Research Report on
‘Consumer expectations for quick commerce (10-min
delivery)’
Submitted By- Group 2 (Division 4)
Submitted To-
17030124195- Aakarsh Singh
Dr. Deepali
17030124205- Aneesha Kushte
Dr. Tanushree
17030124207- Ansh Gupta
Faculty, Business Research Methods
17030124230- Maheep Mathur
KJ Somaiya Institute of Management
17030124231- Maithilee Mali
Acknowledgement
We extend our sincere gratitude to everyone who has contributed to the successful completion
of this project.
First and foremost, we would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Tanushree
Bhattacharjee and Dr. Deepali Mishra. We are deeply appreciative for their invaluable
mentorship, encouragement, and continuous support.
We are also grateful to our institution, K J Somaiya Institute of Management, Mumbai, and
faculty members for providing us with the necessary resources and a conducive learning
environment that enabled us to conduct this research effectively.
A special thank you to all the respondents and participants who took the time to share their
perspectives and experiences making this study possible. Their valuable input has been
instrumental in deriving meaningful insights.
Lastly, we would like to express our gratitude to our peers, friends, and family members for
their continuous encouragement and support during the course of this project.
1
Contents
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................................. 1
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 4
Industry Overview ............................................................................................................................. 5
Major Players .................................................................................................................................. 5
Company Overview (Zepto) ............................................................................................................ 6
Products and Services .................................................................................................................. 6
Departments ................................................................................................................................... 7
Management and Leadership ..................................................................................................... 7
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................8
Understanding Quick Commerce (Q-Commerce) ..................................................................8
Growth and Market Expansion ...................................................................................................8
Factors Driving Adoption of Quick Commerce .......................................................................8
Consumer Expectations from Q-Commerce ........................................................................... 9
Review of Literature ....................................................................................................................... 10
Rationale behind the study ...................................................................................................... 10
Problem Statement ..................................................................................................................... 10
Significance of the problem...................................................................................................... 11
Research Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 12
Scope of the Study ...................................................................................................................... 13
Research Methodology .................................................................................................................. 13
a. Research Hypothesis .............................................................................................................. 13
Research design (Research type) ............................................................................................ 14
2
c. Data Collection Instrument- Questionnaire ..................................................................... 15
d. Sampling Design ...................................................................................................................... 15
i. Sample Size ............................................................................................................................ 15
ii. Sampling Method ................................................................................................................ 15
iii. Sampling Unit ...................................................................................................................... 15
a. Statistical Tests........................................................................................................................ 16
Findings & Suggestions .................................................................................................................. 32
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................34
Annexure............................................................................................................................................ 35
a. Annexure: Questionnaire....................................................................................................... 35
b. Annexure: CODE BOOK .......................................................................................................... 38
References........................................................................................................................................ 40
3
Executive Summary
The report examines consumer expectations for quick commerce (Q-commerce),
particularly 10-minute delivery services, highlighting key drivers, market trends, and
challenges. India’s Q-commerce sector, valued at $700 million in 2023, is expected to
grow to $5.5 billion by 2025, driven by increasing demand for convenience,
urbanization, and digital adoption. Major players such as Zepto, Blinkit, Swiggy
Instamart, Dunzo, and BigBasket BBNow are shaping this fast-evolving industry.
Findings suggest that while consumers value speed, faster delivery does not always
lead to higher satisfaction. Managing expectations and ensuring service reliability are
crucial for sustained growth. Many users are willing to pay extra for ultra-fast
deliveries, though their price sensitivity varies. Interestingly, spending on Q-commerce
does not significantly correlate with income, indicating a broad market appeal.
Convenience plays a crucial role in influencing adoption and recommendations,
whereas sustainability remains a secondary concern. While consumers express interest
in eco-friendly deliveries, most are unwilling to wait longer for them.
To remain competitive, businesses should implement tiered pricing models, improve
delivery accuracy, and enhance customer experience through product quality and
personalized offers. Subscription-based models and dynamic pricing could help
maximize profitability while balancing service efficiency. Additionally, companies must
explore incentives for sustainable practices rather than relying solely on extended
delivery windows.
This study provides key insights into consumer behaviour, allowing Q-commerce firms
to refine their strategies, improve retention, and drive long-term success in a rapidly
expanding market.
4
Industry Overview
The quick commerce sector in India currently has a market size of US$ 700 million (as
of 2023) and is likely to grow eight times to reach a US$ 5.5 billion market value by 2025.
The India Quick E-Commerce (Quick Commerce) market is poised for exponential
growth, projected to reach US$ 19,932.5 million driven by rising internet and
smartphone penetration, convenience of quick delivery, and accelerated adoption
during COVID-19, with diverse product categories and order value segments catering
to evolving consumer preferences, and the domination of metropolitan cities
presenting significant opportunities for retailers and key players to capitalize on the
rapidly expanding market.
Major Players
The following companies have been instrumental in shaping the Q-commerce industry
in India, each adopting unique strategies to capture market share. Several key players
dominate the Q-commerce landscape in India:
5
1. Zepto: Known for its rapid growth, Zepto achieved a gross merchandise value
(GMV) of USD 200 million in 2023, marking a significant increase from the
previous year
2. Blinkit (Zomato-owned): Blinkit has expanded its services by integrating with
Zomato, aiming to enhance its delivery capabilities and reach.
