A relational study on consumer promotion, price perception, product quality

perception and brand loyalty in context of detergent market in Karachi

Submitted by:
Owais Ahmed Khan
(07-0292)

Supervised by:
Dr. Nadeem A. Syed

April 1, 2012

PROGRAM
BACHELORS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (BBA)
Summer 2012
National University of Computer & Emerging Science
Management Science Department, Karachi

Recommendation for External Examination

This final year project, here to attached, titled, A relational study on consumer promotion,
price perception, product quality perception and brand loyalty in the context of detergent
markets in Pakistan, prepared and submitted by Owais Ahmed Khan, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Bachelors of Business Administration (BBA), is
hereby forwarded for appropriate action.

Dr. Nadeem A. Syed

Advisor

FAST SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, KARACHI

Certificate of Completion
This final year project, hereto attached, titled, A relational study on consumer promotion,
price perception, product quality perception and brand loyalty in the context of detergent
markets in Pakistan, prepared and submitted by Owais Ahmed Khan, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Bachelors of Business Administration (BBA), has
accepted and approved.

Dr. Nadeem A. Syed

Advisor

Dr. Manzoor Khalidi

Head of Department
Management Science

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Behind every task is a vision and in order to complete a successful task we must have a
determination to complete that vision. I would like to thank my Almighty Allah who gave
me enough strength to work on this research project. I would like to say the words of
appreciation to my advisor Dr. Nadeem A. Syed for his kind guidance and support
throughout the research.

This report could not have been accomplished without the splendid support and
cooperation of Dr. Manzoor Khalidi and my respected faculty members, who helped me in
guiding and sharing their knowledge throughout my research.

It has been really knowledge seeking experience to do this research. And finally, I offer my
especial regards and blessings to my parents who supported me in any respect during the
completion of the research report.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... vi
1.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 7
1.1.

TOPIC OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 7

1.2.

CONSUMER PREFERENCE ......................................................................................... 8

1.3.

PROBLEM ....................................................................................................................... 8

1.4.

PURPPOSE OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................... 8

1.5.

LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................ 8

1.6.

SCOPE ............................................................................................................................. 8

1.7.

TARGET GROUP............................................................................................................ 9

1.8.

RESEARCH DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 9

1.8.1
2.

QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................................. 9

LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 10

2.1. CONSUMER PROMOTION............................................................................................. 10
2.2. PRICE PERCEPTION ....................................................................................................... 12
2.3. PRODUCT QUALITY PERCEPTION ............................................................................. 13
2.4. BRAND LOYALTY .......................................................................................................... 13
2.5. RELATION BETWEEN CONSUMER PROMOTION AND PRODUCT QUALITY
PERCEPTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 14
2.6. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRICE PERCEPTION AND PRODUCT QUALITY
PERCEPTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 15
2.7. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSUMER PROMOTION AND BRAND LOYALTY
................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.8. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRICE PERCEPTION AND BRAND LOYALTY ......... 16
2.9. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUALITY PERCEPTION AND BRAND LOYALTY .. 16
2.9.1. Brand awareness ......................................................................................................... 16

3.0
3.1.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................... 18

MODELS ....................................................................................................................... 18

3.2 HYPOTHESIS .................................................................................................................... 20

3.3.

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 20
iv

3.3.1

RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................ 20

3.3.2.

POPULATION ....................................................................................................... 21

3.3.3.

SAMPLE SIZE ....................................................................................................... 21

3.3.4.

SAMPLING METHOD .......................................................................................... 21

3.3.5.

SURVEY INSTRUMENT ...................................................................................... 21

3.3.6.

DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................... 21

3.3.7.

DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 22

3.3.8.

SOFTWARE EMPLOYEED .................................................................................. 22

4.

EXPERIMENTAL DATA .................................................................................................... 23

5.

VARIABLE ANALYSIS...................................................................................................... 36
5.1.

CONSUMER PROMOTION: ........................................................................................ 36

5.2.

PRICE PERCEPTION: .................................................................................................. 39

5.3.

PRODUCT QUALITY PERCEPTION: ........................................................................ 41

5.4.

BRAND LOYALTY: ..................................................................................................... 44

6.

FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................ 46
6.1.

CORRELATION ANALYSIS: ...................................................................................... 47

6.2.

REGRESSION ANALYSIS: ......................................................................................... 48

6.3.

ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS: ........................................................ 50

6.3.1.

Model 1: Hypotheses .............................................................................................. 50

6.3.2.

Model 2: Hypotheses .............................................................................................. 51

7.

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 52

8.

RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 52

9.

APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................... 54
9.1.

RELIABILITY TEST .................................................................................................... 54

9.2.

QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................ 55

10.

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 60

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vi

1. INTRODUCTION
As per the information from the 2003 survey of all home owners 74.4% of the population use
detergents. The major competitive brands in the detergent market are having great competition
where, Unilever Pakistan Ltd Surf leads laundry care with a 33% brand value share, P&Gs Ariel
is one of the big competitors Procter & Gamble with $45.5 billion global detergents market
(including laundry detergents like Tide & Ariel) with about 32% market share, While Surf has
successfully gained the popularity among the user in detergent market due to better quality and
successful advertising campaigns, Colgate-Palmolive is leading the category with its extensive
range and competitive prices of the products that cater to different income groups and are
supported by their strong advertising.

1.1.TOPIC OVERVIEW
In order to overcome the competition unilever and its competitors constantly run consumer
promotion in pursuit to sell better and more compared to the competitors. Though consumer
promotions worked well initially but while moving ahead, the intense consumer promotions
havent really helped Unilever from gaining shares to that of its competitors. In 2004, Wheel,
Unilevers detergent brand came up with nine consumer promotions while in 2005 there were no
consumer promotions. This strategy of having consumer promotions is a very expensive affair.
Having an image and bigger detergent market ultimately leads toward having greater cost of
introducing consumer promotions, it is necessary that consumer promotions and other dependant
elements have to be studied, to make sure that when a consumer promotion activity is
implemented it turns out to be one of its best for the company and hold a better profit potential.
This will ultimately lead towards having minimum chances of investments being wasted. To
have an understanding of the competition in the detergent market better price perceptions and
product quality perceptions about the brands of detergent over promotion are also considered as a
very important area to study and to come to any conclusion of the conducted study. Similarly, to
understand the loyalty in the detergent market, the brand loyalty element should also be
explored.

1.2.CONSUMER PREFERENCE
1.3.PROBLEM
Due to large multinational companies like Proctor & Gamble and Unilever the detergent market
is going through intense competition, so as to increase sales these companies are going for
consumer promotions. As consumer promotion use a lot of monitory resources, it makes a need
for such promotions to be effective in creating brand loyalty and positive brand perceptions.

1.4.PURPPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the research is to study the relationship between consumer promotions, price
perception, product quality perception and brand loyalty in detergent market of Karachi.

1.5.LIMITATIONS

The basic limitations of this thesis are:

1.

This study will only take into account the Karachi market due to the limited resources
and time period of the research.

2.

The method will be used in research is convenience sampling which may not represents
the whole population of Karachi.

3.

Recommendation and conclusion will only be beneficial to existing and potential

marketers of Karachi.

1.6.SCOPE
This project has a very broad scope as it will provide important information that is very much
needed not only by multinational companies but also by local companies .By acknowledging the
importance of consumer preferences, companies must first explore and understand what these
preferences are in particular category. This will lead to a focused approach which will guarantee
target market approval and ultimately will lead to their brand success which every company
desire and is working for. Apart from this, companies can create distinct image among its

consumers by tapping into their preferences which will make them ahead from other competitors.
Seasonal drinks, water and alcoholic drinks is not be considered in the research.

1.7.TARGET GROUP
The whole research focuses on Karachi detergent market consumers specifically user of surf
excel and Ariel.

