Research Report on

CONSUMERS PERCEPTION ON GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE AS MODERN LIBERARY Submitted by Shruti Goel- 12MMA7035 Kunal Dodrajka-12MMA7018 Ketan Pandey-12MMA7015 In partial fulfillment of the requirements towards the subject on Business Research Methods Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM) Under the supervision and guidance of Prof. Veena Venugopal Faculty Member

Submitted to

MATS Institute of Management & Entrepreneurship

(Approved by AICTE, New Delhi) Jakkasandra Post, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara Dist - 562112, Karnataka

July 2013

DECLARATION
We, SHRUTI GOEL(12MMA7035), KUNAL DODRAJKA(12MMA7018) AND KETAN PANDEY(12MMA70) , declare that this report on Consumers perception on Google search engine as modern library undertaken by us in partial fulfillment for the award of Post Graduate Diploma in Management is a record of original study conducted by us in the 2nd Semester, July 13.

Place: Bangalore .........................

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to take the opportunity to express the profound gratitude to all those people who have helped us with sound advice and able guidance.

We express are sincere gratitude to Ms. Veena Venugopal, whose guidance and support throughout the study helped us to complete the report successfully.

We would also like to thank all the respondents without their cooperation this report would not have been successful.

LIST OF TABLES
Table No 1. Table Title Table showing the Age of the Respondents Table showing the Gender of the Respondents. Table showing the Occupation of the Respondents Page No. 8

2.

3.

10

4.

Table showing the respondents awareness about traditional library Table showing the visit of nonmembers to the library Table showing the member of the library Table showing the visit of library by the members Table showing if all the required information is collected from the library Table showing the easy accessibility of the books Table showing the quality of information collected from the library Table showing the awareness of Google among the respondents Table showing the source of knowing Google among the respondents Table showing the frequency of using Google on per day basis

11

5.

12 13

6.

7.

14

8.

15

9.

16

10.

17

11.

18

12.

19

13.

20

14. 15.

Table showing the use of Google Table showing reliability of information from Google Table showing the method of viewing the information Table showing comparison of Google with Traditional Library Table showing the observed observations Table showing the expected observation Table showing the calculation of Chisquare Table showing observed observation Table showing expected observation Table showing Chi-Square calculation Table showing observed observation Table showing expected observation Table showing Chi-Square calculation

21 22

16.

23

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. .

24 25 25 26 27 27 28 29 29 30

LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph No 1. Graph Title Graph showing the Age of the Respondents Graph showing the Gender of the Respondents. Graph showing the Occupation of the Respondents Page No. 8

2.

3.

10

4.

Graph showing the respondents awareness about traditional library Graph showing the visit of non members to the library Graph showing the member of the library Graph showing the visit of library by the members Graph showing if all the required

11

5.

12 13

6.

7.

14

8.

information is collected from the library

15

9.

Graph showing the easy accessibility of the books Graph showing the quality of

16

10.

information collected from the library

17

11.

Graph showing the awareness of Google among the respondents Graph showing the source of

18

12.

knowing Google among the respondents

19

13. 14. 15.

Graph showing the frequency of using Google on per day basis Graph showing the use of Google Graph showing reliability of information from Google Graph showing the method of viewing the information Graph showing comparison of Google with Traditional Library

20 21 22

16.

23

17.

24

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement List of Tables List of Graphs

Chapter No

Topics Covered Introduction

Page No 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 6 6 6 7 8 31 34 NO PAGE

1.1 Theoretical introduction 1.2 Concept introduction Research methodology 2.1 Statement of problem 2.2 Objectives of Problem 2.3 Research design

2.4 Sampling design 2.5 Data collection 2.6 Questionnaire design 2.7 Statistical design 2.8 Scope of the study 2.9 Limitation of the study

