A Report on

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

ON

CIGARETTES

KINGS VS MARLBORO

Submitted by

ANEESH V R(12AB01)

VIJAY VIGNESWARAN (12AB43)

Of II year MBA

~ 1 ~

PSG Institute of ManagementSEPTEMBER 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2. INTRODUCTION 2

2.1. Gold Flake 2

2.2. Marlbro 2

3. LITERATURE REVIEW 3

3.1. The Impact of Cigarette Advertisement on

Consumer Surplus, Profit, and Social Welfare 3

3.2. Cigarette Prices, Smoking, and the Poor:

Implications of Recent Trends 3

3.3. The Effect of Cigarette Advertising Bans On

Consumption: A Meta Analysis 4

3.4. How Do Consumers Switch Between Close

Substitutes When Price Variation Is Small?

The Case of Cigarette Types 5

3.5. The Effect of Cigarette taxes on Cigarette

Consumption, 1955 through 1994 5

3.6. Gender Identity in Consumer Behavior Research:

A Literature Review and Research Agenda 6

3.7. Smoke – free Air Laws, Cigarette Prices, and

~ 2 ~

Adult Cigarette Demand 7

3.8. Factors Affecting Cigarette Demand 7

4. CONSUMER DECISION MAKING PROCESS 8

5. POST DECISION BEHAVIOR 8

6. LEARNING CONCEPT 9

7. INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING 9

8. CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT AND

PASSIVE LEARNING 10

9. MOTIVATION 10

10. PERSONALITY 10

11. INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE 11

12. CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM 11

13. KAREN PERSONALITY THEORY 12

14. SOCIAL CHARACTER 12

15. COGNITIVE PERSONALITY FACTORS 12

16. STIMULATION LEVEL 13

17. CONSUMER DOGMATISM 13

18. ANALYSING BRAND OF CIGATETTES WITH

OTHER FACTORS 14

18.1. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Quantity of Cigarette 14

18.2. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Frequency of purchase 14

~ 3 ~

18.3. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Longness of smoking 15

18.4. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Change of brand 16

18.5. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Like about brand 16

18.6. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Initiator (friends) 17

18.7. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Prefer new brand 18

18.8. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Preference for a foreign brand 18

18.9. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Friends or alone (smoking) 19

18.10. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Feeling after smoking 20

18.11. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Advertisement 20

18.12. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Variants 21

18.13. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Medium 22

18.14. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Feeling after smoking 22

19. ADVERTISEMENT 24

~ 4 ~

20. CHANGE 25

21. CONVINCED 26

22. FEELING 27

23. FRIENDS 28

24. GOOD 29

25. INITIATOR 30

26. LIKE 31

27. LONGNESS 32

28. OCCASIONS 33

29. QUANTITY 34

30. VARIANTS 35

31. CONCLUSION 36

32. REFERENCES 37

33. APPENDIX 38

~ 5 ~

TABLE OF FIGURES

S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO

1. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Quantity of Cigarette 14

2. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Frequency of purchase 15

3. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Longness of smoking 15

4. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Change of brand 16

5. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Like about brand 17

6. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Initiator (friends) 17

7. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Prefer new brand 18

~ 6 ~

8. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Preference for a foreign brand 19

9. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Friends or alone (smoking) 19

10. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Feeling after smoking 20

11. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Advertisement 21

12. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Variants 21

13. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Medium 22

14. Relation between brand of cigarette and

Feeling after smoking 23

15. ADVERTISEMENT 24

16. CHANGE 25

17. CONVINCED 26

18. FEELING 27

19. FRIENDS 28

20. GOOD 29

21. INITIATOR 30

22. LIKE 31

23. LONGNESS 32

24. OCCASIONS 33

25. QUANTITY 34

~ 7 ~

26. VARIANTS 35

Acknowledgement

We express our sincere gratitude to our Director for giving us an opportunity to work on various projects this trimester.