1.8.RESEARCH DESIGN
This research was based on two models in order to study the relationship between different
variables. Model 1 contains two independent variables i.e. consumer promotion and price
perception and here the dependent variable is product quality. Model 2 contains three dependent
variables i.e. consumer promotion, price perception and product quality perception while the
dependent variable is brand loyalty. The researcher intended to find out the relationship between
independent and dependent variables and the degree of relationship. Therefore correlation study
was used.

1.8.1 QUESTIONNAIRE
Researcher use questionnaire to check whether consumer promotion, price perception, product
quality perception and brand loyalty have relation among each other in detergent market of
Karachi. The questionnaire divided into four parts according to the variables. First part contains
questions regarding consumer promotions. Second section contains question on price perception.
Whereas, third and fourth part contain questions regarding product quality and brand loyalty
respectively.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The main purpose of literature review section is to get the overall picture of the concept surrounding
the actual subject of this research report and the relationship between the dependent and independent
variables.

2.1. CONSUMER PROMOTION

According to (Kotler and Armstrong, 2002) when talking about promotion activities, sales promotion
comes out to be one of the major activity as a part of Consumer promotion that include and done in
several different forms (e.g. samples, contests, coupons, price packs, sweepstakes) these are a part of
sales promotion activity which a company performs towards the targeted buyers of their products.
Here according to (Kotler et al., 1999; Tellis, 1998) consumer promotions are further divided into
other several types of activities including incentive based while others are communicative in nature.
In incentive based promotions there are further two types that includes price - oriented promotion and
non price-oriented promotion. As per the material in Britannica (article 21279) advertising portrays a
reason for the consumer to buy a product but the consumer promotion provides a customer with a
short-term incentive for a purchase of a product. There are certain category of customers that can be
attracted by Consumer promotions those are brand switchers or those who are not brand loyal to a
specific brand and incorporates certain characteristics that include the customers who are looking
initially for low priced products and which is giving a good value to their money spent on that
product. Hence, one important point that describes consumer promotions as an effective tool in
marketing is where products are very similar in nature. That could lead a company towards shortterm increase in sales. According to (Abraham and Lodish, 1987) several consumer goods categories
were sold having 90% of their volume on special deals which was a result shown after the
implementation of consumer promotions. According to (Alvarez and Casielles, 2004) to
manufacturers and retailers the main goal to achieve is generation of higher sales and for them
Consumer promotion is one of the great tool that could help them in achieving the objective of
generating greater sales. They also mentioned the consumer characteristics are independent on 11

10

sales promotions and the influence of sales promotions will also be depending on the consumer
characteristics. There are several researches that are focused on the effects of promotion on
consumers switching of brands and have addressed that promotion gives customer a mindset where
they switch brands and purchase them before they are launched in the market in huge quantity. The
consumers consumption decision has long been ignored, and it remains unclear how promotion
affects consumption (Blattberg et al. 1995). Conventional models for knowing that promotions effect
purchasing cant be a tool to define the issue because many such models assume that the constant
consumption rates that are usually known as all the purchases over certain time divided by the
number of time periods. While, such assumption is appropriate for the product categories which
include detergents and diapers, this assumption may not be suitable for several other product
categories, food items. For such products, promotion can actually stimulate consumption in addition
to causing brand switching. Defining a purchase strategy as a buying pattern Blattberg, Peacock and
Sen (1976) says; "the purchasing strategy incorporate numerous proportions of buying behavior that
includes brand loyalty, private brand proneness and deal proneness." Managers can have a great help
from the understanding of different types of consumer responses to promotions which will definitely
help them in developing effective promotional programs and will also provide them with the new
concepts for consumer behavior. The most pervasive tool nowadays is consumer promotions than it
was ever been. In 1986, 215 billion manufacturer coupons were distributed and upto 500% in the last
decade (Manufacturers Coupon Control Center 1988), the total expenditure on trade incentives by the
manufacturers to display brands was totaled to around $20 Billion in the same year as in the coupons
were distributed which is up by 800% in the last decade (Alsop 1986; Kessler 1986). Promotions
have an impact on the purchasing in terms of quantity and examines the time taken for those
purchased quantity said by Blattberg, Eppen, and Liebermann (1981), Gupta (1988), Neslin,
Henderson, and Quelch (1985), Shoemaker (1979), Ward and Davis (1978), and Wilson, Newman,
and Hastak (1979). Consumer promotion do change the attitude of the consumers and switching of
brand takes place and researchers who found that fact are, Guadagni and Little (1983) and Gupta
(1988). In order to increase sales and market share for the company and to make consumers switch
brands, the marketing managers use certain strategies that include the use of price-oriented
promotions such as price discounts, rebates, coupons etc. whereas, to encourage or enhance the brand
loyalty the managers use Non-price promotions such as sweepstakes, frequent user clubs, and
premiums add excitement (e.g., Aaker 1991; Shea, 1996). For multinational firms they should have
an understanding of sales promotions and that they are not standardized and thus vary from culture to

11

culture and legally and economically, Foxman, Tansuhaj, and Wong, 1988; Kashani and Quelch,
1990; Huff and Alden, 1998).

2.2. PRICE PERCEPTION

Customers see a products price, as high, low or fair against the quality the product is proving and
how much the product is satisfying their needs. If the customer thinks that the price to the product is
unfair with the quality of the product it ultimately changes the perception of willingness to buy that
product (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004). According to Moore et al. (2003) the view on price perception
are present in two different contexts in the market in the form of negative perception and positive
perception and they serve as the indicator in the marketplace. The role of price perception is the
element of success (Jiang and Rosenbloom, 2004). Whenever there is a positive sign of quality and
status the price perception is always high (Moore et al., 2003). Schiffman and Kanuk (2004)
whenever a consumer compares two prices in judging right or wrong it is referred as the reference
price. It is through reference price that the price perception of a brand of product is formed.
Consumer always take judgment in taking on two different prices of similar products and with the
factor of quality in concern they judge as the reference price and finally through this the consumer
determines that whether which price is the most beneficial and to be accepted (Alvarez and Casielles,
2004). In personal buying the consumer tries to establish their reference prices and also through their
observations and further they analyze it through their past experiences and gained knowledge. There
are 26 different definitions of reference price and according to (Lowengart, 2002) they can be
classified into following types:
The type of information used: external or internal.The behavioral character or the judgment of the
internal process of formation of reference prices. Including many other alternatives there are several
other too of estimating the reference prices. According to several other studies conducted on
reference pricing the consumer take out price estimations through their past experiences and their
knowledge (Winer, 1986; Lattin and Bucklin, 1989; Kalwani et al., 1990; Mayhew and Winer, 1992;
Krishnamurthi et al., 1992; Hardie et al., 1993; Kalyanaram and Little, 1994; Rajendran and Tellis,
1994; Mazumdar and Papatla, 1995, 2000; Kopalle et al., 1996; Kopalle and Winer, 1996; Bell and
Bucklin, 1999; Erdem et al., 2001), while some other researchers uphold that the consumer will use
the factor of motivation that is persuading to buy a certain product at the time of buying and thus in
that manner they estimate their reference price (Hardie et al., 1993; Rajendran and Tellis, 1994;
Mazumdar and Papatla, 1995).

