondents were agreed for the amount of money they spend for their
preferred brand. The Skewness and Kurtosis of the distribution were -0.217 and -0.276,
which indicate that the data recorded for price were approximately normally distributed.
Similarly, the mean value of brand awareness was 3.820. Thus, it can be identified that
brand awareness of students was “high”. The Skewness and Kurtosis of the distribution
were 0.253 and -0.198, which indicate that the data recorded for brand awareness were
approximately normally distributed. The mean value of satisfaction was 3.423. Thus, it can
be identified that students were satisfied by their preferred brand. The Skewness and
Kurtosis of the distribution were 0.324 and 0.224, which indicate that the data recorded for
satisfaction were approximately normally distributed. When considering the descriptive
analysis for culture, the mean value of the distribution was 3.321. Thus it can be identified
37

that the respondents were indifferent for associating the preferred brand to their culture.
The Skewness and Kurtosis of the distribution were 0.202 and -0.379, which indicate that
the data recorded for price were approximately normally distributed.
The mean value of self-image was 3.674. Thus, it can be identified that students associate
their preferred brand to self- image. The Skewness and Kurtosis of the distribution were -
0.311 and -0.312, which indicate that the data recorded for satisfaction were approximately
normally distributed. When considering the descriptive analysis for brand personality, the
mean value of the distribution was 3.6. Thus it can be identified that the respondents were
agreed for their preferred brand personality. The Skewness and Kurtosis of the distribution
were 0.272 and -0.203, which indicate that the data recorded for brand personality were
approximately normally distributed.
4.3. Comparative Analysis of Pepsi Cola and Coca-Cola Products
In this section, comparison was made between two big brands in soft drink industry which
are Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola based on secondary and preparatory student brand
preference. The comparison was examined using independent sample t-test considering the
brand equity (brand loyalty, perceived quality, price, brand awareness and satisfaction) and
brand identity (culture, self-image and brand personality) dimensions.
38

Table 6: Brand Loyalty of Students on their preferred Soft Drink
Responses
Preferred t-value
Variables SD D N A SA X (S )
Brand (P-value)
n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)
If I am going Coca
to buy a soft Cola 1(0.5) 8(3.9) 36(17.4) 78(37.7) 84(40.6) 4.14
drink, I will 1.72
choose my Pepsi (0.087)
preferred 3(1.8) 7(4.2) 30(18.0) 77(46.1) 50(29.9) 3.98
Cola
brand.
I will not 0.73
Coca
purchase 4(1.9) 7(3.4) 48(23.2) 88(42.5) 60(29.0) 3.93
Cola (0.467)
other brands
with similar
Pepsi
quality and 2(1.2) 12(7.2) 39(23.4) 68(40.7) 46(27.5) 3.86
price. Cola
I will not Coca 1.04
buy other 10(4.8) 15(7.2) 33(15.9) 95(45.9) 54(26.1) 3.81
Cola (0.297)
brands if my
preferred
soft drink is Pepsi
10(6.0) 21(12.6) 35(21.0) 46(27.5) 55(32.9) 3.69
not available Cola
at the store.
I consider Coca -1.15
myself to be Cola 14(6.8) 19(9.2) 53(25.6) 73(35.3) 48(23.2) 3.59
(0.253)
loyal to my
Pepsi
preferred 8(4.8) 18(10.8) 33(19.8) 61(36.5) 47(28.1) 3.72
soft drink. Cola
Note: SD = Strongly Disagree D = Disagree N = Neutral A = Agree SA = Strongly Agree

X = mean S= Standard Deviation
As indicated on Table 6, the majority (78.3%) of coca cola brand customers and 76% of
Pepsi cola brand customers responded that they will choose their preferred brand if they are
going to buy a soft drink, whereas 6% of Pepsi cola brand customers and 4.4% of coca cola
brand customers will not choose their preferred brand. In addition, the average perception of
students preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 4.14) and students preferred Pepsi cola brand
39

(Mean=3.98) also showed that both of them agree on their brand loyalty that they will
choose their preferred brand if they are going to buy a soft drink. Furthermore, the t-test
also calculated to check whether the opinion difference exists between two groups or not.
Accordingly, the result (t- value= 1.72, p>0.05) revealed that both groups of students have
no statistically significant difference towards the given idea. Therefore, the result indicates
that both soft drink customers have similar willingness to their preferred brand.
Concerning purchasing behavior of students to other brands with similar quality and price,
about 71.5% of Coca cola brand customers and 68.2% Pepsi cola brand customers were
positively perceived that they will not purchase other brands with similar quality and price.
Contrarily, 8.4% of Pepsi cola brand customers and 5.3% of Coca cola brand customers
were disagree. Furthermore, as the mean result for students those preferred Coca cola
brand (Mean= 3.93) and students those preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.86) showed
that they will not change their brand even if the other brand has similar quality and price.
Furthermore, the results of t-test (t-value = 0.73, p>0.05) indicates that both groups of
students had the same response. Hence, this indicated that soft drink customers are loyal to
their preferred brand.
In line with purchasing other brands in the absence of preferred soft drink, the majority
(72.3%) of Coca cola brand customers and 60.4% of Pepsi cola brand customers were
agreed that they will not buy. Whereas, 18.6% of Pepsi cola brand customers and 12% Coca
cola brand customers were disagreed with the given idea. On the other hand, the average
perception of students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 3.81) and students those
preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.69) showed that they will not buy other brands if their
40

preferred soft drink is not available at the store. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value =
1.04, p>0.05) revealed that both students have no statistically significant idea difference.
This implies that both brand customers will not buy other brands if their preferred soft drink
is not available at the store.
Students consider themself to be loyal to their preferred soft drink. In this manner, the
majority (64.6%) of Pepsi cola brand customers and 58.5% Coca cola brand customers were
agreed. Whereas, 16% of Coca cola brand customers and 15.6% of Pepsi cola brand
customers viewed as they did not consider themself to be loyal to their preferred soft drink.
As revealed in Table 7, the average response for students those preferred Pepsi cola brand
(Mean= 3.72) and for students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean=3.59) shows that
both students replied as they consider themself to be loyal to their preferred soft drink.
Besides, the t-test result (t-value = -1.15, p>0.05) reveals both groups of students have no
idea difference because of statistical level of insignificance. Hence, both groups of students
consider themself to be loyal to their preferred soft drink.
As summary of brand loyalty, both soft drink brand customers have strong loyalty to their
preferred soft drink brand. However, Coca cola customers have shown slightly higher brand
loyalty than Pepsi cola brand customers. The results of independent sample t-test revealed
that both brand customers have equally loyal to their preferred brand. According to Aaker
(1991, p. 87) these consumers are categorized on the fourth level of brand loyalty because
the preference for the brand is based on the symbol, previous experience, or the logo of the
company. They are not vulnerable to the competitors.
41

Table 7: Perceived Quality of Students on their preferred Soft Drink
Responses t-value
Preferred
Variables SD D N A SA X (S ) (P-
Brand
n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) value)
My preferred Coca
21(10.1) 40(19.3) 45(21.7) 74(35.7) 27(13.0) 3.22
soft drink Cola 0.05
brand is high Pepsi (0.957)
quality. 16(9.6) 29(17.4) 53(31.7) 41(24.6) 28(16.8) 3.22
Cola
The quality Coca 2.42
of my 1 (0.5) 11(5.3) 66(31.9) 69(33.3) 60(29.0) 3.85
Cola (0.016)
preferred soft
drink brand Pepsi
1(0.6) 21(12.6) 58(34.7) 49(29.3) 38(22.8) 3.61
is consistent. Cola
My preferred Coca 2.75
3(1.4) 14(6.8) 37(17.9) 73(35.3) 80(38.6) 4.03
soft drink has Cola (0.006)
excellent Pepsi
features. 2(1.2) 14(8.4) 43(25.7) 72(43.1) 36(21.6) 3.75
Cola