3 4 5

Data analysis Summary of findings Suggestions & Conclusion Annexure

Bibliography

NUMB ERING

CHAPTER I 1.1THEORETICAL INTRODUCTION

"Marketing research is the systematic and objective search for, and analysis of, information relevant to the identification and solution of any problem in the field of marketing." The definition of marketing states: "Marketing is the process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of ideas, goods and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual (customer) and organizational objectives". The concept of marketing as a business philosophy defines marketing as a process that is intended to find, satisfy and retain customers while business makes a profit. But central to all these definitions is the role of the customer and his relationship to the product (i.e. whether he considers the product or service to meet a need or want). Therefore, market research is imperative for a company to know what type of products or services would be profitable to introduce in the market. Also with respect to its existing products in the market, good market research enables a company to know if it has been able to satisfy customer needs and whether any changes need to be made in the packaging, delivery or the product itself. This enables a company to formulate a viable marketing plan or measure the success of its existing plan.

Consumer behavior is the study of when, why, how, and where people do or do not buy a product. It blends elements from psychology, sociology, social anthropology and economics. It attempts to understand the buyer decision making process, both individually and in groups.

The study of consumer behavior helps firms and organizations improve their marketing effectiveness and strategies by understanding issues such as how: The psychology of how consumers think, feel, reason, and select between different alternatives. The psychology of how the consumer is influenced by his or her environment (e.g., culture)

 The behavior of consumers while shopping or making other marketing decisions; How limitations in consumer knowledge or information processing abilities influence decisions and marketing outcome; How consumer motivation and decision strategies differ between products that differ in their level of importance or interest that they entail for the consumer; and How marketers can adapt and improve their marketing campaigns and marketing strategies to more effectively reach the customer. 1.2 CONCEPT INTRODUCTION: (GOOGLE) Basically, Google is a very popular search engine that provides information and adds it to its sizeable database. Google has a great reputation for relevant and thorough search results, and is a good first place to start when searching. Google Search is regarded as the best search engine on the Internet because it provides an impressive amount of information from numerous websites in the entire world. I use it every day for certain activities so I guess it is quite popular among the Internet users. Services: Gmail is the mail solution provided by Google, released on April 1, 2004 Image Search is a technology provided as a part of the Google Search, allowing you to find pictures from the websites Google News is one of the most popular sources of information on the Internet YouTube is the leader of the online video services that allows you to upload, share and comment videos with friends or other members of the community. Google Maps is probably the most popular solution in its category, allowing users to view maps and other imagery captured directly by the satellite.

Docs & Spreadsheets is regarded as the Office solution provided the search giant that allows users to create, edit and share.

Blogger is the blog service developed by the search giant to help users post and comment articles wrote by numerous authors

AdSense is currently the most attracting service provided by the search giant because it allows users to earn money quick posting ads in their websites.

Google Video is another video solution provided by Google that provides almost the same features as YouTube but it is currently in beta.

CHAPTER II 2.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

Research project is on consumers perception on Google, search engine as a modern library. The main purpose of the study is to compare the performance of Google as a search engine to traditional libraries, for sorting various queries related to the users. The main objective of the study is to find out if online reading is more preferred over traditional libraries (books, magazines etc.)

2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

To study the visit of traditional library by the users for their search. To find out that segment of respondent that prefer modern library over the traditional library. To find out the time spent and the frequency of usage by the users on per day basis. To find out the use of another search engine apart from Google.

2.3 RESEARCH DESIGN:

The research type used is descriptive research design. The respondents were approached individually to collect the necessary information through survey method. Questionnaire was prepared which helped in collecting the required information from the target respondents.

2.4 SAMPLING DESIGN:

2.4.1 Sample size: 90 2.4.2 Sample frame: Based on the research topic the sample populations were identified and the respondents are mostly educated. The main focus is on students and corporates. 2.4.3 Sample unit: Students and Employees. 2.4.4 Sampling method: Simple random probability method is used in the report. The survey conducted was done randomly on any segment of respondents and there was no biasness on selecting the respondents.