12

2.3. PRODUCT QUALITY PERCEPTION

The judgment that customer makes about the product delivering the value of the price paid against it
is the perception of a customer about the quality of the product (Forker et al., 1996). Several
attributes that represent a level of quality is the value provided to the customer against the price the
customer has paid for the product (Snoj et al., 2004). According to Schiffman and Kanuk (2004)
customers look for the detailed information about the product attributes and variety of information
that provided for the product that are associated with the price the product keeps. Another fact
explained by them is that the indication can either be intrinsic or extrinsic. The attributes that are
intrinsic includes following characteristics: product, size, flavor, color etc. similarly, the factors that
are extrinsic in nature are characterized as: packaging, pricing, advertising etc (Low and Lamb,
2000).
The product quality perception of consumers comes from the expectation of the consumers and the
experience they had while having used the product (Wadman, 2000) as it is said that the experience
of the product being quality comes from the learning by the customer through several buying
decisions it will be uniquely interpreted by each consumer within the framework of his self- image
and his expectation of quality. Various methods are prescribed for different reactions of motivation
for the quality perception of the consumers most notably through information supplied by
advertising. Consumers receive information in two different ways that is direct and indirect and the
Consumer's perception of quality for experience goods depends upon them.

2.4. BRAND LOYALTY

The learning by consumer is the preferred result of Brand loyalty (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004).
According to Rawly and Dawes (1999) the positive attitudes towards a brand or a product and how
the consumers behave towards a particular brand is the ultimate outcome that could identify brand
loyalty of a consumer towards a brand this could amount to repeat purchase and positive word of
mouth and will turn out to be beneficial for the company. Once the customers are loyal to brand it
benefits the organization in many ways as the company doesnt need to seek for new customers very
often and they could focus on retaining their potential users and those who are brand loyal. There are
two different components for brand loyalty that includes: Attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty
(Quester and Lim, 2003). When a customer behavior of purchasing a brand is consistent enough then
it is noted as the behavioral loyalty (Dikempe et al., 1997) while when the customer shows a
favorable attitude towards a particular brand then it is noted as attitudinal loyalty. Rowley and Dawes

13

(1999) stated that to understand brand loyalty better the following components of attitude model
should be considered:
1. Cognitive component associated with a rational'' decision making based on informational
determinants.
2. Affective component - associated with emotions and feelings about the product or service.
3. Cognitive components associated with a behavioral disposition.
The cost to get new customers is six times greater than the cost to retain a customer and when the
consumer is brand loyal it benefits the company very largely (Rosenberg and Czepiel, 1983). As
stated that the brand loyal customers are willing to pay higher prices against the brand they are loyal
to and are very less sensitive towards price. (See e.g. IO-ishnamurthi and Raj (1991); Reichheld and
Sasser (1990). According to this definition, bland loyalty is: "The (a) biased, (b) behavioral response, (c)
expressed over time (d) by some decision making unit, (e) with respect to other alternative brands out of a
set of such brand, and (f) is a function of psychological decision making process (Jacoby and Chestnut,
1978, p.80)". This definition identifies six requirements for brand loyalty.

The value perceived by the customer is the building of brand loyalty in context to what marketing
says and value comes from the exchange of information (Kotler & Keller, 2007). The sharing of
information from the company always increases the perceived value and the ultimate change will be
in the form of increased brand loyalty. Hence it will also motivate the customer to recommend the
brand to others and create word of mouth (Muniz & O Guinn, 2001). 15
2.5. RELATION BETWEEN CONSUMER PROMOTION AND PRODUCT QUALITY

PERCEPTIONS
To create an appeal and an impression of great quality product and having excellent attributes to satisfy
the consumer needs a company uses to do a consumer promotion which is a potential tool for creating a
good product quality perception (Alvarez and Casielles, 2004). Sales promotion influences the relative

weighting of the utility factors and extends the perceived quality (Groth and Dye, 1999). There are
several benefits of sales promotions that include the saving of money from the customers
perspective, convenience for the customer, the enhanced value and motivation towards creating a
greater product quality perception (Quock and Uncles, 2005). The way a consumer promotion is
framed is likely to affect consumers' perceptions of price, quality, value, and purchase intentions
(Munger and Grewal, 2001). Ong (1997) it can also have a negative impact on consumer paying full
amount for the product and suddenly seeing the product being distributed free as samples for the
public, this could distort the quality perception for the product in the mind of consumers. Consumers

14

tend to think that at the normal price or offering they over pay for a given level of quality, so their
quality perception is affected.

2.6. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRICE PERCEPTION AND PRODUCT QUALITY

PERCEPTIONS
According to what the market usually portrays is that if the product is having several attributes to
satisfy the consumer need and equals the price that a customer has paid means that the perception of
quality is achieved at greater scale and the price for the product will ultimately be high as per the
quality perception, (Sjolander, 1992). According to Sjolander (1992 there is a very strong positive
relation between the price perceived by the customer and quality perceived by the price paid by the
customer for the purchase of the product. Perceived quality explains a considerable portion of the
difference in the price the consumers are willing to pay for different brands (Low and Lamb,
2000).the consumers switch to different brands when they see a difference in the quality they
perceived and the price they are paying for the product which leads to switching of one brand to
another and hence decreases the brand loyalty (Jiang and Rosenbloom, 2004). When the companies
try to put high prices for the product what they do wrong is that they perceive that the customer will
take it as a quality product once it is highly priced but it is not the case now. The customers are more
educated and they can perceive the quality of a product and price together with their past experiences
and knowledge about similar brands of same category, this strategy also leads the company towards
the decline in sales and also distorts the image and ultimately the brand loyalty also decreases. Bad
word of mouth could be one of the factors of this strategy (Kalita et al., 2004).

2.7. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSUMER PROMOTION AND BRAND LOYALTY

According to Alvarez and Casielles (2004) consumer promotions can have an impact on creating
brand loyalty and consumer might buy a brand even though he is not willing to buy but if the
promotion is effective the consumer tries at least once and if the quality matches the price the
consumer paid it will create the brand loyalty for that customer. They also stated that categories of
products where buyers are very loyal, consumer promotion activity like coupons etc that reward the
loyalty could have a bigger effect. Srinivasan and Anderson (1998) acknowledged that sales
promotion have different approaches too which include the breaking of consumers brand loyalty to
other brands that have already established their equity and is enjoy a good market share. In the short
run, established brands may be able to ignore sales promotions from new brands without serious loss
of sales. In the longer run the established brands could lose their potential customers and could be

15

lost while Dawes (2004) on the other hand stated that repeat buying rates that buying a brand on
promotion decreases the likelihood of a subsequent purchase of that brand.

2.8. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRICE PERCEPTION AND BRAND LOYALTY

Alvarez and Casielles (2004) stated that once a customer paid the price for the product that the
company offered and the customer didnt get the perceived quality against the price, it will
ultimately lead towards decreased brand loyalty and hence the image of the other products by the
company will be distorted and the likelihood of purchase will also go down. If, in other way round,
the consumer paid certain price for the product and the quality perceived is achieved highly then the
brand loyalty for the product (brand) will increase and also will ultimately increase the purchase of
that brand (Jiang and Rosenbloom, 2004). According to representative research higher perceived
prices leads to expectation of higher perceived quality and value, in turn lead to higher levels of
satisfaction of customers, greater levels of customer loyalty and retention and to a greater success of
organizations (Snoj et al., 2004).

2.9. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUALITY PERCEPTION AND BRAND LOYALTY

According to Ruyter and Wetzels (1997) the pre-requisite for loyalty is the product quality
perception in the minds of consumers while purchasing a product and that perceived quality
contributes positively in increasing the brand loyalty. They also stated that the influence of quality on
preference loyalty generally varies per industry. According to Boulding et al. (1993) there is a
positive relationships between quality and purchase intentions and willingness to recommend to
others (word of mouth), Because the value comes from the product quality perceived by the
consumer, marketers are now focusing and putting efforts on the improvement of product quality as
to enhance the value in the minds of customers and to create brand loyalty (Grewal and Munger,
2001). The loyal customers, who gave indication that they would return, will be the internal level for
managers to improve their quality in order to increase customer loyalty (Bowen and Chen, 2001).