Source: Survey data, 2016
Regarding preferred soft drink brand quality, 48.7% of Coca cola brand customers and
41.4% of Pepsi cola brand customers were positively perceived that they preferred high
quality brand soft drink. However, 29.4% of Coca cola brand customers and 27% of Pepsi
cola brand customers disagree with their preferred brand is high quality soft drink brand. In
addition, the average response of students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 3.22)
and students preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.22) also showed that both groups of
students have neutral to the quality of their preferred soft drink brand. Furthermore, the t-
test was also calculated to check whether the opinion difference exists between two groups
or not. Accordingly, the result (t- value= 0.05, p>0.05) revealed that both groups of students
have no statistically significant difference towards the given idea. This indicated that both
42

brand customers have the same perception towards the quality of their preferred soft drink
brand.
Both soft drink brand customers were requested weather the quality of their preferred soft
drink brand is consistent or not. Depending on this idea, 62.3% of coca cola brand
customers and 52.1% of Pepsi cola brand customers were agreed that the quality of their
preferred soft drink brand is consistent, whereas 13.2% of Pepsi cola brand customers and
5.8% coca cola brand customers were disagreed on consistency of their preferred soft drink
brand. In addition, the average perception of students preferred Coca cola brand (Mean=
3.85) and students preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.61) also showed that both groups of
students replied that the quality of their preferred soft drink brand is consistent.
Furthermore, the t-test was also calculated to check whether the opinion difference exists
between two groups or not. Accordingly, the t- test (t- value= 2.42, p<0.05) result revealed
that there is statistically significant difference between coca cola brand customers and Pepsi
cola brand customers regarding the consistency of their preferred brand quality. This
disclosed that coca cola brand has high consistency in its quality than Pepsi cola brands.
Regarding soft drink feature, about 73.9% of coca cola brand customers and 64.7% of Pepsi
cola brand customers agreed that their preferred soft drink has excellent features. On the
other hand, 9.6% Pepsi cola brand customers and 8.2% Coca cola brand customers viewed
as they disagree. As the mean result for students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean=
4.03) and students those preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.75) implied, both group of
students agree on the given idea. The computed t-test (t-value = 2.75, p<0.05) also
43

indicated that there is idea difference because of statistical level of significance. The result
disclosed that coca cola brand has better features than Pepsi cola brands.
As summary of perceived quality, both soft drink brand customers have agreed on the
quality of their preferred brand. However, Coca cola customers have higher brand quality
perception than Pepsi cola brand customers. The results of independent sample t-test
revealed out of three dimensions of perceived quality two of them show significant
difference. The scores disclose that coca cola brand has a leading score when compare to
Pepsi cola brand regarding this dimension. Pepsi cola brand also commands a high perceive
quality among its customers but not as high as Coca cola brand. Apéria & Back (2004, p.
47) notes that customer’s perceived quality drives profitability, there is a strong correlation
between the perceived quality and economic results.
Table 8: Price of a soft drink preferred by students
Responses
Preferred t-value
Brand (P-value)
n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)
My preferred Coca
7(3.4) 16(7.7) 175(84.5) 8(3.9) 1(0.5) 2.90
soft drink Cola -1.149
brand is less
Pepsi (0.251)
costly than 2(1.2) 14(8.4) 143(85.6) 4(2.4) 4(2.4) 2.96
others. Cola
Considering Coca
what I would 5(2.4) 20(9.7) 32(15.5) 38(47.3) 52(25.1) 3.83
Cola -0.01
pay for my
preferred soft
(0.988)
drink, I get Pepsi
1(0.6) 12(7.2) 38(22.8) 79(47.3) 37(22.2) 3.83
much more I Cola
paid
44

In line with preferred soft drink brand cost, about 84.5% of coca cola brand customers and
85.6% of Pepsi cola brand customers were answered that their preferred soft drink brand is
the same cost as other brand. Whereas, 11.1% of coca cola brand customers and 9.6% of
Pepsi cola brand customers were disagree that the preferred drink is less costly. The
average perception of students those preferred coca cola brand (Mean= 2.90) and students
those preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=2.96) showed that their response is neutral to the
cost of their preferred soft drink. In addition to this, the t-test result (t-value = -1.149,
p>0.05) revealed that both soft drink brand customers have no statistically significant idea
difference. This indicated that the price of both soft drink brands were almost the same.
As indicated on Table 8, about 72.4% of Coca cola brand customers and 69.5% of Pepsi
cola brand customers consider that they got much more than their money’s worth. On the
other hand, about 12.1% coca cola brand customers and 7.8% of Pepsi cola brand
customers were disagreed on the idea. As the mean result for students those preferred Coca
cola brand (Mean= 3.83) and students those preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.83)
showed that they consider their preferred soft drink as more than they paid. According to
the t-test result (t-value = -0.01, p>0.05) both groups of students have no statistically
significant idea difference. Therefore, the result indicates that both customers have the
same perception towards their preferred brand regarding the money they paid.
In summary, the customers of Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola brand equally satisfied with the
price of their preferred soft drink. Even though, price is an important factor to choose one
brand over the other, the findings in this study revealed that Coca cola and Pepsi cola
brands have almost the same price.
45

Table 9: Brand Awareness of Students on their Preferred Soft Drink
Responses
Preferred t-value
Brand (P-value)
n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)
I am aware of Coca
4(1.9) 13(6.3) 41(19.8) 99(47.8) 50(24.2) 3.86
the preferred Cola -0.56
soft drink
Pepsi (0.577)
brand. - 6(3.6) 42(25.1) 80(47.9) 39(23.4) 3.91
Cola
I have clear Coca
image of the 6(2.9) 16(7.7) 40(19.3) 94(45.5) 51(24.6) 3.81
Cola
type of 0.61
person who
would use (0.544)
Pepsi
my preferred 5(3.0) 13(7.8) 42(25.1) 66(39.5) 41(24.6) 3.75
Cola
soft drink.
I have able to Coca
recognize my 6(2.6) 13(6.3) 42(20.3) 89(43.0) 5727.5) 3.86 1.69
Cola
preferred soft
drink among Pepsi (0.093)
other brand. 4(2.4) 15( 9.0) 42(25.1) 74(44.3) 32(19.2) 3.69
Cola
When I think
about soft Coca
5(2.4) 7(3.4) 23(11.1) 101(48.8) 71(34.3) 4.09
drink, my Cola
2.57
preferred soft
drink is the (0.011)
first brand Pepsi
5(3.0) 8(4.8) 30(18.0) 88(52.7) 36(21.6) 3.85
that comes to Cola
my mind.
I first chose Coca
the company 5(2.4) 116(80.2) 17(8.2) 13(6.3) 6(2.9) 2.27 0.401
Cola
which makes
Pepsi (0.688)
my preferred 6(3.6) 134(80.2) 14(8.4) 7(4.2) 6(3.6) 2.24
soft drink. Cola

X =mean S= Standard Deviation
46

Concerning students’ awareness of their preferred soft drink brand, about 72% of Coca
cola brand customers and 71.3% of Pepsi cola brand customers were aware of their
preferred soft drink brand contrarily, 8.2% of students those preferred Coca cola brand and
3.6% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand were not aware of the preferred soft
drink brand. As the mean result for students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 3.86)
and students those preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.91) showed that both group of
students were aware of the preferred soft drink brand. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value
= -0.56, p>0.05) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between coca
cola and Pepsi cola brands in terms of awareness level of its customers. This indicates that
both groups of students had the same level of awareness.
As Table 9 presents, the majority (70.1%) of students those preferred Coca cola brand and
64.1% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand replied that they have clear image of the
type of person who would use their preferred soft drink, while, 10.6% of students those
preferred Coca cola brand and 10.8% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand show
their disagreement. In addition, the mean score for students those preferred Coca cola
brand (Mean= 3.81) and for students those preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.75) showed
that both groups of students agree on the given idea. Furthermore, the t-test was also
calculated to check whether the opinion difference exists between the two groups or not.
Accordingly, the result is (t-value = 0.61, p>0.05). This inferred that both groups of soft
drink customers had the same attitude towards the idea that they have clear image of the
type of person who would use their preferred soft drink.
47

