Brand Management Selvamani

CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO.
I INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH DESIGN 1-10
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11-13
III CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE INDUSTRY 14-25
IV DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 26-100
V FINDINGS, SUGGESTION AND CONCLUSION 101-106
ANNEXURE - I BIBLIOGRAPHY 107
ANNEXURE - II QUESTIONNAIRE 107-110

CHAPTER I
CHAPTER I
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Branding is a process which involves creating a specific name, logo, and an image of a particular product,
service or company. This is done to attract customers. It is usually done through advertising with a consistent
theme.
Branding aims to establish a significant and differentiated presence in the market that attracts and retains loyal
customers. A brand is a name, term, symbol, or other feature that distinguishes an organization or product from
its rivals in the eyes of the customer. Brands are used in business, marketing, and advertising.
Features of Branding
Targetability
Branding should be planned according to the targeted audience. No business firm can target the entire
population. Business owners should identify the type of people who are buying their products and services.
Research should be done on the basis of age, gender, income, the lifestyle of their customers, etc.
Awareness
The percentage of people who are aware of a brand is known as brand awareness. Well established companies
have the benefit of a high level of brand awareness. Brand awareness can be increased with the help of
advertisement on TV, radio, newspaper or social media marketing and advertising. Logos also help companies
build brand awareness, as people often recognize brands by these symbols or diagrams.
Loyalty
Brand loyalty is the highest achievement or apex of any company. A customer who buys the product of a
particular company extensively is known as a brand loyalist. Many consumers prefer using certain brands of
clothing, deodorants or tubes of toothpaste, for example. They like how these brands benefit them. Brand loyalty
can be build by staying in touch with the customers, asking them for their reviews.
Consistency
Consistency is necessary for a brand. A brand must remain consistent. Small businesses make numerous
promises in commercials and ads about their brands, and consumers expect companies to continue living up to
these promises. Their products should also be effective
The definition of “brand” seems obvious at first, but surprisingly it can be misunderstood. Does brand just
refer to a company’s logo, its colors, and its name? Or, is a brand defined as the overall identity of a company
and its perception in the market? The paradox is that every marketer knows that their brand should be at the
core of their company, however, many can’t clearly define what a “brand” is. Before diving into brand
marketing, let’s clarify exactly what determines a brand.
Brand marketing promotes your products or services in a way that highlights your overall brand. The goal of
brand marketing is to link your identity, values, and personality with effective personalized brand
communication to your audience. Essentially, your brand is the bridge between your product and your
customer. Brand marketing is not just about putting your logo and business name as many places as possible
and expecting to generate sales. Many times, the importance of brand marketing gets overlooked, as it takes
time. Many marketing departments are focused on short-term goals, rather than nurturing long-term goals that
impact the entire business, like building a brand.
Customer service is the provision of services to customers before, during and after a
purchase. According to Turban “Customer service is a series of activities designed to enhance
the level of customer satisfaction – that is, the feeling that a product or service has met the
customer expectation."
A multi-task position drawing on extensive CUSTOMER SERVICE experience to
advance a proven track record for developing and maintaining key accounts and improving
departmental efficiencies.
Principles of Brand Management:
The principles of brand management are important to understand before moving

forward in the process. Now that you know how brand management works, next
are the key principles to get it to work.
Brand management principles to consider include:
Brand Equity
Your brand’s reputation is key. You want customers to trust the brand, so they’ll buy more or recommend it
to a friend. Your brand name should be recognized in a positive manner, drawing people in.
Brand Loyalty
Brand loyalty is similar to brand equity when customers buy your product solely out of loyalty to you. This
helps with word-of-mouth advertising and reputation to keep folks coming back.
Brand Recognition
Brand recognition can be self-explanatory but is still a key factor for the success of your business. You want
your brand to be recognized by more and more people in a positive light to attract more business. They won’t
even have to know your brand name and can still recognize your pre.
Brand Management Strategies o More, Be Unique
Do you have a unique, eye-catching angle on what it is you’re selling? What sets your product apart from the
competition? Why should people want to buy your product?
Focus on your why. Remember why you loved your brand in the first place, and whatever that feeling is, use
it to help with your branding.
Evaluate
Do you have an evaluation plan? Evaluate what performs well and what doesn’t. Be prepared to do this again
and again over the lifespan of your business.
When something works, do more of it. If something doesn’t, reevaluate how you can make it better. The key
to branding is to continue evolving.
Digital Marketing
Digital Marketing is the key to the future. There are so many things to consider when starting a brand and
having a digital marketing component is one of them. From amazing visuals to social media strategy, digital
marketing covers it all.
It may be worth it to invest in a graphic designer and social media manager. Humans (and especially those
who shop) are inherently visual, so having a great design is imperative for good branding.
Likewise, with digital marketing, everything is online these days. This is where your brand messaging will
come to play as well, as you can really highlight what you want your brand to say and be. If your business is
not online, you’re virtually invisible.
Brand Management Benefits:
Now that you have an idea of what brand management is and why it’s important, here are some of
the benefits you can expect to see:
 Grows business
 Cultivates customer loyalty
 Creates brand awareness and recognition
 Increases pricing and value of product
 Grows sales through loyal customers
Why wouldn’t you want to incorporate brand management into your business strategy? Branding is what
makes or breaks a lot of products and services.
If you want to become a household name, there are many benefits to doing so through brand management.
Example of brand management :
Brand management is managing the customer's perception of a product or service. Some examples of brand
management are:
 Advertising
 Marketing
 Corporate identity
 Product design
 Customer support
 Public relations
Brand management is essential for any business wanting to increase profits or attain a leading position in its
industry. There are many ways to manage brands, including advertising and public relations activities.
The following are examples of how companies use brand management:

 A company may collaborate with another company with a similar product to get more customers.
 A company may create its social media account so it can post pictures and videos about its
products without having to worry about copyright infringement or other legal issues.
 A company may want to change its logo or slogan to make it seem more current or appealing to
specific demographics.
1.2 INDUSTRY PROFILE

Nissan Motor Co Ltd (Nissan) is an automobile manufacturer. It carries out the design,
production and sale of automobile products. The company’s product portfolio includes sedans,
compact cars, SUVs, sports cars, mini vans, kei cars, light commercial vehicles, and related
parts. The company offers automobiles under the brand names of Nissan, Infiniti, Datsun, Nissan
Crossing, Nissan Heritage and Motorsports, among others. Nissan also provides credit card and
leasing services, non-life insurance and auto financing services. The company markets its
products and services through a network of retail outlets in Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa and the Americas. Nissan is headquartered in Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa-ku, Japan.
As part of the new framework, the partners also seek enhanced strategic agility
with new initiatives that all three entities can join.
Besides, the board envisions a rebalanced Renault Group-Nissan

cross-shareholding and reinforced alliance governance.
Since 1999, Nissan has been part of the Renault–Nissan–Mitsubishi Alliance (Mitsubishi joining in 2016), a
partnership between Nissan and Mitsubishi Motors of Japan, with Renault of France. Renault holds a 43.4%
voting stake in Nissan, while Nissan holds a 15% non-voting stake in Renault. Following an agreement in
January 2023, Renault is set to reduce its voting stake to 15%, making both manufacturers equal in voting
rights.[6] Since October 2016 Nissan holds a 34% controlling stake in Mitsubishi Motors.[7]
In 2017, Nissan was the sixth largest automaker in the world, after Toyota, Volkswagen Group, Hyundai
Motor Group, General Motors and Ford.[8] In 2014, Nissan was the largest car manufacturer in North
America.[9] With a revenue of $75 billion in 2022, Nissan was the 9th largest automobile maker in the world,
as well as being the leading Japanese brand in China, Russia and Mexico. [10] As of April 2018, Nissan was the
world's largest electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer, with global sales of more than 320,000 all-electric
vehicles.[11] The top-selling vehicle of the car-maker's fully-electric lineup is the Nissan LEAF, the No. 2 top-
selling electric car globally
It was renamed to Kaishinsha Motorcar Co., Ltd. in 1918, and again to DAT Jidosha & Co., Ltd. (DAT
Motorcar Co.) in 1925. DAT Motors built trucks in addition to the DAT and Datsun passenger cars. The vast
majority of its output were trucks, due to an almost non-existent consumer market for passenger cars at the
time, and disaster recovery efforts as a result of the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake. Beginning in 1918, the
first DAT trucks were produced for the military market. At the same time, Jitsuyo Jidosha Co., Ltd. (jitsuyo
means practical use or utility) produced small trucks using parts, and materials imported from the United
States.[13][better source needed]
Commercial operations were placed on hold during Japan's participation in World War I, and the company
contributed to the war effort.
In 1926, the Tokyo-based DAT Motors merged with the Osaka-based Jitsuyo Jidosha Co., Ltd (Jitsuyō
Jidōsha Seizō Kabushiki-Gaisha) a.k.a. Jitsuyo Jidosha Seizo (established 1919 as a Kubota subsidiary) to
become DAT Jidosha Seizo Co., Ltd Automobile Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (ダット自動車製造株式会
社, DAT Jidōsha Seizō Kabushiki-Gaisha) in Osaka until 1932. From 1923 to 1925, the company produced
light cars and trucks under the name of Lila.[14] In 1929, DAT Automobile Manufacturing Inc. merged with a
separated part of the manufacturing business of IHI Corporation to become Automobile Industries Co., Ltd.
Nissan Motor organized in 1934

n 1934, Aikawa separated the expanded automobile parts division of Tobata Casting and incorporated it as a
new subsidiary, which he named Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (日産自動車, Nissan Jidōsha).[20] The shareholders
of the new company; however, were not enthusiastic about the prospects of the automobile in Japan, so
Aikawa bought out all the Tobata Casting shareholders (using capital from Nihon Industries) in June 1934.
At this time, Nissan Motor effectively became owned by Nihon Sangyo and Hitachi.[21]
In 1935, the construction of its Yokohama plant was completed. 44 Datsuns were shipped to Asia, Central
and South America. In 1935, the first car manufactured by an integrated assembly system rolled off the line at
the Yokohama plant.[13] Nissan built trucks, airplanes, and engines for the Imperial Japanese Army. In
November 1937 Nissan moved its headquarters to Hsinking, the capital of Manchukuo. In December the
company changed its name to Manchuria Heavy Industries Developing Co (MHID).[22][23]
In 1940, the first knockdown kits were shipped to Dowa Jidosha Kogyo (Dowa Automobile), one of MHID's
companies, for assembly.[13] In 1944, the head office was moved to Nihonbashi, Tokyo, and the company
name was changed to Nissan Heavy Industries, Ltd., which the company kept through 1949.[13]
Nissan's early American connection

DAT had inherited Kubota's chief designer, American engineer William R. Gorham. This, along with
Aikawa's 1908 visit to Detroit, was to greatly affect Nissan's future.[13][24] Although it had always been
Aikawa's intention to use cutting-edge auto making technology from America, it was Gorham that carried out
the plan. Most of the machinery and processes originally came from the United States. When Nissan started
to assemble larger vehicles under the "Nissan" brand in 1937, much of the design plans and plant facilities
were supplied by the Graham-Paige Company.[20] Nissan also had a Graham license under which passenger
cars, buses, and trucks were made.[24]
In his 1986 book The Reckoning, David Halberstam states "In terms of technology, Gorham was the founder
of the Nissan Motor Company" and that "young Nissan engineers who had never met him spoke of him as a
god and could describe in detail his years at the company and his many inventions
1.3 COMPANY PROFILE:

MELBOURNE, Australia (September 9, 2022) – Nissan Australia is set to launch an
innovative, industry-first Circular Economy project in Victoria, with the Nissan Casting
Australia Plant (NCAP) to use recycled LEAF batteries to power part of its production facility.
In an exciting window into the future for end-of-life electric vehicle batteries — and an
important step towards Nissan Australia’s goal of carbon neutrality — the NCAP Battery
Project, called Nissan Node, will see a new solar array installed at Nissan Casting Australia, as
well as new EV chargers.
In its most simplified form, the Nissan Node will include the installation of a new Battery
Energy Storage System made of nine repurposed Gen 1 Nissan LEAF batteries at the Nissan
Casting Australia Plant, which will be charged via the solar array.
It’s a true Circular Economy project, using end-of-life batteries from the Nissan LEAF – the
world’s first mass-market electric vehicle – and renewable energy to power part of the
production of components for Nissan’s global EV models, as well as help supply the new EV
chargers to recharge staff vehicles.
The project is estimated to reduce Nissan Casting Australia’s annual CO2 emissions by 259
tons, while saving 128 megawatts of energy every year.
This isn’t just a hugely exciting project, but an important step into the future for end-of-life
EV batteries,” says Nissan Casting Australia Managing Director, Peter Jones.
“As an early pioneer of the electric vehicle both globally and locally, we can also demonstrate
leadership in second-life battery initiatives. I’m proud that this solution is every bit as
innovative as the launch of the LEAF in Australia was more than 10 years ago.
“Already the Nissan LEAF comes with vehicle-to-grid technology from factory, which will
allow Australian EV owners to use their vehicle to power their homes, and could be used to
help stabilise the electricity grid, but commercial Circular Economy projects like this are a
viable, sustainable and innovative solution for end-of-life EV batteries, too.”
The Nissan LEAF has just been updated for the 2023 model year, with a new look and leading-
edge technology designed to broaden the popular electric vehicle’s appeal. Key style updates,
including wheels-up design changes, and new safety features appear across the two-model
range.
The continued global EV transition not only represents an exciting opportunity for drivers, but
it continues to be an opportunity for local manufacturing.
1.5OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Primary objectives:
To study on Brand management special refernce towards Nissan private limited
Secondary objectives:
o To identify the factors influencing service quality towards retails outlet.
o To know the purchasing problems and gaps in quality faced by

customers.
o To find the influence of the staff members in the service quality.
o To know the satisfaction level of customers towards the store.

