Impact of Packaging on Consumer Brand Preference in Pakistan

A Study on Edible Oil Industry in Pakistan

Shahzad Javed (9830)

Mudeeha Mushtaq (9831)
Kulsoom Alam (10819)

I have adhered to University policy regarding academic honesty in

completing this assignment

Submitted to
Sir Shariq Ahmad

Degree Program
MBA-90

Semester Year
2017
 Abstract

The basic aim of the literature and this research is to identify the impact of packaging
characteristic on consumer’s brand preference with respect to edible oils in Pakistan. Various
packaging characteristic like different shapes of Package, various sizes of Package, safety,
convenience of storage, shelf life, convenience of use, extra use of package create
attractiveness in the mind of the consumer towards the selection of edible oil brands that are
in Pakistani Markets. This study included Local brands of edible oils i.e. Soya Supreme,
Habib, Dalda, Seasons Canola, Barkat, Molvi, Sunflower, Eva, Sufi, Meezan and other
brands. This research paper also seeks to investigate the importance of packaging
characteristics for edible oil by managing an understanding on how consumer’s measure on
the mentioned variables.it also helps us in identifying how the packaging characteristics of
edible oil influence the purchase decisions of consumers. A sample size of 350 respondents
was used, which consisted of males & females who completed the questionnaire for the
research .A Optimal Scaling will be used to explain the impact of packaging characteristics
on consumer brand preferences. Overall this study will identify which packaging
characteristics are significant variable for consumer brand preference in edible oils. Finally,
conclusion was drawn that packaging characteristics has a close relation with consumer brand
preference in edible oils.

Keywords: shapes of Package, various sizes of Package, safety, convenience of storage, shelf
life, brand preference

1|Page
 Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………….....2
Table of Illustration................................................................................................................................. 3

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4

1.1: Problem Statement: ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.2: Objective of the study .................................................................................................................. 5
1.3: Purpose of the study ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.4: Significance of the study .............................................................................................................. 6
1.5: Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................ 6

Chapter 3 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 7

3.1: Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 7
3.2: Hypothesis ................................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 4 Analysis, Discussion and Interpretation ................................................................................. 8

4.1: Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................................. 8
4.2: Analysis Test - 1 ........................................................................................................................ 13
4.3: Analysis Test - 2 ........................................................................................................................ 14
4.4: Analysis Test - 3 ........................................................................................................................ 17

Chapter 5 Conclusion and Recommendation ........................................................................................ 19

5.1: Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 19
5.2: Recommendation ....................................................................................................................... 20

References ............................................................................................................................................. 22

Appendices............................................................................................................................................ 24
(A Questioner) .................................................................................................................................. 24
Factor Analysis Tables ...................................................................................................................... 25
Multiple Regressions Tables ............................................................................................................. 27

2|Page
 Table of Illustration

Figure Index

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2: Scree Plot ............................................................................................................................. 14

Table Index

Table 1: Gender frequency table ............................................................................................................ 8

Table 2: Occupation frequency table ...................................................................................................... 9

Table 3: Age frequency table ................................................................................................................ 10

Table 4: Qualification frequency table ................................................................................................. 11

Table 5: Income frequency table........................................................................................................... 12

Table 6: Correlations............................................................................................................................ 13

Table 7: KMO and Bartlett's Test ......................................................................................................... 15

Table 8: Component Matrix ................................................................................................................. 16

Table 9: Rotated Component Matrix .................................................................................................... 16

Table 10: Multiple Regressions ............................................................................................................ 17

Table 11: ANOVA Test.......................................................................................................................... 17

Table 12: Coefficients ........................................................................................................................... 18