Concerning the recognizing ability of respondents on their preferred soft drink among other
brands, about 70.5% of Coca cola brand customers and 63.5% of Pepsi cola brand
customers positively perceived as they have able to recognize their preferred soft drink
among other brand, contrarily, 8.9% of students those preferred Coca cola brand and 5.8%
of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand were disagree. Furthermore, the average
perception of students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 3.86) and of students those
preferred Coca cola brand (Mean=3.69) showed their agreement on the given idea.
According to the t-test result (t-value = 1.69, p>0.05) both groups of students have no
statistically significant idea difference. Hence, both soft drink brand customers have almost
similar ability to recognize their preferred brand.
When students think about soft drink, their preferred soft drink is the first brand that comes
to their mind. In connection to this idea, the majority (83.1%) of Coca cola brand
customers and 74.3% of Pepsi cola brand customers positively perceived their agreement.
Whereas, 5.8% Coca cola brand customers and 7.8% of Pepsi cola brand customers
disagreed with the given idea. The average score for students those preferred Coca cola
brand (Mean= 4.09) and Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.85) showed that both groups of
students can easily remember the brand of their preferred soft drink. However, the
independent sample t-test result (t-value = 2.57, p<0.05) revealed that both groups of
students have idea difference because of statistical level of significance. This indicated that
coca cola customers can remember their brand than Pepsi cola customers. In connection
this this finding, Paracha, Waqas, Khan, & Ahmad (2012) indicated that coca cola
customers could remember their brand easily because of repeated advertisement of coke.
48

As observed from Table 9, about 82.6% of Coca cola brand customers and 83.8% of Pepsi
cola brand customers perceived that their first chose is not the company which makes their
preferred soft drink. On the other hand, 9.2% Coca cola brand customers and 7.8% of Pepsi
cola brand customers first chose the company which makes their preferred soft drink.
Furthermore, the mean score for students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean = 2.27)
and students those preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=2.24) shows the idea of
disagreement. An independent sample t-test was conducted to determine the extent to
which significant differences existed between the mean scores of students those preferred
Coca cola brand and of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand. In light of this, the result
(t-value = 1.55, p>0.05) revealed that both group of students those preferred Coca cola
brand and students those preferred Pepsi cola brand have the same response towards the
given idea. This disclosed that the soft drink brand customers have little awareness about
the company which makes their preferred soft drink brand.
As summary of brand awareness, both soft drink brand customers have equal level of
awareness about its preferred brand and the brand company. However, coca cola brand
customers can remember their preferred soft drink brand than Pepsi cola customers. This is
because Coca Cola Company advertises its products repeatedly in attractive manner. The
record scores show that 83.1 % of coca cola brand users agreed that they think about coca
cola soft drink brand when soft drink is mentioned. This supports Al-azzawi & Anthony,
(2012) view that one advantages of brand awareness is that consumer think about the
product when they think about the category. The reason for high coca cola brand awareness
stem from the fact that respondent could easily remember the brand with it logo.
49

Table 10: Satisfaction of Students on their Preferred Soft Drink
Responses
Preferred t-value
Brand (P-value)
n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)
I would
recommend Coca
2(1.0) 17(8.2) 59(28.5) 86(41.5) 43(20.8) 3.73
my Cola
preferred 1.99
soft drink (0.048)
brand to my Pepsi
6(3.6) 16(9.6) 55(32.9) 63(37.7) 27(16.2) 3.53
friends and Cola
relatives.
I would say
positive Coca
16(7.7) 22(10.6) 58(28.0) 68(32.9) 43(20.8) 3.48
things Cola 2.04
about my
preferred (0.042)
soft drink Pepsi
10(6.0) 37(22.2) 48(28.7) 47(28.1) 25(15.0) 3.24
brand. Cola
I would
recommend Coca
20(9.7) 23(11.1) 65(31.4) 72(34.8) 27(13.0) 3.30
my Cola 0.95
preferred
soft drink (0.345)
brand to Pepsi
18(10.8) 28(16.8) 43(25.7) 60(35.9) 18(10.8) 3.19
someone. Cola

Students would recommend their preferred soft drink brand to their friends and relatives. In
connection to this idea, about 62.3% of Coca cola brand customers and 53.9% of Pepsi cola
brand customers confirmed, while 9.2% of students those preferred Coca cola brand and
13.2% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand expressed their disagreement. The mean
score for students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 3.73) and for of students those
50

preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.53) showed that both groups of students agree on the
given idea. Furthermore, the t-test was also calculated to check whether the agreement
difference exists between two groups or not. Accordingly, the results of the t -test (t-value
= 1.99, p<0.05) revealed that there is statistically significant difference between two brand
customers in recommending their preferred soft drink brand to their friends and relatives.
This indicated that coca cola brand customers recommend their preferred brand better than
Pepsi cola customers.
As Table 10 presents, about 53.7% of students those preferred Coca cola brand and 43.1%
of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand agreed that they would say positive things
about their preferred soft drink brand. Contrarily, 18.3% of students those preferred Coca
cola brand and 28.2% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand show their
disagreement. Furthermore, the average perception of students those preferred Coca cola
brand (Mean= 3.48) and for students those preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.24) implies
that coca cola brand customers are neutral to say positive things about their preferred soft
drink brand, but coca cola brand customers agreed to say positive things about their
preferred soft drink brand. In addition to this, the t-test result (t-value = 2.04, p<0.05)
revealed that there is statistically significant difference the satisfaction level of both brand
customers. This indicated that coca cola brand customers say positive things about their
preferred soft drink brand than Pepsi cola customers.
According to the results of Table 10, about 47.8% of students those preferred Coca cola
brand and 46.7% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand were perceived that they
would recommend their preferred soft drink brand to someone, where as 20.8% of students
51

those preferred Coca cola and 27.6% of students those preferred Pepsi cola were disagree
on the given idea. On the other hand, the average perception of students those preferred
Coca cola (Mean= 3.30) and students those preferred Pepsi cola (Mean=3.19) showed that
they were neutral to recommend their preferred soft drink brand to someone. The t-test
result (t-value = 0.95, p>0.05) also showed that they have no agreement difference.
In summary, the overall findings of Table 10 exhibit that coca cola brand customers are
highly satisfied with the product and would recommend it to their friends and relatives. For
Pepsi cola brand customers the score is slightly lower than coca cola brand customers.
Table 11: Culture of Students on their Preferred Soft Drink
Responses
Preferred t-value
Brand (P-value)
n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)
My preferred Coca
21(10.1) 35(16.9) 69(33.3) 55(26.6) 27(13.0) 3.15
soft drink Cola 1.00
brand matches
my social Pepsi (0.317)
16(9.6) 38(22.8) 51(30.5) 48(28.7) 14(8.4) 3.04
status. Cola
I associate Coca
my preferred 20(9.7) 37(17.9) 74(35.7) 50(24.2) 26(12.6) 3.12
Cola
soft drink 0.775
with my (0.091)
culture. Pepsi
16(9.6) 38(22.8) 52(31.1) 47(28.1) 14(8.4) 3.03
Cola
I associate Coca
my preferred 17(8.2) 22(10.6) 76(36.7) 64(30.9) 28(13.5) 3.31
Cola 0.82
soft drink to
its country of (0.411)
Pepsi
origin. 13(7.8) 29(17.4) 51(30.5) 57(34.1) 17(10.2) 3.22
Cola

