ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

INDIAN CONSUMER FOOD SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR AND THEIR CHOICE & PREFERENCE FOR PACKAGED FOOD AND FOOD RETAILERS AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

Sanjay Kumar Research Scholar, Haryana School of Business, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar-125001 (Haryana) E-mail: sanjaygju @yahoo.co.in Dr. Vinod Kumar Bishnoi Associate Professor, Haryana School of Business, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar-125001 (Haryana) E-mail: bishnoivk29@gmail.com ABSTRACT The aim of this research paper is to study the Indian consumer food shopping behaviour & their choice and preference for packaged food and food retailers. It is to assess the impact of demographic dynamics on their choice for food and preference for food retailers across NCR (National Capital region) in India. In this study six different retailers viz. food bazaar, spancer retail, reliance fresh, 6ten retail stores, convenience stores and kirana (mom-n-pop) shops have been taken to examine the consumers perception for these retailers The purpose to choose these retailers was to assess the overall influence of both organised and unorganised food retailing on consumer buying decisions. Respondents were selected by using the stratified random sampling method and participation was voluntary. 925 respondents from Delhi, Gurgaon, Noida, and Faridabad cities were interviewed using structured questionnaire. Statistical tools like chi-square, factor analysis, t-test, ANOVA and bonferroni test were used to attain final empirical results. In findings, there are varied variations in the consumer buying behaviour of packaged food on the preference of food and grocery retailers. Factor analysis produced seven dimensions of consumers food shopping behaviour viz. innovative buying behaviour, traditional shopping behaviour, health conscious behaviour, hygiene conscious behaviour, brand and store conscious behaviour, reference group influence behaviour and quality conscious behaviour. The mean rating of categorized groups of respondents differs in their respective food shopping behaviour. KEYWORDS: Food retailing, demographic, food shopping behaviour, consumer behaviour, packaged food. INTRODUCTION Diversified culture is a typical characteristic of food diversity in different regions and states in India. The retail sector is one of the fastest growing industries in India, catering of the worl ds second largest consumer market (Prasad and Reddy, 2007). Retailing is being hailed as the future of Indian industry, spurred by countrys huge consumer market of $ 300 billion per year by 2010 and it is forecasted that aggregate consumption will grow to rupees 70 trillion by 2025 (McKinsey report, 2007). Beside, the food and grocery retail is expected to grow to $ 1.6 billion over the next five years (AT Kearny report, 2006). This figure supports to a current size of food retailing of over $ 391 million and a figure projection size of $

274

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

1.6 billion over the next five years, which is a compounded growth rate of 33 percent (Srivastava, 2008). The food and grocery contributes a whopping rupees 7,43,900 crores out of the total retail market which is approximately of rupees 12,00,000 crores. However, 96 percent of this market is dominated by the neighbourhood Kirana(grocery) stores(Images retail report,2007). Earlier, the food and grocery retail sector was slow starter, is presently able to captivate the maximum attention. Modern retail penetration in the food and grocery retail sector is the lowest at the rate of 0.8 percent (Images F&R Research, 2007). The food and beverage retail market in India is estimated at $ 4.6 billion and makes up for 2 percent of the countrys total retail market, out of which organized food and beverage retail market accounting for 5 percent of the total food and beverage market (KSA Technopak report, 2007). Religion, language, dialect, value system, food habit, economic buying power, tradition are all attributes that clearly demonstrate the complexity in India (Halepete et al., 2008). The current Indian retailing is highly fragmented with an estimated 15 million retail outlets. Most of the food and grocery products reach the consumers through traditional markets which are unorganized (Baja et al., 2005). But the very fast changing trends in food and eating habits of consumers have contributed immensely to the growth of Western format typologies such as convenience stores, departmen tal stores, supermarkets, hypermarkets and speciality stores for various conspicuous reasons namely, demand, supply, sociocultural, demographic, psychographic, economic, technology and government policies (Prasad and Reddy, 2007). Out of these, demographic forces like a large segment of young population, a rapidly expanding middle class, rising income levels, growing literacy, increasing number of working women, and nuclear family structure have created an enormous demand for consumer goods and paved way for the modern retail formats (Prasad and Reddy, 2007). The ever-changing consumers psychographic variables like activities, interests, opinions, values and life styles have also completely changed the retail formats in India. In the post-liberalization era, consumer buying behaviour and lifestyles in India too are changing and the concept of value for money and value for time is fast catching on in Indian retailing. Thus, it is imperative to understand the modern formats like Convenience stores; Supermarkets and Hypermarkets (Kumar and Smriti, 2011). This study examines the impact of ever changing demographic and psychographic dynamics of the consumers on the strategies of food and grocery retailers. LITERATURE REVIEW The demographic variables such as age, sex, marital status, family size, occupation, income, educational levels, race, religion and community are the most decisive and wield significant influence on the prospects of retail business. Each variable of the demographic factors has played its own unique role in the growth and development of modern retail formats like apparel, food and grocery. The population explosion has triggered a massive demand for consumer goods and services. The census figures for 2001 show that 54 percent of the population i.e., 540 million is below the age of 25, and 45 percent below 19 years. The median age of an average Indian is about 25 years i.e. 100 million and will have about 325 million people in the 25-35 age group by 2020 (Sinha, 2004). The largest young population in the world over 890 million people below 45 years of age is in India. The working age population between 15 and 64 years will increase by a staggering 71 million in India to reach 762 million by 2011 (UN Report, 2005). This creates whopping 600 million-plus effective consumers by the year 2010 (A.T. Kearny, 2006). Increasing double income families in cities is another positive factor. Salary hikes in India are also expected to increase at a faster pace than other developing nations. All these portend a sustained growth in discretionary spending and reiterate the chronic need of modern retail formats (Prasad and Reddy, 2007). Psychographic research primarily allows us to understand why consumers behave the way they do (Schiff Man et al., 2002). Most psychographic research attempts to segment customers in accordance with their