3|Page
 Chapter 1
Introduction

Packaging characteristic creates uniqueness in a brand ( Silayoi & Speece

2004).Packaging of any product is far more than merely a convenient means of getting a
product to the consumer without damage (Hine, 1995; Spence, 2016).Packaging appeals
consumer’s attentiveness towards a certain brand or product, boost its image, and inspire
consumer’s perceptions about product (Rundh 2005).Apart from this, packaging also conveys
original value to products as according to (Underwood, 2003; Silayoi, & Speece, 2007),
whereas as it works as an equipment for differentiation, and also helps consumers to decide
the product from wide range of parallel products, packaging which also stimulates customer’s
buying preference toward a product(Wells, Farley & Armstrong, 2007).Over the last couple
of decades, it has increasingly been noted that product packaging acts as a powerful
marketing tool in its own right (Rundh, 2005), and the same level of attention and techniques
are used in other areas of marketing in order to maximize commercial success (Ahmed,
Ahmed, & Salman, 2005).The basic reason for a consumer to purchase any product depends
upon his level of intensity of his desire to fulfill his basic needs, as he expects that anything
he buys will satisfy his needs. A consumer preference decision mostly depends on the way he
communicates for anything. (Kupiec & Revell 2001)As such, the effect of packaging is of
great significance for any designers, marketers, and brand managers. It has been analyzed and
estimated that: over three-quarters of food products and drinking purchase decisions are made
at the point of sale (Connolly & Davison, 1996; POPAI, 2014); 90% of consumers make a
purchase after only looking at the front of pack; and 85% of consumers make a purchase
without even picking up an alternative product (Urbany, Dickson, & Kalapurakal, 1996).So
packaging can help achieve these goals both at the point of sale and the point of consumption
(Hawkes, 2010; Hine, 1995; Spence, 2016).

Packaging importance has been acknowledged round the globe for brand building and
consequently the expenses on advertisement have been seen reduced. As once a brand of a
company becomes familiar companies do not have to spend a large amount on advertising as
consumer will reach the brand automatically. Companies only need to maintain the supply of
its product in the market so that a consumer may not switch to the nearest competitors due to
unavailability of the product (Belch & Belch, 2001).Packaging is nowadays used as a source

4|Page
of communication to consumer and maintains the brand in the market as packaging images
helps the company to attract its consumers. (Rettie & Brewer, 2000)

1.1: Problem Statement:

This research is focused on the impact of packaging characteristics on consumer’s brand

preference in perspective to edible oil in Pakistan. There are number of elements that need to
be identified which affects the packaging characteristics of any product can be measured;
such as different shapes of Package, various sizes of Package, safety, shelf life convenience
of use and package attractiveness as per its importance in selection of edible oil brands in
Pakistan.

A number of studies have been conducted over the last few decades in order to
identify how the various elements of product packaging characteristic have been contributing
to these effects. Such studies have investigated elements of packaging including the main size
& color of the packaging, packaging shape, weight, shape curvature (Becker, Van Rompay,
Schifferstein, & Galetzka, 2011; Salgado-Montejo, Leon, Elliot, Salgado, & Spence,
2015).The primary function of packaging have been identified by many scholars as a way to
protect the product against any potential damage while transporting, storing, selling and
exploiting a product(Gonzalez, Thorhsbury & Twede, 2007; Wells et al., 2007)

1.2: Objective of the study

The basic purpose of the research is to:

 To Find Out the effect of packaging characteristics on the consumer preference.

 To check the effect of packaging elements on the consumer buying behavior.
 To measure the relative impact of each packaging element on the consumer.
 To identify the elements, which should be highlighted while design the packaging.

1.3: Purpose of the study

The basic purpose of the research is to analyze the effect of packaging characteristics on the
consumer preference and check the effect of packaging elements on the consumer buying

5|Page
 behavior and also measure the relative impact of each packaging element on the consumer
and we also identify the elements, which should be highlighted while design the packaging.

1.4: Significance of the study

The significance of this research is to identify the impact of packaging characteristic on

consumer’s brand preference with respect to edible oils in Pakistan. However, Various
packaging characteristic like different shapes of Package, various sizes of Package, safety,
convenience of storage, shelf life, convenience of use, extra use of package create
attractiveness in the mind of the consumer towards the selection of edible oil brands that are
in Pakistani Markets which is just a beginning to build a center of awareness for investigators
and researchers. This study aims to investigate the importance of packaging characteristics
for edible oil by managing an understanding on how consumer’s measure on the mentioned
variables.it also helps us in identifying how the packaging characteristics of edible oil
influence the purchase decisions of consumers.

1.5: Theoretical Framework

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
Packaging Characteristic

Size of Package

Shape of Package
Consumer
Brand
Safety of Product Preference

Shelf Life of Product

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Source: Packaging and purchase decisions by Silayoi & Speece (2004).