52

The results of Table 11 indicated that 39.6% of Coca cola brand customers and 32.4% of
Pepsi cola brand customers agreed that their preferred soft drink brand matches their social
status. While, 27% of Coca cola brand customers and 32.4% of Pepsi cola brand customers
were disagreed. Furthermore, the mean for students those preferred Coca cola brand
(Mean= 3.15) and for students those preferred Pepsi cola (Mean=3.04) showed that they
are neutral for their preferred soft drink brand whether it matches their social status or not.
The results of t test (t-value = 1.00, p>0.05) revealed that there is no statistically significant
idea difference between customers. This indicated that soft drink brand customers have
neutral idea regarding the match of their preferred soft drink to their social status.
Regarding students association of their preferred soft drink brand with their culture, about
36.8% of Coca cola brand customers and 36.5% Pepsi cola brand customers were
perceived their agreement. Contrarily, 27.6% of Coca cola brand customers and 32.4% of
Pepsi cola brand customers were disagreed. In addition to this, the mean score for students
those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 3.12) and for students those preferred Pepsi cola
brand (Mean=3.03) implies that students have neutral perception towards the association
their preferred soft drink with their culture. The t-test result (t-value = 2.25, p<0.05)
implies that both group of students have similar idea towards the given idea.
Associate preferred soft drink to its country of origin. In respect to this idea, about 44.4%
of Coca cola brand customers and 44.3% of Pepsi cola brand customers confirmed.
Whereas, 18.8% of Coca cola brand customers and 25.2% of Pepsi cola brand customers
responded as they did not associate their preferred soft drink to its country of origin. On the
other hand, the average perception of Coca cola brand customers (Mean= 3.31) and Pepsi
53

cola brand customers (Mean=3.22) showed that they have neutral association of their
preferred soft drink to its country of origin. The t-test result (t-value = 0.82, p>0.05) also
indicated that both students have no statistically significant idea difference.
In summary, the comparison of the empirical data on coca cola and Pepsi cola brand soft
drinks disclosed that both brand has similar culture association to their country-of-origin.
Table 12: Self Image of Students on their Preferred Soft Drink
Responses t-value
Preferred
Variables SD D N A SA X (S ) (P-
Brand
n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) value)
My preferred Coca 2.36

- 8(3.9) 25(12.1) 106(51.2) 68(32.9) 4.13
soft drink Cola
brand is my Pepsi (0.019)
interest. 2(1.2) 4(2.4) 32(19.2) 93(55.7) 36(21.6) 3.94
Cola
I would feel Coca
comfortable 8(3.9) 10(4.8) 46(22.2) 87(42.0) 56(27.1) 3.84
Cola
by drinking
1.31
my
(0.192)
preferred Pepsi
3(1.8) 10(6.0) 47(28.1) 80(47.9) 27(16.2) 3.71
soft drink Cola
brand.
My Coca
preferred 6(2.9) 11(5.3) 49(23.7) 82(39.6) 59(28.5) 3.86
Cola 0.67
soft drink is
more than
0.501)
just a Pepsi
2(1.2) 7(4.2) 46(27.5) 81(48.5) 31(18.6) 3.79
product of Cola
me.
Other Coca
people judge 22(10.6) 35(16.9) 74(35.7) 58(28.0) 18(8.7) 3.07
Cola 0.51
me by the
kind of soft (0.607)
drink I Pepsi
20(12.0) 35(21.0) 51(30.5) 45(26.9) 16(9.6) 3.01
preferred. Cola

54

As Table 12 result shows, out of the total sampled respondents’ majority (84.1%) of
students those preferred Coca cola brand and 77.3% of students those preferred Pepsi cola
brand were agreed that their preferred soft drink is their interest. Whereas, 16% of students
those preferred Coca cola brand and 3.6% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand
viewed their disagreement. As the average response for students those preferred Coca cola
brand (Mean= 4.13) and for students those preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.94) shows
that both brand customers have high interest on their preferred soft drink brand. Besides,
the t-test result (t-value = 2.36, p<0.05) revealed that there is statistically significant
difference between coca cola and Pepsi cola customers regarding the degree of agreement
on the interests of their preferred brand. This implies that coca cola brand customers have
higher interest for their preferred brand.
Concerning customers feeling of their preferred soft drink brand, about 69.1% of students
those preferred Coca cola brand and 55.8% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand
were positively perceived that they would feel comfortable by drinking their preferred soft
drink brand. Contrarily, 8.7% of students those preferred Coca cola brand and 7.8% of
students those preferred Pepsi cola brand were disagree. In addition, as the mean score for
students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 3.84) and students those preferred Pepsi
cola brand (Mean=3.71) showed that they feel comfortable by drinking their preferred soft
drink brand. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value = 1.31, p>0.05) indicates that there is no
statistically significant difference between soft drink brand customers regarding their
feeling towards their preferred soft drink. Hence, one can be understood that both brand
customers feel comfortable by drinking their preferred soft drink brand.
55

In line with self-image of students on product, the majority (68.1%) of students those
preferred Coca cola brand and 67.1% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand were
agreed that their preferred brand is more than just a product of me. Whereas, 8.2% of
brand were disagreed with the given idea. On the other hand, the average perception of
students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 3.86) and students those preferred Pepsi
cola brand (Mean=3.79) showed that soft drink brand customers believe their preferred soft
drink is more than just a product of them. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value = 0.67,
p>0.05) revealed that both students have no statistically significant idea difference. This
discloses that their preferred soft drink is more than just a product of them.
As indicated on Table 12, 36.7% of students those preferred coca cola brand and 36.5% of
students those preferred Pepsi cola brand responded that other people judge them by the
kind of soft drink they preferred, whereas 33% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand
and 25.7% of students those preferred Coca cola brand were disagreed. In addition, the
average perception of students preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 3.07) and students
preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.01) also showed neutral to peoples judgment by their
preferred soft drink. Furthermore, the t-test was also calculated to check whether the
opinion difference exists between two groups or not. Accordingly, the result (t- value= 0.51,
p>0.05) revealed that both groups of students have no statistically significant difference
towards the given idea. Therefore, the result indicates that the judgment of other people to
customers by the kind of soft drink they preferred is neutral.
56

As summary of self-image, both customers believed that they feel comfortable by drinking
their preferred soft drink and they are not judged by the type of soft drink consumed. But,
coca cola brand customers have higher interest for their preferred brand. In connection to
self-image Apéria & Back (2004, p. 65) pointed out that self-image is the consumer
internal mirror and creates picture of themselves through the attitude to the brand they use.
Table 13: Brand Personality of Students on their Preferred Soft Drink
Responses
Preferred t-value
Brand (P-value)
n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)
Sincerity Coca
2(1.0) 21(10.1) 48(23.2) 90(43.5) 46(22.2) 3.76
Cola 2.21
Pepsi (0.028)
5(3.0) 15(9.0) 49(29.3) 80(47.9) 18(10.8) 3.54
Cola
Excitement Coca
3(1.4) 23(11.1) 45(21.7) 93(44.9) 43(20.8) 3.72 1.69
Cola
Pepsi (0.092)
4(2.4) 18(10.8) 49(29.3) 73(43.7) 23(13.8) 3.56
Cola
Toughness Coca
4(1.9) 23(11.1) 50(24.2) 92(44.4) 38(18.4) 3.66 0.93
Cola
Pepsi (0.353)
6(3.6) 12(7.2) 55(32.9) 69(41.3) 25(15.0) 3.57
Cola
Competence Coca
3(1.4) 23(11.1) 67(32.4) 82(39.6) 32(15.5) 3.57 -1.03
Cola
Pepsi (0.918)
2(1.2) 14(8.4) 58(34.7) 72(43.1) 21(12.6) 3.57
Cola
Sophistication Coca
5(2.4) 20(9.7) 64(30.9) 75(36.2) 43(20.8) 3.63 2.91
Cola
Pepsi (0.004)
5(3.0) 33(19.8) 49(29.3) 62(37.1) 18(10.8) 3.33
Cola