275

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

activities, interests, and opinions (AIO). Psychographics or lifestyle studies include attitudes or evaluative statements about the people, place, ideas, and products (Hawkins et al., 2003). As purchasing motives driving the food quality perception process and food choice have been found to differ substantially between consumers (Brunso et al., 2002), the usefulness of distinguishing between segments has become evident. Consumer attitude can be described as evaluation of a concept or object, such as a brand that expresses a degree of favour or disfavour (Arnould et al., 2004). Consumer attitude can be divided into three sections affect, behaviour and cognition. Affect is an instrument, which makes the consumer, feel about a product, and behaviour is consumer intention to experiment with the product and cognition is the belief the consumer has exhibit in a product (Solomon, 2004). Consumers mood can strongly influence their buying behaviour. Blackwell et al. (2006) found that a positive mood resulted in consumers reducing the length and complexity of the decision making process. The grocery store patronage behaviour through early studies (Eris and Paul, 1970; Dunn and Wrigley, 1984) found loyalty to be a characteristic of poorer shoppers; a recent study indicates significantly higher incomes and weekly expenditures of the loyal shoppers (McGoldrick and Andre, 1997). Knox and Walker (2003) confirmed the existence of a weak but significant relationship between involvement and brand loyalty in grocery markets. Overall satisfaction with a store does not significantly influence customers loyalty to that store and shoppers intention to remain loyal to their primary store is influenc ed by factors like frequent-buyer reward schemes, travel distance, preference for an in-store delicatessen, size of the average grocery bill, store signage and the level of sale assistance (Miranda et al., 2005). Grocery industry is strongly driven by price competitiveness (Taylor, 2003). Credit is a predictor of grocery shopping expenditures spent out of the community and consumers spending a medium proportion of their grocery expenditures out of a locality had the highest overall shopping expenditures in all categories (Sullivan and Savitt, 1997). Product selection, assortment and courtesy of personnel are also very important in determining format choice and cleanliness is the most important attribute regardless of the format of grocery store (Carpenter and Moore, 2006; Teller et al., 2006). Singh and Powell (2002) found that grocery shoppers consider quality to be most important, followed by price, locality, range of products and parking. Fox et al. (2004) found that shopping and spending vary much more across than within formats, and expenditures sensitivity was most evident at grocers. While supercenter primary shoppers of food identified low price and assortment more often as the reason for store for store choice, traditional supermarket primary shoppers were less willing to tradeoff locational convenience or, in some cases, quality and assortment (Seiders et al., 2000). In an investigation of consumer shopping destination choice behaviour for convenience goods shopping trips in Taiwan, spatial separation distance best explained respondents shopping destination choice behaviour, followed by store selection criteria (Yang, 2006). A study in Vietnam on the factors which influence decision-making by consumes when selecting traditional bazaars vs supermarkets revealed that freshness, price and convenience are important in shaping the choice by consumers for traditional outlets for fresh food, while price played a key role in selecting shopping outlets for processed food and drinks and non-food products (Maruyama and Trung, 2007). Hence, there is a difference in the result of the studies of different authors as far as relative importance of attributes are concerned, which might be attributed to either changes in consumers over a period of time or to the place of study as grocery shopping patterns vary with culture (Shanon and Mandhachitara, 2005). In multi-store shopping (MS) patterns, that is, division of grocery purchases among supermarkets and other outlets is a distinct aspect of grocery shopping behaviour pattern of consumers of developing countries due to dietary habits, preference for fresh food and fondness of cooking (Alawi, 1986; Tuncalp and Yavas, 1990). Packaged goods store patronage levels in Urban China for both contemporary and traditional produc ts co-vary with