6|Page
 Chapter 3
Methodology

3.1: Methodology

The study focuses on descriptive research design. In this research quantitative approach has
been used and the data was the primary. The data collect from the respondents were put in the
SPSS to analyze the various factors and dependability of the variables. This research is type
of investigation is correlation. In this research questionnaire used are closed ended. A
questionnaire was developed to gather the data from the respondents. Likert’s scale was used
in the questionnaire. This research paper also seeks to investigate the importance of
packaging characteristics for edible oil by managing an understanding on how consumer’s
measure on the mentioned variables.it also helps us in identifying how the packaging
characteristics of edible oil influence the purchase decisions of consumers. A sample size of
350 respondents was used, which consisted of males & females who completed the
questionnaire for the research .A Optimal Scaling will be used to explain the impact of
packaging characteristics on consumer brand preferences. Overall this study will identify
which packaging characteristics are significant variable for consumer brand preference in
edible oils.

3.2: Hypothesis

H1: Size of Package has a positive relation on Consumer Preference

H2: Shape of Package has a positive relation on Consumer Preference

H3: Safety of Product has a positive relation on Consumer Preference

H4: Shelf Life of Product has a positive relation on Consumer Preference

7|Page
 Chapter 4
Analysis, Discussion and Interpretation
4.1: Demographic Analysis

Gender

Table 1: Gender frequency table

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Male 133 38.0 38.0 38.0

Valid Female 217 62.0 62.0 100.0
Total 350 100.0 100.0

This table represents a sample size of 350. In which 38% are male and 62% female samples.

8|Page
Occupation

Table 2: Occupation frequency table

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Employed 154 44.0 44.0 44.0

Valid Unemployed 196 56.0 56.0 100.0
Total 350 100.0 100.0

This table represents a sample size of 350. In which 44% are employed and 56% are
unemployed samples.

9|Page
Age

Table 3: Age frequency table

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
20-29 year 175 50.0 50.0 50.0
30-39 year 133 38.0 38.0 88.0
Valid
40-50+ years 42 12.0 12.0 100.0
Total 350 100.0 100.0

This table represents a sample size of 350. In which 50% are from 20-29 years, 38% are from
30-39 years and 12% from 40 and above age group slab.

10 | P a g e
Qualification

Table 4: Qualification frequency table

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Bachelor's 168 48.0 48.0 48.0

Valid Masters 182 52.0 52.0 100.0
Total 350 100.0 100.0

This table represents a sample size of 350 .In which 48% are Bachelor’s and 52% from
master & above samples category.

11 | P a g e
Income

Table 5: Income frequency table

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Zero-20K 140 40.0 40.0 40.0
21K-40K 21 6.0 6.0 46.0
Valid 41K-60K 112 32.0 32.0 78.0
61K & Above 77 22.0 22.0 100.0
Total 350 100.0 100.0

This table represents a sample size of 350 .In which 40% are from zero to 20K, 6% are from
21K-40K, 32% are from 41K-60K and 22% are from 61K and above income slab category
samples.

12 | P a g e
4.2: Analysis Test - 1

Correlation Test

Correlation

Correlation is used to analyse the data and the relationship among the dependent and
independent variables. Although, factors which were identified in the study to compute, Shelf
Life , Packaging Size, Packaging Shape, Packaging Safety giving the positive relation to the
Brand Preference. However, the correlation matrix identifies that packaging size with the
value (-0.034), packaging shape with the value (0.260); packaging safety with the value
(0.045) and shelf life with the value (0.438) which are the factors of packaging characteristic
compute the result that apart from packaging size which is negatively weak correlated all the
other variables; packaging shape, packaging safety, shelf are positively correlated with Brand
Preference.