3. Swiggy Instamart: Leveraging its existing food delivery infrastructure, Swiggy
Instamart offers quick delivery of groceries and daily essentials.
4. Dunzo (Reliance-backed): Dunzo offers hyperlocal delivery services, connecting
consumers with local stores for quick deliveries.
5. BigBasket BBNow (Tata-owned): BigBasket has introduced BBNow to provide
rapid delivery services, capitalizing on its established supply chain network.
Company Overview (Zepto)
Products and Services
Zepto is a leading player in India’s Quick Commerce (Q-commerce) industry,
specializing in ultra-fast grocery delivery. Launched in 2021, the company promises
deliveries in 10 minutes or less, catering to the growing demand for convenience in
urban areas. Zepto operates through a network of dark stores, which are strategically
located fulfillment centers that stock essential grocery items, fresh produce, dairy,
personal care products, and household essentials. The platform is app-based and
offers seamless order placement, real-time tracking, and digital payment options.
Zepto differentiates itself through its AI-driven inventory management and hyperlocal
supply chain, ensuring product availability and minimizing stockouts. The company
continuously expands its product categories, offering items such as packaged foods,
snacks, beverages, and home essentials. It also provides promotional discounts,
subscription-based benefits, and loyalty rewards to retain customers.
6
Departments
Zepto has a structured organizational framework with various departments ensuring
smooth operations:
1. Operations & Logistics – Manages supply chain efficiency, last-mile delivery
optimization, and warehouse operations.
2. Technology & Data Science – Develops AI-based algorithms for demand
forecasting, route optimization, and personalized recommendations.
3. Marketing & Growth – Handles brand promotion, digital campaigns, influencer
marketing, and customer acquisition strategies.
4. Finance & Strategy – Focuses on funding, financial planning, and investor
relations.
5. Human Resources & Talent Management – Oversees hiring, employee
engagement, and gig workforce management.
6. Customer Support & Experience – Provides assistance to customers, manages
feedback, and handles complaints or service issues.
Management and Leadership
Zepto was co-founded by Aadit Palicha and Kaivalya Vohra, two Stanford University
dropouts who identified a gap in the Indian grocery delivery market. Under their
leadership, Zepto has secured significant venture capital funding, with investments
from global firms such as Y Combinator, Nexus Venture Partners, and Glade Brook
Capital. As of 2024, Zepto achieved unicorn status, valued at over $1.4 billion.
The leadership team focuses on expansion, technological innovation, and operational
efficiency to maintain Zepto’s competitive edge in the Q-commerce sector. The
company has aggressively expanded across major Indian cities, including Mumbai,
Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, and Chennai, and aims to scale further while ensuring
profitability.
7
Introduction
Understanding Quick Commerce (Q-Commerce)
Quick commerce, or Q-commerce, is a modern evolution of e-commerce that focuses
on delivering products within an extremely short timeframe, typically 10 to 30 minutes.
Unlike traditional e-commerce models, which operate on scheduled deliveries, Qcommerce prioritizes instant fulfillment through hyperlocal supply chains. This model
has gained traction due to the fast-paced lifestyles of urban consumers who seek
convenience, efficiency, and immediate access to essential goods such as groceries,
personal care items, and household necessities.
Growth and Market Expansion
Q-commerce has seen rapid growth in India and globally, driven by changing consumer
behavior and advancements in supply chain technology. According to TechSci Research
and RedSeer Consulting, India's Q-commerce market was valued at $3.05 billion in FY
2024 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 20.3%, reaching $13.38 billion by FY 2032.
The rise of this industry is attributed to increasing smartphone penetration, digital
payment adoption, and significant venture capital investments in leading platforms.
Companies like Blinkit, Zepto, and Swiggy Instamart have emerged as key players,
competing to dominate this high-speed delivery segment.
Factors Driving Adoption of Quick Commerce
The increasing number of young professionals, students, and working families in urban
areas has fueled the demand for Q-commerce services. Convenience is a major factor,
as consumers prefer to receive essential items instantly rather than planning their
purchases in advance. Technological advancements, such as AI-driven inventory
management, automated warehousing, and optimized delivery routes, have enabled
companies to achieve faster turnaround times. Competitive pricing strategies,
8
discounts, and loyalty programs also encourage more consumers to use Q-commerce
platforms regularly.
Consumer Expectations from Q-Commerce
Consumer expectations from Q-commerce revolve around four key aspects: speed,
product availability, pricing, and service reliability. While many users prioritize fast
deliveries, product variety and stock availability also play a crucial role in shaping their
experience. Pricing is another major consideration, as customers weigh the benefits of
ultra-fast delivery against additional service charges. For grocery and fresh produce
deliveries, quality and freshness remain top priorities. Additionally, factors such as
customer support, return policies, and overall service consistency influence user
satisfaction and brand loyalty.
Challenges Faced by the Q-Commerce Industry
Despite its rapid growth, Q-commerce faces several operational and ethical
challenges. Sustainability concerns have emerged due to the high volume of packaging
waste and increased carbon emissions from rapid deliveries. Profitability is another
key issue, as companies struggle to maintain margins while keeping delivery times
short and service fees competitive. Labor conditions in the gig economy have also
sparked debates around rider wages, job security, and fair working conditions.
Addressing these concerns is crucial for ensuring long-term sustainability and
regulatory compliance within the industry.