276

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

market shares, few consumers are exclusively loyal, and a majority of consumers are divided in their loyalty, and they patronize other store types/chains in line with market shares (Uncles and Kwok, 2008). More involved grocery shoppers are more likely to shop at different supermarkets for various categories of grocery items (Smith and Carsky, 1996). Grocery shopping may thus involve sharing patronages or split buying between multiple stores rather than exclusively buying at one store or changing patronages from unorganized grocery stores to stores of the organized sector. Grocery shoppers are said to restore to main shopping trips and top-up shopping trips (Kakkar, 2008). The major drivers for choosing a grocery store in India seem to be nearness to place of residence and the comfort level that the respondents has in dealing with the store owner (Sinha and Banerjee, 2004). In an age of increasing competition from large-scale organized grocery retailers, local shops need to have the commitment and willingness to cater for the local community for survival, which means focusing attention more closely on local residents wants and needs (Broadbridge and Calderwood, 2002). Local shops are seen to provide a vital social and community function, particularly for those undertaking their main shopping locally (Smith and Sparks, 1997). In view of the above, the study has undertaken certain demographic and psychographic variables, which reflect the quintessence of consumers ulterior motives, and needs that are deemed to be satisfied by purchasing food and grocery products from the exhibit of different shopping behaviour and their choice for food and preference for food retailers. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY The main objectives of the present study are: 1. To understand the role and contribution of consumers demography in their choice and preference for packaged food. 2. To study the consumers food shopping behaviour and their choice for packaged food. 3. To study the consumers choice & preference for various food retailers. HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY H1: There is no significant difference in the preference of packaged food of the consumers on the basis of demographic factors. H2: There is no significant difference in the preference of packaged food of the consumers on the basis of preferred time frequency and money spent on food shopping. H3: There is no significant difference in the consumers food shopping behaviour on the basis of their choice to buy packaged food. H4: There is no significant difference in the consumers food shopping behaviour on the basis of their preference for retailer. METHODOLOGY The present study is based on an empirical analysis of packaged food buyers demographic and psychographic variables on different strategies of food retailers. The study is based on primary data. The population of this study is food buyers in the cities of Delhi, Gurgaon, Noida, and Faridabad in India. A total of 1200 questionnaires were distributed using multistage (3-stage) sampling. At first stage four cities (Delhi, Gurgaon, Noida, and Faridabad) from national capital region were selected randomly. In second

277

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

stage, the stores of organized food retailers were selected across all the four selected cities by means of random sampling. At third stage, intercept convenience sampling method was adopted to record the responses of the customers. To make the current study holistic in nature, data was also collected from the customers of unorganized food retailers (convenience stores and kirana stores). The questionnaire distributed in the four above mentioned cities of NCR (National Capital region) in the following order: Delhi-400; Gurgaon-350; Faridabad-300; and Noida-250. The difference in the number of questionnaire distribution has been primarily due to the population representation of the four cities in the total population of NCR. 344 questionnaires were filled from Delhi out of which 338 were usable, making the response rate of 84.5 percent. The number of questionnaires collected from Gurgaon is 330 and all are used in final analysis, thus making Gurgaon the most responsive city with 94.28 percent response rate. Faridabad and Noida contributed 180 and 143 responses respectively. The usable questionnaire from both the cities were 154 and 103 respectively making these low on response rate with Faridabad at 60 percent and Noida at 41.2 percent. The inter item reliability was also checked and the value of cronbach alpha was 0.70. The opinions of the respondents about the strategies of the different food retailers have been analyzed on 5-point Likert scale (from point 5 for strongly agreeing with the statement to point 1 for strongly disagreeing). Statistical tools like mean, chi-square, factor analysis, and ANOVA, were applied in the current study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 Preference of packaged food on the basis of age of the respondents Buy packaged food Age Below 25 yrs 25-34 yrs 35-44 yrs 45-54 yrs 55 yrs & above Total Source: Primary Data Figures in parenthesis show percentages = 23.835**; p 0.05*; p 0.01** The table 1 clearly highlights that majority of the respondents who prefer to buy packaged food belong to the middle age segment (approximately 55%). The table further depicts that the youth and old age respondents have lesser amount of inclination towards such products. However, the chi-square values have shown the association between the variables at 1 percent level of significance, hence, the null
2

Yes 77 (13.8) 147 (26.4) 177 (31.8) 138 (24.8) 17 (3.1) 556 (100.0)

No 64 (17.3) 53 (14.4) 132 (35.8) 96 (26.0) 24 (6.5) 389(100.0)

Total 141 (15.2) 200 (21.6) 309 (33.4) 234 (25.3) 41 (4.4) 925(100.0)

278

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

hypothesis (H1) is rejected and it could be concluded that consumers age has significant role on the preference of packaged food among the respondents.

