INDEPENDENT STUDY
CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS
COKE ZERO IN BANGKOK AREA
WIPAPORN KARNPRASERT
GRADUATE SCHOOL, KASETSART UNIVERSITY
2009
INDEPENDENT STUDY
CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS
COKE ZERO IN BANGKOK AREA
WIPAPORN KARNPRASERT
An Independent Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Business Administration
Graduate School, Kasetsart University
2009
Wipaporn Karnprasert 2009: Consumer Perceptions towards Coke Zero in
Bangkok area. Master of Business Administration, Major Field: Management,
Kasetsart International MBA Program. Independent Study Advisor: Nirundon
Tapachai, D.B.A. 112 pages.
The main objectives of this study were 1) to study consumer perceptions
towards Coke Zero in Bangkok area, and 2) to compare perceptions towards Coke
Zero between/among consumers with different demographic characteristics.
The target population was the consumers who purchased Coke Zero in
Bangkok area. The sampling method was quota sampling. Questionnaire was used as
the key instrument to collect data from 400 respondents. Data was analyzed by
descriptive statistics including frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation.
Hypothesis testing was done by inferential statistics including t-test, F-test and
multiple comparisons testing. Hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significant.
The result showed that consumers had strong perceptions towards Coke Zero
regarding the average feature, design, quality, logo, packaging, visual identity and
name. For hypothesis testing, the results showed that consumers with differences of
ages, educational levels, occupations and monthly income held different perceptions
towards Coke Zero but the consumers with different genders have no significant
difference in perceptions towards Coke Zero regarding feature, design, quality, logo,
packaging, visual identity and name.
/
Student’s signature
Advisor’s signature
/
2552: ! "!#$ %&$
''&(%)&*+ &(%) ''&, $$- ($
./: )01$$2 3-0, D.B.A. 112 &$
)0:$: ;%
1<=./ 1) ! "!#$
%&$ ?, 2) <
00? ! ! "!&!,%!
,/*!$%,
-# -#$=./:$:< " <: "!#$ %&$
@&(%! 0!#-( %! 0!? 20#-?;
A$<<#$
B,),%! 0!)@$$ 400 $ &1,#$:$:32#-; -
*$ ".
20; 0, !E,0 ?,!0$ $#$
$! ?,
; -$%$ ".
20 t-test, F-test ?,2 Multiple Comparisons <2
$ 20@&$22$0@' 0.05
,=./! #$2 ! "! !
V))02$
!
,/*, ?, %*, ,, )%*+1, ,/*1?,-< @&2
$,=./! ? !0%, =./, - ?,$2<$,
? !#$ ! "! ? !? !=3!,? !#$ ! "! #$
V))02$
!,/*, ?, %*, ,, )%*+1,
,/*1?,-<
/
/
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the completion of this study, I would like to express my special gratitude to
an independent study advisor, Dr.Nirundon Tapachai and Dr. Nattapon Punpugdee,
co-advisor, for being my consultant since start until finish as well as valuable
recommendations and advice to revise some incomplete parts of this study.
I also would like to express my appreciation to the consumers who purchased
Coke Zero for their precious time and great support to answer my questionnaire.
Moreover, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to all
friends from Batch 11 for their spirit in learning and sharing experiences through 2
years. Additional, I also would like to thank all professors and staffs at KIMBA for
providing great knowledge and support to me.
Wipaporn Karnprasert
March 2009
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1
Problem Statement
1
Objectives of the Study
3
Expected Results
3
Scope of the Study
4
Definitions of Terms
4
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
5
Definition of Perception
5
Concept of Perception
6
The Extended Product Model
9
Perception Measurement
14
Overview of Sugar-Free Sparkling Soft Drink Market
20
Overview of Coke Zero
22
Related Studies
23
Conceptual Framework
27
Hypotheses
28
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
29
Study Design
29
Population and Samples
30
Study Instrument
34
Questionnaire Reliability Test
35
Data Collection
35
Data Analysis
36
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
40
Part 1 Demographic Characteristics
40
Part 2 Consumer Perceptions towards Coke Zero
43
Part 3 Hypothesis Testing
47
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
65
Conclusions
65
Recommendations
67
REFERENCES
75
APPENDICES
77
Appendix A Questionnaires
78
Appendix B Density of Population (km2)
87
Appendix C The In-dept Interview
90
Appendix D Reliability Analysis
93
Appendix E Results of Hypothesis Testing
95
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
Basic non-comparative scales
18
2
Value and market share in sugar-free sparkling soft drink market
22
3
Type of Coke Zero in Thailand in 2009
23
4
Related studies summary
26
5
Sample size by Taro Yamane
31
6
Ten districts chosen as the representative of Bangkok area
33
7
Number of quota applied in each district
34
8
Date and time for collecting the questionnaires
36
9
The demographic characteristics of the respondents
42
10
The level of perception regarding feature factor towards Coke Zero
43
11
The level of perception regarding design factor towards Coke Zero
44
12
The level of perception regarding quality factor towards Coke Zero
44
13
The level of perception regarding logo factor towards Coke Zero
45
14
The level of perception regarding packaging factor towards
Coke Zero
45
iv
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table
15
Page
The level of perception regarding visual identity factor towards
Coke Zero
46
16
The level of perception regarding name factor towards Coke Zero
46
17
The level of perception regarding average perception factors
towards Coke Zero
18
Perceptions towards Coke Zero between consumers with different
genders
19
57
Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
monthly income
23
54
Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
occupations
22
51
Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
educational levels
21
48
Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
ages
20
47
60
Hypothesis testing conclusion between/among group of consumers
classified by demographic characteristics.
63
v
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Appendix Table
Page
1
Density of population (km2) in Bangkok districts
88
2
Reliability analysis
94
3
Perceptions towards Coke Zero between consumers with different
gender
4
96
Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
ages
97
5
Multiple comparisons among consumers with different ages
98
6
Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
educational levels
7
Multiple comparisons among consumers with different educational
levels
8
100
101
Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
occupations
102
9
Multiple comparisons among consumers with different occupations
103
10
Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
monthly income
11
108
Multiple comparisons among consumers with different monthly
income
109
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1
The extended product model
9
2
Types of scales
14
3
Example of a Likert scale
16
4
The structure of sugar-free sparkling soft drink market
21
5
Conceptual framework
27
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement
Nowadays people are aware of the importance of taking care of their health.
This is the health-conscious trend where people are concerned with what they should
or should not eat on an average day. Moreover, todays consumers are looking for
ways to ensure good health and wellness. Daily exercise and cosmetic treatments are
not enough, as they need to be complemented with good nutrition. (Positioning
Magazine, 2008)
Therefore, it is no surprising that many companies from food industry have
been taking advantage of this by coming up with a series of sugar free or low-fat
foods, even chewing gum. The sparkling soft drinks industry is a perfect example.
These soft drink companies have been making billions selling sugar water for
decades. Now they have an opportunity to have alternate diet version of their soft
drink to maintain the sales which is sugar-free sparkling soft drink. (Luler, 2008)
Coke Zero, the new diet coke from the Coca-Cola Company is the answer for
people who care about their health but cannot live without Coke. This is surely a
healthy choice for diet plans and for people who are trying to stop taking too many
calories in order to lose more weight. Since, the increasing number of people who
care about their health, it is not surprising that sugar-free sparkling soft drink such as
low calories or zero sugar are very successful. (Luler, 2008)
In this sugar-free sparkling soft drink market with cola soda consists of several
brands which are Coke Zero, Coke Light and Pepsi Max. These products have the
same core benefit to offer more alternatives to the consumers, but the key message
that the marketers communicate about the positioning and characteristics of those
2
products are totally different. For Coke Zero, the Coca-Cola Company told that it is
something new, exciting and aim primarily at men who had tended to avoid Diet Coke
or Coke Light since the impression of Coke Light is more than a ladies choice than a
male thing. One thing they are not told is that Coke Zero, the new and exciting drink,
is a diet drink at all. In fact the marketers at the Coca Cola Company are making a
real conscious effort to avoid the word diet completely and describe Coke Zero
simply as zero sugar drink as the key message “Real Coke Taste, with Zero Sugar”.
Moreover, they are promoting the fact that the product tastes the same as the original
formulation, only without the sugar contained by targeting at Coke drinkers who now
want a healthier alternative. (The Coca-Cola Company, 2007)
However, Coke Zero is the way for Coke to compete with the main competitor
which is Pepsi Max and to get a larger demographic of male “no sugar” Coke
drinkers. As Coke Zero and Pepsi Max are in the same segment which have the same
core benefit to offer similar taste to the regular one by using a different key message
to communicate to the target group. Pepsi Max communicates by using the key word
“Max” which means maximum taste without sugar, while Coke Zero goes the other
way and decides to baffle consumers by using the word “Zero” which means the same
taste with zero sugar. Moreover, both Coke Zero and Pepsi Max decide to go with
black as the color of its feature and packaging since its appeal to be stronger and
smart suit with the target group. (Positioning Magazine, 2008)
As mentioned above, Positioning Magazine (2008) points out that the main
concern with Coke Zero is it causes confusion among consumers because it is hard to
see any difference between it and other products launched in the past such as Coke
Light and Pepsi Max. Moreover, soft drink is no longer just about refreshment, or
thirst or anything mundane like that. It is all about brand association. Therefore, the
big question is a philosophical one “which brand is better?” depends on what the
consumers perceive about brand and communication.
3
Therefore, these main concern issues are a setback to the Coca-Cola Company
in terms of the amount of time and finances invested into making the product a
success. One concern is that without any further market research and application of
the findings regarding the consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero will not know
how consumers perceive about brand “Coke Zero” and how effectiveness of the
marketing campaigns have invested.
Therefore, this study will survey the consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero
in Bangkok area classified by their demographic characteristics.
Objectives of the Study
1. To study consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero in Bangkok area.
2. To compare perceptions towards Coke Zero between/among consumers
with different demographic characteristics.
Expected Results
1. The study can provide the reference source for top managements and
marketers in the Coca-Cola Company to better understand the consumer perceptions
towards Coke Zero in order to improve the further marketing strategies and business
plan.
2. The study can provide information for marketers in the Coca-Cola
Company to understand how better consumer perceive about their product and find
the method making consumers understand better.
3. The study can provide a reference source for academic proposes and
related fields of study.
4
Scope of the Study
The scope of the study emphasized the target population who purchased Coke
Zero in Bangkok area. This study was designed to use the descriptive survey by using
questionnaire to gather the data from 400 respondents. The time for conducting the
survey was during February 7 - February 11, 2009.
Definitions of Terms
Perceptions were the procedure that people were motivated by something and
use all their experience or their basic knowledge interpreted that thing to the sense.
The extended product model was the model to explain consumer perceptions
towards Coke Zero by using the elements which related to the study including
physical product and product identity.
Consumer was consumer who purchased Coke Zero in Bangkok area.
Demographic characteristics were the factors affect consumer perceptions
including gender, age, educational level, occupation and monthly income.
Coke Zero was a sugar-free sparkling soft drink marketed as having zero sugar
produced and distributed by the Coca Cola Company.
Sparkling soft drink was the nonalcoholic beverage which contained
carbonated water and sugar as the main ingredients.
Sugar-free sparkling soft drink was the sparkling soft drink which no sugar
inside such as Coke Zero, Coke light, Sprite Zero and Pepsi Max.
Fountain referred to the carbonated drink dispensers found in restaurants,
concession stands and other locations such as convenience stores.
CHAPETR II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter provided the review of literature and other related studies. There
were nine main sections in this chapter related the content as the follows:
1. Definition of Perception
2. Concept of Perception
3. The Extended Product Model
4. Perception Measurement
5. Overview of Sugar-Free Sparkling Soft Drink Market
6. Overview of Coke Zero
7. Related Studies
8. Conceptual Framework
9. Hypotheses
Definition of Perception
Janaim and Janaim (1975) mentioned that “perception is the procedure that
people who have experience of such items or incidents by all touches”
Upramai (1980) mentioned that “perception is the procedure that people are
motivated by something and use all their experience or their basic knowledge interpret
that thing to the sense”
Chuangchoat (1989) mentioned that “perception is the touch of the sensation.
It is the meaning of the acknowledgement. And thus, it needs and experience which is
important for the understanding of perception”
6
Schiffman and Kanuk (2000) referred that “perception is the procedure which
individual selects, organizes and interprets to the image which has the meaning and is
easier to understand”
Chaichan (2000) said that “perception is the procedure that each person select
one factor to organize by using an experience. Then there is a chemical which actively
response to each issue. When two consumers receive the same input but react and
respond differently of such thing is because they have a different perception.
Marketers believe that consumers are surrounded by many inputs but, consumers are
able to choose how they retain information. (for example, advertisement should be
outstanding and easy to remember), therefore consumers would follow what the input
points to”
Concept of Perception
People can emerge with different perceptions of the same object because of
three perceptual processes: selective attention, selective distortion, and selective
retention. (Kotler et al., 2006)
Selective Attention
Consumers are exposed to numerous ads or brand communications everyday.
Because they cannot possibly attend to all of these, most stimuli will be screened outa process called selective attention. Selective attention means that marketers have to
work hard to attract consumer’s notice. The real challenge is to explain which stimuli
people will notice. Here are some findings:
1. People are more likely to notice stimuli that relate to a current need. A
person who is motivated to buy a computer will notice computer ads; he or she will be
less likely to notice DVD ads.
7
2. People are more likely to notice stimuli that they anticipate. You are more
likely to notice computers than radios in computer store because you do not expect the
store to carry radio.
3. People are more likely to notice stimuli whose deviations are large in
relation to the normal size of the stimuli. You are more likely to notice an ad offering
$100 off the list price of a computer than one offering $5 off.
Although people screen out much of the surrounding stimuli, they are
influenced by unexpected stimuli, such as sudden offers in the mail, over the phone,
or from a salesperson. Marketers may attempt to promote their offers intrusively to
bypass selective attention filters.
Selective Distortion
Even noticed stimuli do not always come across in the way the senders
intended. Selective distortion is the tendency to interpret information in a way that
will fit our preconceptions. Consumers will often distort information to be consistent
with prior brand and product beliefs.
A stark demonstration of the power of consumer brand beliefs is the typical
result of product sampling tests. In “blind” taste tests, one group of consumers
samples a product without knowing which brand it is, whereas another group of
consumers samples the product knowing which brand it is. Invariably, differences
arise in the opinion of the two groups are literally consuming exactly the same
product!
When consumers report different opinion between branded and unbranded
versions of identical product, it must be the case that the brand and product beliefs,
created by whatever means (e.g., past experiences, marketing activity for the brand,
etc.), have somehow changed their product perceptions. Examples of branded
differences can be found with virtually every type of product. For example, one study
8
found that consumers were equally split in their preference for Diet Coke versus Diet
Pepsi when tasting both on a blind basis. When tasting the branded version, however,
consumers preferred Diet Coke by 65 percent and Diet Pepsi by only 23 percent (with
the remainder seeing no difference).
Selective distortion can work to the advantage of marketers with strong brands
when consumers distort neutral or ambiguous brand information to make it more
positive. In other words, beer may seem to taste better, a car may seem to drive more
smoothly, the wait in bank line seem shorter, and so on, depending on the particular
brands involved.
Selective Retention
People will fail to register much information to which they are exposed in
memory, but will tend to retain information that supports their attitudes and beliefs.
Because of selective retention, we are likely to remember good points about a product
we like and forget good points about competing products. Selective retention again
works to advantage of string brands. It also explains why marketers need to use
repetition in sending messages to their target market- to make sure their message is
not overlooked.
9
The Extended Product Model
At the heart of every strong brand is a product that supports the brand
experience. Without this, nothing else will work. But too often we focus our attention
on the physical product, when in reality there are many other aspects of the product to
consider, all of which help shape the brand experience. The model below help to
highlight the many other aspects of the extended product:
Figure 1 The extended product model
Source: Kotler et al. (2003)
This framework composed of physical product, product identity and product
features descript as shown below:
10
Physical Product
Physical products vary in their potential for different. At one extreme we find
products that allow little variation: chicken, steel, aspirin. Yet even here, some
differentiation is possible including feature, design and quality. (Kotler et al., 2003)
Feature
Most products can be offered with varying features that supplement the
product’s basic function. Being the first to introduce valued new features is one of the
most effective ways to compete. Oral-B managed to differentiate its toothbrush by
introducing a blue dye in the center bristles that fades and tells customers when they
need a new toothbrush.
Design
Design is the totality of features that affect how a product looks and functions
in terms of customer requirements. Design is particularly important in making and
marketing retail services, apparel, packaged goods, and durable equipment. The
designer has to figure out how much to invest in form, feature, development,
performance, conformance, durability, reliability, repairability, and style. To the
company, a well-designed product is one that is easy to manufacture and distribute.
To customer, a well-designed product is one that is pleasant to look at and easy to
open, install, use, repair, and dispose of. The designer has to take all these factors into
account.
Quality
Quality’s link to profitability does not mean that the firm should design the
highest performance level possible. The manufacturer must design a performance
level appropriate to the target market and competitors’ performance levels. A
company must also performance quality through time. Continuously improving the
11
product often produces the highest return and market share. The second strategy is to
maintain product quality at a given level. Many companies leave quality unaltered
after its initial formulation unless glaring faults or opportunities occur. The third
strategy is to reduce product quality through time. Some companies cut quality to
offset rising costs; others reduce quality deliberately to increase current profits;
although this often hurts long-run profitability.
Product Identity
Product identity is the individual characteristics which consist of logo,
packaging, name and visual identity. (Kotler et al., 2006)
Logo
A logo is a graphical element (ideogram, symbol, emblem, icon, sign) that,
together with its logotype (a uniquely set and arranged typeface) form a trademark or
commercial brand. Typically, a logo's design is for immediate recognition. The logo is
one aspect of a company's commercial brand, or economic or academic entity, and its
shapes, colors, fonts, and images usually are different from others in a similar market.
Logos are also used to identify organizations and other non-commercial entities.
Packaging
Packaging is all the activities of designing and producing the container for a
product. Packages might include up to three levels of material. Flower by Kenzo
perfume is in the bottle (primary package) that is in a cardboard box (secondary
package) that is in a corrugated box (shipping package) containing six dozen boxes of
Flower bottles. Well-designed packages can create convenience and promotional
value. We must include packaging as a styling weapon, especially in food products,
cosmetics, toiletries, and small consumer appliances. The package is the buyer’s first
encounter with the product and is capable of turning the buyer on or off.
12
Name
The process of developing a name for a brand or product is heavily influenced
by marketing research and strategy to be appealing and marketable. The brand name
is often a neologism or pseudo word, such as Kodak or Sony.
Visual Identity
Identity is the way a company aims to identify or position itself or its product.
Brand identity is fundamental to consumer recognition and symbolizes the brand's
differentiation from competitors.
Product Features
When the physical product cannot easily be differentiated, the key to
competitive success may lie in adding valued services and improving their quality.