Significance of the Study
This research aims to analyze consumer expectations from Q-commerce services and
understand the key factors influencing their purchasing decisions. By identifying what
consumers value the most in 10-minute delivery models, businesses can refine their
strategies, improve service efficiency, and enhance customer retention. The study will
also provide insights into the challenges faced by Q-commerce companies, helping
9
them address consumer concerns while optimizing their operations for long-term
success.
Review of Literature
Rationale behind the study
The quick growth of Q-commerce has revolutionized consumer shopping patterns by
providing super-fast delivery solutions, typically in 10 minutes. The phenomenon is
fueled by growing demand for convenience, lifestyle changes in urban areas, and
technological and logistics advancements. Businesses like Blinkit, Zepto, and Swiggy
Instamart have become the primary players in India, revolutionizing the shopping
process for consumers for groceries and essential items. Yet, despite its increasing
usage, consumer satisfaction and expectations are not fully explored, which calls for
further research to better comprehend major drivers of their decision-making. The
current research intends to fill this gap by examining drivers like speed, price, product
availability, customer service, and sustainability in consumer decision-making.
Problem Statement
Although fast commerce services guarantee ease and super-speedy deliveries, there
are several challenges that remain. Some of these include high delivery fees, product
non-availability, order errors, sustainability issues, and brand commitment, and this
effect customer satisfaction. Although speed is a strong selling factor, it is unclear if
customers consider it more important than pricing, discounts, and diversity of
products. In addition, as competition among providers of quick commerce increases,
knowing what influences switching behavior and customer retention is imperative for
business continuity. This research aims to discover major pain points and consumer
expectations to offer strategic recommendations for enhancing service efficiency,
pricing, and overall consumer experience.
10
Significance of the problem
The quick commerce market in India is projected to grow exponentially, making it a
critical sector in the e-commerce and retail landscape. Understanding consumer
behavior in this domain is essential for businesses to enhance customer satisfaction,
improve service offerings, and develop competitive strategies. Insights from this study
can help quick commerce companies address challenges such as delivery
inefficiencies, pricing concerns, and trust in product quality. Additionally, with growing
environmental awareness, exploring consumer willingness to adopt sustainable
delivery models can contribute to the industry’s long-term success. Policymakers and
stakeholders can also benefit from this research by shaping regulations that promote
fair pricing, consumer protection, and sustainability in the quick commerce ecosystem.
SWOT Analysis:
Opportunity: The rapid growth of the digital economy and increasing consumer
demand for instant gratification present a significant market opportunity for quick
commerce.
Strength: Understanding consumer expectations allows companies to leverage their
existing technological infrastructure and logistical capabilities to create a competitive
advantage.
Threat: Intense competition and fluctuating consumer preferences pose a threat to
profitability and market share if companies fail to meet evolving expectations.
Weakness: Operational inefficiencies and high delivery costs, if not addressed, can
erode consumer trust and lead to customer churn.
PESTLE Analysis:
Economic: Rising inflation and economic uncertainty can impact consumer spending
patterns, making it crucial for quick commerce companies to understand price
sensitivity and offer competitive pricing.
11
Political: Government regulations regarding labour practices, delivery standards, and
environmental sustainability can significantly affect the operational costs and longterm viability of quick commerce businesses.
Social: The increasing reliance on convenience and instant solutions in urban lifestyles
drives the demand for quick commerce, highlighting the need to understand changing
consumer behaviours.
Technological: Continuous advancements in mobile technology, AI, and logistics
enable companies to optimize delivery routes and enhance customer experiences, but
also necessitate staying ahead of technological trends to meet consumer expectations.
Legal: Compliance with evolving labour laws, food safety regulations, and data privacy
standards is essential for maintaining consumer trust and avoiding legal penalties.
Environmental: Growing consumer awareness of sustainability issues necessitates the
adoption of eco-friendly packaging and delivery practices to minimize environmental
impact.
Research Objectives
1. To analyze the relationship between consumer expectations for quick
commerce (10-minute delivery) and their satisfaction.
2. To examine the impact of monthly income on spending behavior in quick
commerce.
3. To evaluate whether willingness to pay extra for ultra-fast delivery influences
perceived convenience.
4. To determine the price threshold consumers are willing to pay for 10-minute
delivery.
5. To compare quick commerce spending patterns between consumers aged 18-24
and 25-34.
12
6. To assess the association between consumers' willingness to wait longer for
sustainable delivery and their preference for sustainability.
Scope of the Study
The scope of this study focuses on analyzing consumer behavior in the quick
commerce sector, specifically regarding their willingness to pay for faster delivery,
spending patterns, perceived convenience, satisfaction levels, and sustainability
preferences. The study examines statistical relationships between these factors using
One-Sample t-tests, ANOVA, Correlation, Linear Regression, and Chi-Square tests to
derive insights.
Key areas covered:
•
Consumer Willingness to Pay Extra for ultra-fast delivery services.
•
Impact of Monthly Income on Spending Behavior in quick commerce.
•
Effect of Speed of Delivery on Customer Satisfaction and expectations.
•
Relationship Between Perceived Convenience and Likelihood of
Recommendation.
•
Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Delivery and their willingness to wait
Research Methodology
a. Research Hypothesis
1. H₀: There is no significant correlation between consumer expectations for quick
commerce (10-minute delivery) and their satisfaction.
H₁: There is a significant correlation between consumer expectations for quick
commerce (10-minute delivery) and their satisfaction.