1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This research provides me with an opportunity to understand customer. This research also
provides the feedback of customer involves in the shopping. A part from that it would provide
me a great deal of exposure to interact with the customer.
 The study helps to know the factor influencing service quality towards retail.
 The scope of the study service quality to measure the performance of the staff members
in the store effectively.
 The study analyses the purchasing problems and gaps in service quality towards retail.
 The study helps to know the satisfaction level of retail customers with respect to various
services attribute.
.
CHAPTER- II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
BRAND MARKETING
P. Praba Devi and R. Sellappan 2009 from the research it refers that The
performance of the retailing sector for the past few years is outstanding and witnesses a
huge revamping exercise, significantly contributed by the growth of the organized
retailing. The retail environment today is changing more rapidly than ever before
(Dabholkar, 1996). It is characterized by intensifying competition from both domestic
and foreign companies, a spate of mergers and acquisition, and more sophisticated and
demanding customers who have great expectations related to their consumption
experiences (Sellers, 1990; Smith, 1989). There is a general agreement that a basic
retailing strategy for creating competitive advantage is the delivery of high service
quality (Berry, 1986; Hummel and Savitt, 1988; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Retail
literature suggests that store appearance is important to retail customers (Baker, Dhruv
and Parasuraman, 1994). It also suggest that the customer value the convenience of
shopping that physical aspects such as store layout offer (Gutman and
Alden,1985;Hummel and Savitt, 1988; Mazursky and Jacoby,1985; Oliver,1981)
Westbrook (1981) found that the availability of merchandise is also a measure of
reliability. Customers also value parking availability for retail shopping (Oliver, 1981).
Studies have also shown that the customers are sensitive to recognizing and solving the
customer problems. Service quality in retailing is different from any other product or
service environment (Finn and Lamb, 1991).
MEASURING RETAIL SERVICE QUALITY: EXAMINING APPLICABILITY
OF INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES IN INDIA by DR. SubhashiniKaul
October 2005 from the research it refers that Service quality measures developed
internationally are often accepted as adequate in India. This study evaluates the Retail
Service Quality Scale (RSQS) developed in the U.S. and considered valid across a variety
of formats and cultural contexts. Confirmatory factor analysis of the component
structures using AMOS 4.0 indicates the RSQS dimensions are not valid in India. This
lowers the diagnostic ability of the scale for identifying areas requiring strategic focus.
This study argues for further research and extensive scale adaptation before scales
developed in other countries such as the RSQS are applied in the Indian context.
MEASURING RETAIL SERVICE QUALITY: A STUDY ON INDIAN

DEPARTMENTAL STORES by Dr.P.C.S.Rajaram & Mr.V.P.Sriram 2014 from the
research it refers that this present study mainly focused on service quality measurement
in departmental retail stores. A department store is retail concerns which focus in
fulfilling an extensive range of the individual and housing durable goods, product needs;
and offering the shopper a choice multiple products lines, at different price, in all product
groups. Based on the literature studies, limited service quality measurement studies with
regards to departmental stories available in India. Hypothesis for the present study
framed like finding the effects of RSQS service quality dimensions on stores customer
satisfaction. The present study conducted at three different metropolitan cities in South
India. Chennai, Madurai and Coimbatore are the research area. 300 respondents are
selected using judgmental sampling method. . Researcher has used modified version of
RSQS (27 items) to measure the stores service quality. Present study result concludes that
that service quality dimension directly affects the customer satisfaction.
ANALYTICAL STUDY ON RETAIL SERVICE QUALITY OF ORGANIZED
RETAIL SECTOR IN TRICHY by C. Thirumal Azhagan Dr. P. S. Nagarajan July – Dec
2011 from the research it refers that Customer service assumes vital importance in the
marketing programs of all modern organizations, specifically service organizations. The retail
sector comes under service industry and the main focus is on the efficient and effective delivery
of services to the customers. The most important factors in the retail sectors are, quality of the
product delivered and customer satisfaction. The best way of surviving and prospering in the
competitive environment is through providing prompt, relevant and efficient customer services at
measurable cost with comfortable environment.
A CHRONOLOGICAL STUDY OF SERVICE QUALITY RESEARCH ON

RETAIL SECTOR By Sanjeev Kr. Singh from the research it refers that Researchers and
academician in the area of services around the world have been using various tools and
techniques to measure service quality, as a result have been successful in developing scales like
SERVQUAL, SERPERF, SERVCON, RSQS etc. These scales are extensively used for
measuring service quality in different service sectors in different geographical locations. It has
been observed that the applicability of these scales has many limitations or is to be used with
appropriate modifications in each circumstances depending on the type of services for which it is
to be used. This paper is thus an attempt to bring together all such research instruments, scales,
tools & techniques, so as to help future researchers in comparing the same and selecting the one
which is more close to their usage. The paper also tries to summaries the dimensions and
attributes used by authors for different service businesses. The methodology used is simple
comparison method between various studies conducted on service quality issue, using published
research papers from different sources like online databases example- Ebsco & Emerald, and
physical journals from libraries. This paper is unique as it is for the first time such
comprehensive study is done on service quality measurement.
CHAPTER III
1.5.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology deals with various aspects of research, it talks about the types
of research to be used, the research plans, how data can be collected either by primary or
secondary sources. It also plans what type of questionnaire to be followed and what ranking
scales to be used. The research decides about the sample frame (size), research boundary and the
various statistical tools to be used in data analysis and interpretation.
RESEARCH DESIGN
A Research design is purely and simply the framework or plan for the study that guides
the collection of the data. It is used to fulfill the research objective and answering questions. “A
research design is the arrangement of conditions for collection and analysis of data in a matter
that aims to combine relevance to the research purpose with economy in procedure”.
DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH DESIGN

Research design followed in this study is descriptive study. Descriptive research, also
known as statistical research, describes data and characteristics about the population being
studied. Descriptive research answer the question who, what, where, when and how. Descriptive
study is undertaken to ascertain and be able to describe the characteristics of the variables of
interest in a situation. Quite frequently, describe studies are undertaken in organizations to learn
about and describe the characteristic of a group of employees.
RESEARCH PROBLEM
A research problem in general refers to some difficulty which a researcher experience in
the context of both a theoretical (or) practical situation and wants to obtain a solution. A research
problem is one which requires a researcher to find out the best solution for the given problem i.e.
to find out by which course of action the objective can be attained optionally in the context of a
given environment. There are several factors which may result in making the problem
complicated.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
HYPOTHESIS:
H0 1: There is no significant relationship between gender and tangibility.

H0 2: There is no significant relationship between gender and reliability.
H0 3: There is no significant relationship between gender and responsiveness.
H0 4: There is no significant relationship between gender and assurance.
H0 5: There is no significant relationship between gender and empathy.
H0 6: There is no significant relationship between age group and tangibility.
H0 7: There is no significant relationship between age group and reliability.
H0 8: There is no significant relationship between age group and responsiveness.
H0 9: There is no significant relationship between age group and assurance.
H0 10: There is no significant relationship between age group and empathy.
H0 11: There is no significant relationship between qualification and tangibility.
H0 12: There is no significant relationship between qualification and reliability.
H0 13: There is no significant relationship between qualification and responsiveness.
H0 14: There is no significant relationship between qualification and assurance.
H0 15: There is no significant relationship between qualification and empathy.
H0 16: There is no significant relationship between income and tangibility.
H0 17: There is no significant relationship between income and reliability.
H0 18: There is no significant relationship between income and responsiveness.
H0 19: There is no significant relationship between income and assurance.
H0 20: There is no significant relationship between income and empathy.
1.5.2 POPULATION
The sample size for this study is customers of Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai region.
1.5.3 SAMPLE SIZE
It refers to the number of items to be selected from the customer to constitute as a sample.
In this study 50 customer of reliance fresh was selected as size of the customer.
1.5.4 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES:
1. Questionnaire
1.5.5 DATA ANALYSIS

STATISTICAL TOOL USED
To analyze and interrupt collected data the following statistical tools were used.
a. Weighted Average
b. T Test
c. ANNOVA
d. Percentage method
A. WEIGHTED AVERAGE METHOD

A ranking is a relationship between a set of items such that, for any two items, the first is
either „ranked higher than‟, „ranked lower than‟ or „ranked equal to‟ the second. In
mathematics, this is known as a weak order or total preorder of objects. It is not necessarily a
total order of objects because two different objects can have the same ranking. The rankings
themselves are totally ordered. By reducing detailed measures to a sequence of ordinal numbers,
rankings make it possible to evaluate complex information according to certain criteria.
R= ΣWXn
ΣXn
B. T Test
The independent samples t-test is used when two separate sets of independent and
identically distributed samples are obtained, one from each of the two populations being
compared. Where the satisfaction was related with the locality, gender and the marital status.
T-tests are used when you have two groups (e.g. males and females) or two sets of data
(before and after), and you wish to compare the mean score on some continuous variable.
2
𝑇
2
𝑇 + (𝑁1 + 𝑁2 − 2)
C. ANOVA
This method was used to study the comparison between the satisfaction level with the
age group, qualification, occupation and the income which does not able to compare in the t-
test.
One-way analysis of variance is similar to a t-test, but is used when you have two or more
groups and you wish to compare their mean scores on a continuous variable. It is called one-
way because you are looking at the impact of only one independent variable on your dependent
variable.
E. PERCENTAGE METHOD:
In this project percentage method test was used. The percentage method is used to know
the accurate percentages of the data we took, it is easy to graph out through the percentages. The
following are the formula:
No of respondents
Percentage of Respondents =------------------------------------------100
Total no of respondents
CHAPTER IV
1
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS
TABLE NO: 4.1

TABLE SHOWING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS BASED ON
THEIR GENDER
S. No Gender No of Respondents Percentage
1 Male 35 70
2 Female 15 30
Total 50 100
Source: Primary data
CHART NO: 4.1

CHART SHOWING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS BASED ON
THEIR GENDER
80%
P 70%
70%
E
R 60%
C 50%
E 40%
N 30%
30%
T
A 20%
G 10%
E
0%
Male Female
GENDER
INFERENCE:
It is inferred from above that, most of the respondents 70% are belongs to Male
and 30% of respondents are Female.
2
TABLE NO: 4.3
THEIR AGE
S.No Age No of Respondents Percentage
1 less than 25 15 30%
2 26-35 8 16%
3 36-45 10 20%
4 46-55 5 10%
5 above 55 12 24%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.2

THEIR AGE
35%
P 30%
E 30%
R 24%
25%
C 20%
E 20%
N 16%
T 15%
10%
A 10%
G
E 5%
0%
less than 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 above 55
AGE GROUP
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that, most of the respondents 30%are belongs to less than 25, 24% of
respondents are belongs to above 55, 20% of respondents are belongs to 36-45, 16% of
respondents are belong to 26-5 and 10% of respondents are belongs to 46-55 years of age.
3
TABLE NO: 4.4