2.9.1. Brand awareness

In 1987 Rossiter & Percy define brand awareness as the necessary part of the branding process.
Brand awareness leads the whole process of branding. Goldie (2007) said that the basic step of

16

building brand awareness among customers is incomplete without advertising through new social
media.
Variables that define the brand awareness are:
1.

Top in the consumer mind

2.

Brand recognition (at the point of purchase)

3.

Brand recall (prior to purchase)

4.

Brand retention

5.

Emotional and rational metaphors associated with the brand.

Success of advertising is not only calculated in terms of sales but also in terms of increase in brand
awareness (Lodish et al., 1995). The view of Piotraschke (2008) about brand awareness is that the
targeted customers with high brand recall. Differentiation factor created through recall and
recognition (Lehu, 2009). Aaker (1996) is of the view that the company can create brand awareness
more effectively by using other than normal marketing media. People are always ready to pay for the
familiar things, and their familiarity comes from the way they got information (Aaker &
Joachimsthaler, 2000).

17

3.0

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1.MODELS
I.

Model 1:

Independent variables:
o Consumer promotion
o Price perception

Dependent variable:
o Product quality perception

II.

Model 2:

Independent variables:
o Consumer promotion
o Price perception
o Product quality perception

Dependent variable:
o Brand loyalty

18

MODEL 1:

Consumer
Promotion
Product Quality
Perception
Price
Perception

MODEL 2:
Consumer
Promotion

Price
Perception

Brand Loyalty

Product Quality
Perception

19

3.2 HYPOTHESIS
The hypothesis that can be derived from the research questions are:

1. There is significant relationship between consumer promotion and product quality perception
in the detergent market of Bangladesh.

2. There is significant relationship between price perception and product quality perception in the
detergent market of Bangladesh.

3. There is significant relationship between consumer promotion and brand loyalty in the
detergent market of Bangladesh.

4. There is significant relationship between price perception and brand loyalty in the detergent
market of Bangladesh.

5. There is significant relationship between product quality perception and brand loyalty in the
detergent market of Bangladesh.

3.3.METHODOLOGY
3.3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN
The illustrations of the conceptual framework model 1 and 2 (Figure 1 and 2) above gives a
visual idea of the relationship and structure that exists among the study variables. The main
purpose of the research is to assess the existing correlation among the variables. This research is
about exploring and understanding the relationship that exists between consumer promotion,
price perception with product quality perceptions and brand loyalty in the detergent market of
Karachi. Here in the first model (figure 1) the independent variables are assigned to be consumer
promotions and price perceptions. The dependant variable on the other hand is product quality
perception. In the second model (figure 2) the independent variables are consumer promotions,
price perceptions and product quality perceptions, in this case the dependant variable is brand
loyalty. So the researcher is attempting to find out, if any changes in the independent variable
have a changing effect on the dependant ones as well, thereby proving that a relationship exists.
20

The researcher also tried to find out the degree to which a change in the dependant variables has
an impact on the independent ones, in other words the degree of relation is also explored here.
Therefore the correlation study was chosen for this research.
3.3.2. POPULATION
The population was selected from Karachi and all the respondents belong to the same city
regardless of age and gender.
3.3.3. SAMPLE SIZE
The standard sample size is 384 people for questionnaire.
3.3.4. SAMPLING METHOD
For this research convenience non-probability sampling method was used. Data was collected
from users of Ariel and Surf Excel specifically to get reliable information. Majority of
respondents were women (housewives) at different shopping centers and hyper marts. Due to
time constraints the researcher only collected data from Karachi city.
3.3.5. SURVEY INSTRUMENT
A structured questionnaire was designed to collect information on different variables and to
study the relationship between them. The first 6 questions were used to gather information about
respondents opinion about sales promotions. Questions 7-10 were used to analyze price
perception among brands of detergent going through promotional activities. Further question
from 11-14 were designed to gather information related to product quality perception on
detergent brands. While the last 10 questions were devised to gather information related to brand
loyalty.
3.3.6. DATA COLLECTION
The data was collected through primary and secondary sources. Questionnaire was used to
collect the primary data whereas secondary data was collected from available reports and
industry surveys on internet.

21

3.3.7. DATA ANALYSIS

After the data was collected, correlation analysis was used to study the relationship between
independent and dependent variable from model 1 & 2 while step wise regression analysis was
used to determine the degree of correlation among variables. For this, SPSS software was used.

Following analysis was conducted:

1. Frequency
2. Cross tabulation
3. Descriptive
4. Hypothesis testing (multiple regression, correlation)

3.3.8. SOFTWARE EMPLOYEED

The software used in this research is SPSS (Software Package for Statistical Studies,
version 16) for the better reliability of the results.

22

4. EXPERIMENTAL DATA
gender
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

Male

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

87

43.5

43.5

43.5

Female

113

56.5

56.5

100.0

Total

200

100.0

100.0

Male: female ratio is 43.5:56.5 i-e around 56.5% are female while 43.5% are male.

56.5%

43.5%

23

Age
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

15-20

2.0

2.0

2.0

21-25

24

12.0

12.0

14.0

26-30

68

34.0

34.0

48.0

31-35

75

37.5

37.5

85.5

36-40

18

9.0

9.0

94.5

41-45

3.0

3.0

97.5

Above 45

2.5

2.5

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

Responses were collected from around every age group but more responses are from 26-30 age
people (34%) and 31-35 i.e. 37.5%

24

Income
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Below 20000

2.5

2.5

2.5

21000-50000

11

5.5

5.5

8.0

51000-80000

111

55.5

55.5

63.5

81000-100000

64

32.0

32.0

95.5

Above 100000

4.5

4.5

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

More respondent were falling in income level 51000-80000 i.e. 55.5%.

25

Q1. Which washing powder you use for washing clothes?

washing powder
Cumulative

Valid

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

surf excel

93

46.5

46.5

46.5

ariel

87

43.5

43.5

90.0

brite

15

7.5

7.5

97.5

bonus

1.5

1.5

99.0

other

1.0

1.0

100.0

Total

200

100.0

100.0

In the above table the data shows the number of respondents those use surf excel, Ariel, brite,
Bonus and Other laundry detergents. Out of 200 respondents 93 use surf excel and 87 use
Ariel. Cumulative 90% of the respondents use either surf excel or Ariel.

26

Q2a. Promotion offers with detergents pleases me.

promotions pleases me
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

strongly agree

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

134

67.0

67.0

67.0

56

28.0

28.0

95.0

uncertain

4.5

4.5

99.5

disagree

.5

.5

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

agree

Total

In the above table the data shows that most of the respondents out of 200 agree with the
statement that promotion offers please them whenever they went through a promotion and
only 5 % of respondents disagree with the statement.

27

Q2b. Promotion offers interest me about the brands of detergent.

interested in promotions
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

strongly agree

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

39

19.5

19.5

19.5

150

75.0

75.0

94.5

uncertain

4.0

4.0

98.5

disagree

1.5

1.5

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

agree

Total

As per the data in the above table people who were interested in promotions accounted 94%
of all the respondents and they agree with the statement that they get interested in consumer
promotions whenever a brand offers such promotions.

28

Q2c. Promotion offers with detergents influence me to buy the product

influenced by promotions
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

strongly agree

83

41.5

41.5

41.5

agree

91

45.5

45.5

87.0

uncertain

22

11.0

11.0

98.0

disagree

2.0

2.0

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

In the data above it is described that people get influenced by consumer promotions as 87%
of the respondent agree to the statement and only 13% disagree that they are not influenced
by consumer promotions.