2. H₀: Monthly income has no significant effect on spending in quick commerce.
H₁: Monthly income significantly affects spending in quick commerce.
13
3. H₀: Willingness to pay extra for ultra-fast delivery does not significantly impact
perceived convenience.
H₁: Willingness to pay extra for ultra-fast delivery significantly impacts
perceived convenience.
4. H₀: Consumers are not willing to pay more than ₹20 for a 10-minute delivery.
H₁: Consumers are willing to pay more than ₹20 for a 10-minute delivery.
5. H₀: There is no significant difference in the trust in quality of perishable items
between different genders.
H₁: There is a significant difference in the trust in quality of perishable items
between different genders.
6. H₀: There is no association between willingness to wait longer for sustainable
delivery and preference for sustainability.
H₁: There is a significant association between willingness to wait longer for
sustainable delivery and preference for sustainability.
Research design (Research type)
This study follows a Quantitative, Descriptive, and Causal Research Design to analyze
consumer expectations and spending behavior for quick commerce (10-minute
delivery).
1) Research Type:
•
Quantitative Research: The study collects numerical data through structured
surveys and analyzes it using statistical techniques.
•
Descriptive Research: It aims to understand consumer expectations, spending
habits, and willingness to pay for quick commerce.
14
•
Causal Research: It tests cause-and-effect relationships, such as whether income
impacts quick commerce spending or if willingness to pay extra affects perceived
convenience
2) Data Collection Method:
•
Primary Data Collection: A structured questionnaire survey is conducted among
college students.
•
Cross-Sectional Study: Data is collected at a single point in time to analyze
consumer expectations and behaviors.
3) Sampling Approach:
Non-Probability Sampling (Convenience or Quota Sampling): The study focuses on
college students who are potential quick commerce users.
c. Data Collection Instrument- Questionnaire
d. Sampling Design
i. Sample Size
● The sample size taken for this research is 100. This size should be significant to
yield significant statistical results. This sample size depends on factors such as
the population size, desired confidence level and margin of error
ii. Sampling Method
● The Sampling method used here is Non-probability sampling due to practical
constraints. We have used convenience sampling of students who were readily
available to be surveyed
iii. Sampling Unit
● Individual college students, friends and relatives who are potential users of
quick commerce services.
15
● The unit of analysis is each student's response regarding their expectations for
10-min delivery services.
e. Outline of analysis
(a brief outline of tools and techniques to be used for analysis, statistical tools and
tests to be used)
13. Data Analysis and Interpretation
a. Statistical Tests
ONE SAMPLE T-TEST
Willingness to Pay Extra for Faster Delivery
Test Type: A Student's t-test was conducted to evaluate whether the average
willingness to pay extra for 10-minute delivery differs from the expected value based
on consumer expectations for quick commerce.
Two-tailed: (Change/Not Change)
H₀: Willingness to pay extra for faster delivery does not change with consumer
expectations for quick commerce – Reject
16
H₁: Willingness to pay extra for faster delivery changes with consumer expectations for
quick commerce – Accept
p-value = 0.001
alpha = 0.05
Since the p-value < 0.05, the null hypothesis (H₀) is rejected. This indicates that the
willingness to pay extra for faster delivery significantly changes based on consumer
expectations for quick commerce.
Analysis
Consumers are willing to adjust their payment expectations based on faster delivery
services, highlighting a clear demand for quick commerce.
The moderate variation (coefficient of variation = 0.444) suggests that while some
consumers may be more price-sensitive, there is a general willingness to pay extra
for faster service.
Businesses in the quick commerce sector could leverage this insight to create tiered
pricing models or premium delivery options to cater to different segments of
customers.
Right-Tailed: (Positively change)
H₀: Willingness to pay extra for faster delivery does not increase with consumer
expectations for quick commerce – Reject
17
H₁: Willingness to pay extra for faster delivery increases with consumer expectations
for quick commerce – Accept
p-value = 0.001
alpha = 0.05
Since the p-value < 0.05, the null hypothesis (H₀) is rejected. This means that the
willingness to pay extra for faster delivery significantly increases with consumer
expectations for quick commerce.
Analysis
Consumers are willing to pay extra for faster delivery, reflecting a growing demand for
quick commerce services.
The moderate variation (coefficient of variation = 0.442) indicates that consumer
willingness to pay varies but is generally aligned with the trend of increasing demand
for faster delivery.
Businesses can introduce premium delivery options or dynamic pricing models to
capture this willingness to pay and maximize profitability.
Left-Tailed: (Doesn’t positively change)
H₀: Willingness to pay extra for faster delivery does not decrease with consumer
expectations for quick commerce – Accept
18
H₁: Willingness to pay extra for faster delivery decreases with consumer expectations
for quick commerce – Reject
p-value = 1.000 → Probability of observing the data if the null hypothesis is true.
Mean = 3.130 → Average willingness to pay extra for faster delivery.
Since
the
p-value
>
alpha
(1.000
>
0.05),
we
fail
to
reject
H₀.
This means there is no significant evidence that willingness to pay extra for faster
delivery decreases with consumer expectations for quick commerce.
Analysis
Consumers’ willingness to pay extra for faster delivery does not decrease with their
expectations for quick commerce. Therefore, adjusting pricing strategies based on the
assumption that consumers expect lower costs for faster delivery may not be
necessary.
INDEPENDENT SAMPLE TEST
Two-Tailed Test:
H₀: Consumer trust in the quality of perishable items does not differ significantly
across different genders in the context of quick commerce.
