INTERPRETATION EXAMPLE

MODEL FOR FREQUENCIES

Table 4.1: Frequencies and Percentage Distribution of Profile of the Respondents

Demographic Profile Frequency Percent (%)

Male 399 64.90
Gender
Female 216 35.10
18-20 Years 41 6.70
21-30 Years 178 28.90
Age 31-40 Years 235 38.20
41-55 Years 134 21.80
Above 55 Years 27 4.40
Married 448 72.80
Marital Status
Unmarried 167 27.20
High School or less 26 4.20
Bachelor’s Degree 198 32.20
Education
Master Degree 268 43.60
Professional Degree 123 20.00
Self-Employed 61 9.90
Private Sector 242 39.30
Public Sector 64 10.40
Occupation Student 134 21.80
Housewife 57 9.30
Freelancer 34 5.50
Professional 23 3.70
Below 5 Lakhs 130 21.10
5 to 10 Lakhs 216 35.10
Annual Family 11 to 15 Lakhs 102 16.60
Income 16 to 20 Lakhs 79 12.80
Above 20 Lakhs 88 14.30
Total 615 100.00
 Table 4.1 shows the profiles of the respondents. It is observed that among 615

respondents, majority of the respondents are male (64.9%), and 35.1 percent are female.

Most of the respondents belonging to the age group of 31-40 years (38.2%) followed

by the respondents in the age group of 21-30 years (28.9%), 41-55 years (21.8%) and only

4.4 percent of the respondents are in the age group of above 55 years category.

It is observed that among respondents, majority of the respondents are married

(72.8%), and 27.2 percent are unmarried. Among the respondents, 43.6 percent have acquired

master degree, whereas 32.2 percent of the respondents have been educated up to bachelor

degree level, 20 percent of the respondents are found to be professional degree holders, and

only 4.2 percent of the respondents are educated up to high school or below level.

Regarding occupation, 39.3 percent are worked in private sector followed by21.8

percent are student, 10.4 percent are public sector, 9.3 percent of the respondents are

housewives, and only 3.7 percent are professional.

With regard to monthly income, 35.1 percent of the respondents have the income

level of 5 to 10 lakhs followed by 21.1 percent of them earn below 5 lakhs, 16.6 percent of

the respondents have the income level of 11 to 15 lakhs, while 14.3 percent above 20 lakhs

and only 12.8 percent of the respondents are earning16 to 20 lakhs.

 Table 4.3: Frequencies and Percentage Distribution of Respondents Most Used Social
Media

Most used Social Media Frequency Percent

YouTube 267 43.4

Facebook 216 35.1

Instagram 49 8.0

Twitter 30 4.9

LinkedIn 47 7.6

Pinterest 6 1.0

Total 615 100.0

Table 4.3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of most used social media.

Among the 615 respondents most of the respondents (43.7%) are used YouTube followed by

35.1 percent of them are using Facebook, 8 percent of the respondents Instagram, 7.6 percent

LinkedIn, 4.9 percent of them using Twitter and only 1 percent of the respondents are using

Pinterest.
 Table 4.11: Frequencies and Percentage Distribution of Frequency of Forwarding
Brand Related Messages in a Day

Frequency of forwarding brand related

Frequency Percent
messages in a day
1-5 Times 549 89.3
6-10 Times 48 7.8
11-15 Times 12 2.0
More than 20 Times 6 1.0
Total 615 100.0

Table 4.11 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of frequency of

forwarding brand related messages in a day. Table value is inferred that most of the

respondents (89.3%) are 1-5 times forwarding brand related messages in a day, 7.8 percent of

them forward 6-10 times, two percent of the respondents are forward brand related message

11-15 times and only 1 percent of the respondents are more than 20 times.
 Table 4.18: Frequencies and Percentage Distribution of Which Brand of Mobile, Most
Familiar with Respondents

Mobile Frequency Percent

Apple iPhone 186 30.2
Mi 48 7.8
One plus 30 4.9
Oppo 30 4.9
Realme 12 2.0
Redmi 87 14.1
Samsung 180 29.3
Vivo 42 6.8
Total 615 100.0

Table 4.18 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of which brand of mobile,

most familiar with respondents. It is inferred that most of the respondents (30.2%) are

familiar with Apple iPhone, followed by 29.3 percent of them familiar with Samsung mobile,

14.1 percent of the respondents are familiar with Redmi/Mi and only two percent of the

respondents are familiar with Realme Mobile.