Table 6: Correlations among Brand Preference, Shelf Life, Packaging Size, Packaging Shape, Packaging Safety

Packaging Packaging Packaging Shelf Brand

Size Shape Safety Life Preference
Pearson
1 .060 .159** .054 -.034
Packaging Size Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .260 .003 .315 .529
Pearson
.060 1 .229** .286** .260**
Packaging Shape Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .260 .000 .000 .000
Pearson
Packaging .159** .229** 1 .347** .045
Correlation
Safety
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .000 .000 .405
Pearson
.054 .286** .347** 1 .438**
Shelf Life Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .315 .000 .000 .000
Pearson
-.034 .260** .045 .438** 1
Brand Preference Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .529 .000 .405 .000

Although the correlation between packaging shape, packaging safety, shelf with respect to
brand preference is positively weak but its shows that the relationship between the
independent and dependent exists

13 | P a g e
4.3: Analysis Test - 2

Factor Analysis Test

Scree Plot

The Scree Plot has two lines: the lower line shows the proportion of variance for each
principal component, while the upper line shows the cumulative variance explained by the
first N components. The principal components are sorted in decreasing order of variance, so
the most important principal component is always listed first.

Figure 2: A Scree Plot is a simple line segment plot that shows the fraction of total variance in the data

Generally, we extract the components on the steep slope in our case components 1 & 2 as the
components on the shallow slope contribute little to the solution. The last big drop occurs
between the second and third components, so we choose the second component.

14 | P a g e
KMO and Bartlett's Test

The KMO measures the sampling adequacy (which determines if the responses given with
the sample are adequate or not) which should be close than 0.5 for a satisfactory factor
analysis to proceed. The recommend value for KMO as minimum is 0.5 (barely accepted),
values between 0.7-0.8 acceptable, and values above 0.9 are superb. Looking at the table
below, the KMO measure is 0.578, which is close of 0.5 and therefore can be barely
accepted.

Table 7: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .578
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 181.895
Df 10
Sig. .000

Bartlett’s test is another indication of the strength of the relationship among variables. This
tests the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix. An identity matrix is
matrix in which all of the diagonal elements are 1 and all off diagonal elements are close to 0.

From the same table, we can see that the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is significant
(0.000). That is, significance is less than 0.05. In fact, it is actually 0.000, i.e. the significance
level is small enough to reject the null hypothesis. This means that correlation matrix is not
an identity matrix.

15 | P a g e
Component Matrix

This table contains component loadings, which are the correlations between the variable and
the component. Because these are correlations, possible values range from -1 to +1.

Table 8: Component Matrix among Brand Preference, Shelf Life , Packaging Size, Packaging Shape, Packaging
Safety
Component
1 2
Packaging Size .181 .774
Packaging Shape .644 -.021
Packaging Safety .577 .498
Shelf Life .804 -.111
Brand Preference .642 -.505

The above table shows the loadings (extracted values of each item under 2 variables) of the
five variables on the two factors extracted. The higher the absolute value of the loading, the
more the factor contributes to the variable (We have extracted two variables wherein the 8
items are divided into 2 variables according to most important items which similar responses
in component 1 and simultaneously in component 2).

Rotated Component Matrix

This table contains the rotated factor loadings (factor pattern matrix), which represent both
how the variables are weighted for each factor but also the correlation between the variables
and the factor.

Table 9: Rotated Component Matrix among Brand Preference, Shelf Life, Packaging Size, Packaging Shape,
Packaging Safety
Component
1 2
Packaging Size -.107 .788
Packaging Shape .609 .210
Packaging Safety .361 .670
Shelf Life .791 .183
Brand Preference .780 -.243

Because these are correlations, possible values range from -1 to +1. The more the value is
closer to +1 it is positively strong and if the value is closer to -1 it is negatively strong.

16 | P a g e
4.4: Analysis Test - 3

Multiple Regressions among Brand Preference, Shelf Life , Packaging Size,

Packaging Shape, Packaging Safety

This table provides the R and R2 values. The R value represents the simple correlation and is
0.482 (the "R" Column), which indicates its degree of correlation.

Table 10: Multiple Regressions among Brand Preference, Shelf Life, Packaging Size, Packaging Shape,
Packaging Safety

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .482a .232 .223 .3854

The R2 value (the "R Square" column) indicates how much of the total variation in the
dependent variable, Brand Preference, can be explained by the independent variable, Shelf
Life , Packaging Size, Packaging Shape, Packaging Safety. In this case, 23.2% can be
explained, which is very moderate.