THEIR QUALIFICATION
S.No Qualification No of Respondents Percentage
1 Less 10th 3 6%
2 10th/12th 16 32%
3 Diploma/ITI 3 6%
4 Graduate 19 38%
5 Post graduate 9 18%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.3
THEIR QUALIFICATION
40% 38%
P
35%
E 32%
R 30%
C
25%
E
N 20% 18%
T
15%
A
G 10%
6% 6%
E 5%
0%
Less 10th 10th/12th Diploma/ITI Graduate Post graduate
QUALIFICATION
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that, most of the respondents 38% are Graduate, 32% of respondents
are 10th/12th, 18% are belongs to Post graduate, 6% of respondents are belong to ITI/ Diploma,
6% respondents is less than 10th.
4
TABLE NO: 4.5

THEIR ANNUAL INCOME
S.No Annual income No of Respondents Percentage
1 below 25000 22 44%
2 25000-50000 19 38%
3 51000-75000 8 16%
4 76000-1lak 1 2%
Total 50 100%

CHART NO: 4.4
THEIR OCCUPATION
50%
P 44%
45%
E
R 40% 38%
C 35%
E 30%
N 25%
T
20%
A 16%
G 15%
E 10%
5% 2%
0%
below 25000 25000-50000 51000-75000 76000-1lak
OCCUPATION
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that the respondents 44% are below 25000, 38% of respondents are
belongs to less than 25000-50000, 16% are belongs to 51000-75000, 2% of respondents are
belongs to 76000-1 lakhs of annual income.
5
TABLE NO: 4.6

THEIR PROFESSION
S.No Profession No of Respondents Percentage
1 salaried
19 38%
2 professional
3 6%
3 Business
8 16%
4 Retried
4 8%
5 others
16 32%
Total
50 100%
CHART NO: 4.5

THEIR PROFESSION
40% 38%
P 35% 32%
E
R 30%
C 25%
E
N 20%
16%
T 15%
A
G 10% 8%
6%
E 5%
0%
salaried professional Business Retried others
PROFESSION
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that the respondents 38% are Salaried, 32% of respondents are
others, 16% are belongs to Business, 8% of respondents are Retried and 6% are belongs to other
Professional.
6
TABLE NO: 4.7
STORE CLEAN
S.No Particulars No of Respondents Percentage

1 Strongly Agree 40 80%
2 Agree 8 16%
3 Average 2 4%
4 Disagree 0 0%
5 Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.6

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON STORE CLEAN
90%
80%
P 80%
E 70%
R 60%
C 50%
E
40%
N
30% 16 %
T
20%
A
10% 4%
G 0%
0% 0%
Strongly Agree Average Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
CLEAN STORE
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 80% respondents strongly agree that store is clean, 16% respondents
agree, 4% respondents are average 0 % respondents are disagree and 0 % respondents are
strongly disagree.
7
TABLE NO: 4.8
CARRY BAG IN STORES

2 Agree 18 36%
3 Average 7 14%
4 Disagree 7 14%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.7

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON CARRY BAG IN
STORES
40% 36 %
P 36 %
E 35%
R 30%
C
25%
E
N 20%
14 % 14 %
T 15%
A
G 10%
E 5%
0%
0%
Agree Disagree
CARRY BAG IN STORE
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 36% respondents strongly agree that store contain carry bag 36%
respondents agree, 14% are average, 14% respondents are disagree 0 % respondents are strongly
disagree.
8
TABLE NO: 4.9
SUFFICIENT PLACE IN STORE

2 Agree 18 36%
3 Average 4 8%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.8

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON SUFFICIENT
PLACE IN STORE
60%
P 56 %
E 50%
R
C 40% 36 %
E
N 30%
T
A 20%
G
10% 8%
E
0% 0%
0%
Agree Disagree
SUFFICIENT PLACE
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 56 % respondents strongly agree that store has sufficient place to
purchase, 36% respondents are agree, 8% for average and 0 % respondents are disagree.
9
TABLE NO: 4.10
STAFF MEMBERS EASY TO IDENTIFY

2 Agree 14 28%
3 Average 5 10%
4 Disagree 1 2%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.9

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON STAFF MEMBERS
EASY TO IDENTIFY
70%
P
E 60% 58 %
R
50%
C
E 40%
N 28 %
T 30%
A
20%
G 10 %
E 10%
2% 2%
0%
Agree Disagree
STAFF MEMBERS
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 58 % respondents strongly agree that staff members easily identify, 28%
respondents are agree, 10% are average,2 % respondents are disagree and 2% are strongly
disagree.
1
0
TABLE NO: 4.11
OFFERS ARE DISPLAYED
.No Particulars No of Respondents Percentage
2 Agree 15 30%
3 Average 3 6%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.10

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON OFFERS ARE
DISPLAYED
70% 64 %
P
E 60%
R
50%
C
E 40%
N 30 %
T 30%
A 20%
G
E 10% 6%
0% 0%
0%
Agree Disagree
OFFERS ARE DISPLAYED IN STORE
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 64 % respondents strongly agree that store has displayed offers 30%
respondents are agree, 6% are average 0% of disagree and 0 % respondents are disagree.
11
TABLE NO: 4.12
PROMISED DELIVERY

2 Agree 24 48%
3 Average 0 0%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.11

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON PROMISED
DELIVERY
60%
52 %
P 50% 48 %
E
R 40%
C
E 30%
N
T 20%
A
G 10%
E 0% 0% 0%
0%
Agree Disagree
PROMISED DELIVERY
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 52 % respondents strongly agree, 48% respondents are agree that
store provides promised delivery, and for average, disagree, strongly disagree 0 % respondents.
12
TABLE NO: 4.13
STAFF IN BILLING COUNTER
S. No Particulars No of Respondents Percentage

2 Agree 19 38%
3 Average 15 30%
4 Disagree 7 14%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.12

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON STAFF IN
BILLING COUNTER
40% 38 %
P
35%
E 30 %
R 30%
C 25%
E 18 %
N 20%
14 %
T 15%
A 10%
G
E 5%
0%
0%
Agree Disagree
STAFF IN BILLING COUNTER
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 38% respondents agree that staff are available in billing counter,
30% respondents average, 18% are strongly agree, 14% for disagree and 0 % respondents are
disagree.
13
TABLE NO: 4.14
ALL PRODUCTS AVAILABLE

2 Agree 23 46%
3 Average 8 16%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.13

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON ALL PRODUCTS
AVAILABLE
50%
P 46 %
45%
E
40%
R 32 %
C 35%
E 30%
N 25%
T 20%
16 %
A 15%
G 10%
E 6%
5%
0% 0%
Agree Disagree
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 46 % respondents agree,32% respondents are strongly agree, for
average 16%, 6 % respondents are disagree that store had all products and 0% disagree.
14
TABLE NO: 4.15
PRODUCT INSTANTLY

2 Agree 21 42%
3 Average 8 16%
4 Disagree 1 2%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.14

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON PRODUCT
INSTANTLY
45% 42 %
P 40 %
40%
E
R 35%
C 30%
E 25%
N 20% 16 %
T 15%
A
10%
G 2%
E 5%
0%
0%
Agree Disagree
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 42% respondents agree, 40% are strongly agree that product
instantly in store, 16% are average, 2% disagree and 0 % respondents are strongly disagree.
15
TABLE NO: 4.16
HANDLED QUERIES IMMEDIATELY

2 Agree 24 48%
3 Average 10 20%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.15

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON HANDLED
QUERIES IMMEDIATELY
60%
P
E 50% 48 %
R
C 40%
E 32 %
30%
N 20 %
T
20%
A
G 10%
E 0% 0%
0%
Agree Disagree
HANDLED QUERIES IMMEDIATELY
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 48% respondents are agree, 32% are strongly agree that queries
handled immediately, 20% are average, 0% for disagree and 0% strongly disagree.
16
TABLE NO: 4.17
PERSONAL BELONGINGS RETURN IMMEDIATELY

2 Agree 25 50%
3 Average 6 12%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.16

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON PERSONAL
BELONGINGS RETURN IMMEDIATELY
60%
P
E 50 %
50%
R
C 36 %
40%
E
N 30%
T
A 20%
G 12 %
E 10%
0% 2%
0%
Agree PERSONAL BELONGINGS RETURN Disagree
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 50 % respondents agree, 36% are strongly agree that personal
belonging return, 12% are average 2 % respondents are strongly disagree and 0% disagree.
17
TABLE NO: 4.18
INDIVIADUAL ATTENTION
2 Agree 29 58%
3 Average 5 10%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.17

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON INDIVIADUAL
ATTENTION
70%
P 58%
E 60%
R 50%
C
E 40% 32%
N
30%
T
A 20%
G 10 %
E 10%
0% 0%
0%
Agree Disagree
INDIVIADUAL ATTENTION
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 58% respondents agree that staff giving attention to individual,
where 32% are strongly agree, 10% of respondents are average, 0% for disagree and 0% of
respondents strongly disagree.
18
TABLE NO: 4.19
UNDERSTAND CUSTOMER NEED

2 Agree 24 48%
3 Average 3 6%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.18

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON UNDERSTAND
CUSTOMER NEED
60%
P 48 %
E 46 %
50%
R
C 40%
E
N 30%
T
A 20%
G 6%
E 10%
0% 0%
0%
Agree Disagree
UNDERSTAND CUSTOMER NEED
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 48% respondents agree that staff understand the customer need,
where 46% are strongly agree, 6% of respondents are average, 0% are disagree and 0% of
respondents strongly disagree.
19
TABLE NO: 4.20
EXCHANGING PRODUCT

2 Agree 17 34%
3 Average 4 8%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.19

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON EXCHANGING
PRODUCT
60% 56 %
P
E 50%
R
34 %
C 40%
E
N 30%
T
20%
A
8%
G 10%
E 2%
0%
0%
Agree Disagree
EXCHANGING PRODUCT
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 56% respondents strongly agree for product exchange, where
34% are agree 8% of respondents are average, 0% are disagree and 2% of respondents strongly
disagree.
20
TABLE NO: 4.21
PROMISE DELIVERY OF SERVICE

2 Agree 24 48%
3 Average 2 4%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.20

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON PROMISE
DELIVERY OF SERVICE
60%
P 48 % 48 %
E 50%
R
C 40%
E
N 30%
T
20%
A
G
10% 4%
E
0% 0%
0%
Agree Disagree
PROMISE DELIVERY OF SERVICE
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 48% respondents experience promise delivery, 48% respondent
agree, 4% average, 0% disagree and 0% of respondents strongly disagree.
21
TABLE NO: 4.22
BILLS ERROR LESS
2 Agree 21 42%
3 Average 13 26%
4 Disagree 2 4%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.21

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON BILLS ERROR
LESS
45%
P 42 %
E 40%
R 35%
C 30% 28 % 26 %
E 25%
N
20%
T
A 15%
G 10%
E 4%
5%
0%
0%
Agree Disagree
BILLS ERROR LESS
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 42% of the respondents agree that error less bill, 28% were
strongly agree, 26% are average, 4% are disagree and 0% are strongly disagree.
22
TABLE NO: 4.23
PRODUCT DELIVERED WITHOUT DAMAGES

2 Agree 27 54%
3 Average 3 6%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.22

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON PRODUCT
DELIVERED WITHOUT DAMAGES
60%
P 54 %
E 50%
R
40 %
C 40%
E
N 30%
T
A 20%
G 6%
10%
E
0% 0%
0%
Agree Disagree
PRODUCT DELIVERED WITHOUT DAMAGES
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 54% of the respondents agree that product delivered without
damages, 40% were strongly agree, 6% are average, 0% are disagree and 0% are strongly
disagree.
23
TABLE NO: 4.24
QUANTITIES GIVEN CUSTOMER REQUIREMENT

2 Agree 15 30%
3 Average 4 8%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.23

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON QUANTITIES
GIVEN CUSTOMER REQUIREMENT
70%
P 62 %
E 60%
R 50%
C 40%
E 30 %
N 30%
T 20%
A 10% 8%
G
0% 0% 0%
E
Agree Disagree
QUANTITIES GIVEN CUSTOMER REQUIREMENT
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 62% of the respondents strongly agree that quantities given in
requirement,30% were agree,8% are average, 0% are disagree and 0% are strongly disagree.
24
TABLE NO: 4.25
AVAILABILITY OF PRODUCT PACKAGES