Product features consist of all the elements that the organization provides in additional
to the core product or offering might undergo in the future. These typically include
guarantees, service, contractual terms, installation and delivery. (Kotler et al., 2003)
Guarantees
Guarantees reduce the buyer’s perceived risk. They suggest that the product is
of high quality and that the company and its service performance are dependable. All
this enables the company to charge a higher price than a competitor who is not
offering an equivalent guarantee. Guarantees are most effective in two situations. The
first is where the company or product is not well-known. The second situation is
where the product’s quality is superior to the competitor. The company can gain by
guaranteeing superior performance, knowing that competitors cannot match its
guarantee.
13
Service
Services are intangible, inseparable, variable, and perishable products.
Services include maintenance and repair service (window cleaning, copier repair), and
business advisory services (legal, management consulting, advertising). Maintenance
and repair services are usually supplied under contract by small producers or are
available form the manufacturers of the original equipment. Business advisory
services are usually purchased on the basis of the supplier’s reputation and staff.
(Kotler et al., 2006)
Contractual Terms
Companies can find other ways to differentiate customer service. They can
offer and improve contractual terms or contract.
Installation
Installation refers to the work done to make a product operational in its
planned location. Buyers of heavy equipment expect good installation service.
Differentiating at this point in the consumption chain is particularly important for
companies with complex products. Ease of installation becomes a true selling points,
especially when the target market is technology novices who are notoriously
intolerant of on-screen messages.
Delivery
Delivery refers to how well the product or service is delivered to the customer.
It includes speed, accuracy, and care attending the delivery process. Today’s
customers have grown to expect delivery speed: pizza delivered in one-half hour, film
developed in one hour, eyeglasses made in on hours, cars lubricated in 15 minutes.
Levi Strauss, Benetton, and The Limited have adopted computerized quick response
system (QRS) that link the information systems of their suppliers, manufacturing
14
plants, distribution centers, and retailing outlets. Buyer will often choose a supplier
with a better reputation for speed or on-time delivery.
Regarding the extended product model, the researcher applied this framework
to solve the problem for consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero. Since Coke Zero
was the tangible product, therefore this study used the elements which associated to
the product including physical product and product identity to solve the problem.
Perception Measurement
Researchers use two categories to measure people’s attitudes: comparative and
non-comparative rating scales. (Schmidt and Hollensen, 2006)
Types of scales
Non-comparative
rating scales
Continuous
rating
Likert
Itemized
rating
Semantic
differential
Comparative rating scales
Paired
comparison
Stapel
Figure 2 Types of scales
Source: Schmidt and Hollensen (2006, 199)
Rank
order
Constant
sum
Q-sort
15
Non-Comparative Scales
In non-comparative scales referred to as monadic or metric scales, each object
is scales independently of the others in the stimulus set. The resulting data are
generally assumed to be interval or ratio-scales. For example, respondents may asked
to evaluate Pepsi on a 1 to 6 preference scale (1 = not at all preferred, 6 = greatly
preferred). Similar evaluations would be obtained for Coke and Virgin Coke. As can
be seen in figure 2, non-comparative scales can be continuous rating or itemized
rating scales. The itemized rating scales can be future classified as Likert, semantic
differential or Stapel scales. Non-comparative scaling is the most common scaling
technique in marketing research.
Continuous Rating
In continuous rating respondents indicate their responses on a continuum.
Between the continuum’s extreme points are responses that represent a gradual
progression toward the extremes. Respondents place a mark at a location on the
continuum that reflects their response to the question.
Itemized Rating
Itemized rating scales resemble graphic rating, except that respondents select
from a finite number of choices rather that from the theoretically infinite number on a
continuum. Each choice has a number or descriptor associated with it. The strengths
of these scales are that respondents can complete each question in a relative short time
and researchers can easily analyze the responses, because quantitative scores can be
assigned to each response.
16
Likert Scale
This scale is a widely used rating scale that requires the respondents to
indicate a degree of agreement or disagreement with each of a series of statements
about the stimulus object. Typically, each scale item has five response categories,
ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”
1. My bank provides excellent customer service
Strongly
Agree
agree
Neither agree
Disagree
nor disagree
+5
+4
Strongly
disagree
+3
+2
+1
Neither agree
Disagree
Strongly
2. My bank has convenient location
Strongly
Agree
agree
nor disagree
+5
+4
+3
disagree
+2
+1
Figure 3 Example of a Likert scale
Source: Schmidt and Hollensen (2006: 120)
Responses may be analyzed either individually or on a total (“summated”)
basis by adding across items. If the summary basic is used, the scoring must remain
consistent throughout the survey. For example, all favorable responses would be
represented by high scores, and all unfavorable responses would be represented by
low scores. When negative statements are included, the scores must be adjusted to
maintain the pattern of high scores representing favorable and low scores unfavorable
responses.
17
The Semantic Differential Scale
The semantic differential scale is a specialized scaled-response question
format that sprang from the problem of translating a person’s qualitative judgments
into quantitative estimates. Like the modified Likert scale, this one has been borrowed
from another area of research, namely the work of Charles Osgood in semantics. This
scale contains a series of bipolar adjectives for the various properties of the object
under study, and respondents indicate their impressions of each property by indicating
location along its continuum. The focus of the semantic differential is on the
measurement of the meaning of an object, concept, or person. Because many
marketing stimuli have meaning, mental associations, or connotations, this type of
scale work very well when the marketing researcher is attempting to determine brand,
store or other images.
Stapel Scale
The staple scale mirrors the semantic differential scale, but instead of using
two dichotomous descriptive words or phrases as choices, only one word or phrases is
used. This makes the task easier for both the rating developer and the respondent to
use. Furthermore, although points are not assigned numbers in a semantic differential
scale, they are assigned numbers in a stapel scale, typically using a ten-point scale.
Categories may be assigned a range of +5 to -5. The downside of the stapel scale is
the potential biasing of the respondent by the word choice of the categories.
18
Table 1 Basic non-comparative scales
Scale
Basic
Characteristics
Example
Advantages
Disadvantages
Continuous rating
Place a mark on
Reaction to
Easy to
Scoring can be
scale
a continuous
TV
construct
cumbersome
line
commercials
unless
computerized
Itemized rating scales
Likert scale
Degree of
Measurement
Easy to
More time-
agreement on a
of attitudes
construct,
consuming
1 (strongly
administer
disagree) to 5
and
(strongly agree)
understand
scale
Semantic
Seven-point
Brand,
differential
scale with
product, and
to whether the
bipolar labels
company
data are
images
interval
Stapel scale
Versatile
Controversy as
Unipolar ten-
Measurement
Easy to
Confusing and
point scale, -5
of attitudes
construct,
difficult to
to + 5, without a and images
administered
apply
neutral point
over phone
(zero).
Source: Malhotra and Birks (2000: 295)
Comparative Rating Scales
Comparative rating scales allow respondents to make comparisons according
to some predetermined criterion, such as importance of or preference for something.
Four common comparative scales are paired comparisons, rank order, constant-sum
and Q-sort.
19
Paired Comparisons
The respondent is presented with two objects at a time and is required to
indicate a preference for one of the two according to some stated criterion. The
method yields ordinal scaled data, for example, brand A is better than brand B, or,
brand A is cleaner than brand B. It is often applied in cases where the objects are
physical products. One is important point about data obtained through paired
comparisons is that the ordinal data can be readily converted into interval-scaled data.
Rank-Order-Scales
Rank-order-scales require respondents to arrange a set of objects with regard
to a common criterion: advertisings in terms of interest, product features in terms of
importance, or new-product concepts with regard to willingness to buy in the future.
The result is an ordinal scale with the inherent limitation of weak scale properties.
Ranking is widely used in surveys, however, because it corresponds to the choice
process occurring in a shopping environment where a buyer makes direct comparisons
among competing products (brands, flavors, product variations, and so on).
Constant-Sum Scale
Respondents are asked to allocate a number of points, say, 100, among objects
according to some criterion, for example, preference or importance. They are
instructed to allocate the points such that if they like brand A twice as much as brand
B, they should assign twice as many points to brand A.
Q-Sort Scaling
When the number of objects or characteristics that are to be rated is very large,
it becomes tedious for the respondent to rank order or do a pairwise comparison, any
problems and biases creep into study. To deal with such a situation, the Q-sort scaling
process is used. With this technique, respondents are asked to sort the various
20
characteristics or objects that are being compared into groups, such that the
distribution of the number of objects or characteristics in each group follows a normal
distribution.
In order to measure the consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero, this study
used itemized rating scales by selecting the Likert scale since it had several
advantages. For example, it was easy to construct, administer and respondents readily
understand how to use the scale.
Overview of Sugar-Free Sparkling Soft Drink Market
Nowadays a trend of shape concerned was very popular globally. Consumer
tended to prefer and buying more of healthy product and also low/non calories
products. Lifestyle of people changing from eating junk foods to low/non calories
products even became a vegetarian. Not only shape concerned but some of a
dangerous disease also cause from consuming sweet and high fat foods. Therefore,
marketers saw this opportunity in the market and try to invent any goods that could
fulfill the demand of consumers in the market.
Sparkling soft drink was also one of a product that was really popular not only
among teenagers but for everyone who would like to have a refreshment and enjoy a
taste of sparkling soda. But some people try not to consume it as they were afraid of a
quantity of sugar contained in a carbonated drink. Moreover, total sales of cola flavor
sparkling soft drink seem to be decreased due to the popularity of health concerned
trend so most of consumers switched to consume green tea and fruit juice instead of
cola sparkling soft drink. Therefore, sparkling drink manufacturers aware of this
matter so they introduced some of the new product line which was sugar-free
sparkling soft drink to the market in order to fulfill the needs of consumers.
(Positioning Magazine, 2008)
21
In this sugar-free sparkling soft drink market, there were two highly
competitive manufacturers introduced the sugar-free sparking soft drink product to the
market to offer consumer choices which included the Coca Cola Company and PepsiCola (Thai) Trading Co., Ltd.. The structure of this market was shown in figure 4.
Sugar-Free Sparkling Soft Drink
The Coca-Cola Company
- Coke Zero
Pepsi-Cola (Thai) Trading
Co., Ltd.
- Pepsi Max
- Coke Light
- Sprite Zero
Figure 4 The structure of sugar-free sparkling soft drink market
From table 2, it indicated the sale value and market share in sugar-free
sparkling soft drink market including Coke Zero, Coke Light, Sprite Zero and Pepsi
Max. In 2007, Coke Zero first launched in Thailand with supported by an extensive
marketing campaign including television, radio, print, and out-of-home advertising,
on-line activation, and sampling programs so that in 2007 (Jul-Dec) Coke Zero gained
sale and was the market leader with 49% share. Then in 2008 (Jan-May), Coke Zero
sale value decreased approximately 8% since Pepsi Max repositioning its product. In
2008 (Jan-Dec), Coke Zero gained sale again at 200,589,000 baht and was the market
leader at 40% market share regarding its marketing campaign and media support.
22
Table 2 Value and market share in sugar-free sparkling soft drink market
(Unit: thousand baht)
2007 Jul-Dec
2008 Jan-May
2008 Jun-Dec
Value
% MS
Value
% MS
Value
% MS
Coke Zero
267,682
49%
173,752
37%
200,589
40%
Coke Light
88,541
16%
66,783
14%
73,776
15%
Sprite Zero
-
0%
40,673
9%
30,631
6%
Pepsi Max
186,585
34%
192,185
41%
193,987
39%
542,807
100%
473,394
100%
498,984
100%
Total
Remark: MS means market share
Source: The AcNielsen Company (2009)
Overview of Coke Zero
Coke Zero, launched in Thailand in May 2007, delivered the great taste of
Coke with zero sugar came in a distinctive black design, setting it apart from the Coke
Classic red colors. Coke Zero offered those who love the taste of Coke classic a new
way to enjoy their favorite brand, without the sugar. The arrival of Coke Zero
reflected the increasing desire to balance great taste with lower sugar alternatives.
For target segment, the Coca Cola Company divided its consumer base into
segments through introducing products aimed at different target markets. The target
market for Coke Zero was young health conscious males within the 18- 34 age group,
which was currently an unexploited segment. The alternative low calorie drink to
Coke Zero was Diet Coke; however this product had failed to attract males due to the
diet terminology which was avoided by males.
From table 3, the type of Coke Zero in Thailand in 2009 that would be
available in a broad range of package including 250ml, 325ml, 500ml, 1.25lt and
fountain. The distribution of Coke Zero would cover all regions in both traditional
trade and modern trade channel in Thailand.
23
Table 3 Type of Coke Zero in Thailand in 2009
Product
Package
250 ml.
325 ml.
500 ml.
1.25 ml.
Fountain
Price
10 baht
14 baht
17 baht
27 baht
10 - 40 baht
Refresh
Refresh
Refresh
w/ Meal
Refresh
On the go
On the go
On the go
for family
Immediate
Tween
Teen
Teen
Aduly
Tween
Teen
Adult
Adult
Family
Teen
Perfect Taste
Cool
Modern
Value pack
Iced Cold
Affordability
Modern
Unbreak
Storable
Snackability
Entry pack
Unbreak
Occasion
Target
Role/
Benefits
Affordability
Source: The Coca-Cola Company (2009)
Related Studies
Mongkolporn (2006) conducted the research on Factors effecting Marketing
Mix and Consumer Behavior of Coke and Pepsi in Bangkok Metropolitan area. The
objectives of this research were to study the factors affecting marketing mix and
consumer behavior of Coke and Pepsi in Bangkok Metropolitan area. The results
showed that most of the respondents were male with the age of 20-30 years old,
holding bachelor’s degree, having monthly income of more than 20,000 baht and
working as private company employees. From the analysis of marketing mix factors
for Coke, it was found that consumers regarded product, place and promotion factors
24
at good level and regarded price factor at moderate level. For Pepsi, it was found that
consumers regarded product, price and place factors at good level and regarded
promotion factor at very good level. From the analysis of consumer behavior for Coke
and Pepsi in Bangkok metropolitan area, it was found that most consumers preferred
Pepsi to Coke for the reason of taste, period of consumption was during meals
favorite packing was return-bottle, place bought was from general retailers, the
influential persons for consumption was themselves, the influential media for
consumption was television. The amount spent on Coke and Pepsi was less than 50
baht per week, and the frequency of drinking Pepsi was more than Coke. Moreover, it
was found from the hypothesis test that gender had not effect on consumer attitude
towards marketing mix factors consumers behaviors Coke and Pepsi. Age, monthly
income and occupation affected consumer attitude towards marketing mix factors and
consumer behaviors of Coke and Pepsi. Education level affected consumer attitude
towards marketing mix factors of Pepsi, but did not affect marketing mix factors of
Coke.
Lertvimonchaisiri (2004) conducted the research on Factors affecting the
buying decision for Carbonated Soft Drink on returnable glass bottles of Provision
Shop in Bangkok metropolitan. The purposes of this study were to study the factors of
marketing mix and characteristic of outlet owners, which impact buying decision. The
result showed that the majority of the respondents would purchase carbonated soft
drinks based on consumer and products out of stock. The outlet owners would like to
have products delivered to their outlets at least once a week. The most importance
factors were sales employee followed by products, delivery and merchandising,
promotion and price factor respectively. Regarding the hypothesis test, it found that
educational level affected the delivery and merchandising, price and sales employee
factors. Whereas purchasing quantity affecting to price factor. The recommendations
were to develop marketing strategies by focusing on low educational level by
instructing them on inventory management, advantage and disadvantage of product
out of stock. Also develop in-outlet execution as well as set the standard procedure for
sales employee, while pricing strategy should be focused on customer with high
25
volume by implementing both cumulative and non-cumulative discount in order to
motivate their willing to purchase.
Thunyatawee (2003) conducted the research on Consumer Behavior and
Consumer opinion on factors affecting purchasing of carbonated soft drink in
Hypermarket: The case study of Tesco Lotus. The purposes of this study were to
study consumer behavior and consumer opinion on factors affecting purchasing on
carbonated soft drink in hypermarket and the relationship between consumer personal
factors and opinion on the factors affecting purchasing on carbonated soft drink. The
study results showed that majority of the consumers’ purchase the soft drink on a
weekly basis and the objective of buying was for self-consumption in the family. The
favorite package size was 1.25lt and the favorite flavor was cola. Moreover, the
quality of product was the most important factor for the consumer purchasing. The
relationship between personal factors and consumer opinion on factors affecting
purchasing of carbonated soft drink showed that brand, price and quality of product
were interrelated with a statistical significant on personal factors in all groups, so the
soft drink manufacturers must focus on brand equity, product cost and quality.
Moreover, sales promotions were interrelated with a statistical significant on personal
factors in some groups, so the soft drink manufacturers should have a variety of
promotional programs to respond to difference target groups.
Punyatanapoom (2001) conducted the research on Consumer Behaviors of
Carbonated beverage in Bangkok. The objectives were to find out the consumer
behaviors of carbonated beverage in Bangkok and the attitudes for the factors related
to the soft drink. The results showed that the sample had positive and negative
attitudes for the soft drink in the same degree. The samples consumed soft drink 2-3
times a week during the meal, outside and in their house. They often consumed both
Coke and Pepsi at noon. They appreciated the discounted promotion and most of them
often bought soft drink from convenience store. The results from Chi square test
showed that gender, occupation had the relationship on consumer behavior.
Moreover, attitudes of consumer towards price and promotion factors had the
relationship on consumer behavior.
26
Table 4 Related studies summary
Topics
Author
Independent
Dependent
Variables
Variables
Results
1. Factors effecting
Mongkolporn , S.
Gender, age,
Marketing mix
Gender had not effect on
Marketing Mix and
(2006)
occupation,
factor of Coke,
marketing mix factors and
Consumer Behavior
educational level
marketing mix
consumer behaviors of Coke
of Coke and Pepsi in
and monthly income
factor of Pepsi and
and Pepsi. Age, monthly
consumer behavior
income and occupation affected
Bangkok
Metropolitan area.
marketing mix factors and
consumer behaviors of Coke
and Pepsi. Education level
affected marketing mix factors
of Pepsi, but did not affect
marketing mix factors of Coke.
2. Factors affecting
Lertvimonchaisiri,
Gender, age, status,
Product, delivery
Educational level affected the
the buying decision
V. (2004)
educational level,
and merchandising,
delivery and merchandising,
for CSD on returnable
purchasing quantity
price, promotion
price and sales employee
glass bottles of
and time of
and sale employee
factors. Whereas purchasing
Provision Shop in
purchasing
quantity affecting to price
Bangkok metropolitan
factor.
3. Consumer Behavior
Thunyatawee, S
Gender, age,
Brand, taste, pack
Brand, price and quality of
and Consumer
(2003)
occupation,
size, price,
product were interrelated on
opinion on factors
educational level,
promotion,
personal factors in all groups.
affecting purchasing
monthly income,
packaging, favor,
Moreover, sales promotions
of carbonated soft
status and size of
advertising, value,
were interrelated with a
drink in Hypermarket
family
family like, quality
statistical significant on
and image
personal factors in some groups
Consumer
Behaviors
Gender, occupation, attitudes of
4. Consumer
Punyatanapoom,
Gender, age,
Behaviors of
P. (2001)
occupation,
consumer towards price and
Carbonated beverage
educational level
promotion factors had the
in Bangkok
and monthly income
relationship on consumer
behavior.