19
H₁: Consumer trust in the quality of perishable items differs significantly across
different genders in the context of quick commerce.
p-value: 0.767
Since p-value (0.767) > α (0.05), fail to reject the null hypothesis.
There is no significant difference in trust in the quality of perishable items between
males and females in the context of quick commerce.
Analysis
The small difference in mean trust levels between females (1.548) and males (1.517)
indicates that gender does not play a significant role in shaping consumer trust in the
quality of perishable items in quick commerce.
Businesses focusing on quick commerce should consider non-gender-based strategies
like improving product freshness and delivery consistency to enhance consumer trust.
Right-Tailed Test:
H₀: Consumer trust in the quality of perishable items is not higher for any particular
gender in the context of quick commerce.
H₁: Consumer trust in the quality of perishable items is higher for a particular gender
in the context of quick commerce.
20
p-value: 0.383
Since
p-value
(0.383)
>
α
(0.05),
fail
to
reject
the
null
hypothesis.
There is no significant evidence that females have higher trust in the quality of
perishable items compared to males in the context of quick commerce.
Analysis
The mean trust level is slightly higher for females (1.548) than for males (1.517), but the
difference is statistically insignificant (p-value = 0.383).
The similar coefficient of variation for females (0.326) and males (0.332) suggests low
variability in responses within each group.
Businesses in the quick commerce sector should focus on improving overall product
quality and delivery consistency rather than targeting trust-building strategies based
on gender.
Left-Tailed Test:
H₀: Consumer trust in the quality of perishable items is not lower for any particular
gender in the context of quick commerce.
21
H₁: Consumer trust in the quality of perishable items is lower for a particular gender
in the context of quick commerce.
p-value: 0.617
Since
p-value
(0.617)
>
α
(0.05),
fail
to
reject
the
null
hypothesis.
There is no significant evidence that females have lower trust in the quality of
perishable items compared to males in the context of quick commerce.
Analysis
The mean trust level is slightly higher for females (1.548) than for males (1.517), but the
difference is statistically insignificant (p-value = 0.617).
The similar coefficient of variation for females (0.326) and males (0.332) suggests low
variability in responses within each group.
Since gender does not significantly impact trust levels, businesses in quick commerce
should focus on improving product consistency and delivery quality rather than
gender-based trust-building strategies.
ANOVA
ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) helps compare the means of three or more groups to
check if there is a statistically significant difference.
1. Null hypothesis H₀: Monthly income has no significant effect on spending in
quick commerce.
Alternate hypothesis H₁: Monthly income significantly affects spending in quick
commerce.
22
ANALYSIS
● F-Statistic (0.266): This indicates the ratio of variance between different income
groups compared to within-group variance. A higher F-value suggests stronger
group differences. Here, the F-value is very low, meaning income groups do not
show much difference in spending on quick commerce
● p-value (0.899): This is significantly higher than 0.05, indicating no statistically
significant difference in spending across different income groups. Since the pvalue is much greater than 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis (H₀).
● All pairwise comparisons have p-values > 0.05, meaning no significant
differences exist between any two income groups
● CONCLUSION:- THIS MEANS THAT MONTHLY INCOME DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY
AFFECT SPENDING IN QUICK COMMERCE
2. H₀: Willingness to pay extra for ultra-fast delivery does not significantly impact
perceived convenience.
H₁: Willingness to pay extra for ultra-fast delivery significantly impacts
perceived convenience.
23
ANALYSIS
● F-Statistic (0.030): A very low F-value indicates that the variance in perceived
convenience across different willingness levels is very small compared to the
variance within groups
● p-value (0.971): This value is much greater than 0.05, meaning there is no
statistically significant difference in perceived convenience among the different
willingness-to-pay groups
● All pairwise comparisons have p-values > 0.05, confirming no significant
differences exist between any two groups
● CONCLUSION: WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR ULTRA-FAST DELIVERY DOES NOT
SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT PERCEIVED CONVENIENCE OF QUICK COMMERCE APPS
Correlation and Linear Regression
Correlation:
H0: There is no significant correlation between consumer expectations for quick
commerce (10-minute delivery) and their satisfaction.
24
H1: There is a significant correlation between consumer expectations for quick
commerce (10-minute delivery) and their satisfaction
Analysis:
● Pearson's r = -0.228 - This indicates a weak negative correlation between Speed
of Delivery and Customer Satisfaction. As delivery speed increases (or
expectations for it rise), satisfaction tends to decrease slightly.
● p-value = 0.023 - Since p < 0.05, the correlation is statistically significant.
Decision on Hypothesis:
Reject H₀: Since p < 0.05 we will reject the Null Hypothesis and will accept Alternative
Hypothesis
Accept H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis) that consumer expectations for quick commerce
(10-minute delivery) are significantly correlated with customer satisfaction, though the
relationship is weak and negative.
Implications:
● Higher expectations for ultra-fast delivery may lead to disappointment or
dissatisfaction if services fail to meet those expectations.
25
● Companies should manage consumer expectations carefully to prevent a
negative impact on satisfaction.
Linear Regression:
Hypothesis:
● H₀: There is no significant impact of consumer expectations for quick commerce
(speed of delivery) on customer satisfaction.
● H₁: Consumer expectations for quick commerce (speed of delivery) significantly
impact customer satisfaction.