ANOVA

This table indicates that the regression model predicts the dependent variable significantly
well.

Table 11: ANOVA test to predict the outcome variable fitness test

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 15.490 4 3.872 26.072 .000b
1 Residual 51.242 345 .149
Total 66.732 349

According to the table above this indicates the statistical significance of the regression model
that was run. Here in our case, p < 0.0005, which is less than 0.05, which indicates that,
overall, the regression model statistically significantly predicts the outcome variable which
means that it is a good fit for the data.

17 | P a g e
Coefficients

The Coefficients table provides us with the necessary information to predict brand preference
from shelf life , packaging size, packaging shape, packaging safety, as well as determine
whether shelf life , packaging size, packaging shape, packaging safety contributes
statistically significantly to the model (by looking at the "Sig." column).

Table 12: Coefficients information to predict brand preference from shelf life, packaging size, packaging shape,
and packaging safety

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

(Constant) 2.683 .278 9.665 .000

1 Packaging Size -.039 .041 -.046 -.953 .341

Packaging Shape .124 .036 .169 3.396 .001
Packaging Safety -.112 .041 -.140 -2.719 .007
Shelf Life .478 .056 .440 8.529 .000

Looking at the p-value of the t-test for each predictor, we can see that each of the shelf life ,
packaging shape, packaging safety contributes to the model as there p-value is less than 0.05,
but packaging size does not as it p-value is more than 0.05.

18 | P a g e
 Chapter 5
Conclusion and Recommendation
5.1: Conclusion

The research study concluded that there is a significant relationship among all the variables
used in the research. The direction of the relationship is found positive between the
independent variable packaging characteristic with the dependent variable consumer brand
preference. It’s clearly means by improving the packaging characteristic; it is surely going to
increase your consumer preference and get your brand accepted effectively.

According to the test that we have conducted it was observed that among the variable
that we have selected in our study packaging shape, packaging safety, shelf life and
packaging size, it was noted that packaging size has less effect on consumer preference when
buying edible oil therefore companies such as Soya Supreme, Habib, Dalda, Seasons Canola,
Barkat, Molvi, Sunflower, Eva, Sufi, Meezan and other brands related to edible oil should
consider improving the overall safety aspects of their products, make the packing attractive
by making different shapes of bottles for its oil products, use different color schemes to
attract it consumer, use durable packaging material to increase its safety during transportation
,to attract more consumers the edible oil companies can make different sizes of oil product so
that there is a wide range of products available for every kind of consumer and companies
should keep the oil in proper storage areas with constant temperature in order to increase the
shelf life of the product.

19 | P a g e
5.2: Recommendation

Some of the recommendations for the edible oil companies are:

 Generally, consumers give more importance to safety aspects, as well as the brand
image of the cooking oil rather than the other sales promotional schemes offered by
the companies while they purchase the cooking oil. Hence, it is recommended that the
marketing department for cooking oil should concentrate on improving the overall
safety aspects of their products.

 The companies should also keep on improving and maintaining quality and brand
image of the cooking oil instead of having only concentrated on the sales promotional
activities.

 The companies should make the packing attractive by making different shapes of
bottles for its oil products.

 The oil companies can use different color schemes to attract it consumer.

 The companies should use durable packaging material to increase its safety during
transportation

 The edible oil companies should keep the oil in proper storage areas with constant
temperature in order to increase the shelf life of the product.

 In order to attract more consumers the edible oil companies can make different sizes
of oil product so that there is a wide range of products available for every kind of
consumer

 Oil companies can follow the concept of being hygienic and healthy oil to attract the
consumers.

20 | P a g e
 We know that primary source of information for consumer regarding oil is TV Ads
and Newspaper. Hence, it is recommended that the cooking oil marketers should
make ore efforts in designing the advertisements in such a way that the
advertisements provide reliable and maximum information about the nutrition and
health aspects, price of the oil.

 The companies should use new ways to in order to make the brands positioned in the
minds of the consumers as this will, definitely, help the consumers to consider those
brands while the evaluation of alternatives.

 It is highly recommended to the marketing and business units that they should pay
proper attention for good packaging. The reason behind it is that if they accept or
introduce the product with poor packaging then it could be one of the causes of
product failure in the market. So it is necessary to set the packaging standard and also
to implement strategy accordingly for better protection and promotion of a product.