After reviewed the related studies in four topics, this study set the independent
variables by followed the study from Mongkolporn (2006) and Punyatanapoom
(2001) including gender, age, educational level, occupation and monthly income.
27
Conceptual Framework
To study the consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero, the researcher
examined the differences in demographic characteristics (Independent variables)
affecting consumer perceptions regarding the extended product model (Dependent
variables) including physical product and product identity. For demographic
characteristics was set by followed the related studies from Mongkolporn (2006) and
Punyatanapoom (2001) including gender, age, educational level, occupation and
monthly income.
Independent Variables
Dependent Variables
Demographics Characteristics
The Extended Product Model
- Gender
A. Physical Product
- Age
- Feature
- Educational level
- Design
- Occupation
- Quality
- Monthly income
B. Product Identity
- Logo
- Packaging
- Visual Identity
- Name
Figure 5 Conceptual framework
28
Hypotheses
The differences in demographic characteristics hold different perceptions
towards Coke Zero. The hypotheses of this study were classified as follows:
Hypothesis 1 Consumers with different genders hold different perceptions
towards Coke Zero
Hypothesis 2 Consumers with different ages hold different perceptions
towards Coke Zero
Hypothesis 3 Consumers with different educational levels hold different
perceptions towards Coke Zero
Hypothesis 4 Consumers with different occupations hold different
perceptions towards Coke Zero
Hypothesis 5 Consumers with different monthly income hold different
perceptions towards Coke Zero
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter mentioned the methodology of this study which had been
developed from the conceptual framework. The following methodology was the guild
line through this study starting with study design to data analysis. There were six
main topics as follows:
1. Study Design
2. Population and Samples
3. Study Instrument
4. Questionnaire Reliability Test
5. Data Collection
6. Data Analysis
Study Design
This study was designed to use descriptive research by using survey method.
The research used questionnaire as a research instrument to collect the information
from 400 respondents regarding their perceptions towards Coke Zero. A sample of
population in this descriptive study was consumers who purchased Coke Zero in
Bangkok area. The questionnaires were collected from ten districts including Pom
Prap Sattru Phai, Samphanthawong, Thon Buri, Din Daeng, Bang Phlat, Phasi
Charoen, Phra Khanong, Lak Si, Don Mueang and Taling ChanThe. The time to
conduct the survey was February 7 - February 11, 2009.
The key materials used in the descriptive research were comprised of
questionnaire and a statistical program.
30
Population and Samples
Population
The target population was the consumers who purchased Coke Zero in
Bangkok area. Since, this target population had direct experience in purchasing so
they could give the information regarding their perceptions in all attributes of Coke
Zero with most accuracy.
Sample Size
Sample size was the selective consumers from the total population to use as a
representative. In order to determine the appropriate sample size for large population
and to ensure the results of each respondent was reliable. Thus, the number of
sampling respondents was calculated from Taro Yamane statistical table. In this case,
the number of target population who purchased Coke Zero in Bangkok area was
between 100,000 and infinity with 95% of confidential level. Therefore, the sample
size was determined from the population over 100,000 people. As a result, the sample
size used in this study was 400 respondents who purchased Coke Zero in Bangkok
area.
31
Table 5 Sample size by Taro Yamane
Sample size at acceptable magnitude of error
Population Size
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
10%
500
B
B
b
b
222
83
1,000
B
B
b
385
286
91
1,500
B
B
638
441
316
94
2,000
B
B
714
476
333
95
2,500
B
1250
769
500
345
96
3,000
B
1364
811
517
353
97
3,500
B
1458
843
530
359
97
4,000
B
1538
870
541
364
98
4,500
B
1607
891
549
367
98
5,000
B
1667
909
556
370
98
6,000
B
1765
938
566
375
98
7,000
B
1842
959
574
378
99
8,000
B
1905
976
580
381
99
9,000
B
1957
989
584
383
99
10,000
5000
2000
1000
588
385
99
15,000
6000
2143
1034
600
390
99
20,000
6667
2222
1034
606
392
100
25,000
7143
2273
1064
610
394
100
50,000
8333
2381
1087
617
397
100
100,000
9091
2439
1099
621
398
100
Infinity (a)
10000
2500
1111
625
400
100
Source: Yamane (1976)
32
Sampling Method
Since, the scope of this research was to study the consumer perceptions
towards Coke Zero in Bangkok area. Therefore, this study chose the main districts to
be the representative of Bangkok by dividing Bangkok into three main cities
regarding its geographic area. One thing important was to ensure the districts chosen
had to cover all three main cities in order to be good representative of Bangkok area.
BMA Data Center (2009) mentioned that the Bangkok could be divided into
three main cities including inner city, middle city and suburb as follows:
1. Inner city composed of twenty one districts including Phra Nakhon, Dusit,
Pom Prap Sattru Phai, Samphanthawong, Bang Rak, Yan Nawa, Sathon, Bang Kho
Laem, Bang Sue, Phaya Thai, Ratchathewi, Huai Khwang, Khlong Toei, Chatuchak,
Thon Buri, Khlong San, Bangkok Noi, Bangkok Yai, Din Daeng, Watthana and
Pathum Wan
2. Middle city composed of eighteen districts including Phra Khanong,
Prawet, Bang Khen, Bang Kapi, Lat Phrao, Bueng Kum, Bang Phlat, Phasi Charoen,
Chom Thong, Rat Burana, Suan Luang, Bang Na, Thung Khru, Bang Khae, Wang
Thonglang, Khan Na Yao, Saphan Sung and Sai Mai
3. Suburb composed of eleven districts including Nong Chok, Min Buri, Lat
Krabang, Taling Chan, Bang Khun Thian, Nong Khaem, Don Mueang, Lak Si,
Khlong Sam Wa, Thawi Watthana and Bang Bon
Next was to assign the quota in each geographic area. The quota applied for
inner city, middle city and suburb were four, three and three respectively. Then, the
researcher selected the districts in each area as the number given followed by the top
most density of population (km2) in order to be the representative of Bangkok area.1
1
See Appendix B
33
In this case ten districts chosen including Pom Prap Sattru Phai, Samphanthawong,
Thon Buri, Din Daeng, Bang Phlat, Phasi Charoen, Phra Khanong, Lak Si, Don
Mueang and Taling Chan.
Table 6 Ten districts chosen as the representative of Bangkok area
District
Area
Density of population
(km2)
Pom Prap Sattru Phai
Samphanthawong
Thon Buri
Inner city
Inner city
Inner city
37,307
25,104
20,555
Din Daeng
Bang Phlat
Phasi Charoen
Inner city
Middle city
Middle city
18,646
10,235
7,853
Phra Khanong
Lak Si
Don Mueang
Taling Chan
Middle city
Suburb
Suburb
Suburb
7,248
5,333
4,283
3,537
After that, the sampling method of this study used non-probability sampling
by using quota sampling. The sampling method was assigned the quota in each district
chosen to be the representative. In this case, the quota applied was forty respondents
in each district as shown in table 7.
34
Table 7 Number of quota applied in each district
District
No. of Questionnaire
Pom Prap Sattru Phai
Samphanthawong
Thon Buri
Din Daeng
40
40
40
40
Bang Phlat
Phasi Charoen
Phra Khanong
Lak Si
40
40
40
40
Don Mueang
Taling Chan
40
40
Study Instrument
The instrument for study was the questionnaire which was developed from the
conceptual framework regarding the theory and concept as well as the in-depth
interview2 from the exploratory research in order to study the consumer perceptions
towards Coke Zero. The questionnaire was divided into two parts as follows:
Part A The demographic characteristics
The questions were to ask the respondents regarding the demographic
characteristics including gender, age, educational level, occupation and monthly
income. The respondents were subject to give one answer that fit their own
characteristic. This part had five questions which composed of three nominal and two
ordinal scale questions. Furthermore, they were analyzed by frequency and
percentage.
2
See Appendix C
35
Part B Consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero
The questions were to ask the perceptions of consumers towards Coke Zero in
seven attributes including feature, design, quality, logo, packaging, visual identity and
name. Questionnaire was designed by using Likert scale with five-point scale. The
five-point scale ranging from strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly
disagree. Score of the answer was five, four, three, two, and one respectively. The
respondents were subject to give one best answer that fit their own perceptions
towards Coke Zero. They were analyzed by mean and standard deviation
Questionnaire Reliability Test
The pre-test was done by randomly distributing the questionnaire to thirty
respondents who purchased Coke Zero. The duration was on February 3 - February 5,
2009. Then, these were analyzed by using the Cronbach alpha coefficient in the SPSS
computer program. The result was 0.907, the value indicated that 90.7% of the
questionnaire was reliable.3
Data Collection
The data was gathered by using questionnaire with totally 400 respondents
who purchased Coke Zero. Time to collect was on February 7 - February 11, 2009.
Self-administered questionnaires were used since it was not time consuming method
in collecting the information. The 400 questionnaires were collected from ten districts
including Pom Prap Sattru Phai, Samphanthawong, Thon Buri, Din Daeng, Bang
Phlat, Phasi Charoen, Phra Khanong, Lak Si, Don Mueang and Taling Chan.
3
See Appendix D
36
Table 8 Date and time for collecting the questionnaires
Date
Place
Time of
Collection
No. of
Questionnaire
February 7, 2009
February 7, 2009
February 8, 2009
February 8, 2009
Pom Prap Sattru Phai
Samphanthawong
Thon Buri
Din Daeng
9.00-11.00
13.00-15.00
9.00-11.00
13.00-15.00
40
40
40
40
February 9, 2009
February 9, 2009
February 10, 2009
February 10, 2009
Bang Phlat
Phasi Charoen
Phra Khanong
Lak Si
9.00-11.00
13.00-15.00
9.00-11.00
13.00-15.00
40
40
40
40
February 11, 2009
February 11, 2009
Don Mueang
Taling Chan
9.00-11.00
13.00-15.00
40
40
Total
400
Data Analysis
Once the questionnaire was completed and rechecked whether all of them
were filled completely in every part. Raw data was put and coded in SPSS (Statistical
Package for Social Science) program to perform statistical analysis.
According to the part of consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero, the
researcher assigned a point by using Likert scale. The answer of this part was chosen
from five response categories, ranging from strongly agree to disagree. The researcher
assigned scores or weights to the alternative responses. The weight of score would be
assigned to the answer as below:
Strongly Agree
=
5
scores
Agree
=
4
scores
Neutral
=
3
scores
Disagree
=
2
scores
Strongly Disagree
=
1
score
37
The range of mean score of each level regarding their perceptions were be
calculated as the below equation;
Range of scores
=
Highest score – Lowest score
Number of range
=
5-1
5
=
0.8
From the scores, each variable could find out the average mean by using
scores multiplied with the frequency. Then, the average mean could explain the
perceptions for the variable as following:
Mean score range
Level of perception
4.21 – 5.00
=
very strong
3.41 – 4.20
=
strong
2.61 – 3.40
=
neutral
1.81 – 2.60
=
weak
1.00 – 1.80
=
very weak
In this study, the statistical tool used for data analysis can be categorized into
two types as descriptive and inferential statistics.
Descriptive Statistics
Frequency
A frequency distribution was a tabulation of number of times that each
different value appears in particular set of values. Frequencies themselves were raw
counts and normally these frequencies were converted into percentages for ease of
comparison.
38
Percentage
A division of the frequency for each value by the total number of observations
for all of the values resulting in a percent called a percentage distribution.
Mean
The mean was the arithmetic average of a set of numbers.
Formula for a mean
where
n
=
Mean ( x )
=
n
∑ xi
i=1
n
the number of cases
xi =
each individual value
∑ =
signifies that all xi values are summed
Standard Deviation
The standard deviation indicates the degree of variation or diversity in the
values in such as way as to be translatable into a normal or bell-shaped curve
distribution.
Formula for a
Standard deviation ( s ) =
n
∑ ( xi - x )2
i=1
n -1
Standard deviation
where
n
=
the number of cases
xi =
each individual value
x
the mean, as indicated earlier
=
∑ =
signifies that all xi values are summed
39
Inferential Statistics
The t-test
The t-test method was assessed whether the differences of mean scores of
the two sample mean were statistically significant. The study would check significant
difference at 95% confidence level (α = 0.05). If hypothesis significant ≤ 0.05 the
variances null hypothesis (H0) was not supported.
The F-test
The F-test method or analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the
differences of mean scores among three groups. Then, the LSD (Least Significant
Difference) was utilized to test which sub-group made the significant difference if it
was found there was the significance among groups. The study would check
significant difference at 95% confidence level (α = 0.05). If hypothesis significant ≤
0.05 the variances null hypothesis (H0) was not supported.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter emphasized the analysis of the data including the description of
demographic characteristics (gender, age, educational level, occupation and monthly
income) and consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero (feature, design, quality, logo,
packaging, visual identity and name).
The analysis of this study used two types of statistic. The first type was
descriptive statistic including frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation.
The second type was inferential statistic including t-test, F-test and multiple
comparisons (LSD).
There were three parts of the analysis in this chapter as follows:
Part 1 Demographic Characteristics * are
Part 2 Consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero
Part 3 Hypothesis Testing
Part 1 Demographic Characteristics *
The demographic characteristics of the respondent were divided into five
categories including gender, age, educational level, occupation and monthly income.
All of these demographic characteristics were decrypted in the form of descriptive
statistic as follows:
From table 9, the result showed that respondents who answer the questionnaire
consisted of male 52.3% and female 47.8%.
41
In term of age, the majority of the respondents were age between 15-24 years
at 33.3%, the others were the respondents with age less than 15 years at 14%, between
25-34 years at 25.3% and over than 34 years at 27.5%.
For educational level, the majority of the respondents graduated Bachelor’s
degree at 59.8%, less than Bachelor’s degree such as high school at 26.5%, graduated
Master’s degree at 3.8% and there were no respondents graduated higher than
Master’s degree.
In the case of occupation, the majority of the respondents at 40.8% were
student, 6.5% were government officer, 11.5% were enterpriser, 18% were selfemployed, 19% were private employee and 4.3% were others.
Finally, the majority of respondents at 43.8% earned monthly income less than
or equal 10,000 baht, followed by 10,001-20,000 baht at 23.3%. Other respondents
20,001-30,000 baht, 30,001-40,000 baht and more than 40,000 baht were 21%, 10.8%
and 1.3% respectively.
42
Table 9 The demographic characteristics of the respondents
(n = 400)
Demographic Characteristic
Number
Percentage
Male
Female
209
191
52.3
47.8
Total
400
100
Less than 15 years
15-24 years
56
133
14.0
33.3
25-34 years
Over than 34 years
101
110
25.3
27.5
Total
400
100
106
26.5
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
More than Master’s degree
239
55
0
59.8
13.8
0
Total
400
100
163
26
46
72
40.8
6.5
11.5
18.0
Private employee
Others
76
17
19.0
4.3
Total
400
100
175
93
84
43
43.8
23.3
21.0
10.8
5
1.3
400
100
Gender
Age
Educational Level
Less than Bachelor’s degree
Occupation
Student
Government officer
Enterpriser
Self-employed
Monthly Income
Less than or equal 10,000 baht
10,001-20,000 baht
20,001-30,000 baht
30,001-40,000 baht
More than 40,000 baht
Total
43
Part 2 Consumer Perceptions towards Coke Zero
This part the questionnaire was the perception survey. There were twenty-six
questions which separated into seven attributes including feature, design, quality,
logo, packaging, visual identity and name as shown in table ten to seventeen. The
results analyzed in mean, standard deviation, level of perception and ranking.
Table 10 indicated that the respondents had strong perceptions towards feature
factor regarding Coke Zero has suitable feature (Mean=4.13), the feature is suitable
for male (Mean=4.10) and Coke Zero has outstanding feature (Mean=4.04). From the
average feature score, mean analysis found that the respondents had strong perception
towards Coke Zero regarding feature factor (Mean=4.09).
Table 10 The level of perception regarding feature factor towards Coke Zero
Feature Factor
Mean
S.D.
level of perception
Coke Zero has suitable feature
4.13
0.66
strong
The feature is suitable for male
4.10
0.81
strong
Coke Zero has outstanding feature
4.04
0.70
strong
Average feature score
4.09
0.60
strong
Table 11 indicated that the respondents had very strong perceptions towards
design factor regarding black design of label is suitable for male (Mean=4.24) and
black design give strong personality (Mean=4.27), followed by strong perceptions
regarding Coke Zero has suitable design (Mean=3.99), black design of crown is
suitable for male (Mean=4.19), unique and well designed (Mean=3.97). From the
average design score, mean analysis found that the respondents had strong perception
towards Coke Zero regarding design factor (Mean=4.13).
44
Table 11 The level of perception regarding design factor towards Coke Zero
Design Factor
Mean
S.D.
level of perception
Coke Zero has suitable design
3.99
0.75
strong
Black design of label is suitable for male
4.24
0.84
very strong
Black design of crown is suitable for male
4.19
0.87
strong
Black design give strong personality
4.27
0.74
very strong
Unique and well designed
3.97
0.75
strong
Average design score
4.13
0.58
strong
Table 12 indicated that the respondents had strong perceptions towards quality
factor regarding Coke Zero has good quality (Mean=3.81), ingredient and raw
materials has high quality (Mean=3.79) and reasonable price compare with quality
(Mean=3.75). From the average quality score, mean analysis found that the
respondents had strong perception towards Coke Zero regarding quality factor
(Mean=3.78).
Table 12 The level of perception regarding quality factor towards Coke Zero
Quality Factor
Mean
S.D.
level of perception
Coke Zero has good quality
3.81
0.83
strong
Ingredient and raw materials has strong quality
3.79
0.80
strong
Reasonable price compare with quality
3.75
0.80
strong
Average quality score
3.78
0.70
strong
Table 13 indicated that the respondents had very strong perception towards
logo factor regarding nice and suitable logo (Mean=4.32), followed by strong
perceptions regarding logo represent real coke taste (Mean=3.90), logo represent core
benefit which is zero sugar (Mean=3.81) and logo represent trademark of "Coca Cola"
(Mean=3.98). From the average logo score, mean analysis found that the respondents
had strong perception towards Coke Zero regarding logo factor (Mean=4.00).
45
Table 13 The level of perception regarding logo factor towards Coke Zero
Logo Factor
Mean
S.D.
level of perception
Nice and suitable logo
4.32
0.77
very strong
Logo represent real coke taste
3.90
0.71
strong
Logo represent core benefit which is zero sugar
3.81
0.75
strong
Logo represent trademark of "Coca Cola"
3.98
0.65
strong
Average logo score
4.00
0.50
strong
Table 14 indicated that the respondents had very strong perception towards
packaging factor regarding black packaging give strong personality (Mean=4.27),
followed by strong perceptions regarding modern and suitable packaging
(Mean=3.92), various size which suitable packaging (Mean=3.73) and black
packaging bring differentiation (Mean=4.20). From the average packaging score,
mean analysis found that the respondents had strong perception towards Coke Zero
regarding packaging factor (Mean=4.03).