2 Agree 17 34%
3 Average 5 10%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.24

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON AVAILABILITY
OF PRODUCT PACKAGES
60% 56 %
P
E 50%
R
C 40% 34 %
E
N 30%
T
A 20%
G 10 %
E 10%
0% 0%
0%
Agree Disagree
AVAILABILITY OF PRODUCT PACKAGES
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 56% of the respondents strongly agree that availability of
product packages, 34% were agree, 10% are average, 0% are disagree and 0% are strongly
disagree.
25
TABLE NO: 4.26
OFFERS PROVIDED

2 Agree 22 44%
3 Average 5 10%
4 Disagree 0 0%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.25

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON OFFERS
PROVIDED
50% 46 %
P 44 %
45%
E
40%
R
C 35%
E 30%
N 25%
T 20%
A 15%
G 10 %
10%
E
5%
0% 0%
0%
Agree Disagree
OFFERS PROVIDED
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 46% of the respondents strongly agree that offers provided, 44%
were agree, 10% are average, 0% are disagree and 0% are strongly disagree.
26
TABLE NO: 4.27
ALLOWED TO TAKE OWN TIME TO SHOP

2 Agree 21 42%
3 Average 1 2%
4 Disagree 2 4%
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.26

CHART SHOWING THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCE BASED ON ALLOWED TO
TAKE OWN TIME TO SHOP
60%
P 52 %
E 50%
42 %
R
C 40%
E
N 30%
T
A 20%
G
E 10% 4%
2%
0%
0%
Agree Disagree
TAKE OWN TIME TO SHOP
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 52% of the respondents strongly agree that allowed to take own time to
shop, 42% were agree, 2% are average, 4% are disagree and 0% are strongly disagree.
27
TABLE NO: 4.27
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF CUSTOMER TOWARDS

STORE LOCATION

1 Highly satisfied 23 46
2 Satisfied 18 36
3 Neutral 8 16
4 Dissatisfied 1 2
5 Highly dissatisfied 0 0
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.27

CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF CUSTOMER TOWARDS
STORE LOCATION
50 46 %
45
P
40
E 36 %
35
R
C 30
E 25
N 20 16 %
T 15
A 10
G 5 2%
E 0%
0
Highly Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Highly
satisfied dissatisfied
CUSTOMER TOWARDS STORE LOCATION
28
TABLE NO: 4.27
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF CUSTOMER TOWARDS

INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 46% of the respondents highly satisfied with store location, 36% were
satisfied, 16% are neutral, 2% are dissatisfied and 0% are highly dissatisfied.
29
TABLE NO: 4.28
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL TOWARDS AVAILABILITY OF

TROLLEY

2 Satisfied 34 68
3 Neutral 3 6
4 Dissatisfied 0 0
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.28

CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL TOWARDS AVAILABILITY OF
TROLLEY
80
P
70 68 %
E
R 60
C 50
E
40
N 26 %
T 30
A 20
G
6%
E 10 0% 0%
0
AVAILABILITY OF TROLLEY
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 68% of the respondents satisfied that trolley available in store, 26%
were highly satisfied, 6% are neutral, 0% are dissatisfied and 0% are highly dissatisfied.
30
TABLE NO: 4.29
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF LOYALITY PROGRAM

2 Satisfied 26 52
3 Neutral 4 8
4 Dissatisfied 2 4
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.29

CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF LOYALTY PROGRAM
60
P 52 %
E 50
R
C 40
32 %
E
30
N
T 20
A
8%
G 10
E 4% 4%
0
LOYALITY PROGRAM
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 52% of the respondents satisfied with loyalty program, 32% were highly
31
TABLE NO: 4.30
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF PARKING FACILITIES

2 Satisfied 19 38
3 Neutral 14 28
4 Dissatisfied 6 12
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.30
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF PARKING FACILITIES
40 38 %
P
35
E
R 30 28 %
C 25
E
N 20 18 %
T 15 12 %
A
10
G
4%
E 5
0
PARKING FACILITIES
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 38% of the respondents satisfied with parking facilities, 28% are
neutral, 18% are highly satisfied, 12% were dissatisfied and 4% are highly dissatisfied.
32
TABLE NO: 4.31
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL TOWARDS BRAND NAME

2 Satisfied 27 54
3 Neutral 2 4
4 Dissatisfied 0 0
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.31

CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL TOWARDS BRAND NAME
60
54 %
P 50
E 40 %
R 40
C
E 30
N
T 20
A
10 4%
G
0% 2%
E
0
BRAND NAME
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 54% of the respondents satisfied towards brand name, 40% were highly
satisfied, 4% are neutral, 2% are highly dissatisfied and 0% are dissatisfied.
33
TABLE NO: 4.32
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL FOR AVAILABILITY OF
PRODUCT QUANTITY

2 Satisfied 19 38
3 Neutral 8 16
4 Dissatisfied 0 0
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.32
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL FOR AVAILABILITY OF
PRODUCT QUANTITY
50
46 %
P 45
E 40 38 %
R
35
C
30
E
25
N
T 20
16 %
A 15
G 10
E 5 0% 0%
0
PRODUCT QUANTITY
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 46% of the respondents highly satisfied quantity of product, 38% were
34
TABLE NO: 4.33
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF PRODUCT VARITY

2 Satisfied 25 50
3 Neutral 7 14
4 Dissatisfied 0 0
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.33
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF PRODUCT VARITY
60
P
50 %
E 50
R
C 36 %
40
E
N 30
T
20 14 %
A
G
E 10
0% 0%
0
PRODUCT VARITY
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 50% of the respondent satisfied product Varity, 36% were highly
35
TABLE NO: 4.34
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF ACCURACY OF BILLING

2 Satisfied 25 50
3 Neutral 6 12
4 Dissatisfied 2 4
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.34
CHARTSHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF ACCURACY OF BILLING
60
P 50 %
E 50
R
C 40 34 %
E
N 30
T
20 12 %
A
G 4%
10
E
0%
0
ACCURACY OF BILLING
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 50% of the respondents satisfied with billing accuracy, 34% were highly
36
TABLE NO: 4.35
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF PRODUCT PRICE

2 Satisfied 25 50
3 Neutral 4 8
4 Dissatisfied 2 4
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.35
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF PRODUCT PRICE
60
P 50 %
E 50
R 38 %
C 40
E
N 30
T
A 20
G 8% 4%
E 10
0%
0
PRODUCT PRICE
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 50% of the respondents satisfied product price, 38% were highly
37
TABLE NO: 4.36
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF BILLING SPEED

2 Satisfied 12 24
3 Neutral 18 36
4 Dissatisfied 7 14
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.36
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF BILLING SPEED
40
P 36 %
E 35
R 30
C 24 %
25 24 %
E
N 20
T 14 %
15
A
G 10
E 5 2%
0
BILLING SPEED
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 48% of the respondents satisfied with billing speed, 36% are neutral,
14% are dissatisfied and 2% are highly dissatisfied.
38
TABLE NO: 4.37
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF STORE ENVIRONMENT

2 Satisfied 24 48
3 Neutral 9 18
4 Dissatisfied 4 8
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.37
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF STORE ENVIRONMENT
60
P
E 48 %
50
R
C 40
E
N 30 24 %
T 18 %
A 20
G 8%
E 10
2%
0
STORE ENVIRONMENT
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 48% of the respondent satisfied environment of store, 24% were highly
39
TABLE NO: 4.38
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF QUICK SERVICE

2 Satisfied 23 46
3 Neutral 9 18
4 Dissatisfied 4 8
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.38
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF QUICK SERVICE
50
46 %
P 45
E 40
R 35 34 %
C
30
E
N 25
20 18 %
T
A 15
G 10 8%
E 5 2%
0
QUICK SERVICE
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 46% of the respondents satisfied quick service, 34% were highly
40
TABLE NO: 4.39
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF RESPONSE TO CUSTOMERS

2 Satisfied 22 44
3 Neutral 8 16
4 Dissatisfied 2 4
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.39
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF RESPONSE TO CUSTOMERS
50
P 45 44 %
E
40 36 %
R
35
C
E 30
N 25
T 20
16 %
A 15
G 10
E 5
4%
0%
0
RESPONSE TO CUSTOMERS
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 44% of the respondents satisfied with staff response 36% were highly
41
TABLE NO: 4.40
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF STAFF MEMBERS

ASSISTANCE AND GUIDANCE

2 Satisfied 31 62
3 Neutral 6 12
4 Dissatisfied 2 4
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.40
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF STAFF MEMBERS
ASSISTANCE AND GUIDANCE
70
P 62 %
E 60
R
50
C
E 40
N
30
T 20 %
A 20
G 12 %
4% 2%
E 10
0
STAFF MEMBERS ASSISTANCE AND GUIDANCE
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 62% of the respondents satisfied with staff member guidance, 20% were
highly satisfied, 12% are neutral, 4% are dissatisfied and 2% are highly dissatisfied.
42
TABLE NO: 4.41
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF UNDERSTAND THE

REQUIREMENT

2 Satisfied 29 58
3 Neutral 8 16
4 Dissatisfied 0 0
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.41
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF UNDERSTAND THE
REQUIREMENT
70
P
60
58 %
E
R
50
C
E 40
N 26 %
T 30
A 20 16 %
G
E 10
0% 0%
0
UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENT
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 58% of the respondents satisfied with requirement, 26% were highly
43
TABLE NO: 4.42
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF QUALITY

2 Satisfied 27 54
3 Neutral 7 14
4 Dissatisfied 0 0
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.42
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF QUALITY
60
54 %
P
50
E
R 40
C 32 %
E 30
N
T 20
A 14 %
G 10
E 0% 0%
0
LEVEL OF QUALITY
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 54% of the respondents satisfied with quality, 32% were highly
44
TABLE NO: 4.43
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF PRODUCT RETURNS AND

EXCHANGES

2 Satisfied 27 54
3 Neutral 6 12
4 Dissatisfied 0 0
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.43
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF PRODUCT RETURNS AND
EXCHANGES
60
P 54 %
E 50
R
C 40 34 %
E
N 30
T
A 20
G 12 %
E 10
0% 0%
0
PRODUCT RETURNS AND EXCHANGES
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 54% of the respondents satisfied for product exchange, 34% were
highly satisfied, 12% are neutral, 0% are dissatisfied and 0% are highly dissatisfied.
45
TABLE NO: 4.44
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF HANDLING CUSTOMER

COMPLAINTS

2 Satisfied 27 54
3 Neutral 4 8
4 Dissatisfied 1 2
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.44
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF HANDLING CUSTOMER
COMPLAINTS
60
54 %
P
E 50
R 36 %
C 40
E
30
N
T 20
A
8%
G 10
E 2% 0%
0
HANDLING CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 54% of the respondents satisfied that complaints are handling, 36%
were highly satisfied, 8% are neutral, 2% are dissatisfied and 0% are highly dissatisfied.
46
TABLE NO: 4.45
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF CONVENIENT OPERATING

HOURS

2 Satisfied 20 40
3 Neutral 7 14
4 Dissatisfied 0 0
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.45
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF CONVENIENT OPERATING
HOURS
50
P 46 %
45
E 40 40 %
R 35
C
30
E
25
N
20
T 14 %
15
A
10
G
E 5
0% 0%
0
CONVENIENT OPERATING HOURS
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 46% of the respondents highly satisfied with convenient operating hour,
40% were satisfied, 14% are neutral, 0% are dissatisfied and 0% are highly dissatisfied.
47
TABLE NO: 4.46
TABLE SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF OFFERS/DISCOUNT

2 Satisfied 21 42
3 Neutral 7 14
4 Dissatisfied 0 0
Total 50 100%
CHART NO: 4.46
CHART SHOWING THE SATISFACTION LEVEL OF OFFERS/DISCOUNT
50
P 45 44 % 42 %
E
40
R
35
C
E 30
N 25
T 20
A 15 14 %
G 10
E 5
0% 0%
0
PRODUCT OFFERS/DISCOUNT IN STORE
INFERENCE:
It is inferred that 44% of the respondents highly satisfied offers/discount, 42% were
48
TABLE NO: 4.47
TABLE SHOWING THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE SERVICE ATTRIBUTES BASED CUSTOMER SHOPPING EXPERIENCE
RANK W X1 X1*W X2 X2*W X3 X3*W X4 X4*W X5 X5*W X6 X6*W X7 X7*W X8 X8*W X9 X9*W X10 X10*W
1 5 28 140 18 90 40 200 29 145 32 160 25 125 9 45 16 80 20 100 16 80
2 4 18 72 18 72 8 32 14 56 15 60 25 100 19 76 23 92 21 84 24 96
3 3 4 12 7 21 2 6 5 15 3 9 0 0 15 45 8 24 8 24 10 30
4 2 0 0 7 14 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 7 14 0 0 1 2 0 0
5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0
Total 15 50 242 50 197 50 238 50 219 50 226 50 226 50 180 50 199 50 210 50 206
Calculated 4.12
4.84 3.94 4.76 4.38 4.52 4.5 3.6 3.98 4.2
weight
Final Rank Rank 1 Rank 20 Rank 2 Rank 10 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 21 Rank 19 Rank 15 Rank 17
X X11 X X12 X X13 X X14 X X15 X X16 X X17 X X18 X X19 X X20 X X21*W
RANK W *W *W *W *W *W *W *W *W *W *W
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
1 5 18 90 16 80 23 115 28 140 24 120 15 75 20 100 31 155 28 140 23 115 26 130
2 4 25 100 29 116 24 96 17 68 24 96 21 84 27 108 15 60 17 68 22 88 21 84
3 3 6 18 5 15 3 9 3 9 2 6 13 9 3 9 4 12 5 20 5 20 1 3
4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
5 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 50 225 50 218 50 221
Total 5 50 209 50 212 50 220 50 217 50 222 50 200 50 215 50 227
Calculated
4.18 4.24 4.4 4.34 4.44 4.0 4.3 4.54 4.46 4.36 4.42
weight
Final Rank Rank 16 Rank 14 Rank 9 Rank 12 Rank 7 Rank 18 Rank 13 Rank 3 Rank 6 Rank 11 Rank 8
72
From the above table it can be inferred as following
Rank Sources
1 The store is very clean and attractive

2 The store as sufficient place to move around to find the product
3 Quantities are given as per the customer requirement

4 Offers/discounts are displayed clearly and updated regularly
5 Promised delivery of quality excellence in every purchase
6 Availability of product packages as per the customer convenience
7 Promise delivery of service
8 You are allowed to take your own time to shop in the store
9 Staff members understand customers need
10 Staff members are very easy to identify
11 Offers are provided for the required products of the customer
12 You feel free for exchanging the product
13 The product are delivered without any error and damages
14 Customers are given individual attention without bias
15 Customer requests towards products are met out instantly
16 Missing of personal belongings by the customers are sort out
immediately
17 Staff members handled customers queries immediately
18 Bills are error less

19 All Products are available in all seasons
20 Carry bag and net bag in the stores are easily identifiable
21 Staff members are always available in all billing counter
INFERENCE:
From the above table it infers that the store is very clean and attractive which ranked
I, sufficient place to move around for shopping in store is ranked II and the staff members
are not available in all billing counter which is last ranked XXI in service attributes.
73
TABLE NO: 4.48
TABLE SHOWING THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE RATE OF SATISFACTION LEVEL OF SERVICE QUALITY
RANK W X1 X1*W X2 X2*W X3 X3*W X4 X4*W X5 X5*W X6 X6*W X7 X7*W X8 X8*W X9 X9*W X10 X10*W
1 5 23 115 13 65 16 80 9 45 20 100 23 115 15 75 17 85 19 95 12 60
2 4 18 72 34 136 26 104 19 76 27 108 19 76 19 76 25 100 25 100 13 52
3 3 8 24 3 9 4 12 14 42 2 6 7 21 13 39 6 18 4 12 18 54
4 2 1 2 0 0 2 4 6 12 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 4 7 14
5 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15 50 213 50 210 50 202 50 177 50 215 50 214 50 193 50 207 50 211 50 180
Calculated 3.6
4.26 4.2 4.04 3.54 4.3 4.28 3.86 4.14 4.22
weight
X X11* X X12* X X13* X X14* X X15* X X16* X X17* X X18* X X19* X X20*W
RANK W
11 W 12 W 13 W 14 W 15 W 16 W 17 W 18 W 19 W 20
1 5 12 60 17 85 19 95 10 50 13 65 16 80 15 75 18 90 13 65 23 115
2 4 24 96 23 92 21 84 31 124 29 116 27 108 26 104 27 108 20 80 21 84
3 3 9 27 9 27 9 27 6 18 8 24 7 21 6 18 4 12 17 51 6 18
4 2 4 8 1 2 1 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0
5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 50 196 50 217
Total 5 50 192 50 206 50 208 50 197 50 205 50 209 50 201 50 212
Calculated 4.34
3.84 4.12 4.16 3.94 4.1 4.18 4.02 4.24 3.92
weight
74
Rank Sources
1 Offers/ discount
2 Brand name
3 Availability of product quantity
4 Store Location
5 Handling customer complaints
6 Price
7 Availability of trolley
8 Quality
9 Response to customers
10 Accuracy of billing
11 Quick service
12 Understand the requirement
13 Loyalty programs (Membership card)
14 Product Returns and exchanges
15 Staff members assistance and guidance

16 Convenient Operating hours
17 Product Varity
18 Store environment
19 Billing speed
20 Parking facilities
INFERENCE:
From the above table it infers that the satisfaction of the respondents are related with the
offers/discount of product is ranked I, brand name is II, and the XX rank for the parking
facilities is ranked as dissatisfied .
75
TABLE NO: 4.76
TABLE SHOWING THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF SERVICE ATTRIBUTES BASED
ON TANGIBILITY
RANK W X 11 X11*W X 12 X12*W X 13 X13*W X 14 X14*W X 15 X15*W
1 5 40 200 18 90 28 140 29 145 32 160
2 4 8 32 18 72 18 72 14 56 15 60
3 3 2 6 7 21 4 12 5 15 3 9
4 2 0 0 7 14 0 0 1 2 0 0
5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Total 15 50 238 50 197 50 224 50 219 50 229
Calculated
4.76 3.94 4.48 4.38 4.52
weight
Final Rank Rank 1 Rank 5 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 2

Rank Sources
1 The store is very clean and attractive
2 Offers/discounts are displayed clearly and updated regularly
3 The store as sufficient place to move around to find the product
4 Staff members are very easy to identify
5
Carry bag and net bag in the stores are easily identifiable
Inference:
From the above table it infers that store is very clean and attractive which ranked I,
offers/discount in store are displayed clearly is ranked II and carry bag is not easily identify
in store is ranked as V.
76
TABLE NO: 4.77

ON RELIABILITY
RANK W X 11 X11*W X 12 X12*W X 13 X13*W

1 5 26 130 9 45 16 80
2 4 24 96 19 76 23 92
3 3 0 0 15 45 8 24
4 2 0 0 7 14 0 0
5 1 0 0 0 0 3 3
Total 15 50 238 50 197 50 224
Calculated weight 4.52 3.6 3.98
Final Rank Rank 1 Rank 3 Rank 2

Rank Sources
1 Promised delivery of quality excellence in every purchase
2 All products are available in all seasons
3 Staff members are always available in all billing counter
Inference:
From the above table weighted average shows that Promised delivery is excellence in quality
of every purchase in store is ranked I and Staff members are not always available in all billing counter is
ranked III.
77
TABLE NO: 4.51

ON RESPONSIVENESS
RANK W X 11 X11*W X 12 X12*W X 13 X13*W X 14 X14*W X 15 X15*W
1 5 20 100 16 80 18 90 16 80 23 115
2 4 21 84 24 96 25 100 29 116 24 96
3 3 8 24 10 30 6 18 5 15 3 9
4 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
Total 15 50 210 50 206 50 209 50 212 50 220
Calculated
4.2 4.12 4.18 4.22 4.40
weight
Final Rank Rank 3 Rank 5 Rank 4 Rank 2 Rank 1

Rank Sources
1 Staff members understand customers need

2 Customers are given individual attention without bias
3 Customer requests towards products are met out instantly
4 Missing of personal belongings by the customers are sort out immediately
5 Staff members handled customers queries immediately
Inference:
From the above table weighted average shows that Staff members understand customers
need is ranked I and Staff members are handling the customers queries immediately is ranked V.
78
TABLE NO: 4.52

ON ASSURANCE
RANK W X 11 X11*W X 12 X12*W X 13 X13*W X 14 X14*W
1 5 28 140 24 120 15 75 20 100
2 4 17 68 24 96 21 84 27 108
3 3 4 12 2 6 13 39 3 9
4 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0
5 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Total 15 50 220 50 223 50 202 50 217
Calculated
4.42 4.44 3.94 4.34
weight
Final Rank Rank 2 Rank 1 Rank 4 Rank 3

Rank Sources
1 Promise delivery of service
2 You feel free for exchanging the product
3 The product are delivered without any error and damages
4 Bills are error less
Inference:
From the above table weighted average shows that service is in promise delivery are
ranked as I and bill error less is ranked IV.
79
TABLE NO: 4.53

ON EMPATHY
RANK W X 11 X11*W X 12 X12*W X 13 X13*W X 14 X14*W
1 5 31 155 28 140 23 115 26 130
2 4 15 60 17 68 22 88 21 84
3 3 4 12 5 15 5 15 1 3
4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15 50 227 50 223 50 218 50 221
Calculated
4.54 4.46 4.36 4.42
weight
Final Rank Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 4 Rank 3

Rank Sources
1 Quantities are given as per the customer requirement
2 Availability of product packages as per the customer convenience
3 You are allowed to take your own time to shop in the store
4 Offers are provided for the required products of the customer
Inference:
From the above table it infers that the quantities are given as per the customer
requirement is ranked I and offers which provided for the required products of the customer is
ranked V.
80
TABLE NO: 4.54
TABLE SHOWING THE DIFFERENT BETWEEN GENDER AND SERVICE

ATTRIBUTES BASED ON TANGIBILITY
(Using independent T-Test)
Ho: There is no significant different between gender and tangibility

Ha: There is significant different between gender and tangibility
Table no: 4.54.1 Table of Group Statistics
tangibility Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Male 35 22.3143 2.11119 .35686
Female 15 21.7333 2.57645 .66524
Table no: 4.54.2 Table of Independent Samples Test
Tangibility Levene's Test t-test

for Equality of for
Variances Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of
(2-tailed) Differen Difference the Difference
ce Lower Upper
Equal variances
1.338 .253 .834 48 .408 .58095 .69647 -.81940 1.98130
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed .770 22.451 .450 .58095 .75491 -.98281 2.14471
𝑇2
; N1= 35, N2=15, T=0.834; = 0.65/0.65 + (35+15 – 2);
𝑇2 + (𝑁1+𝑁2−2)
=0.014
INFERENCE:
An independent –samples T-test was conducted to compare the service attributes by gender.
There is no significant difference in the gender for male (mean = 22.314, SD= 2.111), female
(mean = 21.733, SD=2.576); [t (48) =0 .834, P=0.408]. The magnitude of the difference in the
means was small effect (0.014). H0 is accepted and Ha is rejected.
81
TABLE NO: 4.55

ATTRIBUTES BASED ON RELIABILITY
Ho: There is no significant different between gender and reliability

Ha: There is significant different between gender and reliability
Reliability Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Male 35 12.2571 1.72086 .29088

Female 15 11.7333 1.90738 .49248

Reliability Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means
for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of
(2- Difference Difference the Difference
tailed) Lower Upper
Equal variances
.234 .631 .955 48 .344 .52381 .54848 -.57899 1.62660
assumed
Equal variances
.916 24.256 .369 .52381 .57197 -.65602 1.70364
not assumed
𝑇2 ; N1= 35, N2= 15, T= 0.95; = 0.902/0.902 + (35+15 – 2)
𝑇2 + (𝑁1+𝑁2−2)
=0.018
INFERENCE:
An independent –samples T-test was conducted to compare the service attributes by

gender. There is no significant difference in the gender for male (mean = 12.257, SD= 1.720),
female (mean = 11.733, SD=1.907); [t (48) =0 .955, P=0.344]. The magnitude of the difference
in the means was small effect (0.018). H0 is accepted and Ha is rejected.
82
TABLE NO: 4.83

ATTRIBUTES BASED ON RESPONSIVENESS
Ho: There is no significant different between gender and responsiveness
Ha: There is significant different between gender and responsiveness
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Male 35 20.8286 2.20275 .37233
Responsiveness
Female 15 21.8000 2.54109 .65611
Responsiveness Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means

for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence
(2- Difference Difference Interval of the
tailed) Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances -
.582 .449 -1.365 48 .179 -.97143 .71182 .45978
assumed 2.40264
Equal variances not -
-1.288 23.467 .210 -.97143 .75439 .58743
assumed 2.53029
𝑇2 ; N1= 35, N2= 15, T= -1.365; = 1.86/1.86 + (35+15 – 2)
𝑇2 + (𝑁1+𝑁2−2)
=0.037
INFERENCE:

gender. There is no significant difference in the gender for male (mean=20.828, SD=2.202),
female (mean=21.80, SD=2.541); [t (48) =-1.365; p=.179]. The magnitude of the difference in
the means was small effect (0.037). H0 is accepted and Ha is rejected.
83
TABLE NO: 4.84

ATTRIBUTES BASED ON ASSURANCE
Ho: There is no significant different between gender and assurance

Ha: There is significant different between gender and assurance

Male 35 16.9429 1.86205 .31474
Assurance
Female 15 17.6000 2.13140 .55032
Assurance Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means

for Equality of
Variances
(2-tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
.188 .667 -1.095 48 .279 -.65714 .60008 -1.86368 .54939
assumed
Equal variances 23.61
-1.037 .310 -.65714 .63397 -1.96672 .65244
not assumed 6
𝑇2 ; N1= 35, N2= 15, T= -1.095; = 1.19/1.19 + (35+15 – 2)
𝑇2 + (𝑁1+𝑁2−2)
=0.025
INFERENCE:

gender. There is no significant difference in the gender for male (mean=16.94, SD=1.86), female
(mean=17.6, SD=2.13); [t (48) =0.279; p=.279]. The magnitude of the difference in the means
was small effect (0.025). H0 is accepted and Ha is rejected.
84
TABLE NO: 4.85

ATTRIBUTES BASED ON EMPATHY
Ho: There is no significant different between gender and empathy

Ha: There is significant different between gender and empathy

Male 35 17.6571 1.89338 .32004
Empathy
Female 15 18.0667 2.37447 .61308
Empathy Levene's t-test for Equality of Means

Test for
Equality of
Variances
(2-tailed) Differen Difference Interval of the
ce Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
.534 .468 -.649 48 .520 -.40952 .63123 -1.67870 .85965
assumed
Equal variances
-.592 21.997 .560 -.40952 .69159 -1.84381 1.02476
not assumed
𝑇2 ; N1= 35, N2= 15, T= -0.649; = 0.42/0.42 + (35+15 – 2)
𝑇2 + (𝑁1+𝑁2−2)
=0.0087
INFERENCE:
An independent –samples T-test was conducted to compare the service attributes by gender.
There is no significant difference in the gender for male (mean=17.65, SD=1.89), female
(mean=18.06, SD=2.37); [t (48) ==-0.649; p=.520]. The magnitude of the difference in the
means was small effect (0.0087). H0 is accepted and Ha is rejected.
85
TABLE NO: 4.86
TABLE SHOWS THE ANOVA BETWEEN AGE GROUP AND SERVICE ATTRIBUTES
BASED ON TANGIBILITY
Ho: There is no significant relationship between age group and
tangibility Ha: There is significant relationship between age group and
tangibility
Table no: 4.59.1 Table showing the age group and service attributes based on tangibility
N Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Lower Bound Upper Bound
less than 25 15 21.8667 2.47463 .63895 20.4963 23.2371 17.00 25.00

26-35 8 23.0000 1.19523 .42258 22.0008 23.9992 21.00 24.00
36-45 10 22.5000 2.12132 .67082 20.9825 24.0175 19.00 25.00
46-55 5 20.2000 2.94958 1.31909 16.5376 23.8624 17.00 25.00
above 55 12 22.4167 2.10878 .60875 21.0768 23.7565 19.00 25.00
Total 50 22.1400 2.24981 .31817 21.5006 22.7794 17.00 25.00
Table no: 4.59.2 Table showing the Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
.991 4 45 .422
Table no: 4.59.3 Table showing the ANOVA
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 28.070 4 7.018 1.436 .238
Within Groups 219.950 45 4.888
Total 248.020 49
INFERENCE
A one way between groups analysis of variance has been conducted between age group&
tangibility. Subject were divided into five groups (group 1: less than25; group 2: 26-35; group 3:
36-45; group 4: 46-55; group 5: Above 55) There was no significant difference at the P< 0.05
level for the five groups [f (4, 45) =1.436, P= .238] H0 is accepted.
86
TABLE NO: 4.87
TABLE SHOWS THE ANOVA BETWEEN AGE GROUP AND SERVICE
Ho: There is no significant relationship between age group and reliability

Ha: There is significant relationship between age group and reliability
Table no: 4.60.1 Table showing the age group and service attributes based on reliability
N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
less than 25 15 12.7333 1.70992 .44150 11.7864 13.6803 10.00 15.00

26-35 8 11.5000 1.92725 .68139 9.8888 13.1112 9.00 14.00
36-45 10 12.7000 1.76698 .55877 11.4360 13.9640 10.00 15.00
46-55 5 10.6000 1.34164 .60000 8.9341 12.2659 9.00 12.00
above 55 12 11.8333 1.58592 .45782 10.8257 12.8410 9.00 15.00
Total 50 12.1000 1.77569 .25112 11.5954 12.6046 9.00 15.00

.328 4 45 .858
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 24.600 4 6.150 2.130 .093
Total 154.500 49
INFERENCE:
A one way is between groups analysis of variance has been conducted between age
group& reliability. Subject were divided into five groups (group 1: less than25; group 2: 26-35;
group 3: 36-45; group 4: 46-55; group 5: Above 55) There was no significant difference at the
P< 0.05 level for the five groups [f (4, 45) =2.130, P= .093] H0 is accepted.
87
TABLE NO: 4.88
Ho: There is no significant relationship between age group and responsiveness

Ha: There is significant relationship between age group and responsiveness
Table no: 4.61.1 Table showing the age group and service attributes based on responsiveness
N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum

Deviation Error Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
less than 25 15 21.6667 1.95180 .50395 20.5858 22.7475 20.00 25.00

26-35 8 20.7500 3.99106 1.41105 17.4134 24.0866 16.00 25.00
36-45 10 21.3000 1.82878 .57831 19.9918 22.6082 18.00 24.00
46-55 5 20.0000 .70711 .31623 19.1220 20.8780 19.00 21.00
above 55 12 21.0000 2.25630 .65134 19.5664 22.4336 19.00 25.00
Total 50 21.1200 2.32677 .32906 20.4587 21.7813 16.00 25.00

7.319 4 45 .001
Between Groups 12.347 4 3.087 .549 .701

Total 265.280 49
Table no: 4.61.4 Table showing the Robust Tests of Equality of Means
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Welch 2.241 4 20.341 .100
INFERENCE:
responsiveness. Subject were divided into five groups (group 1: less than25; group 2: 26-35;
group 3: 36-45; group 4: 46-55; group 5: Above 55) There was no significant difference at the
P< 0.05 level for the five groups [f (4, 45) =0.549, P= .701] H0 is accepted.
88
TABLE NO: 4.89
Ho: There is no significant relationship between age group and assurance

Ha: There is significant relationship between age group and assurance
Table no: 4.62.1 Table showing the age group and service attributes based on assurance
less than
15 17.1333 2.29492 .59255 15.8624 18.4042 13.00 20.00
25
26-35 8 16.1250 1.12599 .39810 15.1836 17.0664 14.00 18.00
36-45 10 17.6000 2.17051 .68638 16.0473 19.1527 13.00 20.00
46-55 5 18.2000 1.78885 .80000 15.9788 20.4212 16.00 20.00
above 55 12 17.0000 1.70561 .49237 15.9163 18.0837 14.00 19.00
Total 50 17.1400 1.94842 .27555 16.5863 17.6937 13.00 20.00

2.004 4 45 .110

Between Groups 16.212 4 4.053 1.074 .381
Total 186.020 49
INFERENCE:
assurance. Subject were divided into five groups (group 1: less than25; group 2: 26-35; group 3:
level for the five groups [ f(4,45) =1.074,P= .381] H0 is accepted.
89
TABLE NO: 4.90
Ho: There is no significant relationship between age group and empathy

Ha: There is significant relationship between age group and empathy
Table no: 4.63.1 Table showing the age group and service attributes based on empathy
N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Minimum Maximum

Deviation Error Interval for Mean
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
less than 25 15 17.6000 2.26148 .58391 16.3476 18.8524 14.00 20.00

26-35 8 17.2500 2.31455 .81832 15.3150 19.1850 14.00 20.00
36-45 10 17.8000 1.68655 .53333 16.5935 19.0065 15.00 20.00
46-55 5 18.0000 1.87083 .83666 15.6771 20.3229 16.00 20.00
above 55 12 18.2500 2.09436 .60459 16.9193 19.5807 15.00 20.00
Total 50 17.7800 2.03329 .28755 17.2021 18.3579 14.00 20.00

1.189 4 45 .328

Between Groups 5.630 4 1.407 .322 .862
Total 202.580 49
INFERENCE:
empathy. Subject were divided into five groups (group 1: less than25; group 2: 26-35; group 3:
level for the five groups [f (4, 45) =0.322, P= .862] H0 is accepted.
90
TABLE NO: 4.91
TABLE SHOWS THE ANOVA BETWEEN QUALIFICATION AND SERVICE
ATTRIBUTES BASED ON TANGIBILITY
Ho: There is no significant relationship between qualification and tangibility
Ha: There is significant relationship between qualification and tangibility
Table no: 4.64.1 Table showing the qualification and service attributes based on
tangibility

less 10th 3 20.6667 2.51661 1.45297 14.4151 26.9183 18.00 23.00
10th/12th 16 22.5625 1.78769 .44692 21.6099 23.5151 19.00 25.00
diploma/ITI 3 22.3333 1.52753 .88192 18.5388 26.1279 21.00 24.00
graduate 19 21.6316 2.54319 .58345 20.4058 22.8574 17.00 25.00
post
9 22.8889 2.42097 .80699 21.0280 24.7498 19.00 25.00
graduate
Total 50 22.1400 2.24981 .31817 21.5006 22.7794 17.00 25.00
.839 4 45 .508

Between Groups 19.439 4 4.860 .957 .440
Total 248.020 49
INFERENCE
A one way between groups analysis of variance has been conducted between
qualification &tangibility. Subject were divided into five groups (group 1: less10th; group 2:
10th/12th; group 3: diploma/ITI 4: graduate 5: PG) There was no significant difference at the
P< 0.05 level for the five groups [f (4, 45) =.957, P= .440] H0 is accepted.
91
TABLE NO: 4.92
Ho: There is no significant relationship between qualification and reliability

Ha: There is significant relationship between qualification and reliability
Table no: 4.65.1 Table showing the qualification and service attributes based on reliability
less 10th 3 12.6667 2.51661 1.45297 6.4151 18.9183 10.00 15.00

10th/12th 16 11.6875 1.95683 .48921 10.6448 12.7302 9.00 15.00
diploma/ITI 3 12.6667 .57735 .33333 11.2324 14.1009 12.00 13.00
graduate 19 12.3684 1.86221 .42722 11.4709 13.2660 9.00 15.00
post
9 11.8889 1.36423 .45474 10.8403 12.9375 10.00 14.00
graduate
Total 50 12.1000 1.77569 .25112 11.5954 12.6046 9.00 15.00

1.260 4 45 .300

Between Groups 6.419 4 1.605 .488 .745
Total 154.500 49
INFERENCE
An one way between groups analysis of variance has been conducted between
qualification & reliability. Subject were divided into five groups (group 1: less10th; group 2:
P< 0.05 level for the fivegroups [f (4, 45) =.488, P= .745] H0 is accepted.
92
TABLE NO: 4.93
Ho: There is no significant relationship between qualification and responsiveness
Ha: There is significant relationship between qualification and responsiveness
Table no: 4.66.1 Table showing the qualification and service attributes based on
responsiveness
less 10th 3 21.0000 1.00000 .57735 18.5159 23.4841 20.00 22.00

10th/12th 16 20.5625 2.60688 .65172 19.1734 21.9516 16.00 25.00
diploma/ITI 3 23.3333 1.52753 .88192 19.5388 27.1279 22.00 25.00
graduate 19 21.3684 2.29033 .52544 20.2645 22.4723 19.00 25.00
post graduate 9 20.8889 2.26078 .75359 19.1511 22.6267 18.00 25.00
Total 50 21.1200 2.32677 .32906 20.4587 21.7813 16.00 25.00

.961 4 45 .438

Between Groups 21.366 4 5.341 .985 .425
Total 265.280 49
INFERENCE
An one way between groups analysis of variance has been conducted between
qualification & responsiveness. Subject were divided into five groups (group 1: less10th; group
2: 10th/12th; group 3: diploma/ITI 4: graduate 5: PG) There was no significant difference at the
93
TABLE NO: 4.94
Ho: There is no significant relationship between qualification and assurance

Ha: There is significant relationship between qualification and assurance
Table no: 4.67.1 Table showing the qualification and service attributes based on assurance
less 10th 3 16.3333 .57735 .33333 14.8991 17.7676 16.00 17.00

10th/12th 16 17.3750 2.02896 .50724 16.2938 18.4562 14.00 20.00
diploma/IT
3 16.6667 3.21455 1.85592 8.6813 24.6521 13.00 19.00
I
graduate 19 17.2632 1.99561 .45782 16.3013 18.2250 13.00 20.00
post
9 16.8889 1.83333 .61111 15.4797 18.2981 14.00 20.00
graduate
Total 50 17.1400 1.94842 .27555 16.5863 17.6937 13.00 20.00

1.896 4 45 .128

Between Groups 4.364 4 1.091 .270 .896
Total 186.020 49
INFERENCE
A one way between groups analysis of variance has been conducted between
qualification & assurance. Subject were divided into five groups (group 1: less10th; group 2:
94
TABLE NO: 4.95
Ho: There is no significant relationship between qualification and empathy.