29

Q2d. A promotional offer gives a good image about a particular brand.

promotions built good image
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

strongly agree

75

37.5

37.5

37.5

agree

82

41.0

41.0

78.5

uncertain

34

17.0

17.0

95.5

disagree

4.5

4.5

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

For the data given in the table above people agree with the fact that consumer promotions
built a good image or in other way brands on promotions deliver a good image in the mind of
consumers as 78.5% respondents agree with the statement.

30

Q3a. At sale price the detergents are usually good value for money.
good value for money
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

strongly agree

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

155

77.5

77.5

77.5

35

17.5

17.5

95.0

uncertain

4.5

4.5

99.5

disagree

.5

.5

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

agree

Total

In the above table it is described that the brands on promotion are good value for money
according to consumer because out of 200 respondents 95% respondent agree that they get
good value for their money when they buy brands under consumer promotion.

31

Q4b. The brands on promotion are usually highly reliable

highly reliable promotions
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

strongly agree

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

64

32.0

32.0

32.0

126

63.0

63.0

95.0

uncertain

4.0

4.0

99.0

disagree

1.0

1.0

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

agree

Total

According to the data in the table it shows that almost 95% of the respondents agree on the
statement that brands on promotion are highly reliable in term of quality and only 5 %
disagree.

32

Q4c. The brands on promotion usually matches my expectations

promotions matches expectations
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

strongly agree

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

114

57.0

57.0

57.0

agree

69

34.5

34.5

91.5

uncertain

15

7.5

7.5

99.0

disagree

1.0

1.0

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

As per the analysis of the table it identifies that 92% of the people agree that brands on
promotion matches their expectations and only 8% disagree with this statement.

33

Q5f. I would continue to buy the same brand of detergent because I like the brand very much.
continue to buy same brand
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

strongly agree

75

37.5

37.5

37.5

agree

94

47.0

47.0

84.5

uncertain

27

13.5

13.5

98.0

disagree

2.0

2.0

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

In the above table it is identified that most of the respondents agree that they will continue to
buy the same brand if they like the brand. 84% of the respondents are in the bracket of
agreeing with the above statement.

34

Q5j. If a particular brand of detergent was not available at the stores I would not buy any
other brand.
choose other brand
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid

strongly agree

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

109

54.5

54.5

54.5

Agree

71

35.5

35.5

90.0

Uncertain

16

8.0

8.0

98.0

Disagree

1.5

1.5

99.5

strongly disagree

.5

.5

100.0

200

100.0

100.0

Total

When respondents were asked about buying other brand in non-availability of the brand they
prefer, 90% of the respondents agreed with the fact that they will not buy any other brand if their
preferred brand is unavailable.

35

5. VARIABLE ANALYSIS
5.1.CONSUMER PROMOTION:
CHOICE OF BRAND
Count

Promotions Pleases Me

choice of brand
surf excel

ariel

brite

bonus

other

Total

strongly agree

61

56

13

134

Agree

27

27

56

Uncertain

Disagree

93

87

15

200

Total

In the above table it is described that respondents using surf excel and ariel agree that consumer
promotion pleases them, whereas, respondents from other brands dont find promotions very
pleasing but they only account 10 out of 200 respondents.
choice of brand
Count

interested in promotions

Total

choice of brand

surf excel

ariel

brite

bonus

other

Total

strongly agree

20

18

39

Agree

68

64

15

150

Uncertain

Disagree

93

87

15

200

According to the above table it is identified that respondents are interested in promotion who buy
Surf excel or Ariel as 150 people agree that promotion pleases them and they find it interesting.
36

choice of brand
Count

influenced by promotions

choice of brand

surf excel

ariel

brite

bonus

other

Total

strongly agree

37

41

83

Agree

46

33

91

Uncertain

11

22

Disagree

93

87

15

200

Total

Most of the respondents from the sample of 200 are the users of surf excel and ariel and they
agree with the fact that their decision making in buying a product is influenced by the
promotions done by a brand.

choice of brand
Count

promotions built good

image

Total

choice of brand
surf excel

ariel

brite

bonus

other

Total

strongly agree

36

35

75

Agree

38

36

82

Uncertain

15

12

34

Disagree

93

87

15

200

In the above table it is described that respondents using surf excel and ariel agree that consumer
promotion built good image in the mind of consumers and pleases them, whereas, respondents
from other brands dont find promotions built good image but they only account 43 out of 200
respondents.

37

choice of brand
Count

choice of brand

manipulated by promotion

surf excel

ariel

brite

bonus

other

Total

strongly agree

24

27

54

agree

27

22

52

uncertain

30

25

61

disagree

10

13

30

strongly disagree

93

87

15

200

offers

Total

According to the table above, most of the respondents are uncertain about either they are
manipulated by promotions or not but 100 respondents using surf excel and ariel agree that they
get manipulated by the promotional offers.
choice of brand
Count

choice of brand

promotion offers seems

dishonest

Total

surf excel

ariel

brite

bonus

other

Total

strongly agree

25

25

51

agree

20

22

45

uncertain

32

30

69

disagree

13

10

30

strongly disagree

93

87

15

200

In the above table it is described that respondents using surf excel and ariel are uncertain that
either promotion offers are dishonest or not, whereas, respondents from other brands dont find
promotions dishonest but they only account 35 out of 200 respondents.

38

5.2. PRICE PERCEPTION:

Good value for money

Count

choice of brand

Total

good value for money

strongly agree

agree

uncertain

disagree

Total

surf excel

68

22

93

ariel

69

12

87

brite

14

15

bonus

other

155

35

200

According to the table above, most of the respondents who are users of surf excel and ariel
strongly agree that they get good value for their money and that account 180 of the respondents
out of 200 respondents. Those who use other brands disagree and say that they dont get good
value for their money on the brands under promotion.

39

fair sales price of different brands

Count

choice of brand

Total

fair sales price of different brands

strongly agree

agree

uncertain

disagree

Total

surf excel

60

23

93

ariel

39

41

87

brite

15

bonus

other

110

71

12

200

1. According to the table above, most of the respondents who are users of surf excel and
ariel strongly agree that they get good value for their money and that account 180 of the
respondents out of 200 respondents. Those who use other brands disagree and say that
they dont get good value for their money on the brands under promotion.

40

5.3. PRODUCT QUALITY PERCEPTION:

good at cleaning clothes
Count

choice of brand

Total

good at cleaning clothes

strongly agree

Agree

uncertain

disagree

Total

surf excel

62

22

93

ariel

67

17

87

brite

13

15

bonus

other

146

41

11

200

In the above table it is described that respondents using surf excel and ariel accounting 180
respondents out of 200 agree that the brands under consumer promotion have good quality and
are good at cleaning clothes, whereas, respondents from other brands dont find brand under
promotions having good quality including 20 respondents out of 200 respondents.

41

highly reliable promotions

Count

choice of brand

Total

highly reliable promotions

strongly agree

Agree

uncertain

disagree

Total

surf excel

30

55

93

ariel

26

60

87

brite

10

15

bonus

other

64

126

200

In the above table it shows that 171 people using surf excel and ariel agree that brands under
promotions are highly reliable in term of quality and only 10 respondents disagree with the
statement.

42

promotions matches expectations

Count

choice of brand

promotions matches expectations

strongly agree

Agree

uncertain

disagree

Total

surf excel

56

29

93

ariel

44

35

87

brite

10

15

bonus

other

114

69

15

200

Total

Here in the above table the values show that users of surf excel and Ariel feels that consumer
promotions match their expectations and that is 164 respondents out of 200. While the
respondents those prefer other brands disagree with the statement that the brands in promotion
meet their expectations.
high quality of promotional brand
Count

choice of brand

Total

high quality of promotional brand

strongly agree

Agree

uncertain

disagree

Total

surf excel

55

31

93

ariel

53

25

87

brite

15

bonus

other

117

66

11

200

In the above described table most of the respondents say that brands under promotion are high
quality brands and deliver the value for their money. While 17 respondents out of 200 disagree
with the statement that the brands under promotion deliver high quality products.