Table 14 The level of perception regarding packaging factor towards Coke Zero
Packaging Factor
Mean
S.D.
level of perception
Modern and suitable packaging
3.92
0.76
strong
Various size which suitable packaging
3.73
0.80
strong
Black packaging give strong personality
4.27
0.76
very strong
Black packaging bring differentiation
4.20
0.78
strong
Average packaging score
4.03
0.54
strong
Table 15 indicated that the respondents had strong perceptions towards visual
identity factor regarding same taste as Coke Classic (Mean=3.66), added benefit of
zero sugar (Mean=3.79), new and expand consumer choice (Mean=3.83) and suitable
for healthy people (Mean=3.76). From the average visual identity score, mean
analysis found that the respondents had strong perception towards Coke Zero
regarding visual identity factor (Mean=3.76).
46
Table 15 The level of perception regarding visual identity factor towards Coke Zero
Visual Identity Factor
Mean
S.D.
level of perception
Same taste as Coke Classic
3.66
0.78
strong
Added benefit of zero sugar
3.79
0.83
strong
New and expand consumer choice
3.83
0.79
strong
Suitable for healthy people
3.76
0.80
strong
Average visual identity score
3.76
0.68
strong
Table 16 indicated that the respondents had strong perceptions towards name
factor regarding name communicate real coke taste (Mean=3.78), name communicate
about zero sugar (Mean=3.81) and name is suitable more directly to men
(Mean=4.18). From the average name score, mean analysis found that the respondents
had strong perception towards Coke Zero regarding name factor (Mean=3.92).
Table 16 The level of perception regarding name factor towards Coke Zero
Name Factor
Mean
S.D.
level of perception
Name communicate real coke taste
3.78
0.82
strong
Name communicate about zero sugar
3.81
0.77
strong
Name is suitable more directly to men
4.18
0.94
strong
Average name score
3.92
0.58
strong
Table 17 summarized that the respondents had strong perceptions towards
Coke Zero regarding average feature, design, quality, logo, packaging, visual identity
and name. From mean analysis found that respondents had strong perceptions in
design in the first of ranking followed by feature, packaging, logo, name, quality and
visual identity in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh of ranking
respectively.
47
Table 17 The level of perception regarding average perception factors towards Coke
Zero
Perception factors
Mean
S.D.
Rank
level of perception
Feature
4.09
0.60
2
strong
Design
4.13
0.58
1
strong
Quality
3.78
0.70
6
strong
Logo
4.00
0.50
4
strong
Packaging
4.03
0.54
3
strong
Visual Identity
3.76
0.68
7
strong
Name
3.92
0.58
5
strong
Part 3 Hypothesis Testing
The results of analysis of independent sample t-test, F-test and multiple
comparisons (LSD) were conducted to determine the differences in demographic
characteristics (independent variables) affecting the consumer perceptions towards
Coke Zero (dependent variables). The error level was set at 0.05 for t-test, F-test and
multiple comparisons (LSD). Each factor with significant level (the p value) less than
0.05 indicated that the different of independent variables affect to dependent
variables. In this study, there were five hypotheses tested as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Consumers with different genders hold different perceptions
towards Coke Zero.
Ho: Consumers with different genders do not hold different perceptions
towards Coke Zero.
Ha: Consumers with different genders hold different perceptions towards
Coke Zero.
48
From table 18, the null hypothesis was rejected at confident level 95%,
indicated that different genders held differences in perceptions towards Coke Zero.
Therefore, it was concluded that respondents with different genders have no
significantly difference in perceptions towards Coke Zero regarding feature, design,
quality, logo, packaging, visual identity and name factors.
Key finding from this hypothesis was male and female had the same
perceptions towards Coke Zero in all attributes. Moreover, it could be pointed out that
this hypothesis had the same result as the related study from Mongkolporn (2006)
which studied about factors effecting marketing mix and consumer behavior of Coke
and Pepsi. The result found that gender had not effect on marketing mix factors and
consumer behaviors of Coke and Pepsi.
Table 18 Perceptions towards Coke Zero between consumers with different genders
Gender
Mean
Perceptions towards Coke Zero
t
Sig.
4.16
-0.868
0.386
4.12
4.07
0.632
0.528
1.3) Coke Zero has outstanding feature
3.97
4.12
-2.073
0.039*
Average feature
4.07
4.12
-0.831
0.406
2.1) Coke Zero has suitable design
3.94
4.03
-1.185
0.237
2.2) Black design of label is suitable for male
4.23
4.25
-0.200
0.842
2.3) Black design of crown is suitable for male
4.20
4.17
0.324
0.746
2.4) Black design give strong personality
4.22
4.32
-1.425
0.155
2.5) Unique and well designed
3.94
3.99
-0.629
0.530
Average design
4.11
4.15
-0.791
0.430
3.1) Coke Zero has good quality
3.82
3.80
0.326
0.745
3.2) Ingredient and raw materials has high quality
3.78
3.80
-0.258
0.797
3.3) Reasonable price compare with quality
3.76
3.74
0.156
0.876
Average quality
3.78
3.78
0.091
0.928
Male
(n=209)
Female
(n=191)
1.1) Coke Zero has suitable feature
4.10
1.2) The feature is suitable for male
1. Feature
2. Design
3. Quality
49
Table 18 (Continued)
Gender
Mean
Perceptions towards Coke Zero
t
Sig.
4.37
-1.159
0.247
3.87
3.93
-0.862
0.389
4.3) Logo represent core benefit which is zero sugar
3.82
3.79
0.369
0.713
4.4) Logo represent trademark of "Coca Cola"
3.92
4.04
-1.888
0.060
Average logo
3.97
4.03
-1.219
0.224
5.1) Modern and suitable packaging
3.94
3.90
0.555
0.579
5.2) Various size which suitable packaging
3.79
3.67
1.495
0.136
5.3) Black packaging give strong personality
4.28
4.26
0.339
0.735
5.4) Black packaging bring differentiation
4.24
4.15
1.114
0.266
Average packaging
4.06
3.99
1.263
0.207
6.1) Same taste as Coke Classic
3.69
3.63
0.706
0.480
6.2) Added benefit of zero sugar
3.83
3.74
1.140
0.255
6.3) New and expand consumer choice
3.79
3.87
-1.003
0.317
6.4) Suitable for healthy people
3.79
3.73
0.701
0.484
Average visual identity
3.78
3.74
0.462
0.645
7.1) Name communicate real coke taste
3.80
3.75
0.609
0.543
7.2) Name communicate about zero sugar
3.82
3.80
0.283
0.778
7.3) Name is suitable more directly to men
4.20
4.15
0.473
0.637
Average name
3.94
3.90
0.661
0.509
Male
(n=209)
Female
(n=191)
4.1) Nice and suitable logo
4.28
4.2) Logo represent real coke taste
4. Logo
5. Packaging
6. Visual identity
7. Name
Remark: * means there are significant differences at the 0.05 level
50
Hypothesis 2: Consumers with different ages hold different perceptions
towards Coke Zero.
Ho: Consumers with different ages do not hold different perceptions towards
Coke Zero.
Ha: Consumers with different ages hold different perceptions towards Coke
Zero.
From table 19, the null hypothesis was rejected at the p value less than 0.05.
Therefore, it was indicated that respondents with different ages hold different
perceptions towards Coke Zero in term of feature, design, quality, logo, packaging,
visual identity and name factors.
The multiple comparisons (LSD) were utilized to test between sub-group of
respondents with different ages towards feature, design, quality, logo, packaging,
visual identity and name factors. For feature factor, the result showed that respondents
with ages less than 15 years and between 15-34 years had the same perception and
higher perception than respondents with age between 15-24 years. For design factor,
the result showed that respondents with age more than 34 years had higher perception
than respondents with age less than or equal 34 years. Moreover, respondents with
age less than 15 years and between 25-34 years had the same perception and higher
perceptions than respondents with age between 15-24 years. For quality and
packaging factors, the result showed that respondents with age more than or equal 25
years had higher perceptions than respondents with age less than or equal 24 years.
For logo and name factors, the result showed that respondents with age more than or
equal 25 years had higher perceptions than respondents with age less than or equal 24
years. Moreover, respondents with age less than 15 years had higher perceptions than
respondents with age between 15-24 years. For visual identity factor, the result
showed that respondents with age more than 34 years had higher perception than
respondents with age less than or equal 34 years and respondents with age between
25-34 years had higher perception than respondents with age less than or equal 24
51
years and respondents with age 15-24 years had higher perception than respondents
with age less than 15 years.
Key findings from this hypothesis was five of seven attributes respondents
with age more than or equal 25 years had higher perceptions than respondents with
age less than or equal 24 years including quality, logo, packaging, visual identity and
name. Moreover, it could be pointed out that this hypothesis had the same result as the
related study from Mongkolporn (2006) which studied about factors effecting
marketing mix and consumer behavior of Coke and Pepsi. The result found that age
affected marketing mix factors and consumer behaviors of Coke and Pepsi
Table 19 Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different ages
Age (years)
Mean
Perceptions towards Coke Zero
<15
15-24 25-34
> 34
(n=56) (n=133) (n=101) (n=110)
F
Sig.
LSD
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
1.1) Coke Zero has suitable feature
4.14
3.87
4.30
4.29
12.166
0.000*
A=C=D>B
1.2) The feature is suitable for male
4.59
3.54
4.24
4.38
43.518
0.000*
A=D>C>B
1.3) Coke Zero has outstanding feature
3.96
3.70
4.27
4.28
21.808
0.000*
C=D>A>B
Average feature
4.23
3.70
4.27
4.32
34.875
0.000*
A=C=D>B
3.41
3.82
4.18
4.30
25.957
0.000*
D>C>B>A
4.86
3.69
4.30
4.55
44.855
0.000*
A>D>C>B
4.89
3.61
4.19
4.53
52.017
0.000*
A>D>C>B
2.4) Black design give strong personality
4.36
3.87
4.35
4.64
27.311
0.000*
D>A=C>B
2.5) Unique and well designed
3.48
3.68
4.28
4.27
33.067
0.000*
C=D>A=B
Average design
4.20
3.73
4.26
4.46
46.018
0.000*
D>A=C>B
3.1) Coke Zero has good quality
3.84
3.41
3.93
4.16
19.951
0.000*
D>A=C>B
3.2) Ingredient and raw materials has high
quality
3.70
3.43
4.02
4.05
17.803
0.000*
C=D>A>B
1. Feature
2. Design
2.1) Coke Zero has suitable design
2.2) Black design of label is suitable for
male
2.3) Black design of crown is suitable for
male
3. Quality
52
Table 19 (Continued)
Age (years)
Mean
Perceptions towards Coke Zero
<15
15-24 25-34
> 34
(n=56) (n=133) (n=101) (n=110)
F
Sig.
LSD
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
3.3) Reasonable price compare with
quality
3.34
3.53
3.95
4.04
16.621
0.000*
C=D>A=B
Average quality
3.63
3.46
3.97
4.08
22.817
0.000*
C=D>A=B
4.1) Nice and suitable logo
4.93
3.80
4.27
4.68
56.859
0.000*
A>D>C>B
4.2) Logo represent real coke taste
3.80
3.80
4.01
3.97
2.511
0.058
N/S
3.29
3.65
4.09
3.99
20.606
0.000*
C=D>B>A
3.77
3.83
4.14
4.11
7.952
0.000*
C=D>A=B
3.95
3.77
4.13
4.19
18.688
0.000*
C=D>A>B
3.38
3.80
4.23
4.07
20.534
0.000*
C=D>B>A
3.05
3.71
3.94
3.91
20.131
0.000*
C=D>B>A
4.84
3.78
4.23
4.61
49.768
0.000*
A>D>C>B
5.4) Black packaging bring differentiation
4.07
3.77
4.41
4.58
29.908
0.000*
C=D>A>B
Average packaging
3.83
3.77
4.20
4.29
30.129
0.000*
C=D>A=B
6.1) Same taste as Coke Classic
3.13
3.45
4.10
3.79
28.18
0.000*
C>D>B>A
6.2) Added benefit of zero sugar
3.09
3.69
4.19
3.89
26.691
0.000*
C>D>B>A
6.3) New and expand consumer choice
3.50
3.65
4.17
3.89
12.788
0.000*
C>D>A=B
6.4) Suitable for healthy people
3.32
3.54
4.09
3.95
18.807
0.000*
C=D>A=B
Average visual identity
3.26
3.58
4.14
3.88
29.419
0.000*
D>C>B>A
7.1) Name communicate real coke taste
3.27
3.74
4.05
3.84
12.19
0.000*
C>B=D>A
7.2) Name communicate about zero sugar
3.39
3.78
4.07
3.83
9.90
0.000*
C>B=D>A
7.3) Name is suitable more directly to men
4.95
3.53
4.05
4.67
66.22
0.000*
A>D>C>B
Average name
3.87
3.69
4.06
4.11
14.279
0.000*
C=D>A>B
4. Logo
4.3) Logo represent core benefit which is
zero sugar
4.4) Logo represent trademark of "Coca
Cola"
Average logo
5. Packaging
5.1) Modern and suitable packaging
5.2) Various size which suitable
packaging
5.3) Black packaging give strong
personality
6. Visual identity
7. Name
Remark:
* means there are significant differences at the 0.05 level
N/S means there are no significant differences
53
Hypothesis 3: Consumers with different educational levels hold different
perceptions towards Coke Zero.
Ho: Consumers with different educational levels do not hold different
perceptions towards Coke Zero.
Ha: Consumers with different educational levels hold different perceptions
towards Coke Zero.
From table 20, the null hypothesis was rejected at the p value less than 0.05.
Therefore, it was indicated that respondents with different educational levels hold
different perceptions towards Coke Zero in term of feature, design, quality, logo,
packaging, visual identity and name factors.
The multiple comparisons (LSD) were utilized to test between sub-group of
respondents with different educational levels towards feature, design, quality, logo,
packaging, visual identity and name factors. For feature and design factors, the result
showed that respondents with master degree had higher perceptions than respondents
with bachelor degree and less than bachelor degree. Moreover, respondents with less
than bachelor degree had higher perceptions than respondents with bachelor degree.
For quality, logo, packaging and name factors, the result showed that respondents
with master degree had higher perceptions than respondents with bachelor degree and
less than bachelor degree. Moreover, respondents with bachelor degree and less than
bachelor degree had the same perceptions. For visual identity factor, the result showed
that respondents with master degree had higher perception than respondents with
bachelor degree and less than bachelor degree. Moreover, respondents with bachelor
degree had higher perception than respondents with less than bachelor degree.
Key finding from this hypothesis was respondents with master degree had the
highest perceptions towards Coke Zero in all attributes. Moreover, it could be pointed
out that this hypothesis had the same result as the related study from Mongkolporn
(2006) studied about factors effecting marketing mix and consumer behavior of Coke
54
and Pepsi. The result found that education level affected marketing mix factors of
Pepsi
Table 20 Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
educational levels
Educational Level
Mean
<Bachel
or’s
degree
(n=106)
Bachelo
r’s
degree
(n=239)
Master’
s degree
(n=55)
(A)
(B)
(C)
1.1) Coke Zero has suitable feature
4.15
4.05
1.2) The feature is suitable for male
4.35
1.3) Coke Zero has outstanding feature
Average feature
Perceptions towards Coke Zero
F
Sig.
LSD
4.45
8.873
0.000*
C>A=B
3.88
4.55
24.633
0.000*
A=C>B
4.02
3.96
4.44
11.156
0.000*
C>A=B
4.17
3.96
4.48
19.790
0.000*
C>A>B
2.1) Coke Zero has suitable design
3.66
4.02
4.45
23.392
0.000*
C>B>A
2.2) Black design of label is suitable for male
4.58
4.03
4.51
20.132
0.000*
A=C>B
2.3) Black design of crown is suitable for male
4.59
3.95
4.45
26.507
0.000*
A=C>B
2.4) Black design give strong personality
4.34
4.17
4.58
8.056
0.000*
C>A>B
2.5) Unique and well designed
3.75
3.95
4.47
19.038
0.000*
C>B>A
Average design
4.18
4.02
4.49
16.710
0.000*
C>A>B
3.1) Coke Zero has good quality
3.84
3.69
4.27
11.661
0.000*
C>A=B
3.2) Ingredient and raw materials has high
quality
3.75
3.69
4.27
12.831
0.000*
C>A=B
3.3) Reasonable price compare with quality
3.54
3.74
4.18
12.337
0.000*
C>B>A
Average quality
3.71
3.71
4.24
14.870
0.000*
C>A=B
4.1) Nice and suitable logo
4.64
4.14
4.49
18.941
0.000*
A=C>B
4.2) Logo represent real coke taste
3.82
3.88
4.15
4.142
0.017*
C>A=B
4.3) Logo represent core benefit which is zero
sugar
3.58
3.81
4.24
15.173
0.000*
C>B>A
4.4) Logo represent trademark of "Coca Cola"
3.83
3.97
4.29
9.389
0.000*
C>A=B
Average logo
3.97
3.95
4.29
11.171
0.000*
C>A=B
3.67
3.94
4.33
14.804
0.000*
C>B>A
1. Feature
2. Design
3. Quality
4. Logo
5. Packaging
5.1) Modern and suitable packaging
55
Table 20 (Continued)
Educational Level
Mean
<Bachel
or’s
degree
(n=106)
Bachelo
r’s
degree
(n=239)
Master’
s degree
(n=55)
(A)
(B)
(C)
5.2) Various size which suitable packaging
3.42
3.79
5.3) Black packaging give strong personality
4.58
5.4) Black packaging bring differentiation
Average packaging
Perceptions towards Coke Zero
F
Sig.
LSD
4.11
16.186
0.000*
C>B>A
4.10
4.42
17.907
0.000*
A=C>B
4.22
4.11
4.55
7.192
0.001*
C>A=B
3.97
3.98
4.35
11.618
0.000*
C>A=B
6.1) Same taste as Coke Classic
3.38
3.66
4.24
24.269
0.000*
C>B>A
6.2) Added benefit of zero sugar
3.48
3.79
4.35
21.868
0.000*
C>B>A
6.3) New and expand consumer choice
3.69
3.77
4.33
13.927
0.000*
C>A=B
6.4) Suitable for healthy people
3.53
3.74
4.29
17.780
0.000*
C>B>A
Average visual identity
3.52
3.74
4.30
26.846
0.000*
C>B>A
7.1) Name communicate real coke taste
3.54
3.78
4.25
14.892
0.000*
C>B>A
7.2) Name communicate about zero sugar
3.56
3.82
4.29
17.671
0.000*
C>B>A
7.3) Name is suitable more directly to men
4.63
3.94
4.31
22.899
0.000*
A>C>B
Average name
3.91
3.85
4.28
13.476
0.000*
C>A=B
6. Visual identity
7. Name
Remark:
* means there are significant differences at the 0.05 level
Hypothesis 4: Consumers with different occupations hold different
perceptions towards Coke Zero.
Ho: Consumers with different occupations do not hold different perceptions
towards Coke Zero.
Ha: Consumers with different occupations hold different perceptions towards
Coke Zero.
56
From table 21, the null hypothesis was rejected at the p value less than 0.05.
Therefore, it was indicated that respondents with different occupations hold different
perceptions towards Coke Zero in term of feature, design, quality, logo, packaging,
visual identity and name factors.