21 | P a g e
References

Ahmed, A., Ahmed, N., & Salman, A. (2005). Critical issues in packaged food business.
British Food Journal, 107(10), 760–780.

Belch, G.E. & Belch, M.A. (2001). Advertising and promotion: An Integrated Marketing
Communications Perspective. Journal of Advertising and Brand, 11(3), 67-66.

Becker, L., Van Rompay, T. J. L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Galetzka, M. (2011). Tough
package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product
evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 17–23. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.06.007.

Connolly, A., & Davison, L. (1996). How does design affect decision at point of sale?
Journal of Brand Management, 4(2), 100–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/bm.1996.33.

Gonzalez M. P., Thorhsbury, S., & Twede, D. (2007). Packaging as a tool for product
development: Communicating value to consumers. Journal of Food Distribution Research,
38 (1), 61-66.

Hawkes, C. (2010). Food packaging: The medium is the message. Public Health Nutrition,
13(2), 297–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980009993168.

Kupiec, B. & Revell, B. (2001). Measuring consumer quality judgments. British Food
Journal, 103(1), 7-22.

Rundh, B. (2005). The multi-faceted dimension of packaging. British Food Journal, 107 (9),
670-684.

Rettie, R. & Brewer, C. (2000). The verbal and visual components of package design.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9 (1), 56-70.

Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2004). Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratory study on

22 | P a g e
the impact of involvement level and time pressure. British Food Journal, 106 (8),
607-628.

Silayoi, P. & Speece, M. (2007). 'The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis
approach', European Journal of Marketing, vol. 41 no. 11/12, pp. 1495 - 1517.

Underwood, R.L. (2003). The communicative power of product packaging: creating brand
identity via lived and mediated experience. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 11 (1), 62-77.

Urbany, J. E., Dickson, P. R., & Kalapurakal, R. (1996). Price search in the retail grocery
market. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 91–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251933.

Wells, L. E., Farley, H., & Armstrong, G. A. (2007). The importance of packaging design for
own label food brands. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35 (9),
677-690.

23 | P a g e
 Appendices
(A Questioner)
Impact of Packaging on Consumer brand preference in Pakistan
A Study on Edible Oil Industry in Pakistan

Note: Below information will not be used for anything other than statistical purposes only. The
information you provide will neither be given nor sold to anyone under any circumstances.

Instruction:
(Kindly tick only one option)

Male Female
Gender
v v

Employed Unemployed
Occupation
v v

0-19 Years 20-29 years 30-39 year 40- 50+ years

Age
v v v v

Matric Intermediate Bachelor’s Masters

Qualification v v v v

Zero-20K 21K-40K 41K-60K 61K & Above

v v v v
Income

Strongly Strongly
SR# Questions Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree Agree
Do you think a consumer becomes brand loyal due to the
Q1 packing style of Edible oil (cooking oil) and avoid switches v v v v v

to other brands?
Do you think that the size of a product (edible oils packing)
Q2 v v v v v
has an impact on consumer preference?
Do you think that edible oil companies are maintaining best
Q3 v v v v v
quality of oil product through it packaging characteristic?
Do you think that the people of our country are well aware
Q4 v v v v v
from the benefits of packed edible oil (cooking oil)?
Do you think that edible oil companies are delivering best
Q5 v v v v v
quality of oil product through it packaging characteristic?
Does the shape of edible oil product play important role in
Q6 making up the mind of the consumer to choose a specific v v v v v

brand?
Does the instruction provided by the manufacturer help
Q7 v v v v v
consumer to choose his product over others?
Does effective packaging of edible oil (cooking oil) help the
Q8 v v v v v
manufacturer to make his product successful?
Overall does the increase in shelf-life of our product have
Q9 v v v v v
positive impact on the consumer brand preference?
In your view are packed edible oils better than open oils
Q10 v v v v v
available in the market?