Regression Analysis:
1. Dependent Variable (Y): Customer Satisfaction
2. Independent Variable (X): Speed of Delivery
Regression Equation:
Customer Satisfaction = a + b(Speed of Delivery)
26
Analysis:
1. Model Summary
● R = 0.228: Indicates a weak negative correlation between Speed of Delivery and
Customer Satisfaction.
● R² = 0.052: Only 5.2% of the variation in Customer Satisfaction is explained by
Speed of Delivery.
● Adjusted R² = 0.042: This slightly lower value suggests that adding more
variables may refine the model.
● RMSE = 1.022: The Root Mean Square Error indicates the standard deviation of
residuals.
2. ANOVA Table
● F(1, 98) = 5.350, p = 0.023:
a. Since p < 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis (H₀).
b. This means that Speed of Delivery has a statistically significant effect on
Customer Satisfaction.
3. Coefficients Table
● Intercept (β₀) = 4.424, p < 0.001: The predicted satisfaction score when Speed of
Delivery is zero.
● Speed of Delivery (β₁) = -0.162, p = 0.023:
a. The negative coefficient means that as expectations for speed increase,
customer satisfaction decreases.
b. Since p < 0.05, this effect is statistically significant.
27
Final Interpretation
1. Reject H₀ (Null Hypothesis) - Since p < 0.05 (p=0.023), we will reject the Null
Hypothesis and will accept the Alternative Hypothesis. There is a significant
correlation between Speed of Delivery and Customer Satisfaction.
2. The relationship is negative, meaning higher expectations for quick commerce
(10-minute delivery) tend to decrease satisfaction.
3. However, only 5.2% of satisfaction is explained by Speed of Delivery, meaning
there are other factors that influence satisfaction.
Implications:
● Expectation vs. Reality Gap: If customers expect instant delivery (10 minutes)
but experience delays, their satisfaction drops.
● Managing Perceptions: Businesses should set realistic delivery timelines to
balance consumer expectations and operational feasibility.
● Other Influences: Since R² is low, other factors (e.g., product quality, pricing,
customer service) likely have a stronger impact on satisfaction.
Chi-Test:
1. Customer Satisfaction & Monthly Spending
Hypothesis Formulation:
1. Null Hypothesis (H₀): There is no significant relationship between customer
satisfaction and monthly spending in quick commerce.
2. Alternative Hypothesis (H₁): There is a significant relationship between
customer satisfaction and monthly spending.
28
Data Analysis & Statistical Results:
1. Chi-Square Statistic (χ²): 389.733
2. Degrees of Freedom (df): 380
3. p-value: 0.354
4. Sample Size (N): 100
Implication:
1. Since the p-value (0.354) is greater than the conventional significance level
(0.05), we fail to reject the null hypothesis, i.e. we accept the null hypothesis
and reject the alternative hypothesis.
2. This indicates that customer satisfaction and monthly spending do not have a
statistically significant relationship.
3. Higher or lower spending does not necessarily correlate with customer
satisfaction in quick commerce.
2. Perceived Convenience & Likelihood of Recommendation
Hypothesis Formulation:
29
1. Null Hypothesis (H₀): There is no significant relationship between perceived
convenience and the likelihood of recommending quick commerce services.
2. Alternative Hypothesis (H₁): Higher perceived convenience leads to a higher
likelihood of recommendation.
Data Analysis & Statistical Results:
1. Chi-Square Statistic (χ²): 221.312
2. Degrees of Freedom (df): 65
3. p-value: <0.001
Implication:
1. Since the p-value is less than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the
alternative hypothesis (H₁).
2. This confirms a statistically significant relationship between perceived
convenience and likelihood of recommendation.
3. Customers who find quick commerce services more convenient are more likely
to recommend them.
30
3. Sustainability Importance & Willingness to Wait for Sustainable Delivery
Hypothesis Formulation:
1. Null Hypothesis (H₀): There is no relationship between the importance of
sustainability and willingness to wait for sustainable delivery.
2. Alternative Hypothesis (H₁): Customers who consider sustainability important
are more willing to wait for sustainable delivery.
Data Analysis & Statistical Results
1. Chi-Square Statistic (χ²) = 0.745
2. Degrees of Freedom (df) = 4
3. p-value = 0.946
Implication:
1. Since the p-value (0.946) is much greater than 0.05, we fail to reject the null
hypothesis (H₀).
2. This means that sustainability importance is not significantly associated with
willingness to wait for sustainable delivery.
3. The chi-square test results indicate that people who rate sustainability as
important are not necessarily more likely to wait for sustainable delivery,
31
suggesting that other factors (such as convenience or cost) might influence their
decision-making more.
Findings & Suggestions
Suggestions based on One-sample test
•
Implement Tiered Pricing – Offer standard, express, and ultra-fast delivery
options with premium pricing.
•
Use Dynamic Pricing – Adjust pricing based on
urgency, and delivery frequency.
•
Justify Premium Charges – Enhance service with reliability, live tracking, and
purchase
history,
refund guarantees.
•
Introduce Subscription Models – Offer unlimited ultra-fast delivery for a fixed
monthly fee.
•
Highlight Speed Benefits – Market time-saving advantages and create urgency
with limited ultra-
Suggestions based on Independent Sample Test
•
Gender-Based Trust Patterns- Since there is no significant difference in trust levels
between genders, gender-targeted strategies are unnecessary. Focus on improving
overall product quality and delivery reliability rather than gender-based trustbuilding.