2.5 DATA COLLECTION:

2.5.1 Sources of data collection: Primary data: Survey Method Secondary data: Books and online information

2.5.2 Methods of data collection: Questionnaire Online collection of data.

2.6 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN:

Structured undisguised questionnaire is prepared. Types of questions used are: Open ended. Dichotomous questions. Multi-chotomous questions.

2.7 STATISTICAL TOOLS:

Chi square test Tabulation and percentile

2.8 SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of Google to that of traditional library. This study will help us in understanding the optimal performance of both types of service and of their relative advantages and disadvantages. The scope of this project is restricted to Google as a search engine and to traditional library. No attempt is made to deal with other internet search tools. This project is feasible to all the users ranging from school going students to teens to employees and middle aged people. The sample unit described is huge and is only for those who access internet on daily basis. Through this study we will get clear idea of Google over traditional library. This study will also help us in knowing if another search engine is used apart from Google. To get better results of the same numerous quantitative analyses will be carried for better understanding of the research.

2.9 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY:

The research is restricted only to 90 respondents. The focus is mainly on Google and not any other search engine. The data collected might not be accurate and thus will not lead to appropriate conclusion. The research is restricted only to those users who uses internet. The respondents may answer the questions for formality basis and may not give appropriate answer for the same. This will lead to inaccurate data.

CHAPTER III DATA ANALYSIS

1. Age of the Respondents.

Table No 1: Table showing the Age of the Respondents

Options 15 20 20 25 25 30 30 35 Total

No Of Responses 19 35 32 4 90

% Of Responses 21 39 36 4 100

Graph No 1: Graph showing the Age of the Respondents

AGE CLASSIFICATION
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 15 20 20 25 25 30 30 35 4 21 AGE CLASSIFICATION 39 36

INFERENCE: From the above analysis it can be inferred that the maximum response is from the age group 20 - 25.

2. Gender of the Respondents.

Table No 2: Table showing the Gender of the Respondents.

Options Female Male Total

No Of Responses 33 57 90

% Of Responses 37 63 100

Graph No 2: Graph showing the Gender of the Respondents

GENDER CLASSIFICATION

37

63

Female Male

INFERENCE: From the above analysis it can be inferred that male were more responsive than female.

3. Occupation of the Respondents.

Table No 3: Table showing the Occupation of the Respondents

Options Employee Students Total

No of Responses 45 45 90

% of Responses 50 50 100

Graph No 3: Graph showing the Occupation of the Respondents

OCCUPATION

50

50 Employee Student

INFERENCE: From the above analysis it is inferred that the responses were taken from the segments, employees and students equally.

4. Awareness of traditional libraries among the Respondents.

Table No 4: Table showing the respondents awareness about traditional library

Options Yes No Total

No Of Responses 64 26 90

% Of Responses 71 29 100

Graph No 4: Graph showing the respondents awareness about traditional library

AWARNESS ABOUT TRADITIONAL LIBRARIES

29

Yes 71 No

INFERENCE: From the above analysis it is inferred that most of the respondents are aware about the traditional library.

5. Visiting of library by Non-Members. Table No 5: Table showing the visit of nonmembers to the library

Options Everyday 2 to 3 days 5 days None Total

No Of Responses 6 13 7 64 90

% Of Responses 7 14 8 71 100

Graph No 5: Graph showing the visit of nonmembers to the library

VISIT OF NON-MEMBERS TO LIBRARY

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Everyday 2 to 3 days 5 days None 7 14 8 VISIT OF NON-MEMBERS TO LIBRARY 71

INFERENCE: From the above analysis it is inferred that maximum of the respondents who are not the member of the library do not prefer visiting the library.

6. Members of the library among the respondents.

Table No 6: Table showing the member of the library

Options Yes No Total

No Of Responses 16 74 90

% Of Responses 18 82 100

Graph No 6: Graph showing the member of the library

MEMBER OF THE LIBRARY

18

Yes No 82

INFERENCE: From the above analysis it is inferred that maximum of the respondents are not the member of traditional library. It is proved that many are aware about the library but is not the member of the same.