24 | P a g e
Factor Analysis Tables

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N Missing N
Packaging Size 4.080 .5043 350 0
Packaging Shape 3.863 .5971 350 0
Packaging Safety 3.724 .5450 350 0
Shelf Life 4.203 .4027 350 0
Brand Preference 4.593 .4373 350 0

Correlation Matrixa
Packaging Size Packaging Shape Packaging Safety Shelf Life Brand Preference
Packaging Size 1.000 .060 .159 .054 -.034
Packaging Shape .060 1.000 .229 .286 .260
Correlation Packaging Safety .159 .229 1.000 .347 .045
Shelf Life .054 .286 .347 1.000 .438
Brand Preference -.034 .260 .045 .438 1.000
Packaging Size .130 .001 .157 .264
Packaging Shape .130 .000 .000 .000
Sig. (1-tailed) Packaging Safety .001 .000 .000 .203
Shelf Life .157 .000 .000 .000
Brand Preference .264 .000 .203 .000
a. Determinant = .592

Communalities
Initial Extraction
Packaging Size 1.000 .632
Packaging Shape 1.000 .415
Packaging Safety 1.000 .580
Shelf Life 1.000 .659
Brand Preference 1.000 .668

25 | P a g e
 Total Variance Explained
Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Initial Eigenvalues
Loadings Loadings
Component
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Total Total Total
Variance % Variance % Variance %
1 1.839 36.786 36.786 1.839 36.786 36.786 1.747 34.943 34.943
2 1.115 22.294 59.079 1.115 22.294 59.079 1.207 24.136 59.079
3 .828 16.557 75.636
4 .759 15.178 90.814
5 .459 9.186 100.000

Component Transformation Matrix

Component 1 2
1 .934 .357
2 -.357 .934

26 | P a g e
Multiple Regressions Tables

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Brand Preference 4.593 .4373 350
Packaging Size 4.080 .5043 350
Packaging Shape 3.863 .5971 350
Packaging Safety 3.724 .5450 350
Shelf Life 4.203 .4027 350

Correlations
Brand Packaging Packaging
Packaging Size Shelf Life
Preference Shape Safety
Brand Preference 1.000 -.034 .260 .045 .438
Packaging Size -.034 1.000 .060 .159 .054
Pearson Correlation Packaging Shape .260 .060 1.000 .229 .286
Packaging Safety .045 .159 .229 1.000 .347
Shelf Life .438 .054 .286 .347 1.000
Brand Preference . .264 .000 .203 .000
Packaging Size .264 . .130 .001 .157
Sig. (1-tailed) Packaging Shape .000 .130 . .000 .000
Packaging Safety .203 .001 .000 . .000
Shelf Life .000 .157 .000 .000 .
Brand Preference 350 350 350 350 350
Packaging Size 350 350 350 350 350
N Packaging Shape 350 350 350 350 350
Packaging Safety 350 350 350 350 350
Shelf Life 350 350 350 350 350

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method
1 Shelf Life , Packaging Size, . Enter
Packaging Shape, Packaging
Safetyb
a. Dependent Variable: Brand Preference
b. All requested variables entered.

Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Variance Proportions
Condition Packaging Packaging Packaging
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Index (Constant) Size Shape Safety Shelf Life
1 1 4.953 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
2 .019 16.291 .00 .21 .77 .03 .00
3 .015 17.928 .01 .28 .05 .74 .00
4 .009 23.016 .07 .29 .18 .22 .40
5 .004 35.957 .91 .23 .01 .00 .60
a. Dependent Variable: Brand Preference

27 | P a g e
 Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 3.975 5.171 4.593 .2107 350
Std. Predicted Value -2.931 2.744 .000 1.000 350
Standard Error of Predicted Value .025 .087 .044 .012 350
Adjusted Predicted Value 4.009 5.180 4.593 .2099 350
Residual -1.0346 .7402 .0000 .3832 350
Std. Residual -2.685 1.921 .000 .994 350
Stud. Residual -2.741 1.935 .000 1.002 350
Deleted Residual -1.0783 .7516 -.0004 .3895 350
Stud. Deleted Residual -2.767 1.943 -.001 1.005 350
Mahal. Distance .515 16.979 3.989 2.963 350
Cook's Distance .000 .063 .003 .008 350
Centered Leverage Value .001 .049 .011 .008 350
a. Dependent Variable: Brand Preference

28 | P a g e
29 | P a g e