Comparative analysis of product sales and store preferences

STUDY ON COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
PRODUCT SALES WITH REFERENCE TO
SELECTED STORES: THE CASE OF MORE,
RELIANCE FRESH AND HERITAGE
Submitted as part of 2020 Virtual Internship
A Project Report By:
SAKHA GANGA UMA MAHESWARI (M. Sc., Statistics)
A NEEHARIKA (M. Sc., Statistics)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Objectives 2
Problem Statement 3
Review of Literature
Source (1) 5
Source (2) 5
Source (3) 5
Source (4) 6
4
Limitations 5
Hypotheses Testing 6
Data Collection 7
Data Analysis and Methodology 8
Findings and Suggestions 53
Conclusion 54
Table of Figures 55
References and Bibliography 56

1
INTRODUCTION
Retailing in India is gradually inching its way towards becoming the next boom industry. The
concept and the idea of shopping has undergone an attention drawing changes in terms of
format and consumer buying behaviour, ushering in a revolution in shopping in India.
In Retail marketing, a retailer is a person or a business organization who typically don not
manufacture their own items but purchase goods from a manufacturer or a wholesaler and sell
these goods to customers in small quantities in exchange for money.
The Retail field consists of super markets, department stores, chain stores, franchise stores.
Retail business can include grocery, beverages, drug, dairy products, health and beauty aids,
cleaning products, clothing, necessities, customised gifts, sports and many more. Depending
on the location and the population, the size of these retail stores can vary from a small family
market to a large super market.
Retail Marketing is the process of bringing a product directly to the customers through stores
which involves planning, promotion and presentation of the product. The four golden
standards of retail marketing are product, price, place and promotion (the 4 P’s of Retail
marketing).
Modern retailing has entered into the Retail marketing in India as is observed in the form of
busting shopping centres, multi-storied malls and the huge complexes that offer shopping,
entertainment and food all under one roof.
Retailing is one of the pillar of Indian economy and accounts for about 10 percent of its GDP
and one of he top five retail markets in the world by economic value. India has one of the
fastest growing retail markets in the world, with 1.2 billion people. Indian retail is expected to
grow 25 percent annually. The Food Retail industry in India dominates the shopping basket.
The future of Indian Retail industry looks promising with the growing of the market, with the
government policies becoming more favourable and the emerging technologies facilitating
the operations
A large young working population with median age of 24 years, from nuclear families in
urban areas, along with increasing working women population and emerging opportunities in
the service sector are going to be the key factors in the growth of retail sector in India. It
provides around 8 percent of the employment in the Indian economy. The growth pattern in
retailing and in the consumption made by the Indian population will follow a raising graph
helping the newer business to enter the Indian Retail Industry.
Indian retailers need to take the advantage of the growth and aiming to grow, diversify and
introduce new formats of how to pay more attention to the brand building process. The
emphasis here is on retail rather than retailers selling brands. In the preparation to face fierce
competitive pressure, Indian retailers must come to recognize the value of building their own
stores as brands to reinforce their marketing positioning, to communicate quality as well as
value for money. Sustainable competitive advantage will be dependent on translating core
values combining products, images and reputation into a coherent retail brand strategy.
Here our goals is to see what kind of the retail store is mostly preferred by the people in
relation to a particular state of India i.e., Andhra Pradesh.

2
OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of the study are:
1. To analyse the factors affecting the preferences of a retail outlet by a consumer.
2. To know the awareness of the consumers towards the Modern Retailing.
3. To understand the performance of different Retail stores (i.e., Heritage, More and
Reliance Fresh) in Andhra Pradesh.
4. To know about the loyal consumers in different retail stores.
5. To understand the customers satisfaction level about different facilities offered by
Retail stores.

3
PROBLEM STATEMENT
For a Retailer it is very difficult to retain the potential buyer, because the consumers are
scattered at a large according to their convenience of purchase. In order to keep possession of
their sales, the retailer has to face stiff competition in the Retail Industry, due to the limitation
of the resources. The researcher has made an attempt to know about the consumers level of
satisfaction about how do they feel about different facilities offered at Retail stores in Andhra
Pradesh, their preferences of stores and the demographic variables that affect it.

4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Aniali Panda (2013):
Retailing in India is going through an evolutionary stage and is one of the largest sectors in
the global economy, the current estimated value of the Indian retail sector is about 500 billion
USD and expected to reach 1.3 trillion USD by 2020. Indian is termed as the nation of
shopkeepers with about 15 million retail outlets of all kinds, but it is dominated by small
neighbourhood grocery stores termed as Kirana stores. Food and Grocery constitute the major
portion of Indian household consumptions. The understanding of the patronage behaviour
helps the modern retailers to focus and strengthen the elements of the retail offerings which is
more valued by customers. An important factor which can lead to increased patronage at the
modern retailers is customer relationship management activities like loyalty, bonus or
discounts, special customer cards, free parking facility and so on.
Anil Kumar, Piyali Ghosh and Vibhuti Tripath (2010):
The phenomenal growth of retail in India is reflected in the rapid increase in number of
supermarkets, departmental stores and hypermarkets in the country. However, this
unprecented growth trend has been challenged by the shadow of the current economic
slowdown, which has raised a fear of dip in consumption and slowdown of growth for Indian
organized retailers. Success will lie with those retailers that can drive customer loyalty by
responding to the demands of the discerning consumer. The factors identified are store
atmosphere and services. Retailers n designing their outlets with store attributes that would
meet the expectations of the shopper and thus motivate them towards store patronage
decisions.
Kusuma.B, Durga Prasad and Srinivasa Rao.M (2013):
Retail is the sale of goods to end users, not for resale, but for use and consumption by the
purchaser. India is becoming most favoured retail destination in the world. Today retail sector
contributing 10% to country’s GDP. The change of attitudes of Indian consumers and the
emergence of organized retail formats have transformed the face of retailing in India.
Retailing provides an important link between producer and consumer in modern economy.
Retail in India is most dynamic industry and represents a huge opportunity for domestic and
international retailers. The growth of modern formats has been much slower in India as
compared to other countries and the development of this sector depends on the presence of
regulatory and structural constraints.
Shashikala.R and Ashwini Gangatkar.J (2015):
Indian retail landscape has undergone significant transformation over last few decades where
shift towards organized retailing is the major one. Particularly, food and grocery retailing, the
largest chunk of the market is witnessing the shift with sudden growth of supermarkets and
hypermarkets.
Supermarkets offering comfortable shopping experience with wide variety of brands and
products are driving the consumers away from traditional retailers. Traditional provision
stores though, felt threatened initially to have managed not only to survive but have gone
stronger. No doubt, supermarkets are luring consumers through their discounts and
promotional deals, product assortments and air-conditioned shopping experience. Therefore,
it is the time for provision stores to redefine themselves and re-establish in the mind of
consumers to survive and grow in the long run.