7. Visiting of the library being a member.

Table No 7: Table showing the visit of library by the members

Options Everyday 2 to 3 days 5 days None Total

No Of Responses 2 9 6 73 90

% Of Responses 2 10 7 81 100

Graph No 7: Graph showing the visit of library by the members

VISIT OF THE LIBRARY BY THE MEMBERS

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Everyday 2-3 days 5 days none 2 10 7 VISIT OF THE LIBRARY BY THE MEMBERS 81

INFERENCE: From the data collected it is analyzed that most of the respondents being a member of the library do not visit library frequently. They prefer using Google as a modern library than traditional library.

8. Easy collection of information that is required from the traditional library

Table No 8: Table showing if all the required information is collected from the library

Options Yes No Total

No Of Responses 29 61 90

% Of Responses 32 68 100

Graph No 8: Graph showing if all the required information is collected from the library

EASY COLLECTION OF INFORMATION FROM THE LIBRARY

32 Yes 68 No

INFERENCE: From the above analysis it can be inferred that many respondents find it difficult to collect information from the traditional library. They prefer surfing on Google which saves more time and give accurate information.

9. Easy accessibility of books from the library.

Table No 9: Table showing the easy accessibility of the books

Options Through membership Regular visitors Borrows books from others card Other reason Total

No Of Responses 21 6 40 23 90

% Of Responses 23 7 44 26 100

Graph No 9: Graph showing the easy accessibility of the books

EASY ACCESSIBILTY OF THE BOOKS

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 44

23

26 EASY ACCESSIBILTY OF THE BOOKS 7

Through membership

Regular visitors

Other cards other reasons

INFERENCE: From the research conducted it was inferred that many of the respondents borrow books from the library, from others card for easy accessibility of books.

10. Quality of information for the study gathered from the traditional library.

Table No 10: Table showing the quality of information collected from the library

Options Satisfactory Good Not up to the mark Total

No Of Responses 15 32 43 90

% Of Responses 17 36 48 100

Graph No 10: Graph showing the quality of information collected from the library

QUALITY OF INFORMATION FROM THE LIBRARY

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Satisfactory Good Not up to the mark 17 36 QUALITY OF INFORMATION FROM THE LIBRARY 48

INFERENCE: From the above analysis it is inferred that maximum of the respondents are not satisfied with the quality of information they get from the traditional library.

11. Awareness of Google as a search engine.

Table No 11: Table showing the awareness of Google among the respondents

Options Yes No Total

No Of Responses 90 0 90

% Of Responses 100 0 100

Graph No 11: Graph showing the awareness of Google among the respondents

AWARNESS ABOUT GOOGLE

0

Yes No 100

INFERENCE: The research conducted infers that all segments of the respondents were aware about Google as a search engine.

12. Source of knowing about Google as a search engine.

Table No 12: Table showing the source of knowing Google among the respondents

Options Newspaper Friends and relatives Through any other search engine Other Total

No Of Responses 14 64 20 4 102

% Of Responses 16 71 22 4 100

Graph No 12: Graph showing the source of knowing Google among the respondents

SOURCE OF KNOWING GOOGLE

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Newspaper Friends and relatives Through any other search engine Other 16 4 22 SOURCE OF KNOWING GOOGLE 71

INFERENCE: From the above analysis it can be inferred that most of the respondents were made aware of the Google through Friends & Relatives.

13. Frequency of using Google on per day basis.

Table No 13: Table showing the frequency of using Google on per day basis

Options Below 3 hours 3 hours 5 hours Above 5 hours Total

No Of Responses 40 27 13 10 90

% Of Responses 44 30 14 11 100

Graph No 13: Graph showing the frequency of using Google on per day basis

FREQUENCY OF USING GOOGLE ON PER DAY BASIS

50 40 30 30 20 10 0 Below 3 hours 3 hours 5 hours Above 5 hours 14 11 FREQUENCY OF USING GOOGLE ON PER DAY BASIS 44

INFERENCE: From the above data it can be inferred that maximum of the respondents use Google below 3 hours on per day basis.