The multiple comparisons (LSD) were utilized to test between sub-group of
respondents with different occupations towards feature, design, quality, logo,
packaging, visual identity and name factors. For feature factor, the result showed that
government officer, enterpriser, self-employed, private employee and others had the
same perception and higher perception than student. For design factor, the result
showed that government office, enterpriser, self-employed and others had the same
perception and higher perception than students. Moreover, private employee had
higher perception than students. For quality and logo factors, the result showed that
government officer, enterpriser and private employee had the same perceptions and
higher perceptions than self-employed and student and self-employed had higher
perceptions than student. Moreover, others had higher perceptions than student. For
packaging factor, the result showed that government officer, enterpriser, private
employee and others had the same perception and higher perception than student.
Moreover, self-employed had higher perception than students. For visual identity
factor, the result showed that government officer, enterpriser, private employee and
others had the same perception and higher perception than self-employed and student.
For name factor, the result showed that government officer, enterpriser and private
employee had the same perception and higher perception than student and selfemployed. Moreover, private employee had higher perception than student, selfemployed and others.
Key finding from this hypothesis was five of seven attributes respondents who
were student had lowest perceptions towards Coke Zero including feature, design,
quality, logo and packaging. Moreover, it could be pointed out that this hypothesis
had the same result as the related studies from Mongkolporn (2006) which studied
about factors effecting marketing mix and consumer behavior of Coke and Pepsi. The
result found that occupation affected marketing mix factors and consumer behaviors
57
of Coke and Pepsi. Additional, the hypothesis also had the same result from
Punyatanapoom (2001) studied about Consumer Behaviors of Carbonated beverage in
Bangkok. The result found that occupation had the relationship on consumer
behavior.
Table 21 Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
occupations
Occupation
Government
officer (n=26)
Enterpriser
(n=46)
Self-employed
(n=72)
Private
employee
(n=76)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
1.1) Coke Zero has suitable feature
3.95
4.19
4.46
4.14
4.21
4.53
6.681
0.000*
1.2) The feature is suitable for male
3.81
4.38
4.41
4.19
4.25
4.41
7.988
0.000*
1.3) Coke Zero has outstanding
feature
3.75
4.35
4.35
4.18
4.16
4.41
11.959
0.000*
Average feature
3.84
4.31
4.41
4.17
4.21
4.45
12.857
0.000*
2.1) Coke Zero has suitable design
3.64
4.23
4.30
4.26
4.12
4.24
13.725
0.000*
2.2) Black design of label is suitable
for male
3.99
4.54
4.43
4.63
4.21
4.18
7.535
0.000*
2.3) Black design of crown is suitable
for male
3.91
4.46
4.30
4.60
4.24
4.12
7.804
0.000*
2.4) Black design give strong
personality
3.97
4.62
4.37
4.64
4.34
4.47
12.380
0.000*
2.5) Unique and well designed
3.56
4.35
4.35
4.13
4.25
4.29
21.418
0.000*
Average design
3.82
4.44
4.35
4.45
4.23
4.26
22.123
0.000*
3.47
4.19
4.11
3.82
4.18
4.00
12.769
0.000*
3.45
4.31
4.20
3.67
4.12
4.06
16.147
0.000*
3.43
4.15
4.17
3.69
4.05
3.94
13.278
0.000*
3.45
4.22
4.16
3.73
4.12
4.00
19.857
0.000*
Perceptions towards Coke Zero
Others (n=17)
Student
(n=163)
Mean
F
Sig.
LSD
1. Feature
C>E=F>D>A
, C>B>A
B=C=D=E=F
>A
B=C=D=E=F
>A
B=C=D=E=F
>A
2. Design
B=C=D=E=F
>A
B=C=D>A,
D>A=E=F,
B=C=E=F
B=C=E>A,
D>E=F,
B=D=C=F,
A=F
B=C=E=F>A,
D>A
B=C=D=E=F
>A
B=C=D=F>A
, E>A
3. Quality
3.1) Coke Zero has good quality
3.2) Ingredient and raw materials has
high quality
3.3) Reasonable price compare with
quality
Average quality
B=C=E=F>D
>A
B=C=E=F>D
>A
B=C=E>D>A
, F>A
B=C=E>D>
A, F>A
58
Table 21 (Continued)
Occupation
Enterpriser
(n=46)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
4.1) Nice and suitable logo
4.14
4.38
4.35
4.75
4.33
4.00
7.498
0.000*
4.2) Logo represent real coke taste
3.74
4.04
4.39
3.79
4.07
3.59
8.873
0.000*
3.45
4.27
4.33
3.68
4.18
3.88
22.992
0.000*
3.77
4.19
4.37
3.96
4.16
3.82
9.277
0.000*
3.78
4.22
4.36
4.05
4.18
3.82
17.612
0.000*
5.1) Modern and suitable packaging
3.61
4.31
4.20
3.88
4.29
4.12
13.72
0.000*
5.2) Various size which suitable
packaging
3.48
4.27
3.96
3.53
4.17
3.65
13.869
0.000*
5.3) Black packaging give strong
personality
4.07
4.46
4.28
4.60
4.32
4.24
5.581
0.000*
5.4) Black packaging bring
differentiation
3.78
4.5
4.43
4.54
4.45
4.53
19.482
0.000*
Average packaging
3.74
4.38
4.22
4.14
4.31
4.13
22.007
0.000*
6.1) Same taste as Coke Classic
3.26
4.19
4.24
3.58
4.01
3.88
25.005
0.000*
6.2) Added benefit of zero sugar
3.47
4.19
4.22
3.54
4.22
4.18
18.093
0.000*
6.3) New and expand consumer choice
3.58
4.12
4.20
3.50
4.22
4.41
16.787
0.000*
6.4) Suitable for healthy people
3.42
4.31
4.26
3.61
4.09
4.00
18.330
0.000*
Average visual identity
3.43
4.20
4.23
3.56
4.14
4.12
27.676
0.000*
3.54
4.15
4.22
3.38
4.22
4.06
18.153
0.000*
3.63
4.04
4.11
3.43
4.22
4.18
14.109
0.000*
3.93
4.54
4.13
4.75
4.20
3.53
11.351
0.000*
3.70
4.24
4.15
3.85
4.21
3.92
13.488
0.000*
Others
(n=17)
Governme
nt officer
(n=26)
(A)
Perception towards Coke Zero
Selfemployed
(n=72)
Private
employee
(n=76)
Student
(n=163)
Mean
F
Sig.
LSD
4. Logo
4.3) Logo represent core benefit which
is zero sugar
4.4) Logo represent trademark of
"Coca Cola"
Average logo
D>A=B=C=E
=F
C>E>D=F=A
, C>B
B=C=E>A=F,
C>D>A
B=C=E>D>A
, F>A
B=C=E>D>
A, F>A
5. Packaging
B=C=E=F>A,
D>A
B=E>D=A=F
, E=C>D=A
D>E=C,
B=E>A,
B=C=E=F
B=C=D=E=F
>A
B=C=E=F>A
, D>A
6. Visual identity
7. Name
7.1) Name communicate real coke
taste
7.2) Name communicate about zero
sugar
7.3) Name is suitable more directly to
men
Average name
Remark:
* means there are significant differences at the 0.05 level
B=C=E=F>A,
D>A
B=C=E=F>D
=A
B=C=E=F>A
=D
B=C=E=F>D
=A
B=C=E=F>D
=A
B=C=E=F>D
=A
B=C=E=F>A
>D
B=D>A=F,
D>C=E
B=C=E>A=
D, E>A=F,
C=F
59
Hypothesis 5: Consumers with different monthly income hold different
perceptions towards Coke Zero.
Ho: Consumers with different monthly income do not hold different
perceptions towards Coke Zero.
Ha: Consumers with different monthly income hold different perceptions
towards Coke Zero.
From table 22, the null hypothesis was rejected at the p value less than 0.05.
Therefore, it was indicated that respondents with different monthly income hold
different perceptions towards Coke Zero in term of feature, design, quality, logo,
packaging, visual identity and name factors.
The multiple comparisons (LSD) were utilized to test between sub-group of
respondents with different monthly income towards feature, design, quality, logo,
packaging, visual identity and name factors. For feature and quality factors, the result
showed that respondents with monthly income more than 10,000 baht had higher
perceptions than respondents with monthly income less than or equal 10,000 baht. For
design and name factors, the result showed that respondents with monthly income
between 30,001-40,000 baht had higher perceptions than respondents with monthly
income less than or equal 30,000 baht and respondents with monthly income between
10,001-30,000 baht had higher perceptions than respondents with monthly income
less than or equal 10,000 baht. Moreover, respondents with monthly income more
than 40,000 baht had higher perceptions than respondents with monthly income less
than or equal 10,000 baht. For logo factor, the result showed that respondents with
monthly income between 10,001-40,000 baht had higher perception than respondents
with monthly income less than or equal 10,000 baht. Moreover, respondents with
monthly income more than 40,000 baht had higher perception than respondents with
monthly income less than or equal 10,000 baht. For packaging and visual identity
factors, the result showed that respondents with monthly income between 10,00120,000 baht and 30,001-40,000 baht had the same perceptions and higher perceptions
60
than respondents with monthly income between 20,001-30,000 baht and less than or
equal 10,000 baht and respondents with monthly income between 20,001-30,000 baht
had higher perceptions than respondents with monthly income less than or equal
10,000 baht. Moreover, respondents with monthly income more than 40,000 baht had
higher perceptions than respondents with monthly income less than or equal 10,000
baht.
Key finding from this hypothesis was respondents with monthly income less
than or equal 10,000 baht had the lowest perceptions towards Coke Zero in all
attributes. Moreover, it could be pointed out that this hypothesis had the same result
as the related study from Mongkolporn (2006) which studied about factors effecting
marketing mix and consumer behavior of Coke and Pepsi. The result found that
monthly income affected marketing mix factors and consumer behaviors of Coke and
Pepsi.
Table 22 Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different monthly
income
Monthly income
≤ 10,000 (n=175)
10,001-20,000 (n=93)
20,001-30,000 (n=84)
30,001-40,000 (n=43)
> 40,000 (n=5)
Mean
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
1.1) Coke Zero has suitable feature
3.97
4.29
4.20
4.30
4.20
5.153
0.000*
B=C=D=E>A
1.2) The feature is suitable for male
3.86
4.25
4.23
4.42
4.60
7.768
0.000*
B=C=D=E>A
1.3) Coke Zero has outstanding feature
3.79
4.25
4.13
4.37
4.40
11.806
0.000*
B=C=D=E>A
Average feature
3.87
4.26
4.19
4.36
4.40
11.930
0.000*
B=C=D=E>A
2.1) Coke Zero has suitable design
3.66
4.25
4.15
4.40
4.20
18.359
0.000*
B=C=D>A,
B=C=D=E, A=E
2.2) Black design of label is suitable for
male
4.02
4.33
4.39
4.58
4.80
6.537
0.000*
B=C=D=E>A
Perceptions towards Coke Zero
F
Sig.
LSD
1. Feature
2. Design
61
Table 22 (Continued)
Monthly income
≤ 10,000 (n=175)
10,001-20,000 (n=93)
20,001-30,000 (n=84)
30,001-40,000 (n=43)
> 40,000 (n=5)
Mean
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
2.3) Black design of crown is suitable for
male
3.95
4.24
4.37
4.65
4.60
8.202
0.000*
2.4) Black design give strong personality
4.00
4.33
4.52
4.70
4.60
14.165
0.000*
2.5) Unique and well designed
3.60
4.23
4.23
4.37
4.00
23.447
0.000*
Average design
3.85
4.28
4.33
4.54
4.44
25.356
0.000*
3.49
4.03
4.04
4.14
4.20
13.004
0.000*
Perceptions towards Coke Zero
F
Sig.
LSD
D>B>A, C>A,
B=C=E, A=E
D>B>A, C>A,
B=C=E, A=E
B=C=D>A,
B=C=D=E, A=E
D>B=C>A,
E>A
3. Quality
3.1) Coke Zero has good quality
3.2) Ingredient and raw materials has high
quality
3.3) Reasonable price compare with
quality
3.47
4.09
3.89
4.19
4.00
15.195
0.000*
3.46
4.01
3.86
4.12
4.00
11.976
0.000*
3.47
4.04
3.93
4.15
4.07
18.645
0.000*
4.1) Nice and suitable logo
4.15
4.32
4.44
4.72
4.60
5.937
0.000*
4.2) Logo represent real coke taste
3.74
4.12
3.92
4.07
3.80
5.409
0.000*
3.47
4.20
3.95
4.00
3.80
19.939
0.000*
3.80
4.11
4.11
4.19
3.80
6.485
0.000*
3.79
4.19
4.10
4.24
4.00
16.336
0.000*
3.66
4.18
4.02
4.23
4.00
11.395
0.000*
3.50
4.01
3.74
4.07
3.80
9.261
0.000*
4.09
4.30
4.40
4.63
4.60
6.068
0.000*
5.4) Black packaging bring differentiation
3.83
4.39
4.50
4.65
4.40
21.081
0.000*
Average packaging
3.77
4.22
4.17
4.40
4.20
23.511
0.000*
6.1) Same taste as Coke Classic
3.31
4.05
3.75
4.02
4.00
20.543
0.000*
6.2) Added benefit of zero sugar
3.49
4.17
3.79
4.16
3.80
14.597
0.000*
Average quality
B=C=D=E>A
D>C>A, B>A,
A=E, B=C=E
B=C=D>A,
B=C=D=E, A=E
B=C=D=E>A
4. Logo
4.3) Logo represent core benefit which is
zero sugar
4.4) Logo represent trademark of "Coca
Cola"
Average logo
D>C>A, D>B,
A=B=E, D=E
B=D>A,
A=C=E,
B=C=D=E
B=C=D>A,
E>A
C>B>A, D>A,
E>A
B=C=D>A,
E>A
5. Packaging
5.1) Modern and suitable packaging
5.2) Various size which suitable
packaging
5.3) Black packaging give strong
personality
B=C=D>A,
B=C=D=E, A=E
B=D>C>A,
E>A
B=D>C>A,
E>A
B=D>C>A,
E>A
B=D>C>A,
E>A
6. Visual identity
B=D>C>A,
E>A
B=D>C>A,
E>A
62
Table 22 (Continued)
Monthly income
≤ 10,000 (n=175)
10,001-20,000 (n=93)
20,001-30,000 (n=84)
30,001-40,000 (n=43)
> 40,000 (n=5)
Mean
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
6.3) New and expand consumer choice
3.61
4.11
3.83
4.09
4.00
8.123
0.000*
6.4) Suitable for healthy people
3.45
4.15
3.79
4.16
3.80
17.29
0.000*
Average visual identity
3.46
4.12
3.79
4.11
3.90
21.065
0.000*
7.1) Name communicate real coke taste
3.56
4.09
3.74
4.09
3.80
8.679
0.000*
7.2) Name communicate about zero sugar
3.63
4.08
3.75
4.09
3.80
6.941
0.000*
7.3) Name is suitable more directly to men
3.95
4.23
4.29
4.70
4.80
7.257
0.000*
Average name
3.71
4.13
3.92
4.29
4.13
14.756
0.000*
Perceptions towards Coke Zero
F
Sig.
LSD
B=D>C>A,
E>A
B=D>C>A,
E>A
B=D>C>A,
E>A
7. Name
Remark:
* means there are significant differences at the 0.05 level
B=D>A=C,
B=D=E, A=C=E
B=D>A=C,
B=D=E, A=C=E
D>B=C>A,
E>A
D>B=C>A,
E>A
63
Table 23 Hypothesis testing conclusion between/among group of consumers
classified by demographic characteristics.
Gender
Age
Educationa
l Level
Occupation
Monthly
income
Demographic Characteristics
1. Feature
X
√
√
√
√
1.1) Coke Zero has suitable feature
X
√
√
√
√
1.2) The feature is suitable for male
X
√
√
√
√
1.3) Coke Zero has outstanding feature
√
√
√
√
√
Average feature
X
√
√
√
√
2. Design
X
√
√
√
√
2.1) Coke Zero has suitable design
X
√
√
√
√
2.2) Black design of label is suitable for male
X
√
√
√
√
2.3) Black design of crown is suitable for male
X
√
√
√
√
2.4) Black design give strong personality
X
√
√
√
√
2.5) Unique and well designed
X
√
√
√
√
Average design
X
√
√
√
√
3. Quality
X
√
√
√
√
3.1) Coke Zero has good quality
X
√
√
√
√
3.2) Ingredient and raw materials has high quality
X
√
√
√
√
3.3) Reasonable price compare with quality
X
√
√
√
√
Average quality
X
√
√
√
√
4. Logo
X
√
√
√
√
4.1) Nice and suitable logo
X
√
√
√
√
4.2) Logo represent real coke taste
X
X
√
√
√
4.3) Logo represent core benefit which is zero sugar
X
√
√
√
√
4.4) Logo represent trademark of "Coca Cola"
X
√
√
√
√
Average logo
X
√
√
√
√
5. Packaging
X
√
√
√
√
5.1) Modern and suitable packaging
X
√
√
√
√
5.2) Various size which suitable packaging
X
√
√
√
√
5.3) Black packaging give strong personality
X
√
√
√
√
5.4) Black packaging bring differentiation
X
√
√
√
√
Average packaging
X
√
√
√
√
Perceptions towards Coke Zero
64
Table 23 (Continued)
Gender
Age
Educationa
l Level
Occupation
Monthly
income
Demographic Characteristics
6. Visual identity
X
√
√
√
√
6.1) Same taste as Coke Classic
X
√
√
√
√
6.2) Added benefit of zero sugar
X
√
√
√
√
6.3) New and expand consumer choice
X
√
√
√
√
6.4) Suitable for healthy people
X
√
√
√
√
Average visual identity
X
√
√
√
√
7. Name
X
√
√
√
√
7.1) Name communicate real coke taste
X
√
√
√
√
7.2) Name communicate about zero sugar
X
√
√
√
√
7.3) Name is suitable more directly to men
X
√
√
√
√
Average name
X
√
√
√
√
Perceptions towards Coke Zero
Remark: √ means demographic characteristics have an affect to the difference of
perceptions towards Coke Zero
X means
demographic characteristics do not have an affect to the difference
of perceptions towards Coke Zero
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Nowadays people are aware of the importance of taking care of their health.
This is the health-conscious trend where people are concerned with what they should
or should not eat on an average day. Coke Zero, the new diet coke from the CocaCola Company is the answer for people who care about their health and cannot live
without Coke, but the main concern with Coke Zero is it causes confusion among
consumers because it is hard to see any difference between it and other products
lunched in the past such as Coke Light and Pepsi Max. Moreover, soft drink is no
longer just about refreshment, or thirst or anything mundane like that. It is all about
brand association. The big question is a philosophical one “which brand is better?”
depends on what the consumers perceive about brand and communication. Therefore,
this study will survey the consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero in Bangkok area
classified by their demographic characteristics.
