STUDY ON TOOTHPASTE CUSTOMERS

PREPARED FOR MARKETING RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS COURSE

BY

SAVIO LENN DSOUZA

MMS MARKETING 2015-17

WELINGKAR INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, MUMBAI

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
SR NO TOPIC NO
1INTRODUCTION 3
2RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 3
3RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4
4EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
5SECONDARY RESEARCH 7
6FINDINGS:
6.ASAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS 9
6.BCLUSTER ANALYSIS 15
6.CPROFILING OF CLUSTERS 18
6.DCLUSTER COMPARISON 25
6.EPERCEPTUAL MAP 30
CONCLUSION AND
7 RECOMMENDATIONS 36
8 TOOTHPASTE QUESTIONNAIRE 37
9 REFERENCES 40

2
 1. INTRODUCTION

The following study was conducted as part of our project for the Marketing Research and
Analytics Course under the guidance of Prof. C.Y Nimkar. We aimed to segment toothpaste
consumers on the basis of their needs and to determine the perception of consumers for
leading four brands of toothpaste by market share. This involves developing a questionnaire
and running various statistical tests to segment the consumers, compare the segments
obtained and to understand the perception of each brand by the consumer. This study involves
analysing data of 41 respondents. The underlying purpose of this study was to ensure that we
understand the nuances of consumer research, science of designing a questionnaire and get
hands on experience on using the software SPSS.

2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The specific research objectives of this study were as follows:

1. To select any FMCG product. In our case we have selected toothpaste.

2. To segment the customers based on their needs in buying the product using Cluster
Analysis.
3. To describe the profile of each segment and compare if they are similar on their
profile using statistical tests of significance.
4. To identify the 4 leading brands of toothpaste using secondary research.
5. To describe the perception of the 4 brands in the customers mind using perceptual
mapping.

3
 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To accomplish these objectives, a questionnaire was administered to 41 respondents in the

Mumbai Metropolitan Region who purchase toothpaste for their households. The respondents
were selected keeping in mind they were the buyer of the product so as to ensure full honest
views on the criteria listed. The sampling method used to select respondents was
Convenience Sampling.

As part of the secondary research, the top four brands of toothpaste by market share we
identified using the latest industry report by The Nielsen Company.

The respondents were surveyed using a structured questionnaire designed to respond to the
project's specific research objectives. The questionnaire was thoroughly pretested before
being administered to improve the quality of the measuring instrument. The questionnaire
was administered through face to face interviews with the selected respondents.

The resulting data were edited and entered into computer files, processed and analysed using
SPSS. The overall profile of the respondents was tabulated using frequency tables. The
respondents were segmented on the basis of their needs using Cluster Analysis. Hierarchical
Cluster Analysis was used to determine the number of clusters. Further, K-Means Clustering
was used to assign cluster membership to each respondent and determine the segmentation
criteria needs. The clusters obtained were profiled on their demographic characteristics and
were compared if they were similar or dissimilar on the same using the Chi-Square test and
One Way ANOVA.

To understand the perception of the four leading brands a Perceptual Map was plotted. The
Mapping was done by Attribute based Mapping using Factor Analysis. The selling
propositions as well as the Unique Selling Proposition were also identified on the basis of
Perceptual Mapping and Factor Analysis.

4
 4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The FMCG market is the most vibrant market in any economy, the variety available along
with the competition from various local and international players make this market very
dynamic. In this study we try to understand one drop of the vast market TOOTHPASTE.
We try to segment customers according to their needs and compare the two segments on
demographic characteristics. Using secondary research we identified the top 4 toothpaste
brands by market share i.e. Colgate, Close Up, Dabur and Pepsodent, and tried to understand
the perception of the customer towards top 4 toothpaste brands.

A survey of 41 respondents was completed in the month of September. The survey involved
the use of a structured questionnaire administered by face to face interviews to toothpaste
customers selected by Convenience Sampling. The questionnaire was pretested to assure the
completeness and accuracy of responses. A typical respondent was female, between 18-31
years of age, having a post graduate education, employed with an organisation, with a
household income of Rs. 2.5-5 lakh, a household size of 4 members and having non-
vegetarian dietary habits.

Tooth Decay Protection, toothpaste flavour (taste), foaming action, breath freshness, teeth
whitening, gum protection and sensitivity protection were identified as the needs of the
customers while buying toothpaste. In order to segment the respondents, they were asked to
rate the importance of each of the above needs while buying toothpaste on a scale of 1 to 10
with 1 not important, 10 important. Demographic information such as age group, gender,
level of education, occupation, household income, size of the household, number of children
below the age of 12 years in the household and number of senior citizens in the household
were recorded as well.

Clustering, done using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis and K-Means Clustering established 2
clusters. K-Means also established Gum Protection and Sensitivity Protection as the
segmentation needs. Cluster one with 26 members rated Gum Protection and Sensitivity
Protection highly, while cluster 2 with 15 members did not attach much importance to the
same two needs.

The two clustered were profiled on their demographic characteristics. By running Chi-Square
Tests and One Way ANOVA, it was determined that the two clusters are similar in their
demographic profile i.e. they do not differ significantly on their demographic characteristics.

Perceptual Mapping of the four leading toothpaste brands was done by Attribute based
Mapping using Factor Analysis. Respondents were asked to rate each brand, irrespective of
whether that they had used the brand or not, on the above mentioned attributes on a scale of 1
to 10, 1: lowest, 10: highest. Using Factor Analysis we established that Tooth Protection,
having Tooth Decay Protection, Teeth Whitening, Gum Protection and Sensitivity Protection
as its components, and Mouth Feel, having Toothpaste Flavor, Foaming Action and Breath
Freshness as its components, as the two factors most important to toothpaste customers.
Tooth Protection was determined as the selling proposition of any toothpaste manufacturer
looking to market their product.

5
A perceptual map was plotted with Tooth Protection as Factor 1 on the X Axis and Mouth
Feel as Factor 2 on the Y Axis, established that Colgate has a moderately positive perception
on both factors; Close Up is perceived highly on mouth feel but negatively in terms of tooth
care; Dabur has a negative perception on both factors and Pepsodent has a weak perception
with regards to both factors. Superimposing the toothpaste attributes on the perceptual map
and by measuring the Square Euclidean Distance of each attribute from the origin we can
establish Gum Protection as the Unique Selling Proposition.

6
 5. SECONDARY RESEARCH

According to the latest data by Nielsen [1] the top 4 toothpaste brands in India by market share
are:

Brand Manufaturer Market Share (%) Brand Variants

Colgate Total
Colgate Colgate Active Salt
Colgate 55.7 Colgate Max Fresh
Palmolive
Colgate Visible White
Colgate Cibaca
Deep Action-Red Hot
Hindustan Icy White
Close Up 13.8 Fire Freeze Gel
Unilever
Diamond Attraction
Peppermint Splash
Dabur Red paste
Dabur Dabur 7.8 Dabur Meswak
Dabur Babool
Dabur Lal Dant Manjan
Pepsodent Gum Care
Hindustan Pepsodent Germicheck
Pepsodent 6.8 Pepsodent Whitening
Unilever
Pepsodent Complete
Care

Characteristics of the Indian Oral Care Industry:

According to a report by HDFC Securities [2], the Indian oral care industry, which is
characterized by low penetration and low per capita usage, offers a huge potential to industry
players to grow. Almost one-third of the Indian population does not have access to modern
oral care.

Per capita consumption of toothpaste in India is among the lowest in the world. The overall
per capita consumption of toothpaste in India is significantly lower at 136 gm (2014)
compared to other developing nations, China at 264 gm, Philippines at 259 gm and Brazil at
617 gm.

7
 700

600

500

400

300 617
543

200

259 264
100
136

0
Brazil USA Philippines China India

Per Capita Consumption of toothpaste (in gm) in 2014

Per capita consumption of toothpaste in India has grown at CAGR of 8.5% over the past
decade and assuming a CAGR of 7% it could double over next decade and come at par with
current levels in China. Another advantage in India is the pricing factor. The selling price of
toothpaste in China is double than India and three times for toothbrushes. In US, toothpaste is
3 times costlier, while toothbrush is 13.5 times costlier compared to India. This further leaves
scope for growth in the oral care category through premiumisation. Pick up in the economic
growth would improve the spending power of consumers and could drive premiumisation at a
faster pace.

Though urban penetration is higher at 92.3% (2014), rural penetration lags behind at 74.1%
(2014). Despite high penetration levels in urban markets, we feel the oral care market still
offers good scope for growth. The rural penetration is still low.

8
 6. FINDINGS

This section presents the findings of the study. The first part shows the characteristics of the
respondents who participated in the project. Respondents were selected through convenience
sampling.

6.A Sample Characteristics

FIGURE E-1

AGE GROUP OF
RESPONDENTS
Age
Group Frequency Percent
18-24 9 22.0
35-31 9 22.0
32-38 6 14.6
39-45 3 7.3
46-52 5 12.2
53-59 6 14.6
Above
3 7.3
60
Total 41 100.0

FIGURE E-2

GENDER OF RESPONDENTS
Gende Frequenc
r y Percent
Male 18 43.9
Femal
23 56.1
e
Total 41 100.0

9
 FIGURE E-3

LEVEL OF EDUCATION OF
RESPONDENTS
Level of Frequenc
Education y Percent
High School
3 7.3
Diploma 5 12.2
Undergradua
te 9 22.0
Postgraduate
24 58.5
Total 41 100.0

FIGURE E-4

OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENTS
Occupation Frequency Percent
Homemaker 5 12.2
Student 11 26.8
Service 16 39.0
Business
Person/Self
Employed 6 14.6

Retired 3 7.3
Total 41 100.0

FIGURE E-5

HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF
RESPONDENTS IN RS. LAKH
Household
Income Frequency Percent
0-2.5 10 24.4
2.5-5 13 31.7
5-10 7 17.1
Above 10 11 26.8
Total 41 100.0

10
 FIGURE E-6

SIZE OF THE HOUSEHOLD

Size Frequency Percent
1 3 7.3
2 3 7.3
3 9 22.0
4 21 51.2
5 4 9.8
6 1 2.4
Total 41 100.0

FIGURE E-7

NO. OF CHILDREN IN THE

HOUSEHOLD ( BELOW 12 YEARS OF
AGE)
Number of
Children Frequency Percent
0 35 85.4
1 5 12.2
2 1 2.4
Total 41 100.0

FIGURE E-8

NO. OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE

HOUSEHOLD
No of Senior
Citizens Frequency Percent
0 26 63.4
1 8 19.5
2 6 14.6
3 1 2.4
Total 41 100.0

11
 FIGURE E-9

DIETARY HABITS OF RESPONDENTS

Dietary Habit Frequency Percent
Vegetarian 14 34.1
Non
27 65.9
Vegetarian
Total 41 100.0

Synopsis:

Age Age groups 18-24 and 25-31 formed the

highest representation of 22%
Gender 56.1 % were female and male constituted
43.9%
Level of education 58.5% were post-graduate

Occupation 39% respondents were in service

Household Income 31.7% were in the bracket of Rs.2.5-5 lakh

Size of the family 51.2% Household had 4 members
Dietary Habits 65.9% were non-vegetarian and 34.1% were
vegetarian

12
 6.B Cluster Analysis

Cluster analysis was used to segment the customers on the basis of their needs of while
buying toothpaste. Cluster analysis or clustering is the task of grouping a set of objects in
such a way that objects in the same group (called a cluster) are more similar (in some sense or
another) to each other than to those in other groups (clusters). As per question number 1 in
the questionnaire, each respondent was asked to rate the importance of each of the following
attributes based on their needs while buying toothpaste on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 not
important, 10 important:
1. Tooth Decay Protection
2. Toothpaste Flavour (Taste)
3. Foaming Action
4. Breath Freshness
5. Teeth Whitening
6. Gum Protection
7. Sensitivity Protection

Clustering was done using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. The following two clustering
methods were used to determine number of clusters:

1. Centroid Rule:
Agglomeration Schedule
Cluster Stage Cluster Next
Combined First Appears Stage
Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster
Stage 1 2 Coefficients 1 2
33 1 30 17.486 32 0 36
34 8 17 18.150 15 0 35
35 8 11 29.159 34 18 39
36 1 7 43.559 33 0 38
37 3 5 44.000 0 0 38
38 1 3 59.584 36 37 40
39 6 8 130.781 0 35 40
40 1 6 174.034 38 39 0
Based on agglomeration schedule, number of clusters obtained is 2.

13
 2. Wards Method:

Agglomeration Schedule
Cluster Stage Cluster Next
Combined First Appears Stage
Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster
Stage 1 2 Coefficients 1 2
30 4 30 130.425 26 0 34
31 1 10 150.447 28 22 34
32 3 11 170.614 0 13 33
33 3 5 191.697 32 0 37
34 1 4 214.946 31 30 38
35 2 33 240.721 27 23 36
36 2 7 279.549 35 0 38
37 3 6 348.999 33 0 39
38 1 2 443.600 34 36 40
39 3 8 625.775 37 29 40
40 1 3 2240.537 38 39 0
Based on agglomeration schedule, number of clusters obtained is 3.

The K-Means Clustering is done to get the cluster membership based on the optimum number
of clusters that we have obtained from earlier step. Two cases arise as follows:

1. K=2, based on the output obtained using Centroid Method:

Iteration History
Change in Cluster
Centers
Iteration 1 2
1 4.971 5.020
2 .445 .736
3 .000 .000
Optimal solution is achieved at 3rd iteration since there is no displacement.

14
 ANOVA
F- Cluster Error F Sig.
Mean Mean
Square df Square df
Tooth Decay
300.492 1 1.875 39 160.278 .000
Protection
Toothpaste Flavor 109.133 1 3.457 39 31.570 .000
Foaming Action 170.676 1 2.522 39 67.681 .000
Breath Freshness 243.201 1 2.758 39 88.166 .000
Teeth Whitening 200.605 1 2.760 39 72.684 .000
Gum Protection 306.277 1 1.225 39 250.039 .000
Sensitivity
292.593 1 1.238 39 236.331 .000
Protection
Ratio is highest for Gum Protection and Sensitivity Protection. Hence they are the
segmentation variables.

Number of Cases in each

Cluster
Cluster 1 26.000
2 15.000
Valid 41.000
Missing 0.000

Size of the two clusters is 26 and 15.

Final Cluster Centers

Cluster
1 2
Tooth Decay Protection 9 4
Toothpaste Flavor 7 3
Foaming Action 7 3
Breath Freshness
9 4
Teeth Whitening 8 4
Gum Protection 9 3
Sensitivity Protection 8 3
Cluster 1 (n1=26) attaches more importance to gum protection and sensitivity protection
whereas cluster 2 (n2=15) attaches low importance to the segmentation variables.

2. K=3, based on the output using Wards method:

Iteration History

15
 Change in Cluster
Centers
Iteration 1 2 3
1 3.176 4.184 5.617
2 .302 0.000 1.766
3
0.000 .379 .789
4 0.000 0.000 0.000

Optimal solution is achieved at 4th iteration since there is no displacement.

ANOVA
Cluster Error F Sig.
Mean Mean
Square df Square df
Tooth Decay Protection 156.794 2 1.580 38 99.267 .000
Toothpaste Flavor 69.492 2 2.762 38 25.157 .000
Foaming Action 84.021 2 2.657 38 31.618 .000
Breath Freshness 151.052 2 1.281 38 117.921 .000
Teeth Whitening 126.569 2 1.450 38 87.280 .000
Gum Protection 163.853 2 .693 38 236.371 .000
Sensitivity Protection 146.686 2 1.250 38 117.336 .000

F-Ratio is highest for Gum Protection. Hence it is the segmentation need.

Number of Cases in each Cluster

Cluster 1 25.000
2 11.000
3 5.000
Valid 41.000
Missing 0.000
.

Size of the three clusters is 25, 11 and 5.

Final Cluster Centers

Cluster
1 2 3
Tooth Decay Protection 9 3 7
Toothpaste Flavor 7 2 5
Foaming Action 7 2 4
Breath Freshness 16 9 3 6
Teeth Whitening 8 3 6
Gum Protection 9 3 4
Sensitivity Protection 8 3 4
Cluster 1 (n1=25) rates gum protection as important. Cluster 2 (n2=11) and cluster 3 (n3=5),
attach low importance to gum protection.

There is not much difference in clusters 2 and 3, while there is just one segmentation
variable. Hence we prefer 2 clusters.

17
 6.C PROFILING THE TWO CLUSTERS

Cluster1:

FIGURE F-1

AGE GROUP OF RESPONDENTS

Age Group Frequency Percent

18-24 6 23.1
35-31 6 23.1
32-38 4 15.4
39-45 2 7.7
46-52 2 7.7
53-59 4 15.4
Above
2 7.7
60
Total 26 100.0

FIGURE F-2
GENDER OF RESPONDENT
Gender Frequency Percent
Male 11 42.3
Female 15 57.7
Total 26 100.0

FIGURE F-3
LEVEL OF EDUCATION
OF RESPONDENTS
Level of
Education Frequency Percent
High School 2 7.7
Diploma 4 15.4
Undergraduate 6 23.1
Postgraduate 14 53.8
Total 26 100.0

18
 FIGURE F-4
OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENTS
Occupation Frequency Percent
Homemaker 4 15.4
Student 7 26.9
Service 10 38.5
Business Person/Self
2 7.7
Employed
Retired 3 11.5
Total 26 100.0

FIGURE F-5
HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF
RESPONDENTS IN LAKHS
Household
Income Frequency Percent
0-2.5 7 26.9
2.5-5 9 34.6
5-10 4 15.4
Above
6 23.1
10
Total 26 100.0

FIGURE F-6
SIZE OF THE HOUSEHOLD
Size Frequency Percent
1 1 3.8
2 1 3.8
3 4 15.4
4 18 69.2
5 2 7.7
Total 26 100.0

19
 FIGURE F-7
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
IN THE HOUSEHOLD
(BELOW 12
YRS OF AGE)
Number
of
Children Frequency Percent
0 20 76.9
1 5 19.2
2 1 3.8
Total 26 100.0

FIGURE F-8
NUMBER OF SENIOR CITIZENS
IN THE HOUSEHOLD
Number
of Senior
Citizens Frequency Percent
0 16 61.5
1 6 23.1
2 4 15.4
Total 26 100.0

FIGURE F-9
DIETARY HABITS OF
RESPONDENTS
Dietary
Habit Frequency Percent
Veg 7 26.9
Non Veg 19 73.1
Total 26 100.0

20
Cluster 2:

FIGURE G-1

AGE GROUP OF RESPONDENTS

Age Group Frequency Percent

18-24 3 20.0
35-31 3 20.0
32-38 2 13.3
39-45 1 6.7
46-52 3 20.0
53-59 2 13.3
Above 60 1 6.7
Total 15 100.0

FIGURE G-2
GENDER OF RESPONDENT
Gender Frequency Percent
Male 7 46.7
Female 8 53.3
Total 15 100.0

FIGURE G-3
LEVEL OF EDUCATION
OF RESPONDENTS
Level Of
Education Frequency Percent
High School 1 6.7
Diploma 1 6.7
Undergraduate 3 20.0
Postgraduate 10 66.7
Total 15 100.0

21
 FIGURE G-4
HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF
RESPONDENTS IN LAKHS
Occupation Frequency Percent
Homemaker 1 6.7
Student 4 26.7
Service 6 40.0
Business Person/Self
4 26.7
Employed
Total 15 100.0

FIGURE G-5
SIZE OF THE HOUSEHOLD
Household
Income Frequency Percent
0-2.5 3 20.0
2.5-5 4 26.7
5-10 3 20.0
Above 10 5 33.3
Total 15 100.0

FIGURE G-6
SIZE OF THE HOUSEHOLD
Size Frequency Percent
1 2 13.3
2 2 13.3
3 5 33.3
4 3 20.0
5 2 13.3
6 1 6.7
Total 15 100.0

22
 FIGURE G-7
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
IN THE HOUSEHOLD
(BELOW 12YRS OF AGE)
Number
of
Children Frequency Percent
0 15 100.0

FIGURE G-8
NUMBER OF SENIOR CITIZENS
IN THE HOUSEHOLD
Number
of
Citizens Frequency Percent
0 10 66.7
1 2 13.3
2 2 13.3
3 1 6.7
Total 15 100.0

FIGURE G-9
DIETARY HABITS OF
RESPONDENTS
Dietary
Habit Frequency Percent
Veg 7 46.7
Non Veg 8 53.3
Total 15 100.0

23
 Synopsis of Cluster Demographics

Cluster 1 Cluster 2
Age Group: Most of the respondents Age Group: 18-24, 24-31 and 46-52
here were in the age group 18-31 all had 20% respondents.
years, 43% to be precise.

Male: Female = 42:58 Male: Female = 46.7:53.3

Education: Postgraduate formed 54% Education: Postgraduate formed

66.7%

Occupation: Service, Student formed Occupation: Service formed 40% and

38%, 27% respectively. student & self employed formed
26.7%.

Income: 62% have income below Rs. Income: 46.7% have income below
5 lakh. Rs.5 lakh.

Members: 60% had more than or Members: 51% had more than or
equal 4 members in their family(up to equal 4 members in their family(up to
6) 6)

24
 6.D CLUSTER COMPARISON

Statistical tests of significance are used to establish if there are differences between cluster 1
(n1=26) and cluster 2 (n2=15) obtained using Centroid Method and K-Means Analysis.

1. Ho: There is no association between gender and clusters.

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-

Value df (2-sided) sided) sided)

Pearson Chi-Square .073a 1 .786

Continuity Correctionb .000 1 1.000

Likelihood Ratio .073 1 .787

Fisher's Exact Test 1.000 .521

Linear-by-Linear
.072 1 .789
Association

N of Valid Cases 41

Since P>0.05, we do not reject Ho. i.e. There is no association between gender and
clusters.

2. Ho: There is no association between age group and clusters.

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 1.346a 6 .969

Likelihood Ratio 1.291 6 .972

Linear-by-Linear
.118 1 .731
Association

N of Valid Cases 41

Since p>0.05, we do not reject Ho i.e. There is no association between age group and
clusters.

25
3. Ho: There is no association between level of education and cluster.

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig.
Value Df (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square .915a 3 .822

Likelihood Ratio .969 3 .809

Linear-by-Linear
.574 1 .449
Association

N of Valid Cases 41

Since p>0.05, we do not reject Ho, i.e. There is no association between level of
education and clusters.

4. Ho: There is no association between occupation and cluster.

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig.
Value Df (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 4.670a 4 .323

Likelihood Ratio 5.618 4 .230

Linear-by-Linear
.149 1 .699
Association

N of Valid Cases 41

Since p>0.05, we do not reject Ho i.e. There is no association between occupation and
cluster.

26
 5. Ho: There is no association between household income and cluster.

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig.
Value Df (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square .868a 3 .833

Likelihood Ratio .866 3 .834

Linear-by-Linear
.749 1 .387
Association

N of Valid Cases 41

Since p>0.05, we do not reject Ho i.e. There is no association between household

income and cluster.

6. Ho: There is no association between dietary habits and cluster.

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-

Value Df (2-sided) sided) sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 1.649a 1 .199

Continuity Correctionb .888 1 .346

Likelihood Ratio 1.627 1 .202

Fisher's Exact Test .306 .173

Linear-by-Linear
1.609 1 .205
Association

N of Valid Cases 41

Since p.0.05, we do not reject Ho. i.e. There is no association between dietary habits
and cluster.

27
7. Ho: There is no significance difference in the mean size of the family of the two
clusters.

ANOVA

No of members in Family

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between
2.049 1 2.049 1.735 .195
Groups

Within Groups 46.049 39 1.181

Total 48.098 40

Since p>0.05, we do not reject Ho i.e. There is no significant difference in the mean
size of the family of the two clusters.

8. Ho: There is no significance difference in the mean number of children in the

household (below 12 years of age) of the two clusters.

ANOVA

No of children below 12 years

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between
.689 1 .689 3.779 .059
Groups

Within Groups 7.115 39 .182

Total 7.805 40

Since p>0.05, we do not reject Ho i.e. There is no significance difference in the mean
number of children in the household (below 12 years of age) of the two clusters.

28
9. Ho: There is no significance difference in the mean number of senior citizens in the
household of the two clusters.

ANOVA

No of senior citizens

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between
.036 1 .036 .050 .824
Groups

Within Groups 28.062 39 .720

Total 28.098 40

Since p>0.05, we do not reject Ho i.e. There is no significance difference in the mean
number of senior citizens in the household of the two clusters.

29
 6.E PERCEPTUAL MAPPING
Perceptual mapping is a diagrammatic technique used by marketers that attempts to visually
display the perceptions of customers or potential customers. Attribute based mapping using
factor analysis was used to map the perceptions of respondents with regard to the 4 leading
brands of toothpaste (Colgate, Close Up, Dabur and Pepsodent) on the following attributes:

1. Tooth Decay Protection

2. Toothpaste Flavour (Taste)
3. Foaming Action
4. Breath Freshness
5. Teeth Whitening
6. Gum Protection
7. Sensitivity Protection

Respondents were asked to rate each brands, irrespective of whether that he used the brand or
not, on the above mentioned attributes on a scale of 1 to 10, 1: lowest, 10: highest. (questions
2,3,4,5)

Factor Analysis:

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .915

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx.
Chi- 1362.305
Square
df 21
Sig. .000

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy >0.5, factor analysis is a good fit for
data.

Anti-image Tooth decay -.02 -.12 -.28 -.26

Correlation protection .933a -.336 .018
9 2 0 9
Toothpaste -.41 -.26 -.03
-.029 .910a .045 .076
Flavor 8 8 8
Foaming Action -.41 -.30 -.10
-.122 .918a .080 -.046
8 0 4
Breath -.26 -.30 -.04
-.280 .929a -.224 .016
Freshness 8 0 4
Teeth -.03 -.04 -.54
-.269 .080 .903a -.120
Whitening 8 4 2
Gum Protection -.04 -.22 -.12 -.39
-.336 .045 .921a
6 4 0 3
Sensitivity -.10 -.54
.018 .076 .016 -.393 .886a
Protection 4 2
All measures of sampling adequacy are above 0.5, hence all variables are required.

30
 Communalities

Initial Extraction
Tooth decay
protection 1.000 .883

Toothpaste
1.000 .906
Flavor
Foaming
1.000 .862
Action
Breath
1.000 .876
Freshness
Teeth
1.000 .906
Whitening
Gum
1.000 .913
Protection
Sensitivity
Protection 1.000 .910

Extraction is greater than 0.5 for each attribute. Here we see that the extraction is greater than
0.5, hence we can conclude that the data is well represented by the factors.

Total Variance Explained

Extraction Sums of Rotation Sums of
Initial Eigenvalues Squared Loadings Squared Loadings
% of Cum % of % of Cumul
Compon Varianc ulativ Varia Cumulati Varianc ative
ent Total e e % Total nce ve % Total e %
1 80.03 80.03
5.602 80.035 5.602 80.035 3.683 52.620 52.620
5 5
2 89.38
.655 9.353 .655 9.353 89.388 2.574 36.768 89.388
8
3 92.60
.225 3.219
8
4 95.25
.185 2.643
1
5 97.06
.127 1.818
9
6 98.78
.120 1.717
6
7 100.0
.085 1.214
00

Looking at the Total Variance Table we can see that 2 factors have been extracted and that

31
they explain approximately 89% of the data.

The Scree plot indicates the 2 factors have been extracted.

Rotated Component Matrix

Component
1 2
Sensitivity
Protection .901 .314
Teeth Whitening .893 .330
Gum Protection .854 .429
Tooth decay
protection .789 .511
Toothpaste Flavor
.265 .914
Foaming Action .486 .791
Breath Freshness .646 .678

32
Thus from the above Rotated Component Matrix two factors are obtained. They can be
labelled as:

A. Factor 1: Tooth Protection (Sensitivity Protection, Teeth Whitening, Gum Protection,

Tooth decay protection)
B. Factor 2: Mouth Feel (Toothpaste Flavor, Foaming Action, Breath Freshness)

Perceptual Mapping: After obtaining the individual factor scores for each respondent we get
the average factor scores for each brand.

Brand Factor 1 Factor 2

Colgate 0.0785 0.0744
Close Up -0.2371 0.3116
Pepsoden
t -0.0053 -0.0406
Dabur 0.1638 -0.3453

Based on these scores we can plot the Perception Map for the different brands.

Colgate has a moderately positive perception on tooth protection and mouth feel.
Close Up is perceived highly on mouth feel but negatively in terms of tooth
protection.
Dabur has a positive perception on tooth care and negative perception on mouth feel.
Pepsodent has a weak perception with regards to both factors.

33
We can also obtain the brand scatter plot superimposed with the criterion:

Factor Factor
Attribute 1 2 S.E.D
0.9400
Tooth Decay Protection 0.789 0.511 2
0.9516
Toothpaste Flavor 0.265 0.914 4
0.9283
Foaming Action 0.486 0.791 7
0.9364
Breath Freshness 0.646 0.678 8
0.9520
Teeth Whitening 0.893 0.33 2
Gum Protection 0.854 0.429 0.9557
0.9541
Sensitivity Protection 0.901 0.314 5

34
Based on the above scatter plot and table, Tooth Protection factors are in close proximity of
each other and have consumers attach the highest importance to Gum Protection. Thus the
selling proposition is Tooth Protection, while the unique selling proposition Gum Protection.

35
 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Sample: The sample consisted of interviews with 41 respondents living in the Mumbai
Metropolitan Region selected through Convenience Sampling. Of the 41 respondents, 56%
were female and 44% were male. A typical respondent was female, between 18-31 years of
age, having a post graduate education, employed with an organisation, with a household
income of Rs. 2.5-5 lakh, a household size of 4 members and having non-vegetarian dietary
habits. To increase reliability and accuracy of the analysis and reduce error, a future study can
collect data from a much larger sample (over 100 respondents) preferably using a
probabilistic sampling method such as Simple Random Sampling.

Clustering Analysis: Using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis and K-Means Clustering it was
determined that the number of clusters was 2. K-Means also established Gum Protection and
Sensitivity Protection were the segmentation needs. Cluster one having 26 members rated
Gum Protection and Sensitivity Protection highly, while cluster 2 did not attach much
importance to the same two needs. The two clusters were found to be similar on the
demographic characteristics as established by the Chi-Square test and One Way ANOVA. The
similarity of the two clusters is due to the small sample size and the method of sampling
employed.

Perceptual Mapping: A Perceptual Map of the four leading toothpaste brands was obtained
using Attribute based Mapping using Factor Analysis. Factor Analysis established Tooth
Protection and Mouth Feel as the two factors that consumers use to form their perception of
the toothpaste brands. The perceptual map established that Colgate has a moderately positive
perception on both factors; Close Up is perceived highly on mouth feel but negatively in
terms of tooth care; Dabur has a negative perception on both factors and Pepsodent has a
weak perception with regards to both factors. Superimposing the toothpaste attributes on the
perceptual map and by measuring the Square Euclidean Distance of each attribute from the
origin we can establish Gum Protection as the Unique Selling Proposition.

36