14. Usage of Google among the respondents.

Table No 14: Table showing the use of Google

Options Information Search Social Networking Leisure Time Other Total

No Of Responses 68 39 24 1 132

% Of Responses 76 43 27 1 100

Graph No 14: Graph showing the use of Google

USE OF GOOGLE
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Information search Social networking Leisure time Other 1 27 USE OF GOOGLE 43 76

INFERENCE: From the above analysis it can be inferred that maximum of the respondents, being students and employees, surf Google for information and knowledge.

15. Reliability of information from Google.

Table No 15: Table showing reliability of information from Google

Options Yes No Total

No Of Responses 81 9 90

% Of Responses 90 10 100

Graph No 15: Graph showing reliability of information from Google

RELIABILTY OF INFORMATION FROM GOOGLE

10

Yes No 90

INFERENCE: From the research conducted it is inferred that maximum of the respondents are satisfied with the information provided from Google. They easily rely on the information provided as it is accurate.

16. Method of viewing the information collected from Google.

Table No 16: Table showing the method of viewing the information

Options DOC PDF PPT EXCEL Others Total

No Of Responses 30 36 26 11 6 109

% Of Responses 33 40 29 12 7 100

Graph No 16: Graph showing the method of viewing the information

METHOD OF VIEWING INFORMATION

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 DOC PDF PPT EXCEL Others 12 7 33 29 METHOD OF VIEWING INFORMATION 40

INFERENCE: From the above analysis it can be inferred that most of the respondents prefer viewing their files or information through PDF format.

17. Comparison of Google with traditional library.

Table No 17: Table showing comparison of Google with Traditional Library

Options Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

No Of Responses 26 40 22 2 0 90

% Of Responses 29 44 24 2 0 100

Graph No 17: Graph showing comparison of Google with Traditional Library

COMPARISON OF INFORAMATION
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 44

29 24 COMPARISON OF INFORAMATION 2 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree

0 Strongly Disagree

INFERENCE: From the research conducted it is inferred that maximum of the respondents agree that Google is much better than traditional library. They are satisfied with the easy accessibility and reliability of the information provided through Google than traditional library.

18. H0: There is a significance difference between the occupation and being a member of the traditional library.

H1: There is no significance difference between the occupation and being a member of the traditional library.

Chi-Square: x2 = [(O E)2 / E]

Table No 18: Table showing the observed observations

Options Students Employee Total

Member 9 7 16

Non-Members 36 38 74

Total 45 45 90

Table No 19: Table showing the expected observation

Options Students Employee Total

Member 8 8 16

Non-Members 37 37 74

Total 45 45 90

Table No 20: Table showing the calculation of Chi-square

Observed (O) 9 36 7 38 Total

Expected (E) 8 37 8 37

Chi-Square 0.125 0.027 0.125 0.027 0.304

Degree Of Freedom: (C-1) (R-1) = 1 Critical Value @ 5% Significant Level = 3.81 Calculated value = 0.30 Calculated value < Critical value H0 is accepted There is a significance difference between the occupation and being a member of the traditional library.

19. H0: There is a significance difference between frequencies of using the Google with the occupation of the respondents.