Table 2 Preference of packaged food on the basis of household income of the Respondents Buy packaged food Income 2-4 lac per annum 4.1-6 lac per annum 6.1-8 lac per annum 8.1-10 lac per annum Above 10 lac per annum Total Source: Primary Data Figures in parenthesis show percentages = 29.244;**p 0.05*; p 0.01** It is apparent from the table 2 that the majority of the respondents in the middle-income segments are in both the categories who buy packaged food and who do not buy. However, in the upper income segment, the preference for buying packaged food is more skewed in comparison to their counterparts. The application of chi-square highlights a significant association between the variables at 1 percent level of confidence; hence, null hypothesis is rejected. Table 3 Preference of packaged food on the basis of qualification of the respondents Buy packaged food Qualification High school Graduate Post graduate Doctorate Total Yes 20 (3.6) 237 (42.6) 266 (47.8) 33 (5.9) 556 (100.0) No 16 (4.3) 146 (39.6) 166 (45.0) 41 (11.1) 389(100.0) Total 36 (3.9) 383 (41.4) 432 (46.7) 74 (8.0) 925(100.0)
2

Yes 45 (8.1) 150 (27.0) 158 (28.4) 78 (14.0) 125 (22.5) 556 (100.0)

No 64 (17.3) 91 (24.7) 90 (24.4) 71 (19.2) 53 (14.4) 389(100.0)

Total 109 (11.8) 241 (26.1) 248 (26.8) 149 (16.1) 178 (19.2) 925(100.0)

279

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

Source: Primary Data Figures in parenthesis show percentages = 8.627*; p 0.05*; p 0.01** It can be gauged from the table 3 that the packaged food is the preference of graduates (42.6%) and postgraduates (47.8%). The chi-square value has shown the association between the variables at 1 percent level of significant; hence, null hypothesis is rejected. Table 4 Chi-square analysis of the preference of packaged food on the basis of both husband/wife working Buy packaged food Both spouse working Yes No Unmarried Total Source: Primary Data Figures in parenthesis show percentage = 6.494*; p 0.05*; p 0.01** The table 4 depicts that the majority of both spouse-working couples prefer to buy packaged food whereas the respondents where both spouse are not working and those are unmarried, have lesser preference of packaged food. The application of chi-square highlights a significant association between the variables at 5 percent level of confidence. Table 5 Chi-square analysis of the preference of packaged food on the basis of frequency of food shopping Buy packaged food Frequency of food shopping Daily Once in a week Twice in a week Total Source: Primary Data Yes 139 (25.0) 218 (39.2) 199 (35.8) 556 (100.0) No 103 (27.9) 172 (46.6) 94 (25.0) 389(100.0) Total 242 (26.2) 390 (42.2) 293 (31.7) 925(100.0)
2 2

Yes 275 (49.5) 174 (31.3) 107 (19.2) 556 (100.0)

No 153 (41.5) 142 (38.5) 74 (20.1) 389(100.0)

Total 428 (46.3) 316 (34.2) 181 (19.6) 925(100.0)

280

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

Figures in parenthesis show percentage = 11.057**; p 0.05*; p 0.01** Table 5 exhibits that the majority of packaged food buyers like to do food shopping once and twice in a week. Similarly, the majority of non-packaged food buyers like to do food shopping once in a week. Almost similar percentage of respondents from both the categories of buyers who buy packaged food and non-packaged food buyers like to do food shopping on daily basis. The chi-square value has shown the association between the variables at 1 percent level of significance; hence, the null hypothesis is not accepted. Table 6 Chi-square analysis of the preference of packaged food on the basis of money spend on food shopping per month Monthly food shopping expenditure (rupees in thousand) Less than 2000 2001-4000 4001-6000 6001-8000 8001-10000 Above 10000 Total Source: Primary Data Figures in parenthesis show percentage = 78.082**; p 0.05*; p 0.01**; Table 6 compares the respondents monthly food shopping expenditures with their food buying habits. It is observed from the table that the majority of packaged food buyers spend money on food shopping in the range of rupees 2001-8000 per month. The non-packaged food buyers spend money on monthly food purchasing in the range of rupees 2001-6000. In the higher range expenditure, the preference of the respondents is skewed towards buying packaged food in comparison to those who do not buy. The chisquare values highlight a significant association between the variables at 1 percent level of confidence. CONSUMERS FOOD SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR The scores on different statements, which indicated the same food shopping behaviour, were averaged. The principal component analysis with varimax rotation was applied on 21 statements. The factor analysis of opinion and preference statements emerged in 7 factors with eigenvalue greater than 1 and explained 55.53 percent of variance. It is acceptable and above the lower limit for social sciences and determined the statistical significance of each eigenvalue at 1 percent level of significance (Table 11). The seven consumers food shopping behaviour emerged in factor loading were innovative buying behaviour, traditional shopping behaviour, health conscious behaviour, hygiene conscious behaviour, brand and
2 2