57

The first dimension of brand personality is brand sincerity. This means genuine, honest,
wholesome and cheerful come to mind when thinking of the traits associated with this
dimension. Concerning sincerity, about 65.7% of students those preferred Coca cola brand
and 58.7% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand were responded as their preferred
soft drink is characterized by sincerity, contrarily, 11.1% of students those preferred Coca
cola brand and 12% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand were disagreed. As the
mean score for students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 3.76) and students those
preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.54) showed that both group of students were
responded as their preferred soft drink is characterized by sincerity. However, the t-test
result (t-value = 2.21, p<0.05) revealed that there is statistically significant difference
between coca cola and Pepsi cola customers regarding the degree of agreement. This
indicated coca cola customers have higher perception to their preferred brand genuineness,
honesty, wholesomeness and cheerfulness that come to their mind when they are thinking
of the traits associated with this dimension.
The second dimension of brand personality is brand excitement which contains such traits
as playful, daring, imaginative, and spirited. In this manner, the majority (65.7%) of
brand replied as they their preferred soft drink is characterized by excitement, while, 12.5%
of students those preferred Coca cola brand and 13.2% of students those preferred Pepsi
cola brand show their disagreement. In addition, the mean score for students those
preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 3.72) and for students those preferred Pepsi cola brand
(Mean=3.56) showed that both groups of students agree on the given idea. Furthermore,
the t-test was also calculated to check whether the opinion difference exists between the
58

two groups or not. Accordingly, the result is (t-value = 1.69, p>0.05). This implied that
both groups of students had the same attitude towards the idea that their preferred soft
drink is characterized by excitement.
The third dimension of brand personality is brand toughness. Powerful, forceful and potent
come to mind when thinking of the traits associated with this dimension. In line with
toughness, about 62.8% of students those preferred Coca cola brand and 56.3% of students
those preferred Pepsi cola brand positively perceived as their preferred soft drink is
characterized by toughness, contrarily, 13% of students those preferred Coca cola brand
and 10.8% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand were disagree. Furthermore, the
average perception of students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 3.66) and of
students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean=3.57) showed their agreement on the
given idea. According to the t-test result (t-value = 0.93, p>0.05) both groups of students
have no statistically significant idea difference. Hence, one can be understand that, the
calculated t-value and the insignificant p-value shows the agreement of students on the idea
that their preferred soft drink is characterized by ruggedness.
The fourth dimension of brand personality is brand competence. The attributes represented
by this brand personality are intelligence, success, reliability and expertise. In connection
to this idea, about 55.1% of students those preferred Coca cola brand and 55.7% of
students those preferred Pepsi cola brand responded as their preferred soft drink is
characterized by competence. Whereas, 12.5% of students those preferred Coca cola brand
and 9.6% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand were disagreed with the given idea.
The average mean for students those preferred Coca cola brand (Mean= 3.57) and for
59

students those preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean=3.57) showed that both groups of students
agreed on the give idea. In addition to this the independent sample t-test result (t-value = -
1.03, p>0.05) revealed that both groups of students have no idea difference. This indicated
that both brand customers believed that their preferred brand is still in the market because
of its competence.
The final dimension of brand personality is brand sophistication. Common characteristics
associated with this dimension include charming, refined, elegant, and poise. As observed
from Table 14, about 57% of students those preferred Coca cola brand and 47.9% of
students those preferred Pepsi cola brand replied as their preferred soft drink is
sophisticated. On the other hand, 12.7% of students those preferred Coca cola brand and
22.8% of students those preferred Pepsi cola brand were answered that their preferred soft
drink is not sophisticated. Furthermore, the mean score for students those preferred Coca
cola brand (Mean= 3.63) and students those preferred Pepsi cola brand (Mean= 3.33)
shows that coca cola brand customers agreed but Pepsi cola customers were neutral.
Furthermore, the t- test result (t-value = 2.91, p<0.05) revealed that there is statistically
significant difference in the degree of agreement between coca cola and Pepsi cola brand
customers. This discloses that coca cola customers have higher perception to their
preferred brand sophistication.
In summary, the overall findings of brand personality exhibit that coca cola brand
customers are scored better score. However, Pepsi cola brand exhibits almost the same
level of three personality traits as coca cola brand namely, excitement, toughness and
competence.
60

4.4. The Relationship between Brand Preference and Students
Background Information
In this section, the relationship between brand preference and students background
information was examined using Chi-square test of independent. The results were shown in
Table 14.
Table 14: Background Information of Students and their Preferred Soft Drink (n=374)
Preferred Brand
Variables Coca Cola Pepsi Cola  2Cal p-value
n % n %
Sex 0.559 0.455
Male 122 58.9 92 55.1
Female 85 41.1 75 44.9
Age 2.458 0.483
15-16 45 21.7 46 27.5
17-18 59 28.5 49 29.3
19-20 81 39.1 59 35.3
Above 20 22 10.6 13 7.8
Education Level 3.706 0.295
Grade 9 42 20.3 44 26.3
Grade 10 69 33.3 53 31.7
Grade 11 49 23.7 43 25.7
Grade 12 47 22.7 27 16.2
Family Living Place 10.420 0.001
Urban 144 69.6 89 53.3
Rural 63 30.4 78 46.7
Frequency of consumption
13.449 0.004
in a week
Once 75 36.2 79 47.3
2-3 48 23.2 49 29.3
4-5 43 20.8 24 14.4
6-7 41 19.8 15 9.0
61

From the survey results it is found that 58.9% of male students and 41.1 % of female
students preferred Coca Cola brand whereas, 55.1% of male students and 44.9% of female
students preferred Pepsi Cola brand. Even though male students preferred coca cola brand
than female students this difference was not statistically significant (  2 Cal = 0.56, p>0.05).
This shows that sex of the students has no relationship with brand preference of soft drinks.
This result is consistent with the findings of Paracha, Waqas, Khan, & Ahmad (2012) and
they argued that there is no association between preferred cola and gender.
According to table results (Table 14), about 39.1% of Coca Cola customers and 35.3% of
Pepsi Cola customers were under the age group of 19-20. Also 10.6% of Coca Cola
customers and 7.8% of Pepsi Cola customers were above 20. Whereas 28.5% of Coca
Cola customers and 29.3% of Pepsi Cola customers were under the age group of 17-18 and
21.7% of Coca Cola customers and 27.5% of Pepsi Cola customers were under the age
group of 15-16. This indicated that younger students prefer Pepsi Cola brand than Coca
Cola brand. However, this result is not statistically significant (  2 Cal = 0.46, p>0.05). In
connection to this finding Andersson, Arvidsson, and Lindström (2006) disclosed that the
youngest age group particularly have a more positive attitude towards Pepsi on the whole,
whereas the oldest age group are more positive towards Coca-Cola.
Regarding the relationship between education level and brand preference of students, about
33.3% of Coca Cola customers and 31.7% of Pepsi Cola customers were grade 10 students.
Also 22.7% of Coca Cola customers and 16.2% of Pepsi Cola customers were grade 12
students. Whereas 23.7% of Coca Cola customers and 25.7% of Pepsi Cola customers
were grade 11 students and 20.3% of Coca Cola customers and 26.3% of Pepsi Cola
62

customers were grade nine students. The result indicated that grade 10 and 12 students
were coca cola brand customers. However, this result is not statistically significant (  2 Cal =
3.71, p>0.05).
Respondents were also asked about their family living place, accordingly 69.6% of
students whose families are living in urban and 30.4% of students whose families are living
in rural prefer Coca Cola brand. In contrast, 53.3% of respondents whose families are
living in urban and 46.7% of students whose families are living in rural prefer Pepsi Cola
brand. Furthermore, the Chi-square analysis ( x 2 = 10.42, p<0.05) shows that family living
place of students and students brand preference has statistically significant association.
This indicated that those students from rural area were Pepsi Cola customers and those
students from urban area were Coca Cola customers. In contrary to this result the findings
of Hector, Rangan, Louie, Flood, & Gill (2009) revealed that there were no significant
differences in soft drink consumption patterns between people living in urban areas
compared to those living in rural/remote areas. This is because the frequency of
advertisement of cola brands were similar both rural and urban population of Australia.
As presented in Table 14, about 36.2% of Coca Cola brand customers and 47.3% of Pepsi
Cola brand customers consume their preferred brand once in a week whereas, 19.8% of
Coca Cola brand customers and 9.0% of Pepsi Cola brand customers consume their
preferred brand almost every day (6-7 days a week). The Chi-square value ( x 2 = 13.45,
p<0.05) indicated that frequency of consumption in a week and brand preference has
statistically significant relationship. This indicated that Coca Cola brand customers
consume frequently than Pepsi Cola customers.
63

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents summary of major findings, conclusion and recommendations of the
study. In this part, major findings of the study were presented based on the analysis and
interpretation of the results in previous chapter (Chapter 4).
5.1. Summary of Major Findings
The basic purpose of this study is to assess the consumers’ brand preference of soft drinks:
A comparative analysis of Coca cola and Pepsi cola products among high school students.
A total of 374 student consumers were participated in responding the questionnaire and the
collected data were analyzed using the analysis techniques of frequency, percentage, mean,
standard deviation, independent sample t-test and Chi-square analysis. Based on the
information from analysis and interpretation parts, the following summaries are made:
 The majority (57.2%) of respondents were male students. The average age of
sampled students in the selected school was 18.7 with a standard deviation of 2.3.
The majority (62.3%) of students’ parents live in urban area (Table 1).
 The majority (55.3%) of students’ preferred Coca Cola brand. An interesting
observation made in this report is that the majority (77.3%) of soft drink consumers
preferred their brand based on its taste (Table 3).
 A large number (41.2%) of soft drink consumers consume soft drinks once in a
week and 25.9% of them drink 2-3 times a week. About 41.5% of the respondents’
consume soft drinks is parties and celebration, and the other 25.1% of respondents’
consume soft drinks with fast foods (Table 3).
64

 The results of brand equity indicated that soft drink consumers are loyal to their
preferred brand, get quality product, happy with price of a product, aware about its
preferred brand and satisfied being a consumer of its preferred brand (Table 4).
 The results of brand identity indicated that soft drink consumers have neutral
cultural association to their preferred brand. However they have high self-image
and good brand personality (Table 4).
 Both soft drink brand customers have strong loyalty to their preferred soft drink
brand. Coca cola customers have shown slightly higher brand loyalty than Pepsi
cola brand customers however it is not supported by statistical evidence. The results
of independent sample t-test revealed that both brand customers have equally loyal
to their preferred brand (Table 6).
 Regarding perceived quality, both soft drink brand customers have agreed on the
quality of their preferred brand. However, Coca cola customers have higher brand
quality perception than Pepsi cola brand customers. The results of independent
sample t-test revealed out of three dimensions of perceived quality two of them
show significant difference. The scores disclose that coca cola brand has a leading
score when compare to Pepsi cola brand regarding this dimension. Pepsi cola brand
also commands a high perceive quality among its customers but not as high as Coca
cola brand (Table 7).
 With reference to price of a soft drink, the customers of Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola
brand equally satisfied with the price of their preferred soft drink. Even though,
price is an important factor to choose one brand over the other, the findings in this
65

study revealed that Coca cola and Pepsi cola brands have almost the same price
(Table 8).
 Concerning brand awareness, both soft drink brand customers have equal level of
awareness about its preferred brand and the brand company. However, coca cola
brand customers can remember their preferred soft drink brand than Pepsi cola
customers. This is because Coca Cola Company advertises its products repeatedly
in attractive manner. The record scores show that 83.1 % of coca cola brand users
agreed that they think about coca cola soft drink brand when soft drink is
mentioned (Table 9).
 On the subject of soft drink brand customers’ satisfaction level, coca cola brand
customers are highly satisfied with the product and would recommend it to their
friends and relatives. For Pepsi cola brand customers the score is slightly lower
than coca cola brand customers (Table 10).
 With reference to culture, the comparison of the empirical data on coca cola and
Pepsi cola brand soft drinks disclosed that both brand has similar culture
association to their country-of-origin (Table 11).
 As regards to self-image, both customers believed that they feel comfortable by
drinking their preferred soft drink and they are not judged by the type of soft drink
consumed. But, coca cola brand customers have higher interest for their preferred
brand. In connection to self-image Apéria & Back (2004, p. 65) pointed out that
self-image is the consumer internal mirror and creates picture of themselves
through the attitude to the brand they use (Table 12).
66

 In relation to brand personality of soft drinks, coca cola brand customers are scored
better score. However, Pepsi cola brand exhibits almost the same level of three
personality traits as coca cola brand namely, excitement, toughness and competence
(Table 13).
 Regarding the relationship between sex and brand preference, there is no statistical
significance were observed (  2 Cal = 0.56, p>0.05). This shows that sex of the
students has no relationship with brand preference of soft drinks (Table 14).
 Concerning the relationship between age and brand preference, the result is not
statistically significant (  2 Cal = 0.46, p>0.05) (Table 14).
 Regarding the relationship between education level and brand preference of
students, grade 10 and 12 students were coca cola brand customers. However, this
result is not supported by statistically evidence (  2 Cal = 3.71, p>0.05) (Table 14).
 The results of the Chi-square analysis revealed that family living place of students
and students brand preference has statistically significant association ( x 2 = 10.42,
p<0.05). This indicated that those students from rural area were Pepsi Cola
customers and those students from urban area were Coca Cola customers (Table
14).
 As presented in Table 14, the results of the Chi-square value ( x 2 = 13.45, p<0.05)
indicated that frequency of consumption in a week and brand preference has
statistically significant relationship. This indicated that Coca Cola brand customers
consume frequently than Pepsi Cola customers.
67

5.2. Conclusion
Coca cola is the best brand for Tabor high school students. One of the reasons is that
students like Coca cola as its taste is very good. Thus the producer should focus on good
taste so that it can capture the major part of the market. Another reason is that Coke also
acts as refreshment to students which influence on them to preferred coke. Frequency of
advertisement is also important factor for coke customer to choose their brand. Coca cola
customer used the brand not only to fill their basic thirst but also for study purpose.
Each of the brand equity and identity dimensions of coca cola brand soft drinks when
compared to Pepsi cola brand equity and identity dimensions reveals that coca cola brand
has relatively high brand equity and brand identity than Pepsi cola brand. Coca cola has
built strong brand on the three component of brand equity such as perceived quality, brand
awareness and satisfaction. This provides value to the customer by enhancing satisfaction
and confidence in purchase decision and to the firm by enhancing competitive advantage.
Coca cola has also strong brand on the two component of brand identity such as self-image
and brand personality.
Living place of students’ family and frequency of soft drink consumption per a week has
significant relationship with brand preference of students. Those students from rural area
were Pepsi Cola brand customers and those students from urban area were Coca Cola
brand customers. Coca Cola brand customers consume frequently than Pepsi Cola
customers.
68