H1: There is no significance difference between frequencies of using the Google with the occupation of the respondents

Chi-Square: x2 = [(O E)2 / E]

Table No 21: Table showing observed observation

Options Students Employees Total

Below 3 hours 20 20 40

3 hours 10 17 27

5 hours 8 5 13

Above 5 hours 7 3 10

Total 45 45 90

Table No 22: Table showing expected observation

Options Students Employees Total

Below 3 hours 20 20 40

3 hours 13.5 13.5 27

5 hours 6.5 6.5 13

Above 5 hours 5 5 10

Total 45 45 90

Table No 23: Table showing Chi-Square calculation

Observed (O) 20 10 8 7 20 17 5 3 Total

Expected (E) 20 13.5 6.5 5 20 13.5 6.5 5

Chi-Square 0 0.91 0.35 0.8 0 0.91 0.35 0.8 4.12

Degree Of Freedom: (C-1) (R-1) = 3 Critical Value @ 5% Significant Level = 7.81 Calculated value = 4.12 Calculated value < Critical value H0 is accepted There is a significance difference between the frequencies of using the Google with the occupation of the respondents.

20. H0: There is a significance difference between frequencies of using the Google with the age of the respondents.

H1: There is no significance difference between frequencies of using the Google with the occupation of the respondents

Chi-Square: x2 = [(O E)2 / E]

Table No 24: Table showing observed observation

Options 15 20 20 25 25 30 30 35 Total

Below 3 hours 11 22 6 1 40

3 hours 6 8 11 2 27

5 hours 1 4 7 1 13

Above 5 hours 1 1 8 0 10

Total 19 35 32 4 90

Table No 25: Table showing expected observation

Options 15 20 20 25 25 30 30 35 Total

Below 3 hours 8.44 15.56 14.22 1.78 40

3 hours 5.7 10.5 9.6 1.2 27

5 hours 2.74 5.06 4.62 0.58 13

Above 5 hours 2.11 3.89 3.56 0.44 10

Total 19 35 32 4 90

Table No 26: Table showing Chi-Square calculation

Observed (O) 11 6 1 1 22 8 4 1 6 11 7 8 1 2 1 0 Total

Expected (E) 8.44 5.7 2.74 2.11 15.56 10.5 5.06 3.89 14.22 9.6 4.62 3.56 1.78 1.2 0.58 0.44

Chi-Square 0.78 0.02 1.1 0.58 2.67 0.60 0.22 2.15 4.74 0.20 1.23 5.54 0.34 0.53 0.30 0.44 21.34

Degree Of Freedom: (C-1) (R-1) = 9 Critical Value @ 5% Significant Level = 16.92 Calculated value = 21.34 Calculated value > Critical value H0 is rejected There is no significance difference between the frequencies of using the Google with the age of the respondents.

CHAPTER IV SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

This analysis was conducted among all the age group ranging from 15yrs to 35yrs. About 39% of the response was from age group 20-25 followed by 32% of response from 25-30. 63% of males were more responsive towards the questionnaire than 37% of females. This analysis focused on all the segments of respondents from children to college goers to employee and working class people. 50% of response was from students and other 50% from the employees. From the research conducted it is inferred that 71% of the respondents were aware about traditional library but dint prefer visiting the library. 64% of the respondents who are not the member of the library do not prefer visiting the same. Whereas 13% of respondents visit library for 2 to 3 days though they are not the members. 74% of the respondents are not the members of the library. They prefer surfing Google rather than visiting library as its time consuming and difficult to access information from the library as compared to Google. 81% of the respondents though being the member of the library do not visit the same. About 9% of the respondents visit library for 2 to 3 days. 68% of the respondents are not satisfied with the information available in the library. They prefer to Google than access varieties of books available in the library. 44% of the respondents borrow others card to access the books from the library followed by 21% of the respondents, access books through membership.

48% of the respondents are not satisfied with the quality of information available in the traditional library. Whereas 36% of the respondents find good information from the library.

100% of the respondents were aware about Google as a search engine. All the segments of respondents knew about Google and prefer this search engine than any other.

71% of the respondents knew about Google through Friends & Relatives followed by 22% through any other search engine.

44% of the respondents use Google below 3 hours per day. Whereas 30% of respondents surf for 3 hours. Only 11% of respondents use Google for more than 5 hours.