The primary data was gathered by using questionnaire with totally 400
respondents who purchased Coke Zero in Bangkok area. The questionnaires were
distributed to ten districts as a representative of Bangkok area including Pom Prap
Sattru Phai, Samphanthawong, Thon Buri, Din Daeng, Bang Phlat, Phasi Charoen,
Phra Khanong, Lak Si, Don Mueang and Taling Chan. The secondary data was
collected from textbooks, AcNielsen Company, Coca-Cola Company, Thai Namthip
Limited, internet, journal and related Thai thesis. Data was analyzed by using
descriptive statistics including frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation
and inferential statistics including t-test, F-test and multiple comparisons (LSD).
66
According to the demographic characteristics from the study, majority of the
respondents were male with age between 15-24 years and graduated with bachelor’s
degree. Most of them were students and earned their monthly income less than or
equal 10,000 baht.
Regarding the analysis of consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero in
Bangkok area were summarized that the consumers had strong perceptions regarding
the average feature, design, quality, logo, packaging, visual identity and name factors.
From mean analysis found that consumers had strong perceptions in design in the first
of ranking followed by feature, packaging, logo, name, quality and visual identity in
the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh of ranking respectively.
From the hypothesis testing regarding the perceptions towards Coke Zero
between/among consumers with different demographic characteristics, it was found
that the consumers with differences of ages, educational levels, occupations and
monthly income held different perceptions towards Coke Zero regarding feature,
design, quality, logo, packaging, visual identity and name but the consumers with
different genders have no significant difference in perceptions towards Coke Zero
regarding feature, design, quality, logo, packaging, visual identity and name.
67
Recommendations
From the study, there were some recommendations which would be benefits
for the Coca-Cola Company as follows:
1. Feature
1.1 According to the second hypothesis, consumers with age between 15-24
years had the lowest perception regarding average feature factor. Therefore, this
finding will be the supportive information for marketers in the Coca-Cola Company to
develop customizing feature in order to capture this target group. For example,
develop new additional feature to increase their perception by targeting consumers
with age between 15-24 years.
1.2 From the hypothesis result, consumers with different educational levels
had the different perceptions in term of average feature factor. The result showed that
consumers with mater degree had higher perceptions than bachelor degree and less
than bachelor degree. Therefore, the marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should
develop the new additional feature by targeting at the different educational levels.
1.3 From the studied result indicated that consumers who were the student
had the lowest perception regarding the average feature factor. Therefore, marketers
in the Coca-Cola Company should develop the marketing strategy by customizing
feature by targeting only student target group.
1.4 In term of monthly income, consumers with monthly income less than or
equal 10,000 baht had the lowest perception regarding the average feature factor.
Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should do the customizing
marketing strategy in term of feature to increase the perceptions of consumers with
monthly income less than or equal 10,000 baht.
68
2. Design
2.1 The average design factor was considered as strong level of perception in
the first of ranking. Thus, the Coca-Cola Company should maintain on this current
design in term of black design of label is suitable for male and black design give
strong personality since the consumers could perceive these in the highest level of
perception, but should develop a little bit more on the design of Coke Zero in term of
unique and well designed.
2.2 In term of age, consumers with age more than 34 years had higher
perception than the consumers with age less than 15 years and between 25-34 years
and consumers with age between 15-24 years had the lowest perception regarding
average design factor. Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should
maintain this current design for consumers with age more than 34 years since they
have the highest perception. Moreover, the Coca-Cola Company should create two
new additional designs by targeting the first design at consumers with age less than 15
years and between 25-34 years and the second design at the consumers with age
between 15-24 years.
2.3 The third hypothesis stated that consumers who were the student had the
lowest perception regarding the average design factor. Therefore, marketers in the
Coca-Cola Company should develop one additional design in order to increase
student perception by targeting only student target group.
2.4 From the hypothesis result, consumers with monthly income less than or
equal 10,000 baht had the lowest perception regarding the average design factor.
Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should do the customizing
marketing strategy in term of design to increase the perceptions of consumers with
monthly income less than or equal 10,000 baht.
69
3. Quality
3.1 The average quality factor was considered in the sixth of ranking
regarding the perceptions towards Coke Zero. Therefore, in long term top
managements in the Coca-Cola Company should pay attention more on safe and
quality of the product by using responsibility marketing to increase the brand image.
For example, increase marketing activities that can create the good relationship to the
environment such as protecting water resources or supporting community. Moreover,
regarding the price and quality relationship, normally consumers will perceive the
high quality of the product with high price. Therefore, in short term marketers in the
Coca-Cola Company should not do the discounted promotion on Coke Zero since this
strategy will create low quality for Coke Zero.
3.2 According to the hypothesis result, consumers with age more than or
equal 25 years had higher perception than the consumers with age less than or equal
24 years regarding average quality factor. Therefore, in long term the top
managements in the Coca-Cola Company should increase consumer perceptions for
consumers who had lower perceptions. For example, use responsibility marketing to
create brand image by targeting at the consumers with age less than or equal 24 years.
Moreover, in short term marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should not do the
discounted promotion on Coke Zero since this strategy will create low quality for
Coke Zero.
3.3 The third hypothesis showed that consumers with mater degree had higher
perception than bachelor degree and less than bachelor degree regarding average
quality factor. Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should do emphasis
on increase the consumer perceptions with bachelor degree and less than bachelor
degree. For example, more responsibility marketing and do not do discounted
promotion in school or university.
3.4 From the studied result, consumers who were government officer,
enterpriser and private employee had higher perception than self-employed and self-
70
employed had higher perception than student in term of average quality factor.
Therefore, in long term top managements in the Coca-Cola Company should provide
responsibility marketing to create brand image by targeting the consumers who were
self-employed and student. Moreover, in short term marketers in the Coca-Cola
Company should not do the discounted promotion on Coke Zero since this strategy
will create low quality for Coke Zero.
3.5 In term of monthly income, consumers with monthly income less than or
equal 10,000 baht had the lowest perception regarding the average quality factor.
Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should do the customizing
marketing strategy in term of quality such as use responsibility marketing to create
brand image and should not do the discounted promotion on Coke Zero in order to
increase the perceptions of consumers with monthly income less than or equal 10,000
baht.
4. Logo
4.1 According to the hypothesis result, consumers with age more than or
equal 25 years had higher perception than the consumers with age less than or equal
24 years and the consumers with age less than 15 years had the higher perception than
the consumers with age between 15-24 years regarding average logo factor.
Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should maintain this current logo for
consumers with age more than or equal 25 years since this group had the highest
perception. Additional, they should create the new additional logo to increase the
consumer perceptions by focusing on the consumers with age less than 15 years and
consumers with age between 15-24 years.
4.2 From the third hypothesis, consumers with mater degree had higher
perception than bachelor degree and less than bachelor degree regarding average logo
factors. Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should emphasis on increase
the consumer perceptions with bachelor degree and less than bachelor degree. For
71
example, create easier logo in school or university by targeting bachelor degree and
less than bachelor degree.
4.3 The fourth hypothesis stated that consumers who were government
officer, enterpriser and private employee had higher perception than self-employed
and self-employed had higher perception than student in term of average logo factor.
Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should increase the consumer
perceptions who were self-employed and student by creating new different logo to
match with only these groups.
4.4 From the hypothesis result, consumers with monthly income less than or
equal 10,000 baht had the lowest perception regarding the average logo factor.
Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should do the customizing
marketing strategy in term of logo by targeting at consumers with monthly income
less than or equal 10,000 baht.
5. Packaging
5.1 According to the second hypothesis, consumers with age more than or
equal 25 years had higher perception than the consumers with age less than or equal
24 years regarding average packaging factor. Therefore, this will be the supportive
information for marketers in the Coca-Cola Company to develop new additional
packaging with differentiation from the other products in order to get the demographic
characteristics of consumers with age less than or equal 24 years.
5.2 The third hypothesis indicated that consumers with mater degree had
higher perception than bachelor degree and less than bachelor degree regarding
average packaging factors. Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should
emphasis on increase the consumer perceptions with bachelor degree and less than
bachelor degree. For example, create more modern and suitable packaging by
targeting bachelor degree and less than bachelor degree.
72
5.3 From the hypothesis result, consumers who were students had the lowest
perception in term of average packaging factor. Therefore, marketers in the CocaCola Company should increase the consumer perceptions who were student by
creating new different packaging to match with only this group.
5.4 The studied result showed that consumers with monthly income less than
or equal 10,000 baht had the lowest perception regarding the average packaging
factor. Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should do the customizing
marketing strategy in term of packaging to increase the perceptions of consumers with
monthly income less than or equal 10,000 baht.
6. Visual Identity
6.1 The average visual identity factor was considered in the seventh of
ranking regarding the perceptions towards Coke Zero. Therefore, marketers in the
Coca-Cola Company should focus more on visual identity of the product in term of
same taste as Coke Classic, added benefit of zero sugar, new and expand consumer
choice and suitable for healthy people by using easy message and clear
communication to make consumer understand better. For example, increase in-store
P.O.P about visual identity of Coke Zero at the sale and advertising more on visual
identity on mass media such as television or radio.
6.2 From the hypothesis result, consumers with different ages had the
different perceptions regarding average visual identity factor. Therefore, marketers in
the Coca-Cola Company should focus more on broadcasting and advertising the key
identity of the product about same taste as Coke Classic, added benefit of zero sugar,
new and expand consumer choice and suitable for healthy people by using the
different marketing strategy among consumers with different ages. For example,
different in key message in-store P.O.P regarding visual identity of Coke Zero by
targeting consumers with different ages.
73
6.3 The third hypothesis showed that consumers with mater degree had higher
perception than bachelor degree and bachelor degree had higher perception than less
than bachelor degree regarding the average visual identity factor. Therefore,
marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should use the different key message to the
consumers with different educational levels. For example, use clear and easy message
such as more picture or symbol by focusing the consumers with bachelor degree and
less than bachelor degree.
6.4 From the studied result, consumers who were government officer,
enterpriser, private employee and other had higher perception than self-employed and
student in term of average visual identity factor. Therefore, marketers in the CocaCola Company should increase the consumer perceptions who were self-employed
and student by using easy message and clear communication in order to make them
understand better.
6.5 In term of monthly income, consumers with monthly income less than or
equal 10,000 baht had the lowest perception regarding the average visual identity
factor. Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should do the customizing
marketing strategy in term of visual identity to increase the perceptions of consumers
with monthly income less than or equal 10,000 baht. For example, do more promotion
and broadcast the information as well as provide more information about Coke Zero
by targeting at consumers with monthly income less than or equal 10,000 baht.
7. Name
7.1 The second hypothesis showed that consumers with age more than or
equal 25 years had higher perception than consumers with age less than 15 years and
consumers with age less than 15 years had higher perceptions than consumers with
age between 15-24 years regarding average name factor. Therefore, this finding will
be the supportive information for marketers in the Coca-Cola Company to make the
decision to extend the product with new name by targeting consumers with age less
than 15 years and between 15-24 years.
74
7.2 From the third hypothesis, consumers with mater degree had higher
perception than bachelor degree and less than bachelor degree regarding average
name factor. Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should emphasis on
increase the consumer perceptions with bachelor degree and less than bachelor
degree.
7.3 From the hypothesis result, consumers with monthly income less than or
equal 10,000 baht had the lowest perception regarding the average name factors.
Therefore, marketers in the Coca-Cola Company should do the customizing
marketing strategy in term of name to increase the perceptions of consumers with
monthly income less than or equal 10,000 baht.
Recommendations for Further Study
Since, the results from this study found that consumers with differences of
ages, educational levels, occupations and monthly income held different perceptions
towards Coke Zero in all attributes. Therefore, it will be the beneficial for the further
study to cover the efficiency and effectiveness of suitable media strategies for
communicating to the groups of consumers with differences of ages, educational
levels, occupations and monthly income in order to increase their perceptions.
REFERENCES
Chaichan, S. 2000. Marketing Management. 4th ed. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn.
(in Thai).
Chuangchoat, J. 1989. Perception Psychology and Learning. Bangkok:
Ramkamhang. (in Thai).
Janaim, S. and S. Janaim. 1975. Educational Psychology. Bangkok: Praepittaya.
(in Thai).
Kotler, P., K. L. Keller, S. H. Ang, S. M. Leong and C. T. Tan. 2006. Marketing
Management: An Asian Perspective. 4th ed. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., S. H. Ang, S. M. Leong and C. T. Tan. 2003. Marketing Management:
An Asian Perspective. 3th ed. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Lertvimonchaisiri, V. 2004. Factors Affecting the Buying Decision for Carbonate
Soft Drink on Returnable Glass Bottles of Provision Shop in Bangkok
Metropolitan. Master of Business Administration in Management, Kasetsart
University.
Malhotra, N. K. and D. F. Birks. 2000. Marketing Research: An Applied
Approach. England: Prentice Hall.
Mongkolporn, S. 2006. Factors Effecting Marketing Mix and Consumer
Behavior of Coke and Pepsi in Bangkok Metropolitan area. Project,
M.B.A. in Management, Srinakharinwirot University.
Positioning Magazine. 2008. Bangkok: July 1, 2008. P. 151-154.
76
Punyatanapoom, P. 2001. Consumer Behaviors of Carbonated Beverage in
Bangkok. Master of Science in Business Economics, Kasetsart University.
Schiffman, L. G. and L. L. Kanuk. 2000. Consumer Behavior. 7th ed. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Schmidt, M. J. and S. Hollensen. 2006. Marketing Research: An International
Approach. England: Prentice Hall.
The AcNielsen Company. 2009. Report on Sale Value and Market Share of
Sugar-Free Sparkling Soft Drink.
The Coca-Cola Company. 2007. Report on Coca-Cola Zero and Coca-Cola Light.
__________. 2009. Report on Type of Coca-Cola Zero in Thailand 2009.
Thunyatawee, S. 2003. Consumer Behavior and Consumer Opinion on Factors
Affecting Purchasing of Carbonated Soft Drink in Hypermarket: Case
Study Tesco Lotus. Master of Business Administration in Management,
Kasetsart University.
Upramai, P. 1980. Psychology. Bangkok: Srianan. (in Thai).
Yamane, T. 1967. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. 2nd ed. New York:
Harper and Raw.
BMA Data Center. 2009. General Information about Bangkok Area (Online).
http://203.155.220.230/sucgess/answers.asp, January 6, 2009.
Luler, J. 2008. Diet Coke: Coke Zero and Pepsi Max for Diet Plan (Online).
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/diet-coke-coke-zero-and-pepsimax-for-diet-plan-499811.html, November 5, 2008.
APPENDICES
78
Appendix A
Questionnaires
79
Questionnaire
CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS COKE ZERO IN BANGKOK AREA
The questionnaire is prepared for the partial fulfillment of Master of Business
Administration in Management, Kasetsart International MBA Program. The purpose
of this survey is to understand the consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero in
Bangkok area. This study will bring the information from questionnaire in order to the
research only. Please kindly answer the following questions as accurately as possible
to be brought for the usefulness of study.
No respondent will be identified. All the information in questionnaire will be
confidential and used to analyze according to the statistical principle.
Thank you for your cooperation
Wipaporn Karnprasert
Researcher
_____________________________________________________________________
Part A: Demographic Characteristics * are required
Instruction:
Please put a √ mark in the brackets ( ) that matched with your choice
1. What is your gender?
1 ( ) Male
2 ( ) Female
2. How old are you?
1 ( ) < 15 years
2 ( ) 15 - 24 years
3 ( ) 25 - 34 years
4 ( ) > 34 years
80
3. What is your educational level?
1 ( ) < Bachelor’s degree
2 ( ) Bachelor’s degree
3 ( ) Master’s degree
4 ( ) > Master’s degree
4. What is your occupation now?
1 ( ) Student
2 ( ) Government Officer
3 ( ) Enterpriser
4 ( ) Self employed
5 ( ) Private employee
6 ( ) Others
5. What is your average income per month?
1 ( ) ≤ 10,000 Baht
2 ( ) 10,001 – 20,000 Baht
3 ( ) 20,001 – 30,000 Baht
4 ( ) 30,001 – 40,000 Baht
5 ( ) > 40,000 Baht
Part B: Consumer perceptions towards Coke Zero.
What do you perceive about the characteristics of Coke Zero? Please put a √ mark in
the brackets ( ) that matched with your choice
5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree
Strongly
agree
5
1. Feature
1.1 Coke Zero has suitable feature both ring pull can
and screw up bottle
1.2 The feature of Coke Zero is suitable especially
for male
1.3 Coke Zero has outstanding feature that catch and
holds one's attention
2. Design
2.1 Coke Zero has suitable design both tone and
Agree
4
Neutral Disagree
3
2
Strongly
Disagree
1
81
Strongly
agree
5
decoration
2.2 The black design of label is suitable especially
for male
2.3 The black design of crown is suitable especially
for male
2.4 The design in gray and black give Coke Zero the
strong personality
2.5 Coke Zero is unique and well designed product
3. Quality
3.1 Coke Zero has good quality
3.2 Coke Zero has the consistent ingredient and raw
materials with high standards of quality
3.3 Coke Zero has the reasonable price compare
with its quality
4. Logo
4.1 Coke Zero has nice and suitable logo
4.2 Logo “Coke Zero” can represent the real coke
taste
4.3 Logo “Coke Zero” can represent the core benefit
which is zero sugar
4.3 Logo “Coke Zero” can represent the trademark
of “Coca Cola”
5. Packaging
5.1 Coke Zero has modern and suitable packaging
5.2 Coke Zero has various size which suitable
packaging Ex. 250ml., 325ml., 500ml. 1.25lt ect.
5.3 The black packaging of Coke Zero create strong
personality
Agree
4
Neutral Disagree
3
2
Strongly
Disagree
1
82
Strongly
agree
5
Agree
4
Neutral Disagree
3
2
5.4 The black packaging of Coke Zero bring the
differentiation from other product in the market
6. Visual Identity
6.1 Coke Zero has the same taste as Coke Classic
6.2 Coke Zero has the added benefit of zero sugar
6.3 Coke Zero is new and expand consumer choice
with innovation
6.4 Coke Zero is suitable for the people who care
about their health or calories
7. Name
7.1 Name “Coke Zero” can communicate the benefit
of a real coke taste
7.2 Name “Coke Zero” can communicate about zero
sugar
7.3 Name “Coke Zero” is suitable more directly to
men
Thank you for your cooperation in filling in this questionnaire.
Strongly
Disagree
1
83
!"#$%%
#
& '(
)& *#
+
!"
*",-
#. /
*-0,
!&"
*
"!1$(#.-0,
22
-0,
*
!&(/
*3 3$+
-0,
!&"
2 4*(
-0,
2#/
5&3$
*# &0!
!&
4#1
&(3 /
* *
!/
3$+ $("+.3$
#/
4#1
&(3
(+ *2 &(10$6!
*
4*(&(1/
!
(.
*
#1
2
&0"
!
(.4#1
22!&"('
' #2 !"
#
!!
$(#7
!&"
1: $9&&"#!*4#1
/
4(/
: '
/
" ( √ ) /
#
1. 1 ( ) +
"
2 ( ) %
2. "
1(
2(
3(
4(
) < 15 $A
) 15 - 24 $A
) 25 - 34 $A
) > 34 $A
84
3. -0,
1 ( ) /
!
$%%
3 ( ) $%%
2 ( ) $%%
4 ( ) #!