43

5.4.BRAND LOYALTY:
brand preference
Count

choice of brand

brand preference
strongly agree

Agree

uncertain

disagree

Total

surf excel

25

62

93

ariel

24

55

87

brite

15

bonus

other

56

129

13

200

Total

The above table is describing the level of brand loyalty when people have options in selecting a
product or a brand, according to the results users of surf excel and Ariel are brand loyal and
always have in mind the brand they have to buy over other brands in term of brand preferences.
Importance of brand name
Count

choice of brand

Total

importance of brand name

strongly agree

agree

uncertain

disagree

Total

surf excel

48

35

93

ariel

43

28

14

87

brite

10

15

bonus

other

104

68

23

200

On the above analysis it is clearly stated that most of the respondents agree that Brand name
plays a very important role when selecting a brand. Most of the people agreeing with the
statement are the user of popular brand such as surf excel and ariel.

44

Buying same brand repeatedly

Count

choice of brand

like the brand

strongly agree

agree

uncertain

disagree

strongly disagree

Total

surf excel

49

31

12

93

ariel

34

38

14

87

brite

15

bonus

other

96

73

28

200

Total

As per the data in the above table it shows that users of surf excel and ariel are brand loyal and
buy the same brand for years repeatedly. Total respondents agreeing with the statement are 169
and out of which 152 respondents are the user of surf excel and Ariel.
sales promotions of other brands
Count

choice of brand

Total

sales promotions of other brands

strongly agree

agree

uncertain

disagree

strongly disagree

Total

surf excel

49

27

11

93

ariel

30

34

19

87

brite

15

bonus

other

89

69

32

200

In the above table it is described that most of the respondents are brand loyal and buy the same
brand even though other brands are also on promotion. Most of the loyal respondents are users of
surf excel and Ariel, Totaling 140 out of 158 respondents agreeing to the statement.
As per the data of the above table shows, the respondents are brand loyal as they agree that they
stick with a particular brand. Total 167 respondents are in favor of the statement out of which
151 respondents use surf excel and ariel, this shows their loyalty, whereas, only 4 respondents
disagree and tell that they are not brand loyal and would prefer any brand over another brand.

45

6. FINDINGS
Reliability coefficients and descriptive statistics
Variables

Number of item

Mean

Consumer
promotion
Price perception

1.95

Standard
Deviation
0.82

1.60

0.67

Product quality
perception

1.50

0.66

Brand loyalty

10

1.70

0.77

Table 1 gives a structured view of the means and standard deviations of the variables under study
in this research. The questions in the questionnaire to approach the variables have been obtained
from various articles. The means and standard deviations have been calculated by SPSS 12
through input of research data. The survey was done with a questionnaire having a 5 point scale
as the response format. The means have been calculated by taking the average of all the means of
the questions in each variable.
The calculated mean for consumer promotions is 1.95 with a standard deviation of 0.82. This
shows that on an average people think positively about consumer promotions as the value is
between strongly agree/ agree an option which is a point that shows the indifference of peoples
opinions.
The mean for price perception of detergent on promotion is 1.60 and has a standard deviation of
0.67. So it can be interpreted that people generally have positive perceptions about fairness of
price of the brands of detergent on promotion and Strongly Agree/ Agree with the statement..
Product quality perception has a mean of 1.50 and a standard deviation of 0.66. This shows that
people have a fairly positive quality perception of the brands of detergent that are available on
promotion.
The mean value for brand loyalty is 1.70 with a standard deviation of 0.77. This shows that the
general loyalty of people towards detergents is high.

46

6.1.CORRELATION ANALYSIS:
Correlations
Consumer

Quality

promotion
Consumer promotion

Pearson Correlation

Price perception

.077

.000

.000

.276

200

200

200

200

**

**

.118

.000

.097

200

200

200

**

.167

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Price perception

Quality perception

Brand loyalty

Pearson Correlation

.259

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

200

Pearson Correlation

Brand loyalty
**

.373

**

.259

.265

**

perception
.373

.265

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.018

200

200

200

200

Pearson Correlation

.077

.118

.167

Sig. (2-tailed)

.276

.097

.018

200

200

200

200

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

In order to study the relation between study variables (consumer promotion, price perception,
product quality perception and brand loyalty) a bivariate two tailed correlation analysis was
conducted. The table above clearly shows that each of the figures have the symbol ** next to
them indicating that each of the variables are significantly correlated with each other at a
significance level of p<0.01. As per the table consumer promotion is significantly correlated with
price perception (r = 0.259, p=0.000) and quality perception (r=0.373, p=0.000). While the
relation between consumer promotion and brand loyalty is positive but not significant (r=0.077,
p=0.276).
Price perception is positively correlated with quality perception (r=0.265, p=0.000) whereas
price perception is positively related with brand loyalty but it is also not significant (r=0.118,
p=0.097).
Quality perception have significant positive correlation with brand loyalty (r= 0.167, p= 0.018).
Therefore from this correlation analysis I can infer that only quality regarding brands on
promotion can built strong brand loyalty.
According to our first conceptual framework model 1(figure 1) the correlation of consumer
promotion and price perceptions with product quality perceptions (r = 0.37, at p< 0.01; r = 0.26,
p< 0.01) is what we need to look into. According to model 2 (figure 2) the correlation of
consumer promotion, price perception and quality perception with brand loyalty (r = 0.37, p<

47

0.01; r = 0.37, p< 0.01; r = 0.167, p< 0.018) is what we need to investigate. This shows that the
established correlation among consumer promotion and price perception is of no importance to
our current study here.

6.2. REGRESSION ANALYSIS:

MODEL 1:
Model Summary

Model
1

R
.412

R Square
a

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

.170

.161

.674

a. Predictors: (Constant), fair sales price of different brands,

influenced by promotions

Looking at this model summary, the adjusted R square shows that the model explains 16.1%
variance in the quality perception of brands on promotion. So the prediction power of this model
is somewhat moderate. The R value 0.412 shows that there is weak positive linear relation while
17.0% of the variance in quality perception is accounted for by the independent variables.
Coefficients
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

Std. Error

(Constant)

.685

.143

Consumer promotion

.328

.067

Price perception

.175

.065

Coefficients
Beta

Sig.

4.801

.000

.326

4.856

.000

.181

2.689

.008

a. Dependent Variable: high quality of promotional brand

Now looking at the coefficient table, p-value of consumer promotion (0.000), price perception
(0.008) is below 0.05, which means that all these are significant variable in the model. According
to beta, consumer promotion and price perception have positive relation or is moving in positive
direction from the quality perception of brand on promotion.

48

MODEL 2:
Model Summary

Model
1

R
.184

R Square
a

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

.034

.019

.736

a. Predictors: (Constant), high quality of promotional brand, fair sales

price of different brands, influenced by promotions

Looking at this model summary, the adjusted R square shows that the model explains 1.9%
variance in the brand loyalty. So the prediction power of this model is low. The R value 0.184
shows that there is weak positive linear relation while 3.4% of the variance in brand loyalty is
accounted for by the independent variables.
Coefficients
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

B
(Constant)

Std. Error
1.449

.165

Consumer promotion

.003

.078

Price perception

.077

Quality perception

.147

Coefficients
Beta

Sig.

8.804

.000

.003

.038

.970

.072

.078

1.056

.292

.078

.145

1.885

.061

a. Dependent Variable: continue to buy same brand

Now looking at the coefficient table, p-value of consumer promotion (0.970), price perception
(0.292) is above 0.05, which means that all these are not significant variable in the model.
Whereas the p-value of quality perception is nearly 0.05 i.e. 0.061 which shows the relation
between quality perception and brand loyalty is significant. According to beta, only quality
perception has beta close to 1 which shows the positive relation with brand loyalty.

49

6.3. ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS:

6.3.1. Model 1: Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1:
There is significant relationship between consumer promotion and product quality
perception in the detergent market.
The correlation analysis shows that the variable consumer promotion and quality perception have
significant and positive association (r = 0.37, p<0.01). The result of the correlation analysis
provides full support to hypothesisl1. It is very obvious that there will be a positive correlation
because; people having a positive view about consumer promotion are more likely to have a
positive perception of quality of brands of detergent that are being promoted. However if the
consumers view the consumer promotion negatively they will probably think that the quality of
the brands on promotion is also low.
The regression analysis failed to add consumer promotion as an independent variable while
quality perception was the dependant one. This is because it suggests that there is no significant
correlation among the above mentioned variables. Therefore it does not support hypothesis1.
Although this analysis should have supported the hypothesis, but due to certain irregularities that
could possibly exist in the data collected the analysis did not produce the expected results.
Hypothesis 2:
There is significant relationship between price perception and product quality perception
in the detergent market.
Correlation analysis suggests that price perceptions are significantly correlated with product
quality perceptions (r = 0.265, p<0.01). Therefore the correlation analysis fully supports
hypothesis 2.
The result of the stepwise regression also suggests a significant correlation among perceived
price and perceived quality at p< 0.001. The related predictor variable, perceived price explained
17% of the variance in product quality perceptions. So this analysis also supports the hypothesis.
The very likely reason for this positive correlation is that if the people perceive that the promoted
brands are available on a fair price (positive perception) then they would also have a positive
product quality perception about them.

50

6.3.2. Model 2: Hypotheses

Hypothesis 3:
There is significant relationship between consumer promotion and brand loyalty in the
detergent market.
While the relation between consumer promotion and brand loyalty is positive but not significant
(r=0.077, p=0.276). So, this shows that the correlation analysis does not completely supports
hypothesis 3.
The regression analysis does not support this hypothesis. It portrays that consumer promotion
and brand loyalty are not significantly correlated at p< 0.01. The predictor variable, in this case
consumer promotion explains 1.9% of the variance in brand loyalty.
Hypothesis 4:
There is significant relationship between price perception and brand loyalty in the
detergent market.
According to the correlation analysis there is a positive but not significant association among
price perception and brand loyalty (r = 0.118, p<0.05). This analysis does not fully support this
hypothesis. The regression analysis also does not show any association among the above
mentioned variables. For this reason it has been excluded from the equation while the analysis
was conducted. So this analysis does not support the hypothesis. Although it is expected that
there would be a correlation, due to possible abnormality in the response of the conducted survey
the correlation could not be establish.
Hypothesis 5:
There is significant relationship between product quality perception and brand loyalty in
the detergent market.
Correlation analysis shows that there is moderately significant and positive association among
quality perception and brand loyalty (r = 0.167, p<0.05). The correlation analysis hence supports
the hypothesis.
The regression analysis also shows a positive and significant correlation among the above
mentioned variable at significance level of 0.001. The predictor variable perceived quality
explains 3.4% of the variance in brand loyalty. This analysis also supports the hypothesis.
The reason for such association in this case is simply that when the perception of product quality
of a promoted brand is positive, then it is also likely that the people would have a positive loyalty
towards that particular brand.

51

7. CONCLUSION
Overall when it comes to consumer promotions, general views of people about consumer
promotion and price perceptions have a great impact on product quality perceptions. When it
comes to brand loyalty of a promotional brand, perceived quality play an important role in
addition to general views on consumer promotion and price perception. So all such factors or
elements that could have an impact on the consumer promotion, price perception and quality
perception should be considered very important.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS
Three Hypotheses have been proven to be correct. This means that the expected significant
correlations among the study variables consumer promotion, price perception, product quality
perception and brand loyalty does exist in reality. The findings could help the managers in
making decisions regarding consumer promotions more confidently and logically. To decide
whether providing more consumer promotion with detergents is a good idea or not, the market
should not be looked at as one single whole. In previous researches conducted by Unilever
Pakistan Limited there has been evidence that indicates that increase in consumer promotions
decreases their perceived product quality. For this theory to hold all the consumers in the
detergent market have to have the same characteristics and have to be expected to behave the
same way. The detergent market is very large and encompasses diverse groups of people who
think and behave differently. The real market conditions are not simple, and people have
distinctly different ways of thinking, therefore marketers usually deal with different groups of
customer differently, the same should be the case when deciding about consumer promotions.
However, taking the individual characteristics of the consumers of the detergent market, under
consideration is impossible. To make decisions easier yet effective customers have to be thought
of as belonging to two groups. One that gets influenced by consumer promotion and buy the
product, and the other who do not act on the stimuli of consumer promotion. Overall very little
respondents of the survey have a negative view of consumer promotion. This could be because
they like the idea that companies are trying to give them better deals and putting in good effort to
make a sale to them. But overall positive attitude towards consumer promotion can not by itself
lead to a successful consumer promotion activity.

52

Consumer promotions usually take up a lot of limited monetary resources which have to be spent
wisely. To make a consumer promotion successful large amounts of sales are needed to cover up
the costs involved in providing it. This can only result from aiming the consumer promotion
efforts towards the group of customers who get influenced to buy the brands on promotion. If
done otherwise the money and efforts can easily go to waste. Being one of the oldest and largest
detergent manufacturers in the country, Unilever has enough learning to easily segment the
customer base into the two groups mentioned above. According to the survey data analysis it is
found that consumer promotions are positively related with quality perception. This could be
because of the overall positive attitude towards consumer promotions these days, people see that
very prestigious brands of consumer products are constantly coming up with new consumer
promotion activity, so they may associate quality with consumer promotion. Again, if the people
are influenced to buy a promoted brand it is also likely that ultimately they will consciously or
unconsciously become loyal to that brand offering more promotions. So for this group of people
higher number of successful consumer promotions can prove to be beneficial in both short and
long term. The perceived price of the brands on promotion is positively related to quality
perception and brand loyalty of that brand. This means that if there is a promotion offer (may
even be a price discount) people should perceive the overall price as fair (positive perception). If
they think otherwise then their promotion efforts will produce negative results in terms of
product quality perceptions and brand loyalty. Care should be taken that prices arent brought
down so much that they think that usually they pay too much for a given volume or quality level,
when a promotional offer is not there. If the consumers believe that they always pay a fair for a
particular brand, they will be more influenced to make repeat purchase of the brand.

53

9. APPENDIX
9.1.RELIABILITY TEST

Case Processing Summary

N
Cases

Valid
a

Excluded
Total

%
200

100.0

.0

200

100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha

N of Items
.825

28

According to the reliability the test is 82.5 reliable

54

9.2.QUESTIONNAIRE
Questionnaire For Laundry Detergent Customers
Dear Respondent:
I am a student of National university and Emerging Sciences (Fast University). I am in my last
semester. I am conducting this research as my final year project. This is a survey about the
offerings of the various laundry detergent manufacturers. Your honest opinions will be highly
valued and appreciated. There are no right or wrong answers. Participation in this survey is
completely voluntary. All answers will be kept confidential.
Please provide the following information (optional)
Please tick () the appropriate answers
Gender: Male Female
Age Group: 15 20 21 25 26 30 31 - 35 36 - 40
41 - 45 Above 45
Income Level: Below 20,000
21,000 50,000
51,000 80,000
81,000 100,000
Above 100,000

55

Please tick the option which closely matches your opinion

1. Which washing powder you use for washing clothes.
Surf excel

Ariel

Brite

Bonus

Others

The following questions are related to your opinion regarding the various sales promotion offers
by the different brands of detergent
Strongly
Agree
Promotional
offers
detergents pleases me