Buy packaged food Yes 1 (0.2) 117 (21.0) 190 (34.2) 127 (22.8) 87 (15.6) 34 (6.1) 556 (100.0) No 11 (3.0) 145 (39.3) 135 (36.6) 29 (7.9) 35 (9.5) 14 (3.8) 389(100.0) 12 (1.3) 262 (28.3) 325 (35.1) 156 (16.9) 122 (13.2) 48 (5.2) 925(100.0) Total

281

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

store conscious behaviour, reference group influence behaviour and quality conscious behaviour (Table 12).

Table 7 Principal component analysis for consumer food shopping behaviour Vari Extraction Able s Initial Eigen values % of Varianc e 17.132 9.585 6.618 6.084 5.658 5.351 5.100 4.621 4.567 4.357 3.820 Sums of Squared Loadings % of Varianc e 17.132 9.585 6.618 6.084 5.658 5.351 5.100 Cumulativ e % 17.132 26.718 33.336 39.421 45.079 50.431 55.531 Tota l 2.86 6 1.79 4 1.54 7 1.40 8 1.36 9 1.34 3 1.33 2 Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings % of Varianc e 13.647 8.547 7.367 6.704 6.520 6.396 6.346

Tota l V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 3.59 7 2.01 3 1.38 9 1.27 7 1.18 8 1.12 3 1.07 1 0.97 0 0.95 9 0.91 5 0.80 2

Cumulativ e% 17.132 26.718 33.326 39.421 45.079 50.431 55.531 60.152 64.720 69.078 72.898

Tota l 3.59 7 2.01 3 1.38 9 1.27 7 1.18 8 1.12 3 1.07 1

Cumulativ e% 13.647 22.195 29.562 36.267 42.788 49.185 55.531

282

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 V17 V18 V19 V20 V21

0.76 4 0.71 8 0.66 0 0.62 3 0.59 5 0.54 1 0.50 1 0.47 7 0.43 3 0.37 6

3.638 3.419 3.143 2.969 2.835 2.578 2.387 2.272 2.064 1.792

76.536 79.956 83.099 86.069 88.904 91.483 93.870 96.142 98.207 100

Bartletts test of sphericity; Approx. Chi-square= 1822.733, df= 210, Significance = 0.000 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = 0.726

Table 8 Factor structuring of consumer food shopping behaviour Rotated Factor Loadings

Factor Labels and Variables Innovative buying behaviour V8 V10 V15 V16 V17 I like to try new introduced food items I like to go to big hyper market, branded retail outlets to buy food items My food shopping is by and large spontaneous While buying food, I stick to preferred brands only I am very experimental about food shopping

0.545 0.605 0.516 0.560 0.582

283

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

V18 V19

I like to buy and try imported food items I do bulk shopping and store food items

0.681 0.662

Traditional shopping behaviour V12 V13 I buy everything I need in my kitchen from the kiriana (mom-and-pop) shop I go to my usual shop in the main market to buy kitchen stuff 0.697 0.766

Health conscious behaviour V21 V2 It is important for me to know the source of food product I buy I buy a lot of healthy food 0.564 0.777

Hygiene conscious behaviour V14 V11 I plan before hand while I need for kitchen shopping I like to shop at clean and tidy places 0.592 0.703

Brand and store conscious behaviour V20 V5 If I would have more time, I would buy food stuff from different specialized vendors/markets While buying food items I always chose well known brands than the local or store brands -0.725 0.557

Reference group influence behaviour V7 V4 V6 At times I end up buying more food items than required I quite often buy retailer brand These days children play an active role in decision of buying stuff 0.407 0.691 0.680

Quality conscious behaviour V9 V1 V3 I think the food products in organized hypermarkets or retail outlets are of better quality I buy a lot of organic products I don't prefer retailer brand 0.611 0.625 0.499