5
LIMITATION OR SCOPE OF THE STUDY
1. The scope of this study is limited to collecting the data from the respondents by
questionnaires within Andhra Pradesh State
2. There might be some bias included in the data collected.
3. Due to the paucity of time, the study is conducted only on consumers and not covered
the retailers and the problems faced by them.

6
HYPOTHESES TESTING
Test Variables Null Hypothesis Alternative hypothesis
Cross Tabs Locality,
Store Preferences
There is no association
between the location of the
respondents and their Store
preferences.
There is an association
between the location of the
respondents and their Store
preferences.
Cross Tabs Purpose of
purchase,
Rank of the store
Heritage
The rank of the Heritage does
not depend upon the Purpose
of purchase of the respondents.
The rank of the Heritage
depends upon the Purpose of
purchase of the respondents.
purchase,
Rank of the store
More
The rank of the More does not
depend upon the Purpose of
The rank of the More depends
upon the Purpose of purchase
of the respondents.
purchase,
Rank of the store
Reliance Fresh
The rank of the Reliance Fresh
does not depend upon the
Purpose of purchase of the
respondents.
The rank of the Reliance
depends upon the Purpose of
Cross Tabs Accessibility,
Purpose of
purchase
between Accessibility and
Purpose of purchase.
between Accessibility and
Purpose of purchase.
Cross Tabs Price,
Quality
between Price and Quality.
between Price and Quality.
ANOVA Price,
Quality,
Rank of Heritage
There is no significant
difference between Price and
Rank of Heritage stores
difference between Quality and
There is a significant
difference between Quality
and Rank of Heritage stores
ANOVA Price,
Quality,
Rank of More
Rank of More stores
Rank of More stores
Rank of More stores
and Rank of More stores
ANOVA Price,
Quality,
Rank of Reliance
Fresh
Rank of Reliance Fresh stores
and Rank of Reliance Fresh
stores
Chi-square
Goodness of
Fit
Income Level
Store Preference
difference between the Level
of Income and Store
preference.
difference between the Level
of Income and Store
preference.

7
DATA COLLECTION
Research Instrument:
Questionnaire – A questionnaire is a research instrument consisting of a series of questions
for the purpose of gathering information from respondents. The work is carried on through
self-administered questions and the questions included were close-ended. These
questionnaires are sent through social media via Google forms.
Sample Size(106):
Samples are the devices for learning about large masses by observing a few individuals. The
data collected her are only primary data which is tabulated and presented from prior to
interpretation. The sample of 3 stores are taken on the basis of convenience.
Variables:
Variables in the data set includes
Variable Meaning
gender Gender of the respondent
age Age of the respondent
loc Location of the respondent
incomepm Income per month of the respondent
storeprefer Most preferred store by the respondent
price Satisfaction level of the respondent for the price offered at stores
freshness Satisfaction level of the respondent for the freshness of the goods at stores
quality Satisfaction level of the respondent with the quality of goods available at
stores
packing Satisfaction level of the respondent about the packing of goods at store
tidiness Satisfaction level of the respondent about the cleanliness at stores
storetimings Satisfaction level of the respondent about the store timings
empbehaviour Satisfaction level of the respondent about the employees behaviour at stores
accessability Satisfaction level of the respondent about the accessability of stores
ambience Satisfaction level of the respondent about the ambience of stores
parking Satisfaction level of the respondent about the parking facility available near
the store
offersdiscounts Satisfaction level of the respondent about offers and discounts given in the
stores
customer Respondent’s brand loyalty towards stores (in years)
frequency Respondent’s frequency of visiting the stores
membership Seeking whether the respondent avail any membership cards from the stores
goodsdelivery Respondent’s way of shopping goods
purpose Respondent’s purpose of purchase
heritagerank Respondent’s rank given to the store Heritage with a comparision of More
and Reliance Fresh
morerank Respondent’s rank given to the store More with a comparision of Heritage
and Reliance Fresh
reliancerank Respondent’s rank given to the store Reliance Fresh with a comparision of
More and Heritage

8
DATA ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY
Data is analysed on the basis of suitable tables by using a statistical tool called SPSS.
To analyse and interpret the collected data, the researcher has used the tools like percentage,
cross tabs, ANOVA and Chi-square test of Independence and goodness of fit.
A five point Likert scale has been used to measure the level of satisfaction by customers
about the stores and Chi-square test has been applied to test the significant difference in the
level of satisfaction.
GENDER WISE CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
TABLE 1: Frequency Table for Gender wise classification of the Respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 40 37.7 37.7 37.7
Female 66 62.3 62.3 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 1: Pie Chart for the Gender of the Respondents
Interpretation: Table 1 and Figure 1 shows that 62.26% of the respondents are of Female
gender out of 106 respondents of sample data collected. Where, the remaining 37.74% of the
respondents are Male.

9
AGE WISE CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
TABLE 2: Frequency Table for Age wise classification of the Respondents
Valid Below 20 years 5 4.7 4.7 4.7
21-30 years 63 59.4 59.4 64.2
31-40 years 19 17.9 17.9 82.1
41-50 years 12 11.3 11.3 93.4
Above 50 years 7 6.6 6.6 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 2: Pie Chart for Age of the Respondents
Interpretation: Table 2 and Figure 2 shows that the highest percentage of respondents are of
between the age group 21-30 years with 59.43% out of 106 respondents of sample data
collected. Where, the lowest is 4.72% who are of the age group below 20 years.

10
LOCATION WISE CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
TABLE 3: Frequency Table for Location wise classification of the Respondents
Valid Ananthapur 3 2.8 2.8 2.8
Chittoor 27 25.5 25.5 28.3
East Godavari 20 18.9 18.9 47.2
Guntur 7 6.6 6.6 53.8
YSR Kadapa 5 4.7 4.7 58.5
Krishna 2 1.9 1.9 60.4
Kurnool 11 10.4 10.4 70.8
Nellore 11 10.4 10.4 81.1
Prakasam 8 7.5 7.5 88.7
Srikakulam 1 .9 .9 89.6
Visakapatanam 1 .9 .9 90.6
Vizianagaram 1 .9 .9 91.5
West Godavari 9 8.5 8.5 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 3: Bar Chart for the Location of the Respondents
Interpretation: Table 3 and Figure 3 shows that 25.47% of the respondents are from
Chittooor district while only 2.82% of the respondents from each district of Srikakulam,
Visakapatanam and Vizianagaram respectively divided equally.

11
INCOME PROFILE OF THE RESPODENTS BASED ON THEIR MONTHLY
INCOME
TABLE 4: Frequency Table for Income profile of the Respondents based on their
monthly income
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Less than
Rs.15000
33 31.1 31.1 31.1
Rs.15001 -
Rs.30000
23 21.7 21.7 52.8
Rs.30001 -
Rs.45000
27 25.5 25.5 78.3
Greater than
Rs,45000
23 21.7 21.7 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 4: Bar Chart for the Income level of the Respondents
Interpretation: Table 4 and Figure 4 shows that 31.13% of the respondents are earning an
Income below Rs.15000 per month while 21.70% of the respondents are having an Income
above Rs.45000 per month.

12
STORE PREFERENCE OF THE RESPONDENTS
TABLE 5: Frequency Table for Store preferences of the Respondents
Valid Heritage 32 30.2 30.2 30.2
More 35 33.0 33.0 63.2
Reliance Fresh 39 36.8 36.8 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 5: Pie Chart for Store Preferences of the Respondents
Interpretation: Table 5 and Figure 5 shows that 36.79% of the respondents prefer Reliance
Fresh, 33.02% prefer More and 30.19% prefer Heritage. Here, we can see that the higher
number of respondents preferred Reliance Fresh when compared to More and Heritage.

13
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE PRICES OFFERED
AT STORES
TABLE 6: Frequency Table for the Satisfaction level of the respondents with the prices
offered at stores
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very
Dissatisfied
2 1.9 1.9 1.9
Dissatisfied 1 .9 .9 2.8
Neutral 23 21.7 21.7 24.5
Satisfied 72 67.9 67.9 92.5
Very Satisfied 8 7.5 7.5 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 6: Bar Chart for Satisfaction level of the Respondents with the prices offered at stores
Interpretation: Table 6 and Figure 6 shows that 67.92% of the respondents are satisfied with
the Prices offered at stores while 0.94%(1) of the respondent(s) are dissatisfied.

14
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE FRESHNESS OF
THE GOODS AVAILABLE AT STORES
TABLE 7: Frequency Table for the Satisfaction level of the Respondents with the
Freshness of the goods available at stores
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very
Dissatisfied
2 1.9 1.9 1.9
Neutral 28 26.4 26.4 29.2
Satisfied 48 45.3 45.3 74.5
Very Satisfied 27 25.5 25.5 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 7: Bar Chart for Satisfaction level of the Respondents with the Freshness of the goods available at stores
the Freshness of the goods available at stores while 0.94%(1) of the respondent(s) are
dissatisfied.

15
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE QUALITY OF
GOODS AT STORES
TABLE 8: Frequency Table for the Satisfaction Level of the Respondents with the
Quality of the goods at stores
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very
Dissatisfied
1 .9 .9 .9
Neutral 23 21.7 21.7 22.6
Satisfied 48 45.3 45.3 67.9
Very Satisfied 34 32.1 32.1 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 8: Bar Chart for Satisfaction Level of the Respondents with the Quality of the goods at stores
the Quality of goods at stores while 0.94%(1) of the respondent(s) are very dissatisfied.

16
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE PACKING OF
GOODS PROVIDED AT STORES
Packing of the goods provided at stores
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very
Dissatisfied
1 .9 .9 .9
Dissatisfied 3 2.8 2.8 3.8
Neutral 27 25.5 25.5 29.2
Satisfied 62 58.5 58.5 87.7
Very Satisfied 13 12.3 12.3 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 9: Bar Chart for Satisfaction level of the Respondents with the Packing of the goods provided at stores
the Packing of goods provided at stores while 0.94%(1) respondent(s) are very dissatisfied.

17
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE TIDINESS OF THE
STORES
Tidiness of the stores
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very
Dissatisfied
2 1.9 1.9 1.9
Neutral 38 35.8 35.8 38.7
Satisfied 55 51.9 51.9 90.6
Very Satisfied 10 9.4 9.4 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 10: Bar Charts for Satisfaction Level of the Respondents with the Tidiness of the stores
Interpretation: Table 10 and Figure 10 shows that 51.89% of the respondents are satisfied
with the Tidiness of the stores while 0.94%(1) of the respondent(s) are dissatisfied.

18
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH STORE TIMINGS
TABLE 11: Frequency Table for the Satisfaction level for the Respondents with Store
Timings
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very
Dissatisfied
1 .9 .9 .9
Neutral 31 29.2 29.2 34.0
Satisfied 55 51.9 51.9 85.8
Very Satisfied 15 14.2 14.2 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 11: Bar Chart for Satisfaction level for the Respondents with Store Timings
with the Store timings while 0.98%(1) of the respondent(s) are very dissatisfied.

19
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE EMPLOYEE
BEHAVIOUR AT STORES
Employee Behaviour at stores
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very
Dissatisfied
1 .9 .9 .9
Neutral 32 30.2 30.2 33.0
Satisfied 57 53.8 53.8 86.8
Very Satisfied 14 13.2 13.2 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 12: Bar Chart for Satisfaction level of the Respondents with the Employee Behaviour at stores
with the Employees behaviour at stores while 0.94%(1) of the respondents are very
dissatisfied.

20
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE ACCESSABILITY
OF STORES
Accessibility of the stores
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very
Dissatisfied
1 .9 .9 .9
Neutral 34 32.1 32.1 35.8
Satisfied 55 51.9 51.9 87.7
Very Satisfied 13 12.3 12.3 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 13: Bar Chart for Satisfaction level of the Respondents with the Accessibility of the stores
with the accessability of the stores, while 0.94%(1) of the respondent(s) are very dissatisfied.

21
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE AMBIENCE OF
THE STORES
Ambience of the stores
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very
Dissatisfied
1 .9 .9 .9
Neutral 41 38.7 38.7 41.5
Satisfied 50 47.2 47.2 88.7
Very Satisfied 12 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 14: Bar Chart for Satisfaction level of the Respondents with the Ambience of the stores
with the Ambience of stores while 0.94%(1) respondent(s) are very dissatisfied.

22
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE PARKING
FACILITY AVAILABLE NEAR STORES
TABLE 15: Frequency table for the Satisfaction level of the Respondents with the
Parking Facility available near stores
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very
Dissatisfied
3 2.8 2.8 2.8
Neutral 30 28.3 28.3 36.8
Satisfied 49 46.2 46.2 83.0
Very Satisfied 18 17.0 17.0 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 15: Bar Chart for Satisfaction level of the Respondents with the Parking Facility available near stores
with the parking facility available near stores while 2.83% of the respondents are very
dissatisfied.

23
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE OFFERS AND
DISCOUNTS GIVEN BY STORES
TABLE 16: Frequency Table for the Satisfaction Level of the Respondents with the
offers and discounts given by stores
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Very
Dissatisfied
2 1.9 1.9 1.9
Neutral 28 26.4 26.4 33.0
Satisfied 57 53.8 53.8 86.8
Very Satisfied 14 13.2 13.2 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 16: Bar Chart for Satisfaction Level of the Respondents with the offers and discounts given by stores
with the offers and discounts provided by stores, while 1.89% of the respondents are very
dissatisfied.

24
RESPONDENTS TOWARDS BRAND LOYALTY
TABLE 17: Frequency Table for Respondents towards Brand Loyalty
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid For the past 6
months
24 22.6 22.6 22.6
6 months to 1 year 18 17.0 17.0 39.6
1-2 years 23 21.7 21.7 61.3
More than 2 years 41 38.7 38.7 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 17: Bar Chart for Respondents towards Brand Loyalty
Interpretation: Table 17 and Figure 17 shows that 38.68% of respondents are regular
customers for more than2 years to their preferred stores while 16.98% respondents are
customers to their preferred stores for the past 6 months. Here, we can see that most of the
respondents are loyal to their preferred stores.

25
FREQUENCY OF VISITING THE STORES BY THE RESPONDENTS
TABLE 18: Frequency Table for the Frequency of visiting the stores by the
Respondents
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Daily 12 11.3 11.3 11.3
Biweekly 9 8.5 8.5 19.8
Weekly 28 26.4 26.4 46.2
Monthly 56 52.8 52.8 99.1
Only when we
need
1 .9 .9 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 18: Bar Chart for Frequency of visiting the stores by the Respondents
Interpretation: Table 18 and Figure 18 shows that 52.83% of respondents visit their
preferred stores monthly while 0.94% respondents visit their preferred stores only when they
need to buy the goods.

26
RESPONDENTS HAVING MEMBERSHIP AT THEIR PREFERRED STORES
TABLE 19: Frequency Table of Respondents having Membership at their preferred
stores
Valid No 69 65.1 65.1 65.1
Yes 37 34.9 34.9 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 19: Bar Chart of Respondents having Membership at their preferred stores
Interpretation: table 19 and Figure 19 shows that 34.91% of respondents avail memberships
from their preferred stores whereas the remaining 65.09% do not have any memberships.
Membership

27
DELIVERY PREFERENCES OF THE RESPONDENTS FROM STORES
TABLE 20: Frequency Table for the Delivery preferences of the Respondents from
stores
Valid Home delivery 18 17.0 17.0 17.0
Online delivery 19 17.9 17.9 34.9
Pickup at store 69 65.1 65.1 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 20: Pie Chart for the Delivery preferences of the Respondents from stores
Interpretation: Table 20 and Figure 20 shows that 65.09% of respondents would like to buy
goods directly from the stores while 16.98% of respondents would prefer home delivery from
stores.
Deliver Preferences

28
PURPOSE OF PURCHASE FROM THE STORES BY RESPONDENTS
TABLE 21: Frequency Table for the Purpose of Purchase from the stores by the
Respondents
Valid Personal 10 9.4 9.4 9.4
Business 96 90.6 90.6 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 21: Bar Chart for Purpose of Purchase from the stores by the Respondents
Interpretation: Table 21 and Figure 21 shows that 90.57% of respondents would like to buy
the goods for their personal use while 9.43% of respondents for their business purposes.

29
RESPONDENTS RANK PREFERENCE FOR THE RETAIL STORE – HERITAGE
TABLE 22: Frequency Table for Respondents Rank Preference For The Retail Store –
Heritage
Valid 1 34 32.1 32.1 32.1
2 30 28.3 28.3 60.4
3 42 39.6 39.6 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 22: Bar Chart for Respondents Rank Preference For The Retail Store – Heritage
Interpretation: Table 22 and Figure 22 shows that 32.08%(34) of the respondents rank
Heritage as their first preference, 28.30%(30) of the respondents as their second preference
and 39.62%(42) as their last preference when compared to Reliance and More.

30
RESPONDENTS RANK PREFERENCE FOR THE RETAIL STORE – MORE
More
Valid 1 21 19.8 19.8 19.8
2 49 46.2 46.2 66.0
3 36 34.0 34.0 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 23: Bar Chart for Respondents Rank Preference For The Retail Store – More
Interpretation: Table 23 and Figure 23 shows that 19.81%(21) of the respondents rank More
as their first preference, 46.23%(49) of the respondents as their second preference and
33.96%(36) as their last preference when compared to Heritage and Reliance.

31
RESPONDENTS RANK PREFERENCE FOR THE RETAIL STORE – RELIANCE
FRESH
Reliance Fresh
Valid 1 51 48.1 48.1 48.1
2 28 26.4 26.4 74.5
3 27 25.5 25.5 100.0
Total 106 100.0 100.0
Figure 24: Bar Chart for Respondents Rank Preference For The Retail Store – Reliance Fresh
Interpretation: Table 24 and Figure 24 shows that 48.11%(51) of the respondents rank
Reliance as their first preference, 26.42%(28) of the respondents as their second preference
and 25.47%(27) as their last preference when compared to Heritage and More.

32
CROSS TABS FOR LOCALITY AND STORE PREFERENCE OF THE
RESPONDENTS
TABLE 25: Case Processing Summary for the test Cross Tabs For Locality And Store
Preference Of The Respondents
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
loc * storeprefer 106 100.0% 0 0.0% 106 100.0%
TABLE 26: loc * storeprefer Crosstabulation
storeprefer
TotalHeritage More Reliance Fresh
loc Ananthapur Count 1 2 0 3
Expected Count .9 1.0 1.1 3.0
Chittoor Count 12 4 11 27
Expected Count 8.2 8.9 9.9 27.0
East Godavari Count 8 6 6 20
Guntur Count 1 4 2 7
YSR Kadapa Count 1 2 2 5
Krishna Count 2 0 0 2
Expected Count .6 .7 .7 2.0
Kurnool Count 3 5 3 11
Nellore Count 2 4 5 11
Prakasam Count 0 4 4 8
Srikakulam Count 0 0 1 1
Visakapatanam Count 0 1 0 1
Vizianagaram Count 0 0 1 1
West Godavari Count 2 3 4 9
Total Count 32 35 39 106
Expected Count 32.0 35.0 39.0 106.0

33
TABLE 27: Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 25.456a 24 .381
Likelihood Ratio 29.954 24 .186
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.842 1 .050
N of Valid Cases 106
a. 33 cells (84.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .30.
Interpretation:
Here, the Asymptotic significance value obtained is 0.381 which is greater than 0.05. So, we
accept Null hypothesis and reject Alternative hypothesis.
Therefore, there is no association between the location of the respondents and their Store
preferences.

34
CROSS TABS FOR RANK OF THE STORES AND THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE
TABLE 28: Case Processing Summary of Cross Tabs For Rank Of The Stores And The
Purpose Of Purchase
Cases
Valid Missing Total
heritagerank * purpose 106 100.0% 0 0.0% 106 100.0%
morerank * purpose 106 100.0% 0 0.0% 106 100.0%
reliancerank * purpose 106 100.0% 0 0.0% 106 100.0%
CROSS TABS FOR RANK OF THE STORE (HERITAGE) AND PURPOSE OF
PURCHASE
TABLE 29: heritagerank * purpose Crosstab
purpose
TotalPersonal Business
heritagerank 1 Count 1 33 34
Expected Count 3.2 30.8 34.0
2 Count 5 25 30
3 Count 4 38 42
Total Count 10 96 106
Value Df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Linear-by-Linear Association .775 1 .379
a. 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.83.
Interpretation:
Therefore, the rank of the Heritage does not depend upon the Purpose of purchase of the
respondents.

35
CROSS TABS FOR RANK OF THE STORE (MORE) AND PURPOSE OF
PURCHASE
TABLE 31: morerank * purpose Crosstab
purpose
morerank 1 Count 4 17 21
2 Count 3 46 49
3 Count 3 33 36
Interpretation:
Therefore, the rank of the More does not depend upon the Purpose of purchase of the
respondents.

36
CROSS TABS FOR RANK OF THE STORE (RELIANCE FRESH) AND PURPOSE
OF PURCHASE
TABLE 33: reliancerank * purpose Crosstab
purpose
reliancerank 1 Count 5 46 51
2 Count 2 26 28
3 Count 3 24 27
Pearson Chi-Square .269a 2 .874
Likelihood Ratio .279 2 .870
Linear-by-Linear Association .011 1 .916
Interpretation:
Therefore, the rank of the Reliance Fresh does not depend upon the Purpose of purchase of
the respondents.

37
CROSS TABS FOR ACCESSABILITY AND PURPOSE OF PURCHASE
TABLE 35: Case Processing Summary of Cross Tabs For Accessability And Purpose Of
Purchase
Cases
Valid Missing Total
accessibility * purpose 106 100.0% 0 0.0% 106 100.0%
TABLE 36: accessibility * purpose Crosstabulation
purpose
accessibility Very Dissatisfied Count 0 1 1
Expected Count .1 .9 1.0
Dissatisfied Count 1 2 3
Expected Count .3 2.7 3.0
Neutral Count 4 30 34
Satisfied Count 5 50 55
Very Satisfied Count 0 13 13
Inerpretation:
Therefore, here is no association between Accessability and Purpose of purchase.

38
CROSS TABS FOR PRICE AND QUANTITY
TABLE 38: Case Processing Summary for Cross Tabs For Price And Quantity
Cases
Valid Missing Total
price * quality 106 100.0% 0 0.0% 106 100.0%
TABLE 39: price * quality Crosstabulation
quality
Total
Very
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
price Very
Dissatisfied
Count 1 1 0 0 2
Expected
Count
.0 .4 .9 .6 2.0
Dissatisfied Count 0 1 0 0 1
Expected
Count
.0 .2 .5 .3 1.0
Neutral Count 0 10 7 6 23
Expected
Count
.2 5.0 10.4 7.4 23.0
Satisfied Count 0 11 40 21 72
Expected
Count
.7 15.6 32.6 23.1 72.0
Very Satisfied Count 0 0 1 7 8
Expected
Count
.1 1.7 3.6 2.6 8.0
Total Count 1 23 48 34 106
Expected
Count
1.0 23.0 48.0 34.0 106.0

39
Figure 25: Bar Chart between Price and Quality
Interpretation:
Here, the Asymptotic significance value obtained is 0.0001 which is less than 0.05. So, we
reject Null hypothesis and accept Alternative hypothesis.
Therefore, there is an association between Price and Quality.

40
ONE-WAY ANOVA FOR PRICE, QUANTITY AND RANK
ANOVA FOR PRICE, QUALITY AND HERITAGE RANK
TABLE 41: Descriptives for Anova For Price, Quality And Heritage Rank
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
quality 1 34 4.38 .652 .112 4.15 4.61 3 5
2 30 4.03 .765 .140 3.75 4.32 3 5
3 42 3.86 .843 .130 3.59 4.12 1 5
Total 106 4.08 .789 .077 3.92 4.23 1 5
price 1 34 3.88 .537 .092 3.69 4.07 3 5
2 30 3.70 .651 .119 3.46 3.94 2 5
3 42 3.76 .790 .122 3.52 4.01 1 5
Total 106 3.78 .676 .066 3.65 3.91 1 5
TABLE 42: ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
quality Between Groups 5.257 2 2.629 4.502 .013
Within Groups 60.139 103 .584
Total 65.396 105
price Between Groups .561 2 .280 .609 .546
Total 48.009 105
Post Hoc Tests
TABLE 43: Multiple Comparisons
Tukey HSD
Dependent
Variable
(I)
heritagerank
(J)
heritagerank
Mean
Difference (I-
J)
Std.
Error Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Quality 1 2 .349 .191 .167 -.11 .80
3 .525* .176 .010 .11 .94
2 1 -.349 .191 .167 -.80 .11
3 .176 .183 .601 -.26 .61
3 1 -.525* .176 .010 -.94 -.11
2 -.176 .183 .601 -.61 .26
Price 1 2 .182 .170 .533 -.22 .59
3 .120 .157 .723 -.25 .49
2 1 -.182 .170 .533 -.59 .22
3 -.062 .162 .923 -.45 .32
3 1 -.120 .157 .723 -.49 .25
2 .062 .162 .923 -.32 .45
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

41
Homogeneous Subsets
TABLE 44: quality
Tukey HSDa,b
heritagerank N
Subset for alpha = 0.05
1 2
3 42 3.86
2 30 4.03 4.03
1 34 4.38
Sig. .604 .143
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 34.660.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
TABLE 45: price
Tukey HSDa,b
heritagerank N
1
2 30 3.70
3 42 3.76
1 34 3.88
Sig. .505
Interpretation:
Here, for Price variable we obtain F value as 0.609 and significance is 0.549 which is greater
than 0.05. Hence, we accept null hypothesis and reject alternative hypothesis.And for Quality
variable we obtain F value as 4.502 and significance is 0.013 which is lesser than 0.05.
Hence, we reject null hypothesis and accept alternative hypothesis.
Therefore, There is no significant difference between Price and rank of Heritage
And There is a significant difference between Quality and rank of Heritage

42
ANOVA FOR PRICE, QUALITY AND MORE RANK
TABLE 46: Descriptives for Anova For Price, Quality And More Rank
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
quality 1 21 3.81 .750 .164 3.47 4.15 3 5
2 49 4.14 .866 .124 3.89 4.39 1 5
3 36 4.14 .683 .114 3.91 4.37 3 5
Total 106 4.08 .789 .077 3.92 4.23 1 5
price 1 21 3.81 .602 .131 3.54 4.08 3 5
2 49 3.80 .763 .109 3.58 4.02 1 5
3 36 3.75 .604 .101 3.55 3.95 2 5
Total 106 3.78 .676 .066 3.65 3.91 1 5
TABLE 46: ANOVA
quality Between Groups 1.853 2 .926 1.501 .228
Total 65.396 105
Total 48.009 105
Post Hoc Tests
Tukey HSD
Dependent
Variable
(I)
morerank
(J)
morerank
Mean
Difference (I-
J)
Std.
Error Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
quality 1 2 -.333 .205 .239 -.82 .15
3 -.329 .216 .283 -.84 .18
2 1 .333 .205 .239 -.15 .82
3 .004 .172 1.000 -.41 .41
3 1 .329 .216 .283 -.18 .84
2 -.004 .172 1.000 -.41 .41
price 1 2 .014 .178 .997 -.41 .44
3 .060 .187 .946 -.39 .51
2 1 -.014 .178 .997 -.44 .41
3 .046 .150 .950 -.31 .40
3 1 -.060 .187 .946 -.51 .39
2 -.046 .150 .950 -.40 .31

43
Homogeneous Subsets
TABLE 48: quality
Tukey HSDa,b
morerank N
1
1 21 3.81
3 36 4.14
2 49 4.14
Sig. .218
TABLE 49: price
Tukey HSDa,b
morerank N
1
3 36 3.75
2 49 3.80
1 21 3.81
Sig. .936
Interpretation:
than 0.05. Hence, we accept null hypothesis and reject alternative hypothesis.And for
Quality variable we obtain F value as 1.501 and significance is 0.228 which is greater than
0.05. Hence, we accept null hypothesis and reject alternative hypothesis.
Therefore, There is no significant difference between Price and rank of More
and There is no significant difference between Quality and rank of More

44
ANOVA FOR PRICE, QUALITY AND RELIANCE FRESH RANK
TABLE 50: Descriptives for Anova For Price, Quality And Reliance Fresh Rank
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
quality 1 51 3.98 .836 .117 3.75 4.22 1 5
2 28 4.00 .667 .126 3.74 4.26 3 5
3 27 4.33 .784 .151 4.02 4.64 3 5
Total 106 4.08 .789 .077 3.92 4.23 1 5
price 1 51 3.71 .782 .110 3.49 3.93 1 5
2 28 3.86 .525 .099 3.65 4.06 3 5
3 27 3.85 .602 .116 3.61 4.09 3 5
Total 106 3.78 .676 .066 3.65 3.91 1 5
TABLE 51: ANOVA
quality Between Groups 2.416 2 1.208 1.975 .144
Total 65.396 105
Total 48.009 105
Post Hoc Tests
Tukey HSD
Dependent
Variable
(I)
reliancerank
(J)
reliancerank
Mean
Difference (I-
J)
Std.
Error Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
quality 1 2 -.020 .184 .994 -.46 .42
3 -.353 .186 .145 -.80 .09
2 1 .020 .184 .994 -.42 .46
3 -.333 .211 .259 -.83 .17
3 1 .353 .186 .145 -.09 .80
2 .333 .211 .259 -.17 .83
price 1 2 -.151 .160 .611 -.53 .23
3 -.146 .161 .639 -.53 .24
2 1 .151 .160 .611 -.23 .53
3 .005 .183 1.000 -.43 .44
3 1 .146 .161 .639 -.24 .53
2 -.005 .183 1.000 -.44 .43

45
Homogeneous Subsets
TABLE 53: quality
Tukey HSDa,b
reliancerank N
1
1 51 3.98
2 28 4.00
3 27 4.33
Sig. .168
TABLE 54: price
Tukey HSDa,b
reliancerank N
1
1 51 3.71
3 27 3.85
2 28 3.86
Sig. .643
Interpretation:
than 0.05. Hence, we accept null hypothesis and reject alternative hypothesis. And for
Quality variable we obtain F value as 1.975 and significance is 0.144 which is greater than
0.05. Hence, we accept null hypothesis and reject alternative hypothesis.
Therefore, There is no significant difference between Price and rank of Reliance
and There is no significant difference between Quality and rank of Reliance

46
CHI-SQUARE GOODNESS OF FIT FOR INCOME LEVEL AND STORE
PREFERENCE
TABLE 55: Descriptive Statistics for Chi-Square Goodness Of Fit For Income Level And
Store Preference
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
which store would you like
to prefere most
106 2.07 .820 1 3
Chi-Square Test
TABLE 56: Frequencies for which store would you like to prefer most
Observed N Expected N Residual
1 32 35.3 -3.3
2 35 35.3 -.3
3 39 35.3 3.7
Total 106
TABLE 57: Test Statistics
which store would you like to prefere most
Chi-Square .698a
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .705
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell
frequency is 35.3.
Interpretation:
Here, the p-value(0.705) is greater than 0.05, therefore we accept null hypothesis and reject
alternative hypothesis.
There is no significant difference between the level of income and store preference.

47
CHI SQUARE TEST OF INDEPENDENCE FOR STORE TIMINGS AND
FREQUENCY OF VISITING THE STORE
TABLE 58: Case Processing Summary for Chi Square Test Of Independence For Store
Timings And Frequency Of Visiting The Store
Cases
Valid Missing Total
frequency * storetimings 106 100.0% 0 0.0% 106 100.0%
TABLE 59:frequency * storetimings Crosstabulation
storetimings
Total
Very
Dissatisfie
d
Dissatisfie
d
Neutra
l
Satisfie
d
Very
Satisfie
d
frequenc
y
Daily Count 0 0 5 3 4 12
Expecte
d Count
.1 .5 3.5 6.2 1.7 12.0
Biweekl
y
Count 0 1 1 4 3 9
Expecte
d Count
.1 .3 2.6 4.7 1.3 9.0
Weekly Count 0 1 9 15 3 28
Expecte
d Count
.3 1.1 8.2 14.5 4.0 28.0
Monthly Count 1 2 16 32 5 56
Expecte
d Count
.5 2.1 16.4 29.1 7.9 56.0
Only
when we
need
Count 0 0 0 1 0 1
Expecte
d Count
.0 .0 .3 .5 .1 1.0
Total Count 1 4 31 55 15 106
Expecte
d Count
1.0 4.0 31.0 55.0 15.0 106.
0

48
Figure 26: Bar Chart between Store timings and Frequency of visit
Interpretation:
32 respondents of the sample data collected are satisfied with the store timings who visit the
store monthly.
A very few respondents are dissatisified with the store timings rather regarding the frequency
of visiting the store by the customers.

49
CHI SQUARE TEST OF INDEPENDENCE FOR PRICE AND BRAND LOYALTY
TABLE 60: Case Processing Summary for Chi Square Test Of Independence For
Price And Brand Loyalty
Cases
Valid Missing Total
price * customer 106 100.0% 0 0.0% 106 100.0%
TABLE 61: price * customer Crosstabulation
customer
Total
For the past 6
months
6 months to
1 year
1-2
years
More than
2 years
price Very
Dissatisfied
Count 1 0 0 1 2
Expected
Count
.5 .3 .4 .8 2.0
Dissatisfied Count 0 0 1 0 1
Expected
Count
.2 .2 .2 .4 1.0
Neutral Count 5 2 5 11 23
Expected
Count
5.2 3.9 5.0 8.9 23.0
Satisfied Count 17 14 17 24 72
Expected
Count
16.3 12.2 15.6 27.8 72.0
Very Satisfied Count 1 2 0 5 8
Expected
Count
1.8 1.4 1.7 3.1 8.0
Total Count 24 18 23 41 106
Expected
Count
24.0 18.0 23.0 41.0 106.0

50
Figure 27: Bar Chart between Price and Brand Loyalty
Interpretation:
24 respondents of the sample data collected are satisfied with the price of the goods at store
who are loyal to their preferred stores for more than 2 years.
A very few respondents are dissatisified with the price of goods at store rather regarding the
loyalty the customers.

51
CHI SQUARE TEST OF INDEPENDENCE FOR ACCESSABILITY AND PURPOSE
OF PURCHASE
TABLE 62: Case Processing Summary for Chi Square Test Of Independence For
Accessibility And Purpose Of Purchase
Cases
Valid Missing Total
accessibility * purpose 106 100.0% 0 0.0% 106 100.0%
TABLE 63: accessibility * purpose Crosstabulation
purpose
accessibility Very Dissatisfied Count 0 1 1
Expected Count .1 .9 1.0
Dissatisfied Count 1 2 3
Expected Count .3 2.7 3.0
Neutral Count 4 30 34
Satisfied Count 5 50 55
Very Satisfied Count 0 13 13

52
Figure 28: Bar Chart between Purpose of purchase and Accessibility
Interpretation:
50 respondents of the sample data collected are satisfied with the accessability of the stores
who purchase their goods for their business purposes.
A very few respondents are dissatisified with the accessability of the stores rather regarding
the purpose of purchase.

53
FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS
FINDINGS
The findings of the study were summarized below
1. The respondents were asked about their most preferred Retail store and the percentage
of people preferring Reliance Fresh(36.79%) was higher than the percentage of people
preferring More(33.02%) and Heritage(30.19%). Here, we can observe and say that
Reliance Fresh respondents are more (Table 5 & Figure 5).
2. The respondents opinion on the retail stores; about the prices, freshness, quality,
packing, tidiness, store timings, employee behaviour, accessibility, ambience, parking
facility, offers and discounts was asked and most of the respondents are satisfied with
the prices, freshness, quality, packing, tidiness, store timings, employee behaviour,
accessibility, ambience, parking facility, offers and discounts provided at retail stores
(Table 6,7,8, 14 and 16).
3. 38% of the respondents are loyal to their preferred stores for more than two years
(Table 17 & Figure 17).
4. When the respondents were asked about their frequency of visiting the stores, most of
them(52%) would like to visit stores once in a month (Table 18 & Figure 18).
5. Majority(65%) of the respondents do not avail membership cards from their preferred
stores (Table 19 & Figure 19).
6. Most(65%) of the respondents would like to buy goods directly from the stores rather
than the online and home deliveries (Table 20 & Figure 20).
7. 90% of the respondents have preferred retail stores to buy goods for their personal
purpose rather than the business use (Table 21 & Figure 21).
8. It is clear that the location of the respondent does not affect the store preference.
9. The Ranks for different stores (i.e., Heritage, More, Reliance Fresh) does not depend
upon the Purpose of purchase.
10. There is no association between Accessibility and Purpose of purchase.
11. There is no association between the satisfaction level of respondents about the price
and quality of goods at stores
12. There is no significant difference between Price and rank of Heritage and There is a
significant difference between Quality and rank of Heritage.
13. There is no significant difference between Price and rank of More and There is no
significant difference between Quality and rank of More.
14. There is no significant difference between Price and rank of Reliance and There is no
significant difference between Quality and rank of Reliance.
15.
16. It is clear that there is no significant difference between the income earned by the
respondent per month and their store preferred.
SUGGESTIONS
The following suggestions are offered to improve the retail business in Andhra Pradesh
1. The parking facility near the stores should be convenient and easy to access.
2. The frequent buyers should be made with the personalized list.
3. The customers expect best shopping experience. So, the management should take care
about the environment like the key factors such as store ambience, accessability,
parking facility, store timings and employee behaviour.

54
CONCLUSION
Today retailers must differentiate themselves by meeting the needs of their customers better
than their competitors. Retailer should prepare a marketing plan that would influence the
satisfaction level of the customers through different way such as the physical characteristics
of the stores, location, store personnel and many more.

55
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure No. Description Page No.
Figure 1 Pie Chart for Gender 10
Figure 2 Pie Chart for Age 11
Figure 3 Bar Chart for Location 12
Figure 4 Bar Chart for Income per month 13
Figure 5 Pie Chart for Store Preference 14
Figure 6 Bar Chart for Satisfaction Level with Price offered at store 15
Figure 7 Bar Chart for Satisfaction Level with Freshness of the goods
available at store
16
Figure 8 Bar Chart for Satisfaction Level with Quality of goods at
store
17
Figure 9 Bar Chart for Satisfaction Level with Packing of goods
provided at store
18
Figure 10 Bar Chart for Satisfaction Level with Tidiness of the store 19
Figure 11 Bar Chart for Satisfaction Level with Store timings 20
Figure 12 Bar Chart for Satisfaction Level with Employee Behaviour at
stores
21
Figure 13 Bar Chart for Satisfaction Level with Accessability of the
stores
22
Figure 14 Bar Chart for Satisfaction Level with Ambience of stores 23
Figure 15 Bar Chart for Satisfaction Level with Parking Facility
available near stores
24
Figure 16 Bar Chart for Satisfaction Level with Offers and Discounts
offered by stores
25
Figure 17 Bar Chart for Brand Loyalty by Customers 26
Figure 18 Bar Chart for Customers Frequency of Visiting the stores 27
Figure 19 Pie Chart for Customers having Membership at their
Preferred stores
28
Figure 20 Pie Chart for Delivery Preferences of Customers from stores 29
Figure 21 Pie Chart for the Customers Purpose of purchase 30
Figure 22 Bar Chart for the Ranking of Heritage by the customers 31
Figure 23 Bar Chart for the Ranking of More by the customers 32
Figure 24 Bar Chart for the Ranking of Reliance Fresh by the customers 33
Figure 25 Clustered Column chart for Price and Quality 41
Figure 26 Clustered column chart for store timings and frequency of
visiting
50
Figure 27 Clustered column chart for Price and Brand Loyalty 52
Figure 28 Clustered column chart for accessability and purpose of
purchse
54

56
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Aniali Panda (2013) “Customer Patronage towards Food and Grocery Retail”;
Global Journal of Management and Business Studies; Volume.3; No.9; Page no.: 955-
960.
2. Anil Kumar, Piyali Ghosh and Vibhuti Tripath (2010) “Customer expectations of
store attributes: A study of organized retail outlets in India”; Journal of Retrial and
Leisure property; Volume.9; Page no.: 75-87.
3. Kusuma.B, Durga Prasad and Srinivasa Rao.M (2013) “A study of organized
retailing and its challenges and retail customer services”; Innovative Journal of
Business and Management; Volume.2; Page no. 97-102.
4. Shashikala.R and Ashwini Gangatkar.J (2015) “A study on comparative analysis
of consumer perception towards super markets and provision stores in Bangalore”;
International Journal of Engineering and Management Sciences; Volume.6; Page no.:
149-154.

Comparative analysis of product sales and store preferences

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Comparative analysis of product sales and store preferences

Semelhante a Comparative analysis of product sales and store preferences (20)

Último

Último (20)

Comparative analysis of product sales and store preferences