It takes us immense happiness to express our gratitude to our coordinator Mrs. Uma Maheshwari who constantly supported us with her valuable suggestions and

monitoring.

We would like to express our heartfelt thanks to Mr.Balamurugan, Consumer Behaviour faculty, who constantly inspired us.

We would also take this opportunity to thank the other faculties for their guidance during this course.

Last but not the least, we want to express our deepest and warmest gratitude to our parents, family and friends whose love and support keeps us going…

~ 8 ~

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report aims to introduce people to the concepts of consumer behaviour the brands and

people prefernce towars the brands of cigarette . The focus of this report is the broad internal

individual characteristics of the consumers in the market for cigarette brand.

Consumers are different and may display different inner characteristics relating to their needs,

motivation, personality, perception, learning and atitude in relation to cigarette brands.

This report also emphazise the relation of brand to various attributes. Then finding is made on

attribute which has lot of influence on prefering the brand of cigarette.

~ 9 ~

Sample questionarrie has been prepared by analysing some key factors which plays a vital role in

prefering for the brand of cigarette. All the consumer behavior concepts has been analysed and

the final questionarrie has been prepared.

The major findings which we have analysed in our report is though some people always used to

use particular brand of cigarette people tends to have liking for other brands of cigarette too. So

brand loyalty is not found to be true all times and the mind-set of smokers too change .They used

to buy what ever brand available to them when the brand which they are prefering is not

available at that time.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 GOLD FLAKE

~ 10 ~

Gold Flake is a popular cigarette brand which includes Gold Flake Kings (84 mm), Gold Flake

Kings Lights (84mm), Gold Flake and Gold Flake Lights. It is positioned as a brand that caters to

all the age group from 20. This brand is owned, manufactured and marketed by ITC (Indian

Tobacco Company) Ltd, India. Other popular cigarette brands owned by ITC are Wills &

Scissors. Gold Flake can be segmented as ITC's mediocre brand in terms of its pricing. The

Kings varieties are more expensive with pricing about the same as Wills Classic varieties of

cigarettes. The single largest brand in India in terms of sales is Wills Navy Cut, which was

launched in July 1963. The cost of a Gold Flake Filter pack costs Rs.59 from Rs.55 earlier.

Likewise, the price of Kings has become Rs.80 a pack from Rs.70 earlier. The company’s

cigarette business reportedly grew by 11.48 % to Rs. 3,623.23 Cr. During fourth quarter of 2013.

An efficient supply-chain & distribution network reaches India's popular brands across the

country.

2.2 MARLBORO

Marlboro is one of the leading brands of Cigarette in the world which was introduced in the year

1904 by Philip Morris. (SOURCE? IN-TEXT CITATION, (WWW.MARLBORO.COM)) It is

known as Philip Morris in the US and Philip Morris International outside in all the other

countries. Philip Morris launched the Marlboro brand in 1924 as a woman's cigarette, based on

the slogan "Mild As May". In the 1920s, advertising for the cigarette was primarily based around

how ladylike the cigarette was. To this end, the filter had a printed red band around it to hide

lipstick stains, calling it "Beauty Tips to Keep the Paper from Your Lips". Marlboro is known to

be the largest selling brand of Cigarette in the world. The brand is always associated to Motor

sports and it is positioned accordingly. The biggest plant is located at Richmond, Virginia. Philip

Morris launched it as a Cigarette for women and marketed with the tagline, Mild As May in

1924. Late in 1950’s when scientists came up with a report saying that there is a link between

smoking and Lung Cancer, So Marlboro repositioned itself as a men brand. Marlboro is known

for its sponsorship of motor racing. This started in 1972 with its sponsorship of Formula

One teams BRM and Iso Marlboro-Ford.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

~ 11 ~

Trembley et.al. (1995) estimated that the effect of US……..