•
Consistency in Trust- The low variation in trust levels across genders indicates stable
perceptions of product quality. Maintain consistent product quality and service
standards to sustain consumer trust.
•
Broader Trust Drivers - Since trust does not vary by gender, factors like product
freshness and delivery time likely influence trust more. Improve product sourcing,
handling, and delivery consistency to enhance trust.
•
Unified Marketing Strategy - A gender-neutral trust pattern suggests that trustbuilding efforts should target all consumer segments equally. Develop broad-based
marketing and service improvement initiatives rather than gender-specific campaigns.
32
Suggestions based on ANOVA Test
•
•
•
•
•
Focus on Convenience Over Pricing – Since willingness to pay extra does not
impact perceived convenience, invest in service reliability rather than premium
pricing strategies.
Explore Non-Income-Based Segmentation – Since spending on quick commerce
is not income-dependent, segment customers based on behavioral factors like
urgency, frequency, and product preferences.
Improve Core User Experience – Enhance app usability, product availability, and
delivery efficiency to boost perceived convenience instead of relying on pricing
differentiation.
Test Alternative Revenue Models – Instead of charging extra for ultra-fast
delivery, consider subscription-based models, loyalty rewards, or bundled
pricing.
Market to All Income Levels – Since spending is not significantly tied to income,
craft marketing campaigns that appeal to diverse consumer groups rather than
targeting only high-income segments.
Suggestions based on based on Correlation and Linear regression
•
•
•
•
•
Manage Delivery Expectations – Clearly communicate realistic delivery
timelines to reduce the expectation-reality gap and prevent dissatisfaction.
Focus on Service Reliability – Instead of solely prioritizing speed, ensure
consistency, accurate delivery time estimates, and reliability to improve overall
satisfaction.
Enhance Other Satisfaction Drivers – Since Speed of Delivery explains only 5.2%
of satisfaction, invest in product quality, pricing, and customer support to
improve overall consumer experience.
Personalized Delivery Options – Offer flexible delivery choices (e.g., standard
vs. express) to cater to different consumer preferences while maintaining
feasible timelines.
Customer Education – Educate customers on realistic delivery expectations
through marketing, FAQs, and app notifications to align perceptions with service
capabilities.
33
Suggestions based on Chi-Square Test
•
•
•
•
•
Enhance Service Quality Beyond Pricing – Since monthly spending does not
impact customer satisfaction, businesses should focus on factors like reliability,
customer support, and product quality to drive satisfaction.
Leverage Convenience as a Marketing Tool – Since perceived convenience
strongly influences recommendations, highlight ease of use, seamless ordering,
and hassle-free delivery in marketing campaigns to boost word-of-mouth
referrals.
Rethink Sustainability Messaging – Consumers valuing sustainability are not
necessarily willing to wait for eco-friendly delivery. Brands should explore
alternative incentives like discounts, carbon offsets, or loyalty rewards to
promote sustainable choices.
Offer Customizable Delivery Options – Provide choices between ultra-fast
delivery and eco-friendly alternatives to cater to diverse consumer preferences
without assuming willingness to wait for sustainability.
Customer Education & Awareness – Educate users on the real impact of
sustainable delivery methods to bridge the gap between sustainability
importance and action.
Conclusion
This study analyzed consumer expectations for 10-minute delivery in quick commerce,
focusing on speed, pricing, spending behavior, convenience, and sustainability
preferences.
Key findings show that faster delivery does not always increase satisfaction, and
spending is not linked to income, indicating convenience-driven purchases. While
many are willing to pay extra for speed, it does not impact their perceived convenience.
Additionally, consumers value sustainability but are not willing to wait longer for ecofriendly delivery.
Businesses should focus on reliability, expectation management, and tiered pricing
models rather than just speed. Incentives for sustainability and better customer
engagement can drive long-term success. Future research can explore regional trends
and AI-driven optimizations for better service delivery.
34
Annexure
a. Annexure: Questionnaire
`
QN
o
1)
Name
2) Age
18-24
25-34
35-44
45 & Above
25000
to
10000 1
3) Monthly Income
Nil
<25000
0
Lakh
-3
Lakh
>3 Lakh
SECTION B CONSUMER EXPECTATIONS AND PREFERENCES
Online
Quick
Local
grocery with
What is your preferred mode of grocery commerc Supermark Kirana scheduled
4) shopping?
e
et Visit
Store
delivery
Customer
Sustai service
&
How important are these to you when Speed of Discounts nabilit responsiven
5) selecting a quick commerce service?
Delivery
and Pricing y
ess
(1- Least Important, 5- Most Important)
1 - Very
How satisfied are you with the delivery of Dissatisfi 56) Quick Commerce services?
ed
How frequently did you visit physical
7) grocery
stores
before
using
quick Never
Very
Satisfied
Once
week
a Multip Once
le
a
month
35
commerce?
times
a week
How much do you spend per month on
8) quick commerce now?
Do you trust the quality and freshness of 1 - Very
perishable items (fruits, vegetables, dairy, Dissatisfi 59) etc.) delivered via quick commerce?
ed
Very
Satisfied
Loyalt
y
progra
Which of the following is the MOST
important
improvement
that
ms
would More
increase your usage of quick commerce product
10) services?
variety
Lower
and
Better
Delivery
rewar Faster
order
charges
ds
accuracy
deliveries
SECTION C PAIN POINTS AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY
Poor
Custo
Low
Have you ever faced any of the following
Wrong/Mis mer
issues
sing order servic High delivery availabil
while
using
quick
commerce Late
11) services? (Checkbox)
deliveries Items
e
Yes
Maybe
product
charges
ity
Would you be willing to pay extra for ultra12) fast (under 10 minutes) delivery?