Agree

Uncertain

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

with

Promotional offers interests me

about the brands of detergent
Promotional
offers
with
detergents influence me to buy
the product
A promotional offer gives a
good image about a particular
brand
Promotional offers makes me
feel like I am being manipulated
Promotional
offers
with
detergents seem to be dishonest

56

The following questions are related to your views on prices of brands of detergent on promotion
Strongly
Agree

Agree

Uncertain

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

At sale price the detergents are

usually good value for money
Usually the different brands of
detergent appears to give a good
deal
The offered sale price of different
brands of detergent is usually
quite fair
The proposed offer for the
different brand of detergent is
usually extremely good

The following questions are related to your views on quality of brands of detergent on
promotional offers

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Uncertain

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

The brands of detergent on

promotion is usually extremely good
at cleaning Clothes
The brands of detergent on
promotion are usually highly
reliable
The brands of detergent on
promotion usually matches my
expectations
The brands of detergent on
promotion is usually of high quality

57

The following questions are related to your loyalty towards detergents in general

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Uncertain

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

I put in an effort while choosing a

brand of detergent
I always thought of a particular brand
of detergent over the other
brand(s)when I consider buying
detergent
I consider brand to be very important
in choosing a detergent
Over the last few months/years, I have
always bought the same brand of
detergent because I really liked the
brand
I would be upset if I had to buy
another brand of detergent if a
particular brand is not available
I would continue to buy the same
brand of detergent because I like the
brand very much
I feel very attached to a particular
brand of detergent over the others
Although another brand was on sale, I
still bought one particular brand of
detergent
Once I have decided on a particular
brand of detergent over other brands, I
will stick by it

58

If a particular brand of detergent was

not available at the stores, I would
rather not buy at all if I have to choose
another brand.

Thank You for Taking the Time to Share Your Valuable Opinion

59

10.

REFERENCES

Alvarez, B. A., and Casielles, R. V. (2005). Consumer evaluation of sales promotion: the effect
on brand choice. European Journal of Marketing, 39, , 54- 70.
Mazumdar, T. and Papatla, P. (2000), An investigation of reference prices segments, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 35, pp. 246-58.
Anttila, M. (2004). Pricing strategy and practice, consumer price perceptions after translation to
Euro currency. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13, 1, 47-55.
Astous, A. D. and Jacob, I. (2002). Understanding consumer reactions to premium-based
promotional offers. European Journal of Marketing, 36, 11/12, 1270-1286.
Mela, C.F., Gupta, S. and Lehmann, D.R. (1997), the long-term impact of promotion and
advertising on consumer brand choice, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, pp. 248-61.
Astous, A. D. and Landreville, V. (2003). An experimental investigation of factors affecting
consumers perceptions of sales promotions. European Journal of Marketing, 37, 11/12, 17461761.
Assuncao, Joao L., Robert Meyer. 1993. The rational effect of price promotions on sales and
consumption. Management Sci. 39 517535.
Bowen, J. T. and Chen, S. L. (2001). The relationship between customer loyalty and customer
satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13/5, 213-217.
Burman, B. and Biswas, A. (2004). Reference prices in retail advertisements: moderating effects
of market price dispersion and need for cognition on consumer value perception and shopping
intention. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13, 379389.
Daws, J. (2004). Assessing the impact of a very successful price promotion on brand, category
and competitor and sales. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 13, 5.
Forker, L. B., Vickery, S. K. and Droge, C.L.M. (1996). The contribution of quality to business
performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16, 8, 4-62.
Bargh, J.A. (2002), Losing consciousness: automatic influences on consumer judgment,
behavior, and motivation, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, pp. 280-5.
Groth, J. C. and Dye, R. T. (1999). Service quality: perceived value, expectations, shortfalls, and
bonuses. Managing Service Quality, 9, 4, 274-285.

60

Guiltinan, J. P. (2000). Managing quality cues for product-line pricing, Journal of Product and
Brand Management. 9, 3, 150-16.8.
Hussey, M. and Duncombe, N. (1999). Projecting the right image: using projective techniques to
measure brand image. An International Journal, 2, 1, 22-30.
Jiang, P. (2004). Customer intention to return online: price perception, attribute-level
performance, and satisfaction unfolding over time. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 1/2, 150174.

Kalita, J. K., Jagpal, S. and Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Pricing strategy and practice - Do high
prices signal high quality? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13, 4, 279-288.
Kotler P. and Armstrong G. (2002). Principles of Marketing, Ninth edition, Prentice-Hall.
Kwok, S. and Uncles, M. (2005). Sales promotion effectiveness: the impact of consumer
differences at an ethnic-group level. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14, 3, 170
186.
Lee, C. W. (2002). Sales Promotions as strategic communication: the case of Singapore. Journal
of Product & Brand management, 11, 2, 103-114.
Low, G. S., Lamb, C. W. and Neeley, M.J. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of
brand associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9, 6, 350-368.
Mackay, M. M. and Thiele, S. R. (2001). Assessing the performance of brand loyalty measures.
Journal of service marketing, 15, 7, 529-546.
Moore, M., Kennedy, K. M. and Fairhurst, A. (2003). Cross-cultural equivalence of price
perceptions between US and Polish consumers. International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, 31, 5, 268-279.
Munger, J. L. and Grewal D. (2001). The effects of alternative price promotional methods on
consumers' product evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 10, 3, 185-197.
Naylor, G.and Frank, K. E. (2000). The impact of retail sales force responsiveness on
consumers perceptions of value, Journal of Services Marketing, 14, 4, 310-322.
Ong, B. S., Ho, F. N. and Tripp, T. (1997). Consumer perceptions of bonus packs: an exploratory
analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14, 2, 102-112.
Palumbo, F. and Herbig, P. (2000). The multicultural context of brand loyalty, European Journal
of Innovation Management. 3, 3, 116 -124.

61

Quester, P. and Lim, A. L. (2003). Product involvement/ brand loyalty: is there a link? Journal of
product & brand management, 12, 1, 22-38.
Rowley J. and Dawes J. (1999). Customer loyalty a relevant concept for libraries? Journal of
Library Management, 20, 6, 345-351.
Ruyter, K. D., Wetzels, M. and Bloemer, J. (1998). On the relationship between perceived
service qualities, service loyalty and switching costs. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 9, 5, 436-453.
Schiffman, L. G. and Kanuk, L. L. (2004). Consumer Behavior. Eighth Edition, Prentice-Hall of
India.
Sjolander, R. (1992). Cross-cultural Effects of Price on Perceived Product Quality. European
Journal of Marketing, 26, 7, 34-44.
Snoj, B., Korda, A. P. and Mumel, D. (2004). The relationships among perceived quality,
perceived risk and perceived product value. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13, 3,
156-167.
Srini S. Srinivasan, S. S. and Anderson, R. E. (1998). Concepts and strategy guidelines for
designing value enhancing sales promotions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7, 5,
410-420.
Suri, R., Manchanda, R. V. and Kohli, C. S. (2000). Brand evaluations: a comparison of fixed
price and discounted price offers. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9, 3, 193-206.
Taylor, S. A., Celuch, K. and Goodwin, S. (2004). The importance of brand equity to customer
loyalty. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13, 4, 217-227
Thakor, M. V. and Lavack, A. M. (2003). Effect of perceived brand origin associations on
consumer perceptions of quality. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 12, 6, 394-407.
Waller, M. A. and Ahire, S. (1996). Management perception of the link between product quality
and customers view of product quality. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 16, 9, 23-33.
Wong, A. and Sohal A. (2003). Service quality and customer loyalty perspectives on two levels
of retail relationships. Journal of services marketing, 17, 5, 495-513.

62