5.3. Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the researcher suggests the following recommendations
to ensure the profitability of each soft drink brand producers based on the needs of their
customers.
 Pepsi cola brand producers should concentrate on brand loyalty and perceived
quality. Students have high brand loyalty towards a brand if they are satisfied with
the product delivered by it. This is why Pepsi cola producers should focus their
strategy to create or attract loyal customers which can be done through delivering a
high quality products, this will result in establishing a long term commitment with
loyal customers who will not switch easily to another brand, compared to non-loyal
customer who can switch easily. This will lead in increasing the sales volume of
Pepsi cola brand and would give that brand the chance to present its soft drink in
the market with a premium price.
 In the aspect of brand awareness, it is recommended that Pepsi cola producers
should embark on intensive marketing campaign to create stronger brand awareness
and brand image. The campaign should be based on promoting soft drinks on
traditional media such as paid messages designed and presented through television
networks, radio stations, newspapers and magazines. Additionally, companies use
support media in ongoing campaigns, such as billboards, directories and cars.
Sponsoring major events and community activities also serve as promotional
opportunities for companies as well.
69

 Pepsi cola consumers were less satisfied than coca cola customers. Relatively
satisfied customers understand and remember an image of the brand as an accepted,
successful product which will be around and will be able to afford service back up
and product improvement. Therefore, Pepsi cola producers should work to satisfy
their customers.
Scope for Further Research
This study looked at limited number of variables. The researcher recommends further
research to investigate the other factors that affect the preference of soft drink industries.
Equally, further research should be carried out in other types of respondents at organization
and household level.
70

REFERENCES
Aaker, D.A. (1996). Characteristics of memory associations: a consumer based brand

equity perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing., 13, 389-405.
Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name.
NewYork: Free press; Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada; New York: Maxwell
Macmillan.
Abiy zegeye, Alemayehu Worku, Daniel Tefera, Melese Getu, and Yilma Sileshil.(2009).
Introduction to Research Methods: Preparatory Modules of AAU Graduate
Programs, Addis Ababa: Unpublished Module.
Al-azzawi, M., & Anthony, M. (2012). Students Brand Preferences Between Apple and
Smartphone. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Mälardalen University, School of
Sustainable Development of Society and Technology, Mälardalen.
Al-Sayaad, J., Rabea, A., Samrah, A. (2006). Statistics for Economics and Administration
Studies. Jeddah: Dar Hafez.
Amsalu Mitiku and Wendimu Legesse. (2014).The Impact of Smallholder Resettlement

Perception on Food Poverty in South Western Ethiopia. An International Journal
of Life Sciences and Chemistry, 31(1), 117-125.
Andersson, E., Arvidsson, E., and Lindström, C.(2006). Coca-Cola or Pepsi; that is the
question – A study about different factors affecting consumer preferences.
Unpublished Master thesis, School of Management and Economics, Växjö
University.
Apéria, T., & Back, R. (2004). Brand Relations Management, Bridging the Gap between
Brand Promise and Brand Delivery. Malmö: Daleke Grafiska AB.
Aregawi Gebreeyesus. (2006). Model development of supply chain management system

for the Ethiopian soft drinks industries: a case study on MOHA soft drinks
industries sh. Co. Unpublished MA thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa.
71

Bedbury, S., and Stephen, F. (2002). A New Brand World: 8 Principles for Achieving
Brand Leadership in the 21st Century, New York: Viking Penguin.
Belay Alemayehu. (2013). Marketing mix framework analysis for Pepsi cola at MOHA
soft drinks industry. Unpublished MA thesis, St. Mary’s University College.
David Jobber. (2001). Principles & Practice of Marketing. 3rd d. McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company: England.
Davis, S, M, (2002). Brand Asset Management, San Francisco, CA: Josey Bass.
Erdem,Tulin and Joffre Swait (1998), “Brand Equity as a Signalling Phenomenon,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131-57.
Hawassa City Education Office. (2016). Hawassa City Education Office annual report.
MOHA. (2010).Employee Hand Book of MOHA Soft Drinks S.C,
Hammond, James. (2008). Branding your Business. Great Britain and United States:
Kogan Page Limited.
Hector D, Rangan A, Louie J, Flood V, Gill T. (2009). Soft drinks, weight status and
health: a review. Sydney: A NSW Centre for Public Health Nutrition (now known
as Cluster of Public Health Nutrition, Prevention Research Collaboration,
University of Sydney) project for NSW Health.
Henry, A. (2001). Consumer Behavior and Marketing.6thedition.Thomas Asia: Pvt. Ltd.

Singapore.
Kapferer J.N. (2004). The strategic Brand Management: Creating and sustaining brand
equity Long Term. Kogan Page: London.
Kapferer. (2004). ‘The Effect of Familiar Brand Names on Consumer Behaviour: A

Jordanian Perspective’, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics,
Issue 43, 34-57
72

Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customers-based brand
equity. Journal of marketing, 57 (1), 1-22.
Keller, K. (2003). “Brand synthesis the multi dimensionality of brand knowledge”. Journal
of consumer research, 38(1), 131-142.
Keller, K. (2008). Strategic brand management, building, measuring, and management

brand equity 3rd ed. Pearson prentice hall: New Jersey, upper saddle river.
Kothari, C.R. (2012). Research Methodology, Methods and Techniques. New-Delhi: Wiley
Eastern Limited.
Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and

Control. 10th ed. NJ: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing Management. 12th ed. Pearson Education,
NJ: Upper Saddle River.
Kotler, P., and Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing management. 13th ed. New Jersey: Pearson
Education Inc., Upper Saddle River.
Kotler, P., Wong, V., Saunders, J., & Armstrong, G. (2005). Principles of Marketing.
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong,G. (2008), Principles of Marketing, Pritice-Hall, Inc. New

Jersey.
Kottler, P. (1994). Marketing Management. 8thed. Prince-Hall: Inc.Assimon and Schuster

Company.
Kottler, P., and Armstrong, G. (2005). Principles of Marketing. 11thedition.Upper Saddle

Rivers, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall New Jersey, U.S.A.
Mallik, S. (2009). Brand Management. Jaipur: Book Enclave.
73

Paracha, A.J., Waqas, M., Khan, A. R., & Ahmad, S. (2012). Consumer Preference Coca
Cola versus Pepsi-Cola. Global Journal of Management and Business Research,
12(12) Online ISSN: 2249-4588 & Print ISSN: 0975-5853.
Peter, J.P., & Olson, J.C. (1997). Understanding Consumer Behavior. Burr Ridge, III.:
Irwin, Cop.
Royo-Vela, M. (2005). Emotional and Informational Content of Commercial’s: Visual and

Auditory Circumflex Spaces, Product Information and their Effects on Audience
Evaluation. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 27, 13-38.
Schiffman, I.G., and Kanuk, L.L. (2000). Consumer Behavior. 9thed. Prentice Hall of India:
New Delhi.
Yglesias, M. (2013). How coke won the cola wars. Retrieved on October 1, 2016, from
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/rivalries/2013/08/pepsi_paradox_why_peopl
e_prefer_coke_even_though_pepsi_wins_in_taste_tests.html.
Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman.(1988). Communication and Control Processes in the