Ha: There is significant relationship between qualification and empathy.
Table no: 4.68.1 Table showing the qualification and service attributes based on empathy
less 10th 3 15.6667 1.52753 .88192 11.8721 19.4612 14.00 17.00

10th/12th 16 17.6875 2.21265 .55316 16.5085 18.8665 14.00 20.00
diploma/ITI 3 18.6667 1.15470 .66667 15.7982 21.5351 18.00 20.00
graduate 19 17.9474 1.95714 .44900 17.0041 18.8907 14.00 20.00
post
9 18.0000 2.12132 .70711 16.3694 19.6306 15.00 20.00
graduate
Total 50 17.7800 2.03329 .28755 17.2021 18.3579 14.00 20.00

1.844 4 45 .137

Between Groups 16.862 4 4.215 1.021 .407
Total 202.580 49
INFERENCE
An one way between groups analysis of variance has been has been conducted between
qualification & empathy. Subject were divided into fivegroups (group 1: less10th; group 2:
P< 0.05 level for the fivegroups [f (4, 45) =1.021, P= .407] H0 is accepted.
95
TABLE NO: 4.69
TABLE SHOWS THE ANOVA BETWEEN INCOME AND SERVICE ATTRIBUTES
BASED ON TANGIBILITY
Ho: There is no significant relationship between income and tangibility
Ha: There is significant relationship between income and tangibility
Table no: 4.69.1 Table showing the income and service attributes based on tangibility
below 25000 22 22.8182 1.65145 .35209 22.0860 23.5504 19.00 25.00

25000-50000 15 22.1333 2.50333 .64636 20.7470 23.5196 17.00 25.00
51000-75000 4 22.0000 2.44949 1.22474 18.1023 25.8977 19.00 24.00
76000-1lak 8 20.7500 2.65922 .94017 18.5268 22.9732 17.00 25.00
Above 1lak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 50 22.1400 2.24981 .31817 21.5006 22.7794 17.00 25.00

1.522a 3 45 .222
a. Groups with only one case are ignored in computing the test of homogeneity of variance
for tangibility.

Between Groups 35.514 4 8.878 1.880 .130
Total 248.020 49
INFERENCE
A one way between groups analysis of variance has been conducted between income &
tangibility. Subject were divided into fivegroups (group 1: below Rs25000; group 2: Rs.25000-
Rs.50000; group 3: Rs.51000-Rs75000group 4:Rs76000-Rs.1lakesgroup 5: above Rs.1lakes)
There was no significant difference at the P< 0.05 level for the fivegroups [f (3, 45) =1.880, P=
.130] H0 is accepted.
96
TABLE NO: 4.70
BASED ON RELIABILITY
Ho: There is no significant relationship between income and reliability.

Ha: There is significant relationship between income and reliability.
Table no: 4.70.1 Table showing the income and service attributes based on reliability
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum
Mean
below 25000 22 11.9545 1.61768 .34489 11.2373 12.6718 9.00 15.00

25000-50000 15 11.8000 2.07709 .53630 10.6497 12.9503 9.00 15.00
51000-75000 4 12.5000 1.00000 .50000 10.9088 14.0912 12.00 14.00
76000-1lak 1 11.0000 0 0 0 0 11.00 11.00
nil 8 13.0000 1.92725 .68139 11.3888 14.6112 10.00 15.00
Total 50 12.1000 1.77569 .25112 11.5954 12.6046 9.00 15.00

a
1.085 3 45 .365
a. Groups with only one case are ignored in computing

Between Groups 10.145 4 2.536 .791 .537
Total 154.500 49
INFERENCE
reliability. Subject were divided into fivegroups (group 1: below Rs25000; group 2: Rs.25000-
Rs.50000; group 3: Rs.51000-Rs75000 group 4:Rs76000-Rs.1lakes group 5: above
Rs.1lakes)There was no significant difference at the P< 0.05 level for the fivegroups [f (3, 45) =
0.791, P= .537] H0 is accepted.
97
TABLE NO: 4.98
BASED ON RESPONSIVENESS
Ho: There is no significant relationship between income and responsiveness.

Ha: There is significant relationship between income and responsiveness.
Table no: 4.71.1 Table showing the income and service attributes based on responsiveness
below 25000 22 20.6818 2.43753 .51968 19.6011 21.7626 16.00 25.00

25000-50000 15 21.6000 2.52982 .65320 20.1990 23.0010 18.00 25.00
51000-75000 4 21.7500 2.36291 1.18145 17.9901 25.5099 20.00 25.00
76000-1lak 1 19.0000 . . . . 19.00 19.00
nil 8 21.3750 1.68502 .59574 19.9663 22.7837 20.00 25.00
Total 50 21.1200 2.32677 .32906 20.4587 21.7813 16.00 25.00

a
1.024 3 45 .391
a. Groups with only one case are ignored in computing the test of homogeneity of variance for Responsiveness.

Between Groups 14.282 4 3.571 .640 .637
Total 265.280 49
INFERENCE
responsiveness. Subject were divided into five groups (group 1: below Rs25000; group 2:
Rs.25000-Rs.50000; group 3: Rs.51000-Rs75000 group 4:Rs76000-Rs.1lakes group 5: above
Rs.1lakes) There was no significant difference at the P< 0.05 level for the fivegroups [f (3, 45)
=0.640, P= 0.637] H0 is accepted.
98
TABLE NO: 4.99
BASED ON ASSURANCE
Ho: There is no significant relationship between income and assurance.

Ha: There is significant relationship between income and assurance.
Table no: 4.72.1 Table showing the income and service attributes based on assurance
below 25000 22 17.2727 2.07437 .44226 16.3530 18.1925 13.00 20.00

25000-
15 17.5333 1.84649 .47676 16.5108 18.5559 14.00 20.00
50000
51000-
4 16.5000 1.73205 .86603 13.7439 19.2561 15.00 19.00
75000
76000-1lak 1 18.0000 . . . . 18.00 18.00
nil 8 16.2500 1.98206 .70076 14.5930 17.9070 13.00 20.00
Total 50 17.1400 1.94842 .27555 16.5863 17.6937 13.00 20.00

a
.496 3 45 .687
a. Groups with only one case are ignored in computing the test of homogeneity of variance for Assurance.

Between Groups 11.423 4 2.856 .736 .572
Total 186.020 49
INFERENCE
assurance. Subject were divided into five groups (group 1: below Rs25000; group 2: Rs.25000-
Rs.50000; group 3: Rs.51000-Rs75000 group 4:Rs76000-Rs.1lakes group 5: above Rs.1lakes)
There was no significant difference at the P< 0.05 level for the fivegroups [f (3, 45) =0.736, P=
0.572] H0 is accepted.
99
TABLE NO: 4.100
BASED ON EMPATHY
Ho: There is no significant relationship between income and empathy.

Ha: There is significant relationship between income and empathy.
Table no: 4.73.1 Table showing the income and service attributes based on empathy
N Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error for Mean
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
below 25000 22 18.1364 2.07698 .44281 17.2155 19.0572 14.00 20.00
25000-50000 15 18.0667 1.70992 .44150 17.1197 19.0136 15.00 20.00
51000-75000 4 17.0000 2.44949 1.22474 13.1023 20.8977 15.00 20.00
76000-1lak 1 17.0000 . . . . 17.00 17.00
nil 8 16.7500 2.31455 .81832 14.8150 18.6850 14.00 20.00
Total 50 17.7800 2.03329 .28755 17.2021 18.3579 14.00 20.00

a
.790 3 45 .506
a. Groups with only one case are ignored in computing the test of homogeneity of variance for empathy.

Between Groups 15.556 4 3.889 .936 .452
Total 202.580 49
INFERENCE
A one way is important between groups. Analysis of groups has been conducted between
income & empathy. Subject were divided into five groups (group 1: below Rs25000; group 2:
Rs.25000-Rs.50000; group 3: Rs.51000-Rs75000 group 4:Rs76000-Rs.1lakes group 5: above
Rs.1lakes) There was no significant difference at the P< 0.05 level for the fivegroups [f (3, 45)
=0.936, P= 0.452] H0 is accepted.
100
CHAPTER V
FINDINGS, SUGGESTION
AND CONCLUSION
CHAPTER – V
FINDINGS
Finding of customers demographic variable:
 The 70% respondents are belongs to Male and 30% of respondents are Female.
 Most of the respondents 30% of age are belongs to less than 25, 20% of respondents are
belongs to 36-45, 16% of respondents are belong to 26-35age and 10% of respondents are
belongs to 46-55 years of age.
 Most of the respondents 38% are Graduate, 32% of respondents are 10th/12th, 18% are
belongs to Post graduate, 6% of respondents are belong to ITI/ Diploma, 6% respondents
is less than 10th.
 The respondents 44% are below 25000, 38% of respondents are belongs to less than
25000-50000, 16% are belongs to 51000-75000, 2% of respondents are belongs to 76000-
1 lakhs of annual income.
 Most of the respondents 38% are Salaried, 32% of respondents are others, 16% are
belongs to Business, 8% of respondents are Retried and 6% are belongs to other
Professional.
Finding of customers opinion regarding to service:
 Majority of 80% respondents agree that store is very clean and attractive and
36% respondents agree that store contain carry bag.
 Most of the respondents 56% are strongly agree that store as sufficient place to shopping
and 58% respondents agree that store staff is easy to identify.
 Majority 64% respondents strongly agree that store has displayed offers and 52%
respondents strongly agree that store provides promised delivery.
 Majority of 38% respondents agree that staff members are always available in billing
counter and 46 % respondents agree that store had all products available.
 The 40% respondents agree that product instantly in the store and 32% are strongly agreed
that queries handled immediately.
101
 The 50% respondents agree that personal belonging return and 58% respondents agree that
staff giving individual attention.
 Where 48% are agree that customer needs are understand by staff and 56% respondents
strongly agree that exchange product.
 Mostly 96% respondent experience promises delivery and 42% of the respondents agree
that error less bill.
 Majority 54% of the respondents agree that product delivered without damages and 62%
of the respondents strongly agree that quantities given in requirement.
 The 56% of the respondents strongly agree that availability of product packages and 52%
of the respondents strongly agree that store allowed to take own time to shop.
 Majority of 90% of the respondents strongly agree that offers provided for product which
is available in store.
Finding of customers satisfaction level in service quality:
 Majority 46% of the respondents highly satisfied with store location and 68% of the
respondents satisfied that trolley available in store.
 The 28% of the respondents only accept parking facilities of store and 54% of the
respondents satisfied towards brand name of reliance store.
 Mostly 46% of the respondents highly satisfied quantity of product in the store and 50% of
the respondent highly satisfied product Varity in the store.
 The 50% of the respondents satisfied with billing accuracy and 50% of the respondents
satisfied with price of product in the store.
 Majority 48% of the respondents where accept that billing speed is average and satisfied
environment of store.
 The 46% of the respondent satisfied quick service in the store and 44% of the respondents
satisfied with staff response the customer.
 Majority 62% of the respondents satisfied with staff member assist and guides the
customer. The 58% of the respondents satisfied with staff member understand the
requirement of customer.
102
 The 54% of the respondents satisfied with quality product and service and 54% of the
respondents satisfied for product exchange in store.
 The 58% of the respondents satisfied that complaints are handling by store staff members.
 Mostly 46% of the respondents highly satisfied with convenient operating hour of store
and 44% of the respondent highly satisfied offers/discount of product in store.
Finding using correlation coefficient:
 The existing weak positive correlation between customer opinion about services in the
store and customer opinion towards the tangibility attributes of the store.
 The correlation between customer opinion about services in the store and customer
opinion towards the reliability attributes of the store are weak positive correlation.
store and customer opinion towards the responsiveness attributes of the store.
 The correlation between customer opinion about services in the store and customer
opinion towards the assurance attributes of the store are weak positive correlation.
store and customer opinion towards the empathy attributes of the store.
Finding using t-test
 It found there is no significant difference between customer opinion regarding service

attributes of tangibility and gender.
attributes of reliability and gender.
attributes of responsiveness and gender.
attributes of assurance and gender.
attributes of empathy and gender.
103
Finding using ANOVA

attributes and age group.
attributes and qualification.
attributes and income.
Finding using weighted average:
List of first rank in service attributes
 Store location is listed as first rank in weighted average.

 Store is clean and attractive is also listed as first rank.
 The Operating hours of store is satisfied the customer.
 The Promised delivery of customer purchasing goods in store.
 The Staff members of store understand customers need.
 Staff members are not available in all billing counter of store.
 Quantities are given as per the customer requirement.
List of last rank in service attributes
 Offers and discount are not satisfied most customer.

 Staff members not available in all billing counter of store.
 The store parking facilities is mostly dissatisfied by customer.
 The carry bag (net bag) is not easily identified by customer.
 It found that Staff members are not handled customer’s queries immediately.
 It found that customer purchase Bills in store has some error.
 It found that Offers are not provided for the required products of the customer.
104
SUGGESTION
 Company should primarily focus on providing parking facilities for the customer.
 Company should make initiative for increase the billing speed of staff members.
 Company should introduce more product offers and discount to attract the customers.
 Company should make the staff members are available at all billing counter at any time,
all the time in the store.
 Company should introduce display or power wing for the carry bag (net bag) in the store.
 The descriptive research has to be done on error less billing.
 Company should provide training to increase the efficiency of the staff members in the
service level.
105
CONCLUSION
This study states the respondents are satisfying with store location, store environment,
product Varity, time consumption and quality service. The store has to concentrate on the
parking facility which helps to reduce the tension among the customer.
This study is useful to know about retails and it clear that various factors which
influence the customer to purchase the various product by quality. Majority of the customers
expect staff member should available in all billing counter. This study shows that overall
customer is satisfied with this store, in providing the quality service.
106
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. PRINCIPLES OF MARKETING - PHILIP KOTLER & GARY

2. BASIC MARKTING MANAGEMENT - DOUGLAS J. DALRYMPLE
3. QUALITY MANAGEMENT - DAVID M. LEVINE
4. MARKETING MANAGEMENT - RAJAN SAXENA
5. MARKETING MANAGEMENT -S. JAYACHANRDRAN
JOURNAL
1. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

2. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN
COMPUTER APPLICATION & MANAGEMENT
3. JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC COMNERCE RESEARCH
4. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN MARKETING
5. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC MARKTING
AND RETAILING.
6. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONLINE MARKETING (ijom)
7. INDIAN JOURNALS OF MARKETING
WEBSITE
1. WWW.GOOGLE.COM
2. WWW.IOSRJURNALS.ORG
3. WWW.GETITINFOMEDIA.COM
4. WWW.IJRCM.COM
5. WWW.IGI-GLOBAL.COM
107
QUESTIONNAIRE
(1) Gender : □ Male □ Female

(2) Age Group : □ Less than 25 □ 26 – 35 □ 36 – 45 □ 46 – 55 □ Above 55
(3) Qualification : □ Less 10th □ 10th/12th □ Diploma/ITI □ Graduate □ Post
Graduate
□ Others (please specify)
(4) Monthly Income : □ Below Rs.25000 □ Rs.25000 – Rs.50000
□ Rs.51000 – Rs.75000 □ Rs.76000 – Rs.1 lakes □ Above Rs.1 lakes
(5) Profession : □ Salaried □ Professional □ Business □ Retried
(6) State your opinion regarding the following service attributes based on your shopping
experience
Please tick () 5 or 4 or 3 or 2 or 1 against the appropriate box where;

Where, 5= Strongly Agree; 4= Agree; 3= Neutral; 2= Disagree; 1= Strongly Disagree
S.NO Questions 5 4 3 2 1
Tangibility
7.1 The store is very clean and attractive
7.2 Carry bag and net bag in the stores are easily identifiable
7.3 The store as sufficient place to move around to find the product
7.4 Staff members are very easy to identify
7.5 Offers/discounts are displayed clearly and updated regularly
Reliability
7.6 Promised delivery of quality excellence in every purchase
7.7 Staff members are always available in all billing counter
7.8 All Products are available in all seasons
108
Responsiveness
7.9 Customer requests towards products are met out instantly
7.10 Staff members handled customers queries immediately
7.11 Missing of personal belongings by the customers are sort out immediately
7.12 Customers are given individual attention without bias
7.13 Staff members understand customers need
Assurance
7.14 You feel free for exchanging the product
7.15 Promise delivery of service
7.16 Bills are error less
7.17 The product are delivered without any error and damages
Empathy
7.18 Quantities are given as per the customer requirement
7.19 Availability of product packages as per the customer convenience
7.20 Offers are provided for the required products of the customer
7.21 You are allowed to take your own time to shop in the store
(7) Rate your satisfaction level of the following subjective element of Service Quality
Please tick () the appropriate box according to your opinion about this store
Where, 5 = Highly Satisfied; 4 = Satisfied; 3 = Neutral; 2 = Dissatisfied; 1 = Highly
Dissatisfied
SOURCES 5 4 3 2 1
Store Location
Availability of trolley
Loyalty programs (Membership card)
Parking facilities
Brand name
109
Availability of product quantity
Product Varity
Accuracy of billing
Price
Billing speed
Store environment
Quick service
Response to customers
Staff members assistance and guidance
Understand the requirement
Quality
Product Returns and exchanges
Handling customer complaints
Convenient Operating hours
Offers/ discount
(8) Overall, how satisfied you are with the Reliance Fresh?
□ Highly Satisfied □ Satisfied □ Neutral □Dissatisfied □Highly Dissatisfied
(9) I will strongly recommend this store to my friends and relatives?
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree
110
ANNEXURE - I
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. PRINCIPLES OF MARKETING - PHILIP KOTLER & GARY

2. BASIC MARKTING MANAGEMENT - DOUGLAS J. DALRYMPLE
3. QUALITY MANAGEMENT - DAVID M. LEVINE
4. MARKETING MANAGEMENT - RAJAN SAXENA
5. MARKETING MANAGEMENT -S. JAYACHANRDRAN
JOURNAL
1. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

2. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN
COMPUTER APPLICATION & MANAGEMENT
3. JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC COMNERCE RESEARCH
4. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN MARKETING
5. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC MARKTING
AND RETAILING.
6. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONLINE MARKETING (ijom)
7. INDIAN JOURNALS OF MARKETING
WEBSITE
1. WWW.GOOGLE.COM
2. WWW.IOSRJURNALS.ORG
3. WWW.GETITINFOMEDIA.COM
4. WWW.IJRCM.COM
5. WWW.IGI-GLOBAL.COM
ANNEXURE - II
QUESTIONNAIRE
QUESTIONNAIRE
(1) Gender : □ Male □ Female

(2) Age Group : □ Less than 25 □ 26 – 35 □ 36 – 45 □ 46 – 55 □ Above 55
(3) Qualification : □ Less 10th □ 10th/12th □ Diploma/ITI □ Graduate □ Post Graduate
(4) Monthly Income : □ Below Rs.25000 □ Rs.25000 – Rs.50000
□ Rs.51000 – Rs.75000 □ Rs.76000 – Rs.1 lakes □ Above Rs.1 lakes
(5) Profession : □ Salaried □ Professional □ Business □ Retried
(6) State your opinion regarding the following service attributes based on your shopping
experience
Please tick () 5 or 4 or 3 or 2 or 1 against the appropriate box where;

Where, 5= Strongly Agree; 4= Agree; 3= Neutral; 2= Disagree; 1= Strongly Disagree
S.NO Questions 5 4 3 2 1
Tangibility
7.1 The store is very clean and attractive
7.2 Carry bag and net bag in the stores are easily identifiable
7.3 The store as sufficient place to move around to find the product
7.4 Staff members are very easy to identify
7.5 Offers/discounts are displayed clearly and updated regularly
Reliability
7.6 Promised delivery of quality excellence in every purchase
7.7 Staff members are always available in all billing counter
7.8 All Products are available in all seasons
Responsiveness
7.9 Customer requests towards products are met out instantly
7.10 Staff members handled customers queries immediately
7.11 Missing of personal belongings by the customers are sort out immediately
7.12 Customers are given individual attention without bias
7.13 Staff members understand customers need
Assurance
7.14 You feel free for exchanging the product
7.15 Promise delivery of service
7.16 Bills are error less
7.17 The product are delivered without any error and damages
Empathy
7.18 Quantities are given as per the customer requirement
7.19 Availability of product packages as per the customer convenience
7.20 Offers are provided for the required products of the customer
7.21 You are allowed to take your own time to shop in the store
(7) Rate your satisfaction level of the following subjective element of Service Quality
Please tick () the appropriate box according to your opinion about this store
Where, 5 = Highly Satisfied; 4 = Satisfied; 3 = Neutral; 2 = Dissatisfied; 1 = Highly
Dissatisfied
SOURCES 5 4 3 2 1
Store Location
Availability of trolley
Loyalty programs (Membership card)
Parking facilities
Brand name
Availability of product quantity
Product Varity
Accuracy of billing
Price
Billing speed
Store environment
Quick service
Response to customers
Staff members assistance and guidance
Understand the requirement
Quality
Product Returns and exchanges
Handling customer complaints
Convenient Operating hours
Offers/ discount
(8) Overall, how satisfied you are with the Reliance Fresh?
□ Highly Satisfied □ Satisfied □ Neutral □Dissatisfied □Highly Dissatisfied
(9) I will strongly recommend this store to my friends and relatives?
□ Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Neutral □ Disagree □ Strongly Disagree

Brand Management Selvamani

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Brand Management Selvamani

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Brand Management Selvamani

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO.

I INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH DESIGN 1-10

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11-13

III CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE INDUSTRY 14-25

IV DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 26-100

V FINDINGS, SUGGESTION AND CONCLUSION 101-106

ANNEXURE - I BIBLIOGRAPHY 107

ANNEXURE - II QUESTIONNAIRE 107-110

The principles of brand management are important to understand before moving

Brand management principles to consider include:

Brand Management Strategies o More, Be Unique

 Cultivates customer loyalty

 Creates brand awareness and recognition

 Increases pricing and value of product

 Grows sales through loyal customers

Example of brand management :

The following are examples of how companies use brand management:

1.2 INDUSTRY PROFILE

Besides, the board envisions a rebalanced Renault Group-Nissan

Nissan Motor organized in 1934

Nissan's early American connection

1.3 COMPANY PROFILE:

To study on Brand management special refernce towards Nissan private limited

o To identify the factors influencing service quality towards retails outlet.

o To know the purchasing problems and gaps in quality faced by

o To find the influence of the staff members in the service quality.

o To know the satisfaction level of customers towards the store.

MEASURING RETAIL SERVICE QUALITY: A STUDY ON INDIAN

measurable cost with comfortable environment.

A CHRONOLOGICAL STUDY OF SERVICE QUALITY RESEARCH ON

1.5.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH DESIGN

H0 1: There is no significant relationship between gender and tangibility.

1.5.3 SAMPLE SIZE

1.5.4 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES:

1.5.5 DATA ANALYSIS

A. WEIGHTED AVERAGE METHOD

TABLE NO: 4.1

Source: Primary data

CHART NO: 4.1

CHART NO: 4.2

TABLE SHOWING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS BASED ON

TABLE SHOWING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS BASED ON

S.No Annual income No of Respondents Percentage

1 below 25000 22 44%

Source: Primary data

TABLE SHOWING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS BASED ON

S.No Profession No of Respondents Percentage

CHART NO: 4.5

S.No Particulars No of Respondents Percentage

CHART NO: 4.6

S.No Particulars No of Respondents Percentage

CHART NO: 4.7

S.No Particulars No of Respondents Percentage

CHART NO: 4.8

S.No Particulars No of Respondents Percentage

CHART NO: 4.9

CHART NO: 4.10