Instrument For Data Collection

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

This chapter covers the detailed information regarding instrument for data collection, method of data collection, sampling technique, sample size and the statistical technique that has been used in this study.

3.1 Method of Data Collection

Method adopted to collect data for this study was personal survey technique and primary information, based on questionnaire. The information was gathered from different marketing managers of FMCG companies. The company was assured that the information was only required for academic research purposes and remain confidential.

3.2 Sampling Technique

Convenience sampling (non probability) was used, because the data collection was rapid and readily available.

3.3 Sample size

The sample was collected by visiting 12 different companies, which was an amplified number in view of the scarcity and overall uncertain conditions. A total of 35 respondents (Assistant, Brand or Marketing Managers) were asked to fill the questionnaire. The respondents were Managers of different FMCG national and multinational companies.

3.4 Instrument of Data Collection

A close ended questionnaire was developed and used as an instrument for data collection. It contained 20 different questions regarding effect of implementing multi-brand strategies and managers’ perception on its implementation and implications to be responded by diverse Assistant, Brand and/or Marketing Managers of different FMCG companies. Pre-testing was conducted on small sample size of 4 to delete and modify the potential problems.

3.4.1 Reliability Test

Thus, the Reliability test was applied and the results are as under.

As the reliability statistics shows that the data is reliable as the value of Cronbach’s Alpha is 60.5% which is the acceptable percentage to running the test.

3.5 Statistical Technique

The statistical technique used for the analysis and result finding was Spearman’s rho. As the data is nonparametric or ordinal, so to find out the correlation among variables, which is ‘Managerial level of implementation of multi-brand strategy’ Dependent variable and ‘Managerial perception on implications of multi-brand strategy’ Independent variable, the Wilcoxon signed ranks test was applied to examine the Ties value and to know which test to apply. Since the Ties values of most of the variables were less than 30%, the Spearman’s rho was applied, else the Wilcoxon test would have been run in case of having the Ties values of variables greater than 30%.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

4.1 Findings and Interpretation of the results

The effect of managerial perception of implication of multi-brand strategy on its level of implementation was determined to find out the correlation with the help of Spearman’s rho technique among the independent variable ‘Managerial perception on implications of multi-brand strategy’ and dependent variable ‘Managerial level of implementation of multi-brand strategy’. The table below that is Spearman’s rho shows the correlation between the variables.

Table 4.1 Spearman’s rho

Spearman's rho

What extent do you implement multi-brand strategy

Internal competition among managers

Correlation Coefficient

-.255

Sig. (2-tailed)

.139

Success of initial brand helps

Correlation Coefficient

-.119

Sig. (2-tailed)

.495

Greater shelf space & less competitor

Correlation Coefficient

.628**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

Higher cost for great shelf space

Correlation Coefficient

.111

Sig. (2-tailed)

.525

Fills price & quality gap

Correlation Coefficient

-.318

Sig. (2-tailed)

.063

Satisfying customer needs

Correlation Coefficient

.071

Sig. (2-tailed)

.686

Improves market share

Correlation Coefficient

.321

Sig. (2-tailed)

.060

Occupy various market segments

Correlation Coefficient

.039

Sig. (2-tailed)

.825

Works with single target customers

Correlation Coefficient

-.123

Sig. (2-tailed)

.482

Restricts having economies of scale

Correlation Coefficient

.278

Sig. (2-tailed)

.106

Spearman's rho

What extent do you implement multi-brand strategy.

Come up with different price level

Correlation Coefficient

-.096

Sig. (2-tailed)

.583

Forming a different brand image

Correlation Coefficient

.104

Sig. (2-tailed)

.550

Product comes to stagnant market share

Correlation Coefficient

-.183

Sig. (2-tailed)

.294

Decrease in demand of product

Correlation Coefficient

.002

Sig. (2-tailed)

.992

Push out the competitors

Correlation Coefficient

-.127

Sig. (2-tailed)

.466

Different brand meet different customer demand

Correlation Coefficient

.049

Sig. (2-tailed)

.779

Competition with own brand & improve performance

Correlation Coefficient

-.221

Sig. (2-tailed)

.201

Competition with own brand & increase cost

Correlation Coefficient

.110

Sig. (2-tailed)

.531

From the table 4.1, it is evident that the hypotheses that have been rejected are: H1 H2 H4 H6 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 because the significant values of those variables are greater than 0.05 or 5%, which shows that these variables have no correlation among them. Similarly, the level of implementation of multi-brand strategy has no correlation with reference to the above hypotheses tested to see the managers’ perception of multi-brand strategy.