3.1 THE IMPACT OF CIGARETTE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER SURPLUS,

PROFIT, AND SOCIAL WELFARE

Trembley, Carol Horton; Trembley, Victor J. Contemporary Economic Policy 13.1 (Jan 1995):

113.

Abstract (summary)

An analysis estimates the effect of US cigarette advertising on social welfare. Because

economists hold different beliefs about the nature of advertising, the analysis uses 3 different

empirical models to test the welfare implication of cigarette advertising. Each model employs

estimates of a demand equation and a supply relation to calculate a single point estimate of the

impact of advertising on profit, consumer surplus, and total surplus. Bootstrapping generates

confidence intervals for each welfare estimate. The results indicate that the cigarette industry is

not competitive and that advertising significantly increases market power. Further, advertising

significantly reduces consumer surplus if it is either purely persuasive or purely informative but

has no significant effect on total surplus.

3.2 CIGARETTE PRICES, SMOKING, AND THE POOR: IMPLICATIONS OF

RECENT TRENDS

Franks, Peter, MD

Jerant, Anthony F, MD

Leigh, J Paul, PhD

Lee, Dennis, BS; Chiem, Alan, MPH, BS; et al. American Journal of Public Health 97.10 (Oct

2007): 1873-7.

Abstract (summary)

We examined the relationship between smoking participation and cigarette pack price by income

group and time period to determine role of cigarette prices in income-related disparities in

smoking in the United States. We used data from the 1984-2004 Behavioral Risk Factor

~ 12 ~

Surveillance System surveys linked to information on cigarette prices to examine the adjusted

prevalence of smoking participation and smoking participation-cigarette pack price elasticity

(change in percentage of persons smoking relative to a 1% change in cigarette price) by income

group (lowest income quartile [lower] vs all other quartiles [higher]) and time period (before vs

after the Master Settlement Agreement [MSA]). Increased real cigarette-pack price over time

was associated with a marked decline in smoking among higher-income but not among lower-

income persons. Although the pre-MSA association between cigarette pack price and smoking

revealed a larger elasticity in the lower- versus higher-income persons (-0.45 vs -0.22), the post-

MSA association was not statistically significant (P>.2) for either income group. Despite

cigarette price increases after the MSA, income-related smoking disparities have increased.

Increasing cigarette prices may no longer be an effective policy tool and may impose a

disproportionate burden on poor smokers.

3.3 THE EFFECT OF CIGARETTE ADVERTISING BANS ON CONSUMPTION: A

META-ANALYSIS

Capella, Michael L

Taylor, Charles R

Webster, Cynthia. Journal of Advertising 37.2 (Summer 2008): 7-18.

Abstract (summary)

Because previous research and reviews on the effect of cigarette advertising bans on cigarette

consumption have reported mixed results, the effectiveness of cigarette advertising bans has been

a point of controversy. To ascertain the efficacy of cigarette advertising bans, the current

research is a quantitative integration (meta-analysis) of the entire available published cigarette

advertising ban research conducted to determine what impact, if any, advertising bans have on

cigarette smoking behavior. Results of the meta-analysis show that cigarette advertising bans do

not have a significant effect on cigarette consumption.

~ 13 ~

3.4 HOW DO CONSUMERS SWITCH BETWEEN CLOSE SUBSTITUTES WHEN

PRICE VARIATION IS SMALL? THE CASE OF CIGARETTE TYPES

Knut R. Wangen· Erik Biørn

Published online: 27 July 2006

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Abstract

Past empirical studies report ambiguous results regarding the magnitude and significance of

substitution between different types of smoking tobacco. Since all types of tobacco contain

nicotine this is quite surprising. Using a 20-year rotating panel data set of Norwegian households

and a multinomial logit model, we find evidence that consumers switch between tobacco types:

first, estimated price effects on choice probabilities have mostly expected signs, albeit their

statistical significance vary across different metrics, second, household characteristics affect

tobacco composition significantly. These findings suggest that consumers’ choices are ‘locked’

when the relative price variation is small, as has been the case in most of the data period, but that

larger changes could induce large-scale switching between tobacco types. Our conjecture is that

there is a latent potential for switching, which will become manifest if prices change sufficiently.

Similar considerations are likely to have relevance for other close substitutes.

3.5 THE EFFECT OF CIGARETTE TAXES ON CIGARETTE CONSUMPTION, 1955

THROUGH 1994

Meier, Kenneth J

Licari, Michael J

American Journal of Public Health 87.7 (Jul 1997): 1126-30.

Abstract (summary)

This study examines the effectiveness of state and federal taxes in reducing the consumption of

cigarettes, estimates the impact of government health warnings, and shows how warnings and

taxes interact.

~ 14 ~

By means of a pooled time-series analysis from 1955 through 1994 with the 50 states as units of

analysis, the impact of excise taxes on cigarette consumption for several different models and

econometric techniques is assessed.

From 1955 through 1994, increases in state taxes were effective in reducing cigarette use.

Federal tax increases, however, appear to have been more effective. This difference is partly the

result of the "bootlegging" of cigarettes across state lines and the size of the increases in the

federal tax. Cigarette consumption also declined when health warning labels were added.

Increases of taxes on cigarettes are associated with declines in the consumption of tobacco.

Because of inflation, increased health concerns, and the declining percentage of smokers,

however, large reductions in consumption require large tax increases.

3.6 GENDER IDENTITY IN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR RESEARCH: A LITERATURE

REVIEW AND RESEARCH AGENDA

Palan, Kay M

Academy of Marketing Science Review 2001 (2001): 1.

Abstract (summary)

Consumer researchers have been examining the impact of gender identity--the degree to which

an individual identifies with masculine and feminine personality traits--on various consumer

variables for nearly four decades. However, significant gender identity findings in consumer

research have been rare, perhaps because of (1) operationalization problems (Palan, Kiecker, and

Areni 1999), (2) inappropriate interpretation and application of gender identity to consumer

variables (Gould 1996), or (3) blurring gender categories (Firat 1993). This paper presents a

thorough review, grounded in theoretical models of gender identity, of consumer behavior

studies in the marketing literature that have examined gender identity. Based on the literature

review, the paper evaluates whether gender identity research is still warranted, and proposes

specific research questions to guide future research.

~ 15 ~

3.7 SMOKE-FREE AIR LAWS, CIGARETTE PRICES, AND ADULT CIGARETTE

DEMAND

Tauras, John A. Economic Inquiry 44.2 (Apr 2006): 333-342.

Abstract (summary)

This article examines the impact of cigarette prices and smoke-free air laws on adult smoking.

Probit methods and a generalized linear model with log-link and Gaussian distribution are

employed to model adult smoking propensity and intensity, respectively. After controlling for

unobserved state-level heterogeneity, which can influence both tobacco policy and smoking

behavior, the estimates from this study imply that an inverse relationship exists between cigarette

prices and both smoking prevalence and average cigarette consumption by adult smokers. The

estimates also imply that more restrictive smoke-free air laws decrease average smoking by adult

smokers but have little impact on prevalence.

3.8 FACTORS AFFECTING CIGARETTE DEMAND

ELENI RAPTOU*, KONSTADINOS MATTAS*, EFTHIMIA TSAKIRIDOU**,

AND CONSTANTINOS KATRAKILIDIS***

Abstract

This paper addresses the impact of smoking restrictions in workplaces and educational

establishments, cigarette price measures and various psychosocial indicators on cigarette

demand, controlling for demographic and socio-economic factors. The data used for the analysis

are collected via questionnaire that was administered in personal-in home interviews. A two-part

model of cigarette demand [Cragg, J. G.BSome Statistical Models for Limited Dependent

Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods,^Econometrica, 39, 5, 1971, pp.

829Y44.] is estimated. According to the estimations, cigarette price measures do not influence

cigarette demand. On the contrary, smoking restrictions in workplaces and educational

establishments and most of the psychosocial variables are found to affect cigarette demand

considerably. (JEL D12, I00,M31)

~ 16 ~

4. CONSUMER DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Input

Process

5. POST DECISION BEHAVIOR

6. LEARNING CONCEPT

~ 17 ~

Firms marketing efforts:

Price product

Socio-cultural environment:

Reference group

Sub culture

Pre purchase search

Evaluation of alternative

Personality Learning perception

Trial Repeated

purchase

Post purchase evaluation

Experience

People who are smoking cigarettes will pass through various learning process before confirming

to particular brand. Usually they pass through cognitive stage , affective stage, conative stage.

Based upon the quantity of cigarette the user purchase, frequency of purchase and number of

years they have been smoking the learning concepts depends.

Cognitive stage: people who are new to smoking will just have knowledge and belief about the

product. Usually person who is smoking below one month will pass through this stage.

Affective stage: Evaluation of particular brand of cigarette as favorable or unfavorable to the

user. Usually person who is smoking for more than 6 months will be passing through this phase

Conative stage: Intension to buy a particular brand of cigarette when lot of choice available

before them. Brand Loyalty comes into play at this stage. Usually people who smoke for more

than a year will pass through this stage.

7. INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING

People who smoke will definitely fall under instrumental conditioning learning. Usually they try

different brand of cigarette before sticking on to a particular brand of cigarette. So they normally

follow trail and error method

8. CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT AND PASSIVE LEARNING

~ 18 ~

Stimulus purchase decision

Marlboro

Kings

Very mild to smoke

Good to smoke because of nicotine content

How much of involvement the consumer exhibits on the product will be checked here. Usually

product which is low cost will be obtained through low involvement but in the case of cigarette

its quite different. People used to ask and search for particular brand unless they end up getting

that.

Consumers learn many things while smoking. Usually people preference changes. Some make

rational, active decision while purchasing cigarette and usually left hemisphere is involved in

decision making for such type. Some make impulsive decision and at that point of time right

hemisphere is involved in the decision process.

9. MOTIVATION

There are various factors, which makes a person to smoke. Usually people smokes cigarette

because of acquired need.

Acquired need: The people learn the habit from the environment. Sometime because of the

cultural value too people smoke. But, in India its purely acquired thing.

Both rational and emotional motive is involved while selecting cigarette.

Rational Motive: select particular brand of cigarette because of certain features.

Emotional Motive: doesn’t think about feature and buy whatever is available.

10. PERSONALITY

Personality is generally expressed as human inner psychological characteristics like person’s

specific qualities, attributes, traits, factors, and mannerisms that distinguish one person from

other person.

Smokers involves highly on this inner psychological characteristics (personality) as they are

influenced more by their environment.

11. INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE

~ 19 ~

Interpersonal influence is a kind of outside influence where consumers choose certain products

over others. When personality influence consumer to buy products based on their inner

psychological characteristics whereas interpersonal influence the consumers based on others.

There are three types of interpersonal influence and the influence as impact of buying cigarettes.

1. Information influence: this type of smokers influenced by the reality experienced by

others. This type of smokers purchase is based on the others reality about the product so

they always make a purchase by the word–of-mouth strategies.

2. Value expressive influence: this type of smokers influenced by the person they compare

with themselves. Their purchase is based on the other whom do they compare. For

Example a person buy particular brand cigarettes if their brother, friends, father, role

model or celebrity (whom do they compare) use that particular brand of cigarettes.

3. Utilitarian influence: this type of smokers influenced by others, who buy a cigarettes in

order to fulfill the others need or wish. For example a person smokes cigarette by the

pressure given by his senior or peer. These types of smoker generally try to conform the

wishes by others in order to get appreciation or to avoid punishment.