No
What is the maximum delivery charge you
would be willing to pay for a 10-minute
13) delivery?
Would
you
switch
to
another
I prefer free
Rs 10
Rs 20
Rs 30
Yes
No
Maybe
delivery
quick
commerce provider if they offered better
14) pricing or discounts?
36
SECTION D SUSTAINABILITY AND FUTURE TRENDS
Would you be willing to wait longer (30
minutes instead of 10 minutes) if it ensured
15) sustainable delivery practices?
Yes
No
What improvements would you like to see Open
16) in quick commerce services?
Ended
37
b. Annexure: CODE BOOK
No.
Question
Variable Name
1
What is your Gender?
Gender
2
What is your Age (in
completed years)?
Age Group
3
What is your Monthly Income?
Monthly Income
4
What is your preferred mode
of grocery shopping?
Preferred Grocery
Shopping Mode
5
How satisfied are you with
delivery of Quick Commerce
services?
Customer Satisfaction
6
Will u recommend using Quick
Commerce services to others?
Likelihood of
Recommendation
7
How important are these to
you when selecting a quick
commerce service?
Perceived Convenience
8
How important are these to
you when selecting a quick
commerce service?
Speed of Delivery
9
How important are these to
you when selecting a quick
commerce service?
Discount Importance
Coding
Female = 1
Male = 2
18-24 = 1
25-34 = 2
35-44 = 3
45 and Above = 4
Nil = 0
Less than ₹25,000 = 1
₹25,000 - ₹1,00,000 = 2
₹1,00,000 - ₹3,00,000 = 4
More than ₹3,00,000 = 3
Quick commerce = 1
Supermarket visit = 2
Local kirana store = 3
Online grocery order with
scheduled delivery = 4
1 - Very Dissatisfied
2 – Dissatisfied
3 – Neutral
4 – Satisfied
5 - Very Satisfied
1 - Not Likely
2 - Slightly Likely
3 – Neutral
4 – Likely
5 - Very Likely
1 - Very Inconvenient
2 – Inconvenient
3 – Neutral
4 – Convenient
5 - Very Convenient
1 - Least Important
2 - Slightly Important
3 – Neutral
4 – Important
5 - Most Important
1 - Least Important
2 - Slightly Important
3 – Neutral
38
10
How important are these to
you when selecting a quick
commerce service?
Availability Importance
11
How important are these to
you when selecting a quick
commerce service?
Sustainability
Importance
12
How important are these to
you when selecting a quick
commerce service?
Customer Service
Importance
13
How frequently did you visit
physical grocery stores before
using quick commerce?
14
15
16
Do you trust the quality and
freshness of perishable items
delivered via quick comm?
Which of the following
is MOST
important improvement that
would increase your usage of
quick commerce services?
Would you be willing to pay
extra for ultra-fast (under 10
minutes) delivery?
Frequency of Grocery
Store Visits Before
Quick Commerce
Trust in Quality of
Perishable Items
Improvement Required
Willingness to Pay
Extra for Ultra-Fast
Delivery
17
What is the maximum delivery
charge you would be willing
to pay for a 10-minute
delivery?
Maximum Willingness
to Pay for 10-min
Delivery
18
Would you be willing to wait
longer (30 minutes instead of
10 minutes) if it ensured
sustainable delivery
practices?
Willingness to Wait for
Sustainable Delivery
4 – Important
5 - Most Important
1 - Least Important
2 - Slightly Important
3 – Neutral
4 – Important
5 - Most Important
1 - Least Important
2 - Slightly Important
3 – Neutral
4 – Important
5 - Most Important
1 - Least Important
2 - Slightly Important
3 – Neutral
4 – Important
5 - Most Important
Never = 1
Once a month =2
Once a week = 3
Multiple times a week = 4
Yes = 2
No = 1
More product variety = 1
Lower Delivery charges = 2
Loyalty programs and rewards = 3
Faster deliveries = 4
Better order accuracy = 5
Yes = 2
No = 1
Maybe = 0
I prefer free delivery = 1
More than Rs 30 = 2
Rs 10 = 3
Rs 20 = 4
Rs 30 = 5
Yes = 1
No = 2
39
References
1.
statista.com
2. Verhoef, P. C., Kannan, P. K., & Inman, J. J. (2015). From multi-channel retailing to
omni-channel retailing: Introduction to the special issue on multi-channel
retailing. Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 174-181
3. Kumar, A., Prakash, G., & Singh, R. K. (2021). Does ethical consumption influence
consumer purchase intention and behavior? A review and research agenda.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, 102523.
4. Pantano, E., & Servidio, R. (2012). Modeling innovative points of sales through
virtual and augmented reality. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(3),
279-286
5. Morganti, E., Dablanc, L., & Forti, L. (2014). The impact of e-commerce on final
deliveries: alternative parcel delivery services in urban areas. Transportation
Research Procedia, 4, 178-187.
6. McKinnon, A. (2016). Green logistics: Improving the environmental sustainability
of logistics. Kogan Page Publishers.
40