The acceptable hypotheses are:

H3 The managerial perception about obtaining greater shelf space & leaves little for competitor has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

The significant value that is .000 shows that it is highly significant and the results conclude that level of implementation of multi-brand strategy and managers’ perception of multi-brand strategy helps in obtaining greater shelf space and leaves little for competitor. The positive value of correlation coefficient explains that to have a greater shelf space and little competitors the implementation of multi-brand strategy should be at lager scale or the company should have high level of implementation of multi-brand strategy to have a greater shelf space and less for competitor.

H5 The managerial perception about filling the price & quality gap has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

The hypothesis could also be accepted if the significant value is less than 0.10 or 10%. As the significant value is 0.063, so it can be supposed that there is a correlation among level of implementation of multi-brand strategy and the managers’ perception of multi-brand strategy helps in filling the price and quality gap, but the negative value (-.318) of correlation coefficient shows that, there is inverse relationship among the two variables.

H7 The managerial perception about improving market share has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

As the above table shows that the significant value is 0.060 which is less than 0.10. So the hypothesis can be accepted and it can interpret that correlation exist between the level of implementation of multi-brand strategy and the managers’ perception of multi-brand strategy helps in improving market share, as the value of correlation coefficient is positive, so the variables has a direct relationship.

4.2 Hypotheses Assessment Summary

Table 4.2 Hypotheses Assessment Summary

Hypotheses

Correlation Coefficient

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Empirical Conclusion

H1: The managerial perception about internal competition among managers has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

-.255

.139

Rejected

H2: The managerial perception about success of initial brand has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

-.119

.495

Rejected

H3: The managerial perception about obtaining greater shelf space & leaves little for competitor has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

.628**

.000

Accepted

H4: The managerial perception about give higher cost for great shelf space has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

.111

.525

Rejected

H5: The managerial perception about filling the price & quality gap has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

-.318

.063

Accepted

H6: The managerial perception about satisfying customer needs in complex & diverse market has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

.071

.686

Rejected

H7: The managerial perception about improving market share has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

.321

.060

Accepted

H8: The managerial perception about occupying the various market segments has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

.039

.825

Rejected

H9: The managerial perception about companies with single target customers has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

-.123

.482

Rejected

H10: The managerial perception about restriction having economies of scale has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

.278

.106

Rejected

H11: The managerial perception about coming up with different price levels has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

-.096

.583

Rejected

H12: The managerial perception about forming a different brand image has an effect on level of implementation of multi- brand strategy.

.104

.550

Rejected

Hypotheses

Correlation Coefficient

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Empirical Conclusion

H13: The managerial perception about product comes to stagnant market share has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

-.183

.294

Rejected

H14: The managerial perception about decrease in demand of product has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

.002

.992

Rejected

H15: The managerial perception about push out the competitors has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

-.127

.466

Rejected

H16: The managerial perception about different brand meet different customers’ demand has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

.049

.779

Rejected

H17: The managerial perception about competition with its own brand & improve performance has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

-.221

.201

Rejected

H18: The managerial perception about competition with its own brand & increase cost has an effect on level of implementation of multi-brand strategy.

.110

.531

Rejected

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION, DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

5.1 Conclusion

The result of this study has revealed that the managerial perception of implementing multi-brand strategy varies at different levels. It is important to understand that large companies can afford large brand portfolio strategy given that this strategy may require high resources and greater visibility among different competing brand, means higher profit and higher risks, which cannot be borne by a small company. If the company’s brand is unable to position its brand name clearly in the same market, it is not possible for them to fill the price and quality gap, whereas the competition among these brands effect and harm the company’s image and result in declining market share. The companies having multiple brands mostly encounter the problem of balancing the needs of today with the future needs of tomorrow.

5.2 Discussions

While conducting this study, serious difficulties were encountered in data collection. Most of the companies had policies of not providing information to the external actors due to fear of mishandling of the given data and possible disclosure to their competitors. So it was hard to convince the managers of different companies and seek their consent to respond to the questions developed for the study. However their eventual support and cooperation extended for the completion of the questionnaire was the only mean that enabled to achieve the task.

5.3 Implications and Recommendation

This study underlines that the implementation of multi-brand strategy by managers have been influenced by other factors such as cross functional integration in organizational structure, the values shared by the company with its employees and the level of motivation and appreciation delivered to managers. Thus, it is recommended that the smaller companies should provide their marketing staff with better insight about market and should focus at narrow market.

5.4 Future Research

The future study could be focused on the market share, the number of brands they deal with and the length of company’s presence in particular market. Thus, it may be easier to see the impact of managers’ perception about the implementation of multi-brand strategy with the help of such variables. Moreover, the provision of financial support values may result in helping these managers to review the steps and measures to be taken, prior to introducing such strategies for the company. It may also be helpful for the brands to accomplish its purpose, be productive for the organization and facilitate the variable demands of these vigorous surroundings.