Chart 4.7: Graphical Representation of Which Brand of Mobile, Most Familiar with
Respondents
Model for Multiple Response

Table 4.2: Frequencies and Percentage Distribution of Respondents Regularly Used

Social Media

Responses
Regularly Used Social
Percent of Cases
Media
N Percent

YouTube 513 26.2% 83.4%

Facebook 414 21.1% 67.3%

Instagram 227 11.6% 36.9%

Twitter 184 9.4% 29.9%

Linkedin 240 12.3% 39.0%

Pinterest 139 7.1% 22.6%

Tumblr 155 7.9% 25.2%

Flickr 87 4.4% 14.1%

Total 1959 100.0% 318.5%

a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Table 4.2 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents regularly

used social media. It is inferred that most of the respondents (26.2%) are regularly used

YouTube, followed by 21.1 percent of them are regularly used Facebook, 12.3 percent of the

respondentsare used LinkedIn, 11.6 percent are used Instagram and only 4.4 percent of the

respondents are used Flickr.

With regard to percent of cases, respondents most preferred regularly used social

media is YouTube (83.4%), followed by 67.3 percent Facebook, 39 percent LinkedIn, 36.9

percent Instagram, 29.9 percent of them are regularly used Twitter and only 14.1 percent of

cases are preferred Flickr.

 Table 4.6: Frequencies and Percentage Distribution of Place of Access Social Media

Responses
Place of Access Social Media Percent of Cases
N Percent
Office 120 15.2% 19.5%
Home 591 74.9% 96.1%
School / College / Institute 36 4.6% 5.9%
Friends/ Relatives/Neighbours’ Place 42 5.3% 6.8%
Total 789 100.0% 128.3%
a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

Table 4.6 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of places from access

social media. It is inferred that most of the respondents (96.1%) are access social media from

home, followed by 19.5 percent of them are access in office, 6.8 percent of the respondent’s

access form friends/ relatives/ Neighbours place and only 6.8 percent of the respondents are

access from school/ College/ Institute.

Mean and SD Example
Table 4.23: Shows the Respondents’ Opinion About Entertainment of Social Media
Marketing Activities

Sl.
Entertainment Mean SD
No.
1 The social media account of this brand is enjoyable. 4.18 .840
2 The content shared by social media of this brand is enjoyable. 4.03 .954
3 The sharing of this brand on social media is interesting. 3.90 1.047
4 It is fun to collect information on products or brand through social
media. 3.70 1.194

Table 4.23 shows the respondents’ views about entertainment of social media

marketing activities. For measuring the entertainment of social media marketing activities,

four items were taken up for the study. From the mean values of the items taken, it is found

that the order of importance for entertainment is ‘The social media account of this brand is

enjoyable’ (Mean=4.18; SD=0.840), ‘The content shared by social media of this brand is

enjoyable’ (Mean=4.03; SD=0.954), ‘The sharing of this brand on social media is interesting’

(Mean=3.90; SD=1.047), and ‘It is fun to collect information on products or brand through

social media’ (Mean=3.70; SD=1.194).

 Table 4.24: Shows the Respondents’ Opinion Interaction of Social Media Marketing
Activities

Sl.
Interaction Mean SD
No
1 Information sharing is possible on social media of this brand. 4.15 .853
2 The discussion and exchange of opinions is possible on
social media page of this brand. 3.91 .992

3 The expression of opinions is easy on social media of this

brand. 4.45 .791

4 It is possible to have two-way interaction of this brand

through social media. 3.43 1.214

Table 4.24 shows the respondents’ views about interaction of social media marketing

activities. For measuring the interaction of social media marketing activities, four items were

taken up for the study. From the mean values of the items taken, it is found that the order of

importance for interaction is ‘The expression of opinions is easy on social media of this

brand’ (Mean=4.45; SD=0.791), ‘Information sharing is possible on social media of this

brand’ (Mean=4.15; SD=0.853), ‘The discussion and exchange of opinions is possible on

social media page of this brand’ (Mean=3.91; SD=0.992), and ‘It is possible to have two-way

interaction of this brand through social media’ (Mean=3.43; SD=1.214).

 T-Test Model

Table 4.46: Influence of Gender on Study Variables

Variables Gender N Mean t Sig

Male 399 3.91

Social Media Marketing 7.92 .005
Female 216 4.09

Male 399 3.88

Social Media Benefits 2.870 .091
Female 216 4.05

Male 399 3.73

Brand Experience 8.75 .003
Female 216 3.95

Male 398 4.03

Brand Conscious 12.38 .000
Female 216 4.22

Male 399 4.03

Value Conscious 4.82 .028
Female 216 4.13

Male 399 4.05

Brand Equity .352 .553
Female 216 4.07

Male 399 4.11

Consumer Response .126 .723
Female 216 4.11

The insignificant outcomes occurred for Social Media Benefits (t = 2.870; P = 0.091),

Brand Equity (t = .352; P = 0.553), and Consumer Response (t = 0.126; P = 0.723). This

shows that the respondents do not differ with respect to their gender towards Social Media

Benefits, Brand Equity and Consumer Response.

Regarding Social Media Marketing, respondents differ with respect to their gender (t

= 7.92; p =.005). Mean values show that female respondents give more importance to Social
Media Marketing compared to male respondents. For Brand Experience also respondents

differ significantly with respect to their gender (t = 8.75; p = 0.003). On observing the mean

value, it is noted that female respondents give more importance to Brand Experience

compared to male respondents. Regarding Brand Conscious, respondents highly significantly

differ with respect to their gender (t = 12.38; p =0.000). Mean values show that female

respondents give more importance to Brand Conscious compared to male respondents. For

Brand Conscious also respondents differ significantly with respect to their gender (t = 4.82; p

= 0.028). On observing the mean value, it is noted that female respondents give more

importance to Brand Conscious compared to male respondents.

The result states that female significantly differ from males with respect to brand

conscious, because in general, female take more brand conscious compared to male and

hence they look for brand conscious aspects in electronic products before taking purchase

decision. Similarly, female always give more importance to social media marketing from

others and they enjoy while doing shopping on websites. However, females normally do not

have patience in browsing for information related to the purchase of electronic products.
ANOVA Model

Table 4.47: Influence of Socio-Economic Characteristics on Social Media

Marketing

Socio-Economic Characteristics N Mean SD F-Value P-Value

Age

18-20 Years 41 4.35 0.39

21-30 Years 178 4.29 0.31
31-40 Years 235 3.98 0.58 54.360 .000
41-55 Years 134 3.68 0.99
Above 55 Years 27 2.60 0.59
Education

High School or less 27 3.56 1.01

Bachelor’s Degree 198 4.05 0.64
3.606 .013
Master Degree 267 3.96 0.74
Professional Degree 123 3.96 0.77
Occupation
Self-Employed 61 3.74 0.95
Private Sector 242 3.89 0.73
Public Sector 64 3.72 0.82
Student 134 4.30 0.35 9.949 .000
Housewife 57 3.98 0.78
Freelancer 34 4.33 0.23
Professional 23 3.73 1.01
Annual Income
Below 5 Lakhs 130 3.93 0.73
5 to 10 Lakhs 216 4.16 0.49
11 to 15 Lakhs 102 3.88 0.81 7.387 .000
16 to 20 Lakhs 79 3.92 0.83
Above 20 Lakhs 88 3.72 0.91
 Table 4.47shows the mean and standard deviation of the social media marketing

based on the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents. ANOVA was performed to

identify the existence of mean difference among the different socio-economic characteristics

of the respondents. From the ‘P’ value, among the socio-economic characteristics, Age,

Education, Occupation and Annual Income have significant outcome.

While analyzing the existence of mean difference among the different age groups of

the respondents towards Social Media Marketing, ANOVA result shows a highly significant

outcome (F = 54.360; p =0.000). The result confirms that the respondents who are 18-20

years (mean = 4.35; SD = 0.39) and 21-30 years (mean = 4.29; SD = 0.31) giving more

importance to the Social Media Marketing compared to the respondents who are in the age

group of 31-40 years (mean = 3.98 SD = 0.58), 41-55 years (mean = 3.68; SD = 0.99) and

above 55 years (mean = 2.60; SD = 0.59).

Similarly, in the case of Education also, respondents differ significantly with respect

to their Social Media Marketing (F = 3.606; p =0.013), and the test result shows that the

respondent’s educational level High School or less (mean = 3.56; SD = 1.01) are giving less

importance to the social media marketing compared to the respondents who are in the

educational level of Bachelor’s Degree (mean = 4.05; SD = 0.64) and Master Degree (mean =

3.96; SD = 0.74).

While analyzing the existence of mean difference among the different occupation of

the respondents towards Social Media Marketing, ANOVA result shows a highly significant

outcome (F = 9.949; p =0.000). The test result confirms that the respondents who are

Students (mean = 4.30; SD = 0.35) and Freelancer (mean = 4.33; SD = 0.23) giving more

importance to the Social Media Marketing compared to the respondents who are in the

occupation of Self-Employed (mean = 3.74; SD = 0.95), working in Private Sector (mean =

3.89; SD = 0.73), working Public Sector (mean = 3.72; SD = 0.82) and Professional (mean =

3.73; SD = 1.01).

Similarly, in the case of Annual Income also, respondents differ highly significantly

with respect to their Social Media Marketing (F = 7.387; p =0.011), and the result shows that

the respondents who are earn annual income level 5 to 10 Lakhs (mean = 4.16; SD = 0.49)

giving more importance to the social media marketing compared to the respondents who are

earn 11to 15 Lakhs (mean = 3.88; SD = 0.81), 16-20 Lakhs (mean = 3.92; SD = 0.83) and

above 20 Lakhs (mean = 3.71; SD = 0.91).

Correlation Model
Table No. 4.61: Show the Inter – Relationship between Social Media Marketing

Entertainment

Customization

Accessibility
Interaction

Trendiness

Credibility
EWOM
Entertainment 1
Interaction .429** 1
Trendiness .582** .659** 1
Customization .578** .349** .413** 1
EWOM .525** .765** .838** .812** 1
Accessibility .471** .526** .295** .761** .300** 1
Credibility .494** .343** .255** .449** .497** .319** 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The Table 4.61, presents the inter correlations among the social media marketing. The

result indicates the relationship between the social media marketing.

H9A: There is no interrelationship between the social media marketing.

In order to examine the stated hypothesis, pearson correlation is executed. From the

P-value is found that there is relationship between the social media marketing. So, the stated

hypothesis (H9A) is rejected. Further the r-value indicates the strength of relationship

between social media marketing. Here, e-WOM is found to have high-level relationship with

Trendiness (0.838), customization (0.812) and Interaction (0.765). Customization and

Accessibility is found to have high level (0.761) relationship. But Trendiness is found to have

weaker relationship with accessibility and credibility. Further, EWOM has the weaker

relationship with accessibility.

Regression Model
Table 4.70: Influence of Perception of Social Media Marketing on Social Media Benefits

Model Summary

R Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R F Sig.
Square Square the Estimate

1 .889a .791 .789 .32095 328.040 .000b

a. Predictors: (Constant), SMM_Credibility, SMM_EnterTainment, SMM_Accessibility,

SMM_Interaction, SMM_Customization, SMM_Trendiness, SMM_EWOM

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) .568 .075 7.626 .000

SMM Entertainment .171 .025 .196 6.826 .000

SMM Interaction .041 .026 .052 1.577 .115

SMM Trendiness .154 .034 .183 4.579 .000

SMM Customization .047 .031 .055 1.500 .134

SMM EWOM .219 .036 .259 6.078 .000

SMM Accessibility .118 .032 .130 3.751 .000

SMM Credibility .098 .028 .122 3.555 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Social_Media_Benefits

Table 4.70 depicts the regression analysis of social media benefits and social media

marketing. It is found from the correlation table that social media benefits have relationship

with perception towards Social Media Marketing such as Entertainment, Interaction,

Trendiness, Customization, eWOM, Accessibility and Credibility. However, considering

these seven factors in finding out which factor is highly influencing social media benefits,

regression analysis was performed and the results are given in the table. Here, social media

benefits have been taken as dependent variable and other related variables such as

Entertainment, Interaction, Trendiness, Customization, eWOM, Accessibility and Credibility

are taken as independent variables.

The results of multiple regressions where the value of co-efficient of regression

determination (R2) is 0.791 which implies that 79.1 percent of the independent variables,

namely Entertainment, Interaction, Trendiness, Customization, eWOM, Accessibility and

Credibility have influenced the social media benefits.

To check whether this R2 is statistically significant, ANOVA has been carried out.

The F value obtained is 328.040(P < 0.001) and hence it is determined that there is significant

relationship between dependent variables and independent variables. The table reveals that

among seven independent variables five variables have significant values [Entertainment (t =

6.826; p <0.000), Trendiness (t = 4.579; p =0.000), eWOM (t = 6.078; p = 0.000),

Accessibility (t=3.751; p=<0.000), and Credibility (t=3.555; p<0.000)]. It is concluding that

the most important predictors that affect social media benefits is the eWOM, which is

followed by entertainment, trendiness, Accessibility and credibility.

Rank Model
Table 5.17 : Frequency and percentage distribution of Reasons for low yield of cut flowers cultivations

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6 Rank 7 Rank 8

Reasons
No No No No No No No No
% % % % % % % %
s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s.

14. 16. 13. 12. 17.

Low soil fertility 48 54 43 27 8.3 42 58 27 8.3 28 8.6
2 5 1 8 7

17. 18. 10. 16. 17.

Inefficiency of Labour 30 9.6 26 8.0 57 59 33 55 56 11 3.4
4 0 1 8 1

13. 17. 13. 14. 19.

Following conservative methods 19 5.8 25 7.6 29 8.9 44 58 43 47 62
5 7 1 4 0

Difficulty in following the modern 25. 16. 17. 11.

83 54 32 9.8 57 31 9.5 12 3.7 37 21 6.4
technique 1 5 4 3

14. 10. 11. 18. 15. 16.

Ignorance of systematic 47 35 38 20 6.1 60 49 23 7.0 55
3 7 6 3 0 8

Agricultural Technique 21 6.4 35 10. 29 8.9 54 16. 34 10. 49 15. 56 17. 49 15.
 7 5 4 0 1 0

11. 12. 18. 11. 17. 11.

Inadequate research and development 38 42 61 38 24 7.3 32 9.8 56 36
4 8 7 6 1 0

23. 14. 16. 11. 11.

No advice from agricultural officers 31 9.5 76 46 20 6.1 55 36 27 8.3 36
2 1 8 0 0
 In the cultivation of cutflowers, yield may not be similar every year. Sometimes the

yield may be high and sometimes it may be low. There are several reasons behind the low

yield. In this research eight reasons were identified from the review of literature and the

respondents were asked to rank those reasons.

The results are given in the above table. Regarding the Low soil fertility 14.7 percent

of the respondents mentioned it as the major reason for the low yield of cut flowers and 16.5

percent mentioned it as the second major reason. However, 8.6 percent of the respondents

stated that low soil fertility is not a major reason for low yield and hence they gave last rank

for this reason. While considering the inefficiency of the labour, 9.2 percent of the

respondents pointed out that it is the major reason for low yield of cut flower, and 8 percent

of the respondents mentioned it as the second major reason. However, very few (3.4%)

mentioned it as the least influencing factor for low yield of cut flower.

With regard to following methods, 5.8 percent of the respondents mentioned it in the

first reason for the low yield, whereas 7.6 percent and 8.9 percent of the respondents

mentioned it in the next and following reasons for low yield. But, 19 percent of the

respondents mentioned that following of conservative methods is not a major influencing

factor for the low yield of cut flower.

It is noticed from the table that 25.4 percent of the respondents felt the difficulty in

following the modern techniques as the foremost reason for the low yield of cut flowers, and

16.4 percent of the respondents mentioned it in the second reasons. Adding strength to this

point, only 6.4 percent of the respondents pointed out that difficulty in following the modern

technique as the least influencing reason. Next to this, ignorance of systematic techniques is

mentioned by 14.4 percent of the respondents while 16.8 percent of the respondents do not

accept it as the major influencing reason for the low yield of cut flowers. On seeing the

agricultural technique reason, majority (15%) are in the negative side which means that this is

not a major reason for the low yield.

 As far as inadequate research and development is concerned, 11.6 percent of the

respondents state that it is one of the major reasons for low yield, and 12.8 percent of the

respondents mentioned this aspect in the second rank. However, similar percentage (11%) of

the respondents denoted this as the least influencing reason for cut flower cultivation and

hence, this aspect is neutralized. Regarding, no advice from the agricultural officers, 9.5

percent of respondents pointed out that it is the major reason, whereas 11 percent of the

respondents mentioned this as the least influencing reason for cut flower cultivation.