$%%
4. +
1 ( ) "/-0,
3 ( ) 7!#
&
5 ( ) ,+
2 ( ) +
/&
7
4 ( ) "/)&#!!
6 ( ) H
5. 1(
3(
5(
) ≤ 10,000 ) 20,001 J 30,000 ) > 40,000 2 ( ) 10,001 J 20,000 4 ( ) 30,001 J 40,000 2: !
5'*,'( 3$2"
3 '
/
" ( √ ) /
#
!
" 5 = 5 !""
", 4 = 5 !", 3 = L" H, 2 = 35 !", 1 = 35 !""
"
1. !"#!$%&'()
1.1$6*'M.$
*,'(#!"
!
(#24($N4*(4!
1.2 $6*'M.$
*,'(
(#
-+
"
1.3 $6*'M.$
*,'(
"
#" #( 2. &!&
5
4
3
2
1
85
2.1 4
*! *
"4*(## !
(#*'M.
2.2 4$O
"L*
"+# /
/
$6
*'M.!
(#-+
"
2.3 4P
! "+# /
/
$6
*'M.!
(#-+
"
2.4 4 "# /
/
*
*'M.!
45
2.5 4"
#" #( 3. *(+,
3.1 $62/
*'
3.2 $62/
*#!$(4*(!1 7
#
3.3 $62/
*'
(#
4. -$-&
4.1 * Q R !
#!"
4*(
(#
4.2 * Q R #
1#!
"!
$62/
*
#+
5"
4.3 * Q R #
1#!
"$("+.
**'M.32/
*2/
* 0%
4.4 * Q R #
1#!
"+
#
3 5. &!!!.*+%(/0
5.1 &'M. !
#"
(# 5.2 &'M.
(#
4*(
+
250*., 325*., 500*., 1.25*. $6
5
4
3
2
1
86
5
4
3
2
1
5.3 &'M.# /
/
*
*'M.!
45
5.4 &'M.$6# /
/
!
4
&
*'M."*
6. &$%&'(0
6.1 '#*'M.#+
5
"
6.2 '#*'M.32/
* 2/
* 0%
6.3 $6*'M.!
4$*&
$6
2/
*$
-&
2/
*
6.4 (#!"
#
7. 34
7.1 + Q R #10$("+.**'M. #+
5"
7.2 + Q R $6+##
10/
!
32/
*
2/
* 0%
7.3 + Q R $6+!
# *-+
"
('#/
!
!
4#1
87
Appendix B
Density of Population (km2)
88
Appendix Table 1 Density of population (km2) in Bangkok districts
No.
District
Area
Density of Population
(km2)
1
Pom Prap Sattru Phai
Inner city
37,307
2
Samphanthawong
Inner city
25,104
3
Thon Buri
Inner city
20,555
4
Din Daeng
Inner city
18,646
5
Khlong San
Inner city
17,708
6
Ratchathewi
Inner city
14,299
7
Dusit
Inner city
14,099
8
Phra Nakhon
Inner city
13,770
9
Bangkok Yai
Inner city
13,766
10
Bang Sue
Inner city
13,692
11
Bangkok Noi
Inner city
12,799
12
Pathum Wan
Inner city
11,654
13
Sathon
Inner city
11,402
14
Bang Rak
Inner city
10,892
15
Bang Kho Laem
Inner city
10,419
16
Khlong Toei
Inner city
10,246
17
Phaya Thai
Inner city
9,438
18
Watthana
Inner city
6,572
19
Yan Nawa
Inner city
5,528
20
Chatuchak
Inner city
5,363
21
Huai Khwang
Inner city
5,316
22
Bang Phlat
Middle city
10,235
23
Phasi Charoen
Middle city
7,853
24
Phra Khanong
Middle city
7,248
25
Chom Thong
Middle city
6,592
26
Rat Burana
Middle city
6,164
27
Bueng Kum
Middle city
5,819
28
Wang Thonglang
Middle city
5,637
29
Bang Na
Middle city
5,470
30
Lat Phrao
Middle city
5,365
31
Bang Kapi
Middle city
5,250
32
Suan Luang
Middle city
4,940
89
Appendix Table 1 (Continued)
No.
District
Area
Density of Population
(km2)
33
Bang Khen
Middle city
4,246
34
Bang Khae
Middle city
4,135
35
Sai Mai
Middle city
3,590
36
Thung Khru
Middle city
3,294
37
Khan Na Yao
Middle city
3,178
38
Saphan Sung
Middle city
2,844
39
Prawet
Middle city
2,582
40
Lak Si
Suburb
5,333
41
Don Mueang
Suburb
4,283
42
Taling Chan
Suburb
3,537
43
Nong Khaem
Suburb
3,435
44
Bang Bon
Suburb
2,566
45
Min Buri
Suburb
1,771
46
Thawi Watthana
Suburb
1,218
47
Lat Krabang
Suburb
1,066
48
Khlong Sam Wa
Suburb
1,058
49
Bang Khun Thian
Suburb
1,024
50
Nong Chok
Suburb
465
Source: BMA Data Center, 2009
90
Appendix C
The In-depth Interview
91
The In-depth Interview
The in-depth interview was conducted to collect the information from fifteen
consumers regarding their perceptions towards sugar-free sparkling soft drink. This
in-depth interview was used each person for ten minutes by targeting the consumers
who purchased sugar-free sparkling soft drink such as Coke Zero, Pepsi Max or Coke
Light. The time to conduct was November 1-November 5, 2008. The key material
used to collect the information during the in-depth interview was voice recorder. The
in-depth interview helped the researcher to get the importance idea and structure the
important issues regarding their perceptions in order to develop the questionnaire.
The in-depth interview was conducted in Thai version. The questions were
divided into three parts as follows:
1: 6%#&&%7"8
1.1 1.2 "
1.3 -0,
1.4 +
1.5 2: 6%#&&%&!496%$968$
2.1 ' 2/
*432/
*243
2.2 ((3
2.3 &2/
*432/
*"(3
2.4 $9&& "(3
2.5 "(3"# ((3
3: &!%+'(03
$:&&&%96%$968$8$)
(&!(&$*8%4-&$0, -&=-! $)#>#= &=0)
3.1 '!
5!
#0"
32/
*432/
*
92
3.2 (!
2/
*432/
*2/
*42/
*+(3
!
3.3 ' !
2/
*432/
*4*("!
4
"
3
3.4 ' 4*!!
#0 "!4
*
## (#
2 ) 3 (+ !
!
, !
U*U)
3.5 1
+2/
"3!
4!3$6 4!3$6*
#* '&(4"
!
4
3 3
3.6 ' 4*!!
#0 "!4
3*.3 (+
!
!
, !
)
3.7 '##"3!
3*.*
4*! /
310
3.8 ' !
*3
&( #
3.9 ' !
*3
&( 3*.
#
3.10 ' 4*!!
#0 "!4
$X$ 4.3
(+ !
!
, !
)
3.11 (!
$X$ 4.+(3
!
((3
3.12 1
10 '!
#
!
(3 ( Key message #+
5" 42/
* 0%)
3.13 ' !
$62/
*2/
* 0% 4#+
*
## 100%
3
3.14 1
10$X$ 4. '!
#
!
(3 ($X$ 4. Key
message 0 4*...#+
54.)
3.15 ' !
$X$ 4.$62/
**
0 4* 4#+
$X$
100% 3
(&!(&$*8%496%$968$!4@: 3 4-&=-!8
4#>#=&=0)
- #
,'.+&
(*0!
/
310*&( - ** - *3 * $X$4.
93
Appendix D
Reliability Analysis
94
Appendix Table 2 Reliability analysis
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item
Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
Coke Zero has suitable feature
99.0667
116.202
.675
.901
The feature is suitable for male
99.1333
118.464
.327
.907
Coke Zero has outstanding feature
99.1333
116.533
.705
.901
Coke Zero has suitable design
99.2333
115.840
.608
.901
Black design of label is suitable for male
99.1333
123.706
.050
.914
Black design of crown is suitable for male
99.0667
120.961
.180
.911
Black design give strong personality
98.9000
116.576
.573
.902
Unique and well designed
99.2667
113.651
.733
.899
Coke Zero has good quality
Ingredient and raw materials has high
quality
99.4667
113.085
.722
.899
99.3667
114.240
.607
.901
Reasonable price compare with quality
99.5000
114.603
.618
.901
Nice and suitable logo
98.7333
119.444
.430
.905
Logo represent real coke taste
Logo represent core benefit which is zero
sugar
99.2000
115.683
.558
.902
99.1000
121.403
.297
.907
Logo represent trademark of "Coca Cola"
99.4000
119.421
.323
.907
Modern and suitable packaging
99.2667
113.168
.717
.899
Various size which suitable packaging
99.4333
114.323
.616
.901
Black packaging give strong personality
98.9333
118.892
.391
.905
Black packaging bring differentiation
98.9667
116.447
.604
.902
Same taste as Coke Classic
99.6333
111.895
.687
.899
Added benefit of zero sugar
New and expand consumer choice with
innovation
99.3000
116.769
.513
.903
99.4667
116.326
.520
.903
Suitable for healthy people
99.3333
117.471
.529
.903
Name communicate real coke taste
99.5000
114.121
.612
.901
Name communicate about zero sugar
99.4000
114.248
.631
.901
Name is suitable more directly to men
99.0667
120.685
.183
.911
Reliability Coefficients
N of Case
=
30
Alpha
=
0.907
N of Item
=
26
95
Appendix E
Results of Hypothesis Testing
96
Appendix Table 3 Perceptions towards Coke Zero between consumers with different
gender
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality
of Variances
Equal variances assumed
Avg.
Feature
Equal variances not assumed
Avg.
Design
Equal variances not assumed
Avg.
Quality
Avg.
Logo
Avg.
Packagin
g
Avg.
Visual
Identity
Avg.
Name
Equal variances assumed
Equal variances assumed
0.800
-0.831
398
0.406
-0.050
0.060
-0.168
0.068
-0.833
397.303
0.405
-0.050
0.060
-0.167
0.068
0.985
Equal variances assumed
-0.791
398
0.430
-0.046
0.058
-0.160
0.068
-0.792
396.466
0.429
-0.046
0.058
-0.160
0.068
0.006
0.070
-0.131
0.144
0.588
0.443
0.091
398
0.928
0.091
397.634
0.928
0.006
0.070
-0.131
0.143
0.022
0.882
-1.219
398
0.224
-0.061
0.050
-0.161
0.038
-1.219
395.058
0.224
-0.061
0.050
-0.161
0.038
1.263
398
0.207
0.069
0.054
-0.038
0.175
1.261
392.377
0.208
0.069
0.054
-0.038
0.176
0.462
398
0.645
0.032
0.069
-0.103
0.167
0.460
385.280
0.646
0.032
0.069
-0.104
0.167
0.004
0.951
0.741
0.390
Equal variances not assumed
Equal variances not assumed
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
0.064
Equal variances not assumed
Equal variances assumed
Std.
Error
Difference
t
Equal variances not assumed
Equal variances assumed
Mean
Difference
Sig.
0.000
df
Sig.
(2tailed
)
F
Equal variances not assumed
Equal variances assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
0.281
0.596
0.661
398
0.509
0.039
0.059
-0.076
0.154
0.660
392.035
0.510
0.039
0.059
-0.077
0.154
97
Appendix Table 4 Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
ages
ANOVA
Avg. Feature
Avg. Design
Between Groups
396
Total
142.709
399
34.505
3
11.502
0.250
Between Groups
Between Groups
399
28.631
3
9.544
0.418
165.635
396
194.266
399
12.564
3
4.188
0.224
Between Groups
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Avg. Name
396
Total
Total
Avg. Visual Identity
98.975
133.480
Within Groups
Within Groups
Avg. Packaging
0.285
112.884
Total
Avg. Logo
3
Mean
Square
9.941
df
Within Groups
Within Groups
Avg. Quality
Sum of
Squares
29.824
Between Groups
88.748
396
101.312
399
21.893
3
7.298
0.242
95.919
396
117.812
399
34.074
3
11.358
0.386
Within Groups
152.886
396
Total
186.960
399
Between Groups
13.312
3
4.437
Within Groups
123.063
396
0.311
Total
136.375
399
F
Sig.
34.875
0.000
46.018
0.000
22.817
0.000
18.688
0.000
30.129
0.000
29.419
0.000
14.279
0.000
98
Appendix Table 5 Multiple comparisons among consumers with different ages
Dependent Variable
Feature
(I) Age
less than 15 years
15-24 years
25-34 years
over than 34 years
Design
less than 15 years
15-24 years
25-34 years
15-24 years
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
.52788*
25-34 years
-0.0352
(J) Age
Quality
less than 15 years
15-24 years
25-34 years
over than 34 years
Logo
less than 15 years
0.000
0.693
over than 34 years
-0.0860
0.327
less than 15 years
-.52788*
0.000
25-34 years
-.56307*
0.000
over than 34 years
-.61392*
0.000
less than 15 years
0.0352
0.693
15-24 years
.56307*
0.000
over than 34 years
-0.0509
0.490
less than 15 years
0.0860
0.327
15-24 years
.61392*
0.000
25-34 years
0.0509
0.490
15-24 years
.46617*
0.000
25-34 years
-0.0574
0.491
over than 34 years
-.25636*
0.002
less than 15 years
-.46617*
0.000
25-34 years
-.52359*
0.000
over than 34 years
-.72253*
0.000
less than 15 years
0.0574
0.491
.52359*
0.000
15-24 years
over than 34 years
Sig.
over than 34 years
-.19894*
0.004
less than 15 years
.25636*
0.002
15-24 years
.72253*
0.000
25-34 years
.19894*
0.004
15-24 years
0.1664
0.107
25-34 years
-.34200*
0.002
over than 34 years
-.45682*
0.000
less than 15 years
-0.1664
0.107
25-34 years
-.50835*
0.000
over than 34 years
-.62317*
0.000
less than 15 years
.34200*
0.002
15-24 years
.50835*
0.000
over than 34 years
-0.1148
0.198
less than 15 years
.45682*
0.000
15-24 years
.62317*
0.000
25-34 years
0.1148
0.198
15-24 years
.17387*
0.022
25-34 years
-.17981*
0.023
over than 34 years
-.24221*
0.002
99
Appendix Table 5 (Continued)
Dependent Variable
(I) Age
15-24 years
25-34 years
over than 34 years
Packaging
less than 15 years
15-24 years
25-34 years
over than 34 years
Visual Identity
less than 15 years
15-24 years
25-34 years
over than 34 years
Name
less than 15 years
15-24 years
25-34 years
over than 34 years
(J) Age
less than 15 years
25-34 years
over than 34 years
less than 15 years
15-24 years
over than 34 years
less than 15 years
15-24 years
25-34 years
15-24 years
25-34 years
over than 34 years
less than 15 years
25-34 years
over than 34 years
less than 15 years
15-24 years
over than 34 years
less than 15 years
15-24 years
25-34 years
15-24 years
25-34 years
over than 34 years
less than 15 years
25-34 years
over than 34 years
less than 15 years
15-24 years
over than 34 years
less than 15 years
15-24 years
25-34 years
15-24 years
25-34 years
over than 34 years
less than 15 years
25-34 years
over than 34 years
less than 15 years
15-24 years
over than 34 years
less than 15 years
15-24 years
25-34 years
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
-.17387*
-.35368*
-.41608*
.17981*
.35368*
-0.0624
.24221*
.41608*
0.0624
0.0679
-.36567*
-.45836*
-0.0679
-.43358*
-.52626*
.36567*
.43358*
-0.0927
.45836*
.52626*
0.0927
-.32566*
-.87721*
-.62289*
.32566*
-.55155*
-.29723*
.87721*
.55155*
.25432*
.62289*
.29723*
-.25432*
.18233*
-.18706*
-.24307*
-.18233*
-.36939*
-.42540*
.18706*
.36939*
-0.0560
.24307*
.42540*
0.0560
Sig.
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.023
0.000
0.339
0.002
0.000
0.339
0.387
0.000
0.000
0.387
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.173
0.000
0.000
0.173
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.041
0.045
0.008
0.041
0.000
0.000
0.045
0.000
0.466
0.008
0.000
0.466
100
Appendix Table 6 Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
educational levels
ANOVA
Avg. Feature
Avg. Design
Avg. Quality
Avg. Logo
Between Groups
Avg. Name
0.327
129.771
397
Total
142.709
399
10.364
2
5.182
Within Groups
123.116
397
0.310
Total
133.480
399
13.539
2
6.769
Within Groups
180.727
397
0.455
Total
194.266
399
5.398
2
2.699
0.242
Between Groups
Between Groups
Between Groups
95.915
397
101.312
399
6.514
2
3.257
Within Groups
111.298
397
0.280
Total
117.812
399
22.273
2
11.137
Within Groups
164.687
397
0.415
Total
186.960
399
Total
Avg. Visual Identity
2
Mean
Square
6.469
df
Within Groups
Within Groups
Avg. Packaging
Sum of
Squares
12.938
Between Groups
Between Groups
8.670
2
4.335
Within Groups
Between Groups
127.706
397
0.322
Total
136.375
399
F
Sig.
19.790
0.000
16.710
0.000
14.870
0.000
11.171
0.000
11.618
0.000
26.846
0.000
13.476
0.000
101
Appendix Table 7 Multiple comparisons among consumers with different
educational levels
Dependent Variable
Feature
(I) Educational Level
(J) Educational Level
< Bachelor's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Design
-.30583*
0.001
< Bachelor's Degree
-.21061*
0.002
Master's Degree
-.51644*
0.000
.30583*
0.001
Bachelor's Degree
.51644*
0.000
< Bachelor's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
.16042*
0.014
Master's Degree
-.31153*
0.001
< Bachelor's Degree
-.16042*
0.014
Master's Degree
-.47195*
0.000
< Bachelor's Degree
.31153*
0.001
Bachelor's Degree
.47195*
0.000
< Bachelor's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
0.0036
0.964
Bachelor's Degree
< Bachelor's Degree
-.53531*
0.000
Master's Degree
< Bachelor's Degree
.53173*
0.000
Bachelor's Degree
.53531*
0.000
Master's Degree
Master's Degree
< Bachelor's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
0.000
-0.0036
0.964
0.0182
0.751
-.32393*
0.000
-0.0182
0.751
< Bachelor's Degree
-.34216*
0.000
Master's Degree
< Bachelor's Degree
.32393*
0.000
Bachelor's Degree
.34216*
0.000
< Bachelor's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
-0.0116
0.852
-.37830*
0.000
Master's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
< Bachelor's Degree
0.0116
0.852
-.36674*
0.000
< Bachelor's Degree
.37830*
0.000
Bachelor's Degree
.36674*
0.000
< Bachelor's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
-.22381*
0.003
Master's Degree
-.78113*
0.000
Bachelor's Degree
< Bachelor's Degree
.22381*
0.003
-.55732*
0.000
< Bachelor's Degree
.78113*
0.000
Bachelor's Degree
.55732*
0.000
Master's Degree
Master's Degree
Visual Identity
-.53173*
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
Packaging
0.002
Master's Degree
< Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
Logo
Sig.