76% of the respondents use Google for collecting information and gathering knowledge from the same. Whereas 43% of the respondents prefer socializing through various social networking sites available.

90% of the respondents are satisfied with information provided through Google. They get more reliable information as compared to traditional library.

40% of the respondents prefer to view the information collected in PDF format and mostly employees prefer to use this format. Whereas 33% of the respondents use DOC and 29% uses PPT format. Many other uses Excel and Word to view the information Collected.

44% of the respondents agree that Google is more efficient in terms of reliability and accuracy than traditional library. Whereas 29% of the respondents strongly agree and 24% of the respondents are neutral about Google being more preferred than traditional library.

Respondents prefer using Yahoo and Rediff apart from Google as a search engine.

From the analysis conducted it is inferred that the respondents being the member of a library is dependable on their occupation. Mostly employees do not prefer being a member of the library whereas students prefer being member of the library for their projects and study materials.

From the research conducted it is inferred that the frequency of using Google is dependable on the occupation of the respondents but not their age. Most of the students and employees Google for limited time due to time constraints. Whereas any age group can Google as per their convenience.

CHAPTER V SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION SUGGESTIONS:

Though people are aware about the traditional libraries, they are not the members of the same. Students should be more focused towards bookish knowledge as compared to the Googled information. Students should use both library as well as Google to collect appropriate information in wider scope. They should not be limited only to Google. Employees from their busy schedule should prefer going to library for leisure time. Traditional library provides quality information in wider scope compared to Google but is time consuming.

CONCLUSION:
Google appears superior in both coverage and accessibility as compared to traditional library. Google gives quality information, though the difference is small, and both types of resource are needed if good coverage is required. Google may bring together a large number of resources. Google is still a single entity when you use it as a service for research. Despite its huge scope, it doesnt handle all information. For specialist research purposes, Google is a help, but only when used as part of the research process. Thats not to say that the overall role of the library has changed. But the needs of students have. This, in turn, means that libraries need to adapt their approach. The internet certainly hasnt replaced the library. Any student or employee will use all available means to access information and find the best quality sources. The internet complements the library and vice versa. Any source of information can complement another source. Its not a competition.

ANNEXURE

RESEARCH PROJECT ON CONSUMERS PERCEPTION ON GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE AS MODERN LIBRARY PGDM QUESTIONNAIRE:

NAME: AGE: GENDER: OCCUPATION: ADDRESS: 1. Are you aware of traditional libraries? a) Yes b) No If yes, 2. How many times do you visit the library in a week (non members)? a) Everyday b) 2 to 3 days c) 5 days d) None 3. Are you a member of a library? a) Yes b) No If yes, 4. How many times do you visit the library being a member? a) Everyday b) 2 to 3 days c) 5 days d) None

5. Are you able to gather all the information that you require from a traditional library? a) Yes b) No If yes, 6. How easily are you able to access the books from the traditional library? a) Through membership b) Regular visitor c) Borrow books from others card d) Other reason, specify______________________ 7. How is the quality of information for the study, which is gathered from the traditional library? a) Satisfactory b) Good c) Not up to the mark 8. Are you aware of Google as a search engine? a) Yes b) No If yes, 9. How did you know about Google as a search engine? a) Newspaper b) Friends or relative c) Through any other search engine d) Other reason, specify ______________________________ 10. How frequently do you use Google in a day? a) Below 3 hours b) 3 hours c) 5 hours d) More than 5 hours 11. For what purpose do you use Google? a) Information search b) Social networking c) Leisure time d) Other reason, specify___________________________________

12. Do you think Google provide reliable source of information? a) Yes b) No If yes, provide the reason for the same _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 13. Do you prefer to download the information or view from? a) DOC b) PDF c) PPT d) Excel e) Other, specify____________________________ 14. Do you think Google provide more reliable information as compared to traditional library? a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree e) Strongly disagree 15. Apart from Google which other search engine do you prefer the most? Give the reason for the same.

________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU