1 / 25

1.TITLE OF THE ARTICLE

1.TITLE OF THE ARTICLE. Motivational Factors of Gender, Age, Income, Education, and Family Size on Preference of Milk Packaging Designs in Kenya Dr. Raymond Musyoka Dr. Hannah Wanjiku Wambugu. 2. Definition of the term Consumer Preference.

jayme-branch
Download Presentation

1.TITLE OF THE ARTICLE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 1.TITLE OF THE ARTICLE Motivational Factors of Gender, Age, Income, Education, and Family Size on Preference of Milk Packaging Designs in Kenya Dr. Raymond Musyoka Dr. Hannah Wanjiku Wambugu

  2. 2. Definition of the term Consumer Preference • Consumer Preference= It is an outcome of consumer behavior, which is concerned with an individual’s attitude towards a set of objects as reflected in a decision making process (Lichtenstein & Slovic, 2006). • Other psychologists have interpreted the term to mean evaluative judgments in the sense of liking or disliking an object (Scherer, 2005). • It permits the consumer to rank these bundles of goods according to the levels of utility they give to the consumer.

  3. 3. Definition of the termPackaging Design • Packaging design relates to both technical and visual features of the package (Odoch, 1984). Technical features of the package include materials, dimensions, measurements and construction while visual design refers to the promotional features of the package, such as printing and decorations, layout, shape and illustrations. • According to Lynsey et al, (2013), the aspects of packaging design include: form, function and appearance.

  4. 4. Theory of Consumer Behavior • Consumer buying process has inputs which are internal and others external to the consumer. Both work together on the psyche of the consumer to result in purchase decision outcomes, including what products/brands are selected, dealer choice, package choice, frequent of use and in what amount, (Paul & James, 2007).

  5. 5. Theory of consumer Behavior Cont’ • External influences- Kibera & Waruingi, (2007) role influences, cultural influences, role influences, reference groups. (Paul & James 2007) included situational influences and marketing influences as external influences. • Internal influences- personality, needs and motives, perception and learning= (Kibera and Waruingi), other researchers Kotler et al (2009) have included customers individual characteristic-income, education, family size, gender and age as part of internal factors influencing consumer behaviour.

  6. 6. Research Gap Several studies on milk packaging have been based on importance of milk packaging characteristics and the influence of socio-demographic factors on the same. (Agnieska & Miroslaw, 2008; Rita et al, 2009). Knowledge on whether there is any difference in frequency of choice of milk packaging design among consumers with different individual characteristics is still lacking. *Knowledge on preference of milk packaging designs could assists marketers to predict how consumers will respond. This understanding could assist milk processing firms to align their marketing strategies to consumer preference.

  7. 7.Milk Packaging in Kenya

  8. 8.Purpose of the Study • The purpose of this study is to establish whether there is any significance difference in consumers’ frequency of shoppers’ choice for milk packaging design given their different individual characteristics in terms of gender, age income, education, and family size.

  9. 9. Hypotheses • 1.That there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different gender • 2. That there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different age • 3. That there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers with different income levels • 4. That there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers with different levels of education • 5. That there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among families of different sizes

  10. 10. Research Methodology • Based on Chi-square tests, the study employed a survey design and a primary data set of 1000 consumers of fresh processed milk. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with shoppers in seven supermarkets in Kiambu, Ruiru and Ongata Rongai.

  11. 11.Descriptive statistics

  12. 12.Customers’ Choice of Milk Packaging Design

  13. 13.Difference in Frequency of Choice of Milk Packaging Designs due Shoppers Gender

  14. 14.Difference in Frequency of Choice of Milk Packaging Designs due Shoppers Gender Cont’ Hypothesis 1: (Chi2 (4) = 20.283, Pr = 0.00) Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different gender is rejected. Alternative hypothesis that there is a difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different gender is accepted.

  15. 15.Difference in Frequency of Choice of Milk Packaging Designs among Shoppers of different Age

  16. 16.Difference in Frequency of Choice of Milk Packaging Designs among Shoppers of different Age Cont’ • (Chi2 (16) = 117.923, Pr = 0.000), Thus, null hypothesis that there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different levels of income is rejected. Alternative hypothesis that there is a difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among shoppers of different levels of income is accepted

  17. 17.Difference in Frequency of Choice of Milk Packaging Designs among Shoppers of different Income Levels

  18. 18.Difference in Frequency of Choice of Milk Packaging Designs among Shoppers of different Income Levels Cont’ • (Chi2 (16) = 245.6909, Pr = 0.000). As result, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different levels of income is rejected. Alternative hypothesis that there is a difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among shoppers of different levels of income is accepted.

  19. 19.Difference in Frequency of Choice of Milk Packaging Designs among Shoppers of different Levels of Education

  20. 20.Difference in Frequency of Choice of Milk Packaging Designs among Shoppers of different Levels of Education Cont’ • (Chi2 (12) = 108.323, Pr = 0.000), the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different levels of education is rejected. Alternative hypothesis that there is a difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among shoppers of different levels of education is accepted.

  21. 21.Difference in Frequency of Choice of Milk Packaging Designs among Shoppers with Families of Different Sizes

  22. 22.Difference in Frequency of Choice of Milk Packaging Designs among Shoppers with Families of Different Sizes • (Chi2 (8) = 66.405, Pr = 0.000), As result, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among shoppers with families of different sizes is rejected. Alternative hypothesis that there is a difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among shoppers with families of different sizes is accepted.

  23. 23.Conclusions & Implications • significant difference in frequency of choice of milk packaging designs do exist among shoppers of processed milk of different age, gender, income, education and family size. • Implication: milk processors must focus on the five individual characteristics when designing milk packaging. This is the only way they can ensure that all designs desired by milk consumers are available in the market. • However, nylon pouch milk package design has a higher frequency of choice among all other milk packaging designs available in Kenya. Therefore, milk processors should pack larger amount of their milk in this type of package. This should be marched with education on re-use of this packages since research done has shown that this type of package does not decompose easily.

  24. 24.Originality and value Ways in which the study contributes to the body of knowledge: • i) Theory of influence of socio-economic variables on consumer behavior has been tested in a developing market. This knowledge is important to the researchers who would want to extent the theory of socio-economic variables on consumer behavior. • iii)Despite the concerns of processors on how to increase the sales of fresh processed milk, the author did not find any published study that had investigated the motivational factors of gender, age, income, education, and family size on preference of milk packaging designs in Kenya. • ii)The study addresses methodological short-coming of the previous studies. Previous studies have not investigated whether there any differences in frequency of choice of milk packaging designs among consumers with different socio-economic back ground.

  25. 25. THE END THANK YOU

More Related