Delivery of Service Quality, Journal of Marketing, 23, 35-48.
74

APPENDICES
Appendix I: Questionnaire for Students
Hawasa University
School of Graduate Studies
Masters of Business Administration
This questionnaire is designed on the thesis title of “Assessment of consumers’ brand
preference of soft drinks: Comparative analysis of Pepsi cola and Coca-cola products
among high school students for the partial fulfillment of Masters of Business
Administration in Marketing Management. Therefore, your cooperation in fulfilling the
questions is vital for the successful accomplishment of this thesis. Your response will be
kept confidential and it is only for academic purpose.
Thank you for your cooperation!
PART I: Background Information of students
Instruction: Please show your answer by circling the appropriate number and filling the
blank.
1. Your Sex 1/ Male 2/ Female
2. Your age _______________________
3. Educational level 1/ Grade 9 2/Grade 10 3/Grade 11 4/ Grade 12
4. Living place of your family 1/ Urban 2/ Rural
5.Do you drink soft drinks 1/ Yes 2/ No
6. If your answer is” Yes” for 1/ Coca cola( Coca, Fanta, Sprite)
Q-4 what is your best soft drink? 2/ Pepsi cola( Pepsi,Mirinda,7up)
7. Why you prefer your brand? 1/ Taste 2/Price 3/Packaging 4/ Popularity
8. Frequency of consumption in a week? ________________
9. Why you chose your consume soft drink? _______________

PART II: Perception of customer based brand preference of soft drinks
Instruction: The following set of statements relate to your perception about your brand
preference of soft drinks. For each statement, indicate your level of agreement or
disagreement by encircling the numbers in front of each item.
Keys: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Undecided 4= Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

Rating scale
No Items
1 2 3 4 5
1. Brand Loyalty
1.1 If I am going to buy a soft drink, I will choose my 1 2 3 4 5
preferred brand.
1.2 I will not purchase other brands, even if they offer
similar quality and price with my preferred soft drink. 1 2 3 4 5
1.3 I will not buy other brands if my preferred soft drink is

1 2 3 4 5
not available at the store.
1.4 I consider myself to be loyal to my preferred soft drink. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Perceived Quality
2.1 My preferred soft drink brand is high quality. 1 2 3 4 5
2.2 The quality of my preferred soft drink brand is
consistent. 1 2 3 4 5
2.3 My preferred soft drink has excellent features. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Price
3.1 My preferred soft drink brand is less costly than others. 1 2 3 4 5
3.2 Considering what I would pay for my preferred soft
drink, I would get much more than my money’s worth. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Brand Awareness
4.1 I am aware of the preferred soft drink brand. 1 2 3 4 5
4.2 I have clear image of the type of person who would use
my preferred soft drink. 1 2 3 4 5
4.3 I can recognize my preferred soft drink among other

brand. 1 2 3 4 5
4.4 When I think about soft drink, my preferred soft drink is
the first brand that comes into my mind. 1 2 3 4 5
4.5 I first chose the company which makes my preferred soft
drink. 1 2 3 4 5
II

5.Satisfaction
5.1 I would recommend my preferred soft drink brand to my
1 2 3 4 5
friends and relatives.
5.2 I would say positive things about my preferred soft drink
1 2 3 4 5
brand.
5.3 I would recommend my preferred soft drink brand to 1 2 3 4 5
someone.
6.Culture
6.1 My preferred soft drink brand matches my social status. 1 2 3 4 5

6.2 I associate my preferred soft drink with my culture. 1 2 3 4 5
6.3 I associate my preferred soft drink to its country of
1 2 3 4 5
origin.
7. Self-Image
7.1 My preferred soft drink brand is my interest. 1 2 3 4 5
7.2 I would feel comfortable by drinking my preferred soft
1 2 3 4 5
drink brand.
7.3 My preferred soft drink is more than just a product of
1 2 3 4 5
me.
7.4 Other people judge me by the kind of soft drink I
1 2 3 4 5
preferred.
8.Brand Personality
8.1 My preferred soft drink is characterized by sincerity. 1 2 3 4 5
8.2 My preferred soft drink is characterized by excitement. 1 2 3 4 5
8.3 My preferred soft drink is characterized by ruggedness. 1 2 3 4 5
8.4 My preferred soft drink is characterized by competence. 1 2 3 4 5
8.5 My preferred soft drink is characterized by sophisticated. 1 2 3 4 5
Thank you very much for your valuable time and support!
III

Appendix II: Detail outputs of a Chi-Square
Sex * Preferred brand
Crosstab
If your answer is” Yes” for Q-4

which brand do you prefer?
Coca Cola Pepsi Cola Total
Sex Male 122 92 214
Female 85 75 160
Total 207 167 374
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-
Value df sided) sided) sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .559a 1 .455
Continuity Correctionb .413 1 .521
Likelihood Ratio .559 1 .455
Fisher's Exact Test .464 .260
Linear-by-Linear Association .557 1 .455
N of Valid Cases 374
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 71.44.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
IV

Age * Preferred brand
Crosstab

Age 15-16 45 46 91
17-18 59 49 108
19-20 81 59 140
Above 20 22 13 35
Total 207 167 374
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.458a 3 .483
Likelihood Ratio 2.464 3 .482
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.421 1 .120
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 15.63.

Grade Level * Preferred brand
Crosstab

Grade Level Grade 9 42 44 86
Grade 10 69 53 122
Grade 11 49 43 92
Grade 12 47 27 74
Total 207 167 374
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
count is 15.63.
VI

Living place of your family * Preferred brand
Crosstab

Living place of your family Urban 144 89 233
Rural 63 78 141
Total 207 167 374
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-
Value df sided) sided) sided)
Continuity Correctionb 9.738 1 .002
Fisher's Exact Test .001 .001
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 62.96.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
VII

Frequency of consumption in a week * Preferred brand
Crosstab

Frequency of Once 75 79 154

consumption
in a week 2-3 48 49 97
4-5 43 24 67
6-7 41 15 56
Total 207 167 374
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
count is 25.01.
VIII

SSRN Id3952746

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSRN Id3952746

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSESSMENT OF CONSUMERS’ BRAND PREFERECE OF SOFT

DRINKS: A COMPARATIVE ANALSYIS OF PEPSI COLA AND

A THESIS PREPARED TO THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

MAJIOR ADVISOR: Dr. ARVIND SOUDIKAR

CO-ADVISOR: ATO YILMA GELETA

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3952746

MAJIOR ADVISOR: Dr. ARVIND SOUDIKAR

CO-ADVISOR: ATO YILMA GELETA

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION IN MARKETING

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3952746

thesis have been duly acknowledged.

Name: Abebaw Gebrehanna

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3952746

______________________ _____________________ _________________

Name of Principal Advisor Signature Date

______________________ _____________________ _________________

Name of Co-advisor Signature Date

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3952746

appreciation. My foremost thanks go to my principal advisor, Dr Aravind Soudikar for his

every helps he made for me.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3952746

ADVISORS’ APPROVAL SHEET ...................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ ix

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... x

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................. xi

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background of the Study ............................................................................................. 1

1.2. Statement of the problem ............................................................................................ 2

1.3. Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................... 3

1.3.1. General objective .................................................................................................. 3

1.5. Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 4

1.6. Scope of the study ....................................................................................................... 5

1.7. Limitations of the study ............................................................................................... 5

1.8. Organization of the study ............................................................................................ 6

CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................... 7

LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 7

2.1. The Concepts and Definitions of Brand ...................................................................... 7

2.2. Consumer Brand Preferences ...................................................................................... 8

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3952746

2.31. Brand Loyalty ...................................................................................................... 12

2.4.1 Brand Personalities .............................................................................................. 20

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 25

3.1. Description of the Study Area ................................................................................... 25

3.2. Research Design ........................................................................................................ 27

3.3. Data Sources .............................................................................................................. 27

3.4. Sampling Design ....................................................................................................... 27

3.4.1. Sample Size Determination ................................................................................ 27

3.5.1. Questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 30

3.7. Ethical Consideration ................................................................................................ 32

CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................ 33

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 33

4.1. Background Information of Respondents .................................................................. 33

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3952746

4.3. Comparative Analysis of Pepsi Cola and Coca-Cola Products ................................. 38

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 64

5.1. Summary of Major Findings ..................................................................................... 64

5.2. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 68

5.3. Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 69

____________ _ _______

____________ _ _______