Master's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Quality
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
.21061*
Master's Degree
Master's Degree
102
Appendix Table 7 (Continued)
Dependent Variable
Name
(I) Educational Level
(J) Educational Level
< Bachelor's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
0.0636
Master's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
< Bachelor's Degree
0.337
-.37604*
0.000
-0.0636
0.337
-.43966*
0.000
< Bachelor's Degree
.37604*
0.000
Bachelor's Degree
.43966*
0.000
Master's Degree
Master's Degree
Sig.
Appendix Table 8 Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
occupations
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares
Avg. Feature
Avg. Design
Avg. Quality
Avg. Logo
Between Groups
20.018
5
4.004
Within Groups
122.690
394
0.311
Total
142.709
399
29.260
5
5.852
Within Groups
104.220
394
0.265
Total
133.480
399
39.100
5
7.820
Within Groups
155.166
394
0.394
Total
194.266
399
18.507
5
3.701
0.210
Between Groups
Between Groups
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Avg. Packaging
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Avg. Visual Identity
Avg. Name
Mean
Square
df
Between Groups
82.806
394
101.312
399
25.719
5
5.144
92.093
394
0.234
117.812
399
48.596
5
9.719
Within Groups
138.364
394
0.351
Total
186.960
399
19.931
5
3.986
Within Groups
Between Groups
116.444
394
0.296
Total
136.375
399
F
Sig.
12.857
0.000
22.123
0.000
19.857
0.000
17.612
0.000
22.007
0.000
27.676
0.000
13.488
0.000
103
Appendix Table 9 Multiple comparisons among consumers with different
occupations
Dependent Variable
Feature
(I) Occupation
Student
Government officer
State Enterprises
(J) Occupation
Government officer
-.56940*
0.000
-.33490*
0.000
Private employee
-.36974*
0.000
Others
-.61458*
0.000
Student
.47129*
0.000
State Enterprises
-0.0981
0.474
Self-employed
0.1364
0.286
Private employee
0.1016
0.424
Others
-0.1433
0.411
Student
.56940*
0.000
Private employee
Student
Government officer
0.474
0.027
0.1997
0.056
Others
-0.0452
0.776
.33490*
0.000
-0.1364
0.286
State Enterprises
-.23450*
0.027
Private employee
-0.0348
0.704
Others
-0.2797
0.064
Student
.36974*
0.000
Government officer
-0.1016
0.424
State Enterprises
-0.1997
0.056
Self-employed
Design
0.0981
.23450*
Student
Government officer
Others
0.000
Self-employed
Self-employed
Private employee
-.47129*
Sig.
State Enterprises
Government officer
Self-employed
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
0.0348
0.704
Others
-0.2448
0.103
Student
.61458*
0.000
Government officer
0.1433
0.411
State Enterprises
0.0452
0.776
Self-employed
0.2797
0.064
Private employee
0.2448
0.103
-.62251*
0.000
Government officer
State Enterprises
-.53622*
0.000
Self-employed
-.63405*
0.000
Private employee
-.41563*
0.000
Others
-.44287*
0.001
Student
.62251*
0.000
State Enterprises
Self-employed
Private employee
0.0863
0.495
-0.0115
0.922
0.2069
0.077
104
Appendix Table 9 (Continued)
Dependent Variable
(I) Occupation
State Enterprises
Self-employed
(J) Occupation
0.1796
0.263
Student
.53622*
0.000
Government officer
-0.0863
0.495
Self-employed
-0.0978
0.314
Private employee
0.1206
0.210
Others
0.0934
0.523
Student
.63405*
0.000
0.0115
0.922
State Enterprises
0.0978
0.314
Private employee
.21842*
0.010
Others
0.1912
0.169
Student
.41563*
0.000
Government officer
-0.2069
0.077
State Enterprises
-0.1206
0.210
-.21842*
0.010
Others
-0.0272
0.844
Student
.44287*
0.001
Government officer
-0.1796
0.263
State Enterprises
-0.0934
0.523
Self-employed
-0.1912
0.169
0.0272
0.844
Self-employed
Others
Private employee
Quality
Student
Government officer
Government officer
-.76805*
0.000
State Enterprises
-.70952*
0.000
Self-employed
-.27695*
0.002
Private employee
-.66852*
0.000
Others
-.55010*
0.001
Student
.76805*
0.000
0.0585
0.704
State Enterprises
Self-employed
State Enterprises
Self-employed
Sig.
Others
Government officer
Private employee
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
.49110*
0.001
Private employee
0.0995
0.486
Others
0.2180
0.266
Student
.70952*
0.000
Government officer
-0.0585
0.704
Self-employed
.43257*
0.000
Private employee
0.0410
0.727
Others
0.1594
0.371
.27695*
0.002
-.49110*
0.001
Student
Government officer
State Enterprises
-.43257*
0.000
Private employee
-.39157*
0.000
105
Appendix Table 9 (Continued)
Dependent Variable
(I) Occupation
Private employee
Others
(J) Occupation
-0.2732
0.107
Student
.66852*
0.000
Government officer
-0.0995
0.486
State Enterprises
-0.0410
0.727
Self-employed
.39157*
0.000
Others
0.1184
0.482
Student
.55010*
0.001
Government officer
-0.2180
0.266
State Enterprises
-0.1594
0.371
0.2732
0.107
-0.1184
0.482
Government officer
-.44355*
0.000
State Enterprises
-.58109*
0.000
Private employee
Student
Government officer
State Enterprises
Self-employed
-.26753*
0.000
Private employee
-.40660*
0.000
Others
-0.0459
0.695
Student
.44355*
0.000
State Enterprises
-0.1375
0.222
Self-employed
0.1760
0.094
Private employee
0.0369
0.723
Others
.39762*
0.006
Student
.58109*
0.000
0.1375
0.222
Government officer
Self-employed
Private employee
Self-employed
.31356*
0.000
Private employee
.17449*
0.042
Others
.53517*
0.000
Student
.26753*
0.000
Government officer
-0.1760
0.094
State Enterprises
-.31356*
0.000
Private employee
-0.1391
0.066
Others
0.2216
0.074
Student
.40660*
0.000
Government officer
-0.0369
0.723
State Enterprises
Self-employed
Others
Others
Sig.
Others
Self-employed
Logo
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Student
-.17449*
0.042
0.1391
0.066
.36068*
0.004
0.0459
0.695
Government officer
-.39762*
0.006
State Enterprises
-.53517*
0.000
-0.2216
0.074
Self-employed
106
Appendix Table 9 (Continued)
Dependent Variable
Packaging
(I) Occupation
Student
Government officer
(J) Occupation
-.36068*
0.004
Government officer
-.64842*
0.000
State Enterprises
-.48119*
0.000
Self-employed
-.39922*
0.000
Private employee
-.56972*
0.000
Others
-.39616*
0.001
Student
.64842*
0.000
0.1672
0.159
Self-employed
.24920*
0.025
Private employee
0.0787
0.474
Others
0.2523
0.095
Student
.48119*
0.000
Government officer
-0.1672
0.159
Self-employed
Private employee
Others
Self-employed
Student
Government officer
Private employee
Student
0.0850
0.536
.39922*
0.000
-.24920*
0.025
-0.0820
0.370
-.17050*
0.033
Others
0.0031
0.981
Student
.56972*
0.000
Government officer
-0.0787
0.474
0.0885
0.328
.17050*
0.033
Others
0.1736
0.182
Student
.39616*
0.001
Government officer
-0.2523
0.095
State Enterprises
-0.0850
0.536
Self-employed
-0.0031
0.981
Private employee
-0.1736
0.182
Government officer
-.76941*
0.000
State Enterprises
-.79575*
0.000
-0.1265
0.132
Private employee
-.70564*
0.000
Others
-.68513*
0.000
Student
.76941*
0.000
State Enterprises
-0.0263
0.856
Self-employed
.64290*
0.000
0.0638
0.636
Self-employed
Government officer
0.370
0.328
Private employee
Self-employed
Visual Identity
0.0820
-0.0885
State Enterprises
State Enterprises
Others
Sig.
Private employee
State Enterprises
State Enterprises
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Private employee
107
Appendix Table 9 (Continued)
Dependent Variable
(I) Occupation
State Enterprises
(J) Occupation
0.0843
0.649
Student
.79575*
0.000
0.0263
0.856
Self-employed
.66923*
0.000
Private employee
0.0901
0.416
Others
0.1106
0.511
0.1265
0.132
-.64290*
0.000
Student
Government officer
Private employee
Others
Name
Student
State Enterprises
-.66923*
0.000
Private employee
-.57913*
0.000
Others
-.55862*
0.001
Student
.70564*
0.000
Government officer
-0.0638
0.636
State Enterprises
-0.0901
0.416
Self-employed
.57913*
0.000
Others
0.0205
0.897
Student
.68513*
0.000
Government officer
-0.0843
0.649
State Enterprises
-0.1106
0.511
Self-employed
.55862*
0.001
Private employee
-0.0205
0.897
Government officer
-.54216*
0.000
State Enterprises
-.45074*
0.000
Self-employed
-0.1504
0.051
-.51348*
0.000
Others
-0.2201
0.113
Student
.54216*
0.000
0.0914
0.494
Private employee
Government officer
State Enterprises
Self-employed
State Enterprises
.39174*
0.002
Private employee
0.0287
0.817
Others
0.3220
0.058
Student
.45074*
0.000
Government officer
-0.0914
0.494
Self-employed
.30032*
0.004
Private employee
-0.0627
0.537
0.2306
0.136
0.1504
0.051
-.39174*
0.002
Others
Self-employed
Sig.
Others
Government officer
Self-employed
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Student
Government officer
State Enterprises
-.30032*
0.004
Private employee
-.36306*
0.000
108
Appendix Table 9 (Continued)
Dependent Variable
(I) Occupation
Private employee
(J) Occupation
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Others
-0.0697
0.635
Student
.51348*
0.000
Government officer
-0.0287
0.817
State Enterprises
Others
Sig.
0.0627
0.537
Self-employed
.36306*
0.000
Others
.29334*
0.045
Student
0.2201
0.113
Government officer
-0.3220
0.058
State Enterprises
-0.2306
0.136
0.0697
0.635
-.29334*
0.045
Self-employed
Private employee
Appendix Table 10 Perceptions towards Coke Zero among consumers with different
monthly income
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares
Avg. Feature
Avg. Design
Avg. Quality
Avg. Logo
Between Groups
15.382
4
3.846
Within Groups
127.326
395
0.322
Total
142.709
399
27.271
4
6.818
Within Groups
106.209
395
0.269
Total
133.480
399
30.854
4
7.713
Within Groups
163.412
395
0.414
Total
194.266
399
14.381
4
3.595
0.220
Between Groups
Between Groups
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Avg. Packaging
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Avg. Visual Identity
Avg. Name
Mean
Square
df
Between Groups
86.931
395
101.312
399
22.655
4
5.664
95.157
395
0.241
117.812
399
32.870
4
8.217
Within Groups
154.090
395
0.390
Total
186.960
399
17.729
4
4.432
Within Groups
Between Groups
118.646
395
0.300
Total
136.375
399
F
Sig.
11.930
0.000
25.356
0.000
18.645
0.000
16.336
0.000
23.511
0.000
21.065
0.000
14.756
0.000
109
Appendix Table 11 Multiple comparisons among consumers with different monthly
income
Dependent Variable
Feature
(I) Monthly Income
≤ 10,000 baht
10,001-20,000 baht
(J) Monthly Income
30,001-40,000 baht
-.38736*
0.000
20,001-30,000 baht
-.31222*
0.000
30,001-40,000 baht
-.49006*
0.000
> 40,000 baht
-.52571*
0.042
≤ 10,000 baht
.38736*
0.000
0.0751
0.380
30,001-40,000 baht
-0.1027
0.327
> 40,000 baht
-0.1384
0.596
≤ 10,000 baht
.31222*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
-0.0751
0.380
30,001-40,000 baht
-0.1778
0.096
> 40,000 baht
-0.2135
0.414
≤ 10,000 baht
.49006*
0.000
0.1027
0.327
10,001-20,000 baht
20,001-30,000 baht
> 40,000 baht
Design
≤ 10,000 baht
10,001-20,000 baht
20,001-30,000 baht
30,001-40,000 baht
> 40,000 baht
Sig.
10,001-20,000 baht
20,001-30,000 baht
20,001-30,000 baht
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
0.1778
0.096
> 40,000 baht
-0.0357
0.894
≤ 10,000 baht
.52571*
0.042
10,001-20,000 baht
0.1384
0.596
20,001-30,000 baht
0.2135
0.414
30,001-40,000 baht
0.0357
0.894
10,001-20,000 baht
-.42955*
0.000
20,001-30,000 baht
-.48762*
0.000
30,001-40,000 baht
-.69382*
0.000
> 40,000 baht
-.59429*
0.012
≤ 10,000 baht
.42955*
0.000
20,001-30,000 baht
-0.0581
0.457
30,001-40,000 baht
-.26427*
0.006
> 40,000 baht
-0.1647
0.489
≤ 10,000 baht
.48762*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
0.0581
0.457
30,001-40,000 baht
-.20620*
0.035
> 40,000 baht
-0.1067
0.655
≤ 10,000 baht
.69382*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
.26427*
0.006
20,001-30,000 baht
.20620*
0.035
> 40,000 baht
0.0995
0.685
≤ 10,000 baht
.59429*
0.012
10,001-20,000 baht
0.1647
0.489
20,001-30,000 baht
0.1067
0.655
110
Appendix Table 11 (Continued)
Dependent Variable
Quality
(I) Monthly Income
≤ 10,000 baht
10,001-20,000 baht
(J) Monthly Income
30,001-40,000 baht
> 40,000 baht
-0.0995
0.685
10,001-20,000 baht
-.56873*
0.000
20,001-30,000 baht
-.45429*
0.000
30,001-40,000 baht
-.67300*
0.000
> 40,000 baht
-.59238*
0.043
≤ 10,000 baht
.56873*
0.000
0.1144
0.238
30,001-40,000 baht
-0.1043
0.380
> 40,000 baht
-0.0237
0.936
≤ 10,000 baht
.45429*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
-0.1144
0.238
30,001-40,000 baht
-0.2187
0.071
> 40,000 baht
-0.1381
0.641
≤ 10,000 baht
.67300*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
0.1043
0.380
20,001-30,000 baht
0.2187
0.071
> 40,000 baht
0.0806
0.791
≤ 10,000 baht
.59238*
0.043
0.0237
0.936
20,001-30,000 baht
0.1381
0.641
30,001-40,000 baht
-0.0806
0.791
10,001-20,000 baht
-.39674*
0.000
20,001-30,000 baht
-.31274*
0.000
30,001-40,000 baht
-.45276*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
Logo
≤ 10,000 baht
10,001-20,000 baht
20,001-30,000 baht
30,001-40,000 baht
> 40,000 baht
Sig.
30,001-40,000 baht
20,001-30,000 baht
20,001-30,000 baht
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
> 40,000 baht
-0.2086
0.328
≤ 10,000 baht
.39674*
0.000
20,001-30,000 baht
0.0840
0.235
30,001-40,000 baht
-0.0560
0.518
> 40,000 baht
0.1882
0.383
≤ 10,000 baht
.31274*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
-0.0840
0.235
30,001-40,000 baht
-0.1400
0.112
> 40,000 baht
0.1042
0.630
≤ 10,000 baht
.45276*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
0.0560
0.518
20,001-30,000 baht
0.1400
0.112
> 40,000 baht
0.2442
0.271
≤ 10,000 baht
0.2086
0.328
10,001-20,000 baht
-0.1882
0.383
20,001-30,000 baht
-0.1042
0.630
30,001-40,000 baht
-0.2442
0.271
111
Appendix Table 11 (Continued)
Dependent Variable
Packaging
(I) Monthly Income
≤ 10,000 baht
10,001-20,000 baht
20,001-30,000 baht
30,001-40,000 baht
(J) Monthly Income
-.45043*
0.000
20,001-30,000 baht
-.39667*
0.000
30,001-40,000 baht
-.62535*
0.000
> 40,000 baht
-0.4300
0.054
≤ 10,000 baht
.45043*
0.000
20,001-30,000 baht
0.0538
0.467
30,001-40,000 baht
-0.1749
0.054
> 40,000 baht
0.0204
0.928
≤ 10,000 baht
.39667*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
-0.0538
0.467
30,001-40,000 baht
-.22868*
0.013
> 40,000 baht
-0.0333
0.883
≤ 10,000 baht
.62535*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
0.1749
0.054
20,001-30,000 baht
.22868*
0.013
0.1954
0.400
≤ 10,000 baht
0.4300
0.054
-0.0204
0.928
20,001-30,000 baht
0.0333
0.883
30,001-40,000 baht
-0.1954
0.400
10,001-20,000 baht
-.65668*
0.000
20,001-30,000 baht
-.32440*
0.000
30,001-40,000 baht
-.64618*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
Visual Identity
≤ 10,000 baht
10,001-20,000 baht
20,001-30,000 baht
30,001-40,000 baht
> 40,000 baht
-0.4357
0.125
≤ 10,000 baht
.65668*
0.000
20,001-30,000 baht
.33228*
0.000
30,001-40,000 baht
0.0105
0.927
> 40,000 baht
0.2210
0.441
≤ 10,000 baht
.32440*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
-.33228*
0.000
30,001-40,000 baht
-.32177*
0.006
> 40,000 baht
-0.1113
0.699
≤ 10,000 baht
.64618*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
-0.0105
0.927
20,001-30,000 baht
.32177*
0.006
0.2105
0.476
0.4357
0.125
-0.2210
0.441
> 40,000 baht
> 40,000 baht
Sig.
10,001-20,000 baht
> 40,000 baht
> 40,000 baht
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
≤ 10,000 baht
10,001-20,000 baht
20,001-30,000 baht
0.1113
0.699
30,001-40,000 baht
-0.2105
0.476
112
Appendix Table 11 (Continued)
Dependent Variable
Name
(I) Monthly Income
≤ 10,000 baht
10,001-20,000 baht
20,001-30,000 baht
30,001-40,000 baht
> 40,000 baht
(J) Monthly Income
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Sig.
10,001-20,000 baht
-.41475*
0.000
20,001-30,000 baht
-.21032*
0.004
30,001-40,000 baht
-.58029*
0.000
> 40,000 baht
-0.4191
0.093
≤ 10,000 baht
.41475*
0.000
20,001-30,000 baht
.20443*
0.014
30,001-40,000 baht
-0.1655
0.102
> 40,000 baht
-0.0043
0.986
≤ 10,000 baht
.21032*
0.004
10,001-20,000 baht
-.20443*
0.014
30,001-40,000 baht
-.36997*
0.000
> 40,000 baht
-0.2087
0.409
≤ 10,000 baht
.58029*
0.000
10,001-20,000 baht
0.1655
0.102
20,001-30,000 baht
.36997*
0.000
> 40,000 baht
0.1612
0.534
≤ 10,000 baht
0.4191
0.093
10,001-20,000 baht
0.0043
0.986
20,001-30,000 baht
0.2087
0.409
30,001-40,000 baht
-0.1612
0.534