Source: Primary Data CONSUMERS FOOD SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR AND THEIR CHOICE FOR FOOD Table 9 shows the mean difference on the basis of the respondents responses on their shopping habits & attitudes. The cronbach alpha was measured as 0.70 of internal consistency. It can be seen from the table that innovative buying behaviour, traditional shopping behaviour and reference group influence are the three prominent buyers behaviour where mean difference is significant at 0.05 level of confidence. Hence, in all these cases the null hypothesis ( H3) is rejected. The package food buyers ( X =3.39) show

284

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

lesser traditional shopping behaviour in the preference of packaged food in comparison to non-packaged food buyers ( X =3.49). Moreover, packaged food buyers ( X =3.52) are lesser influenced by reference group than non-packaged food buyers ( X =3.58). Apart from that quality conscious behaviour, brand consciousness, shopping experience, retailer perception, and food quality preference of respondents shopping behaviour dimensions exhibit no difference of opinions between both the categories of respondents, hence, in these entire cases, null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 9 Analysis of consumers food shopping behaviour and their choice for food Consumers food shopping behaviour dimensions Innovative buying behaviour Traditional shopping behaviour Health conscious behaviour Hygiene conscious behaviour Brand & store conscious behaviour Reference group influence behaviour Quality conscious behaviour Buy packaged food (556) Mean 3.25 SD 0.641 Do not buy packaged food (369) Mean 3.34 SD 0.597 t-value -2.047** Sig. 0.013

3.35 3.75

0.858 0.686

3.54 3.78

0.740 0.701

-3.460* -0.644

0.000 0.176

3.88

0.660

3.87

0.727

0.098

0.063

3.57

0.660

3.60

0.707

-0.632

0.119

3.43

0.610

3.48

0.542

-1.115**

0.012

3.17

0.612

3.14

0.627

0.616

0.196

= 0.70; *Significant at 1% level ; ** Significant at 5% level Source: Primary Data; 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree CONSUMERS FOOD SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR AND PREFERENCE FOR FOOD RETAILERS The table 10 explains the mean difference of consumers food shopping behaviour and their preference for food retailers. The consumers who always buy packaged food items from big bazaar are more health conscious ( X =3.93) and hygiene conscious ( X =3.87). On the other hand, these consumers are also quality conscious ( X =3.21). The customers who always buy packaged food from spencer retail stores

285

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

are highly health conscious ( X =3.91). These consumers have least traditional shopping behaviour ( X =2.65). Reliance fresh stores customers are more health conscious ( X =3.93), hygiene conscious ( X =3.81) and these consumers also depict quality conscious behaviour ( X =3.87). The consumers who purchase food from kirana stores, show lesser quality conscious behaviour ( X =3.11).

286

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

Table 10 Consumer Shopping Behaviour Innovative buying behaviour Traditional shopping behaviour Health consciousnes s Hygiene conscious Brand store consciousnes s Reference group influence Quality conscious behaviour

Analysis of consumers food shopping behaviour and their preference for food retailers Big bazaar (82) M SD Spencer (22) M SD Reliance Fresh (120) M SD M 6Ten retail (37) SD 0.63 0 0.56 7 0.56 0 0.72 7 0.75 9 0.61 6 0.55 3 Convenience Stores (131) M SD Kirana Stores (533) M SD F Sig.

3.42

0.703

3.91

0.494

3.28

0.500

3.24

3.49

0.615

3.20

0.618

10.442**

0.000

3.51

0.783

2.65

1.40

3.29

0.798

3.67

3.44

0.865

3.45

0.780

5.684**

0.000

3.93 3.87

0.927 0.461

4.20 4.06

0.549 0.660

3.93 3.91

0.536 0.833

3.74 3.89

3.86 3.81

0.682 0.671

3.66 3.87

0.676 0.683

7.474** 0.621

0.000 0.684

3.50

0.799

3.40

0.894

3.58

0.500

3.51

3.68

0.713

3.58

0.676

1.191

0.311

3.33

0.639

3.54

0.793

3.53

0.569

3.14

3.36

0.601

3.50

0.552

4.672**

0.000

3.21

0.741

3.27

0.746

3.21

0.636

3.17

3.24

0.571

3.11

0.602

1.494

0.189

Source: Primary Data; * Significant at 0.05 level; ** Significant at 0.01 level Bonferroni test

287

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

Consu mer Shoppi ng Behavio ur Innovati ve buying behavio ur Tradition al shoppin g behavior

BB vs. S

BB vs. RF M S D E

BB vs. 6T M D S E

BB vs. CS M S D E

BB vs. KS M D 0. 2 1 9 S E 0. 0 7 2

S vs. RF M D 0. 6 3 4 0. 6 3 2 S E 0. 1 4 1 0. 1 8 7

S vs. 6T

S vs. CS

S vs. KS

RF vs. 6T

RF vs. CS

RF vs. KS

6T vs. CS

6T vs, KS

CS vs. KS

MD 0.4 92

SE 0.14 6

M D 0. 6 7 2 1. 0 1 6

S E 0. 1 6 4 0. 2 1 7

M D 0. 4 2 4 0. 7 8 3

S E 0. 1 4 0 0. 1 8 6

M D 0. 7 1 2 0. 7 9 4 0. 5 4 3

S E 0. 1 3 2 0. 1 7 5 0. 1 4 7

M D

S E

M D

S E

M D

S E

M D

S E

M D

S E

M D 0. 2 8 7

S E 0. 0 5 9

0.8 59

0.19 4

Health concious Hygiene concious Brand store concious Referen ce group influenc e

0. 2 7 7

0. 0 8 0

0. 2 7 6

0. 0 6 8

0. 2 0 1

0. 0 6 6

0. 3 8 6

0. 1 0 8

0. 3 5 6

0. 0 9 8

288

ePROCEEDINGS FOR 2011 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM Contemporary Research Issues and Challenges in Emerging Economies

Quality consciou s behavio ur BB= Big bazaar, S= Spencer, RF= Reliance fresh, 6T= 6Ten retail, CS= Convenience store, KS= Kirana store; * Mean difference is significant at 0.05 level

289

In the view of comparative analysis of consumers food shopping behaviour and their preference for food retailers, the consumers who always buy packaged food from spencer retail stores demonstrate high innovative buying behaviour ( X =3.91) whereas the customers who always visit kirana shops show lesser inclination towards this behaviour. Traditional shopping behaviour ( X =3.67) has been highly exhibit among the customers who always buy packaged food from 6Ten retail stores, on the other hand, spencer retail store customers show lesser traditional shopping behaviour ( X =2.65). The customers who buy food from spencer retail stores have comparatively higher health conscious behaviour ( X =4.20) than the customers who always buy packaged food from kirana shops ( X =3.66). The higher reference group behaviour has been noticed among the consumers who buy packaged food from spencer retail stores ( X =3.54) and reliance fresh stores ( X =3.53), but the customers who always buy packaged food from 6Ten retail stores show lesser reference group influence behaviour ( X =3.14). The mean rating of categorized groups of respondents differences in their respective food shopping behaviour viz. innovative buying behaviour, traditional shopping behaviour, health conscious behaviour, and reference group influence behaviour, at 0.01 level of confidence. It rejects null hypothesis (H4). The findings of the analysis are supplemented by the results of bonferroni analysis. CONCLUSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATION A majority of the customers are middle-aged service class female who belong to middle-income bracket with good academic background female and married people with a family size of four members like to buy packaged food. But the young and old age customers have lesser amount of inclination towards packaged food products. The majority of both spouse-working couples prefer to buy packaged food and it may be shortage of time to prepare meal, convenience and more disposable income at their end. The majority of packaged food buyers like to do food shopping once or twice in a week and these shoppers spend money on food shopping in the range of rupees 2001-8000 per month. Health, hygiene and quality conscious behaviour are omnipresent among the food shoppers. The packaged food buyers have lesser traditional and reference group influence behaviour. Always packaged food items buyers from big bazaar are more health conscious and hygiene conscious customers and consumers who always buy packaged food from spencer retail stores are also health conscious and have highly innovative buying behaviour. These consumers have least traditional shopping behaviour. Apart from health and hygiene consciousness the reliance fresh stores consumers are also have quality consciousness. The consumers who buy food items from kirana (mom-and-pop) shops have lesser quality consciousness, health conscious and innovative behaviour. In organised food retailing, the consumers who always buy packaged food from spencer have high level of health consciousness and high reference group behaviour and 6Ten retail stores customers have highly traditional shopping behaviour and have lesser reference group behaviour. The majority of middle age segment consumers with qualification of graduation and post graduations prefer to buy packaged food. The customers who are lesser qualified do not prefer to buy packaged food. The food retailers should offer food related information on packaging in respective local languages and affordable prices, so that these consumers can get first hand information about the product and buy these products. Another prime factor for the promotion of packaged food is its availability and visibility in the market. Since a lot of consumers prefer to visit traditional market areas (kirana shops), it would be unwise to keep the packaged food in the limits of supermarket and hypermarket set ups. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION The study was exploratory in nature and many variables were considered which may provide certain insights for the studies which can be undertaken at micro level. It was also conducted in National Capital Region (NCR) which is a part of North India, therefore, for a bigger picture to understand, the study can be performed in other part of the country for better understanding and generalisation on entire India.

290

REFERENCES Alawi, H. (1986). Saudi Arabia: Making sense of self service. International Marketing Review, 3(1), 21-38. Alreck, P.L. (2000). Consumer age role norms. Psychology and Marketing, (October), 891-900. Broadbridge, A., & Calderwood, E. (2002). Rural grocery shoppers: Do their attitudes reflect their actions? International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 30(8), 394-406. Carpenter, J.M., & Moore, M. (2006). Consumer demographics, store attributes, and retail format choice in the US grocery market. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 34(6), 434-52. Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences on influenceability: A meta analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 1-20. Enis, B.M., & Paul, G.W. (1970). Store loyalty as a basis for market segmentation. iJournal of Retailing, 46(3), 42-56. Fischer, E., & Arnold, S.J. (1994). Sex, gender, identity, gender role attitudes, and consumer behaviour. Psychology and Marketing, 11(2), 163-182. Fox E., Montgomery, A., and Lodish, L. (2004). Consumer shopping and spending across retail formats. Journal of Business, 77(2), 25-60. Halepete, J., Iyer, KVS., & Park, S.C. (2008). Wal-mart in India: A success or failure? International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(9), 701-13. Hawkins, I. Del., Roger, J., & Best, Kenneth, A.C. (2003). Consumer behaviour Building Marketing Strategy, (9th ed.). N.Delhi: TMH. Henery, P. (2000). Modes of thought that vary systematically with both social class and age. Psychology and Marketing, (May), 421-440. Jain, K. S., & Sharma, K. (2002). Relevance of personal factors as antecedents of consumer involvement: An exploration. Vision, (January-June), 13-24. Knox, S., & Walker, D. (2003). Empirical developments in the measurement of involvement, brand loyalty and their relationship in grocery markets. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11, 271-86. Kumar, S., & Smriti, K. (2011). A favourable circumstances analysis framework for food retailing in India: Multiple considerations for international food retailers. Indian Retail Review, (January), 61-74. Maruyama, M., & Trung, L.V. (2007). Traditional bazaar or supermarkets: A probit analysis of affluent consumer perceptions in Hanoi. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 17(3), 233-52. McGoldrick, P.J., & Andre, E. (1997). Consumer misbehaviour: Promiscuity or loyalty in grocery shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 4(2), 73-81. Miranda, M.J., Konya, L., & Havrila, I. (2005). Shoppers satisfaction levels are not the only key to store loyalty. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 23(2), 220-32. Mulhern, F.J., Williams, J.D., & Leone, R.P. (1998). Variability of brand price elasticities across retail stores. Journal of retailing, 3, 427-45.

291

Prasad, J.S. & Reddy, D.R. (2007). A study on the role of demographic and psychographic dynamics in food and grocery retailing. Vision, 11(4), 21-30. Schiffman, G.L., & Kanuk, L.L. (2002). Consumer behaviour, (7th ed.). PHI: N.Delhi. Seiders, K., Simonides, C. & Tigert, D.J. (2000). The impact of supercenters on traditional food retailers in four markets. Internatioanl Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 28(4-5), 181-93. Shanon, R. & Mandhachitara, R. (2005). Private-label grocery shopping attitudes and behaviour: A crosscultural study. Brand Management, 12(6), 61-74. Sinha, P.K., & Banerjee, A. (2004). Store choice behaviour in an evolving market. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 32(10), 482-94. Slama, E.M., & Taschian, A. (1985). Selected socioeconomic and demographic characteristics associated with purchasing involvement. Journal of Marketing, 49, 72-82. Smith, M.F., & Carsky, M.L. (1996). Grocery shopping behaviour: A comparison of involved and uninvolved consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 3(2), 73-80. Srivastava, R.K. (2008). Changing retail scene in India. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(9), 714-721. Sullivan, P. & Savitt, R. (1997). Store patronage and lifestyle factors: Implications for rural grocery retailers. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 25(11), 351-364. Teller, C., Kotzab, H., & Grant, D.B. (2006). The consumer direct services revolution in grocery retailing: An exploratory investigation. Managing Service Quality, 16(1), 78-96. Tuncalp, S., & Yavas, U. (1990). Food shopping behaviour in the Arabian Gulf region: A comparative study. International Review of retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 1(1), 55-70. Uncles, M.D., & Kwok, S. (2008). Patterns of store patronage in urban China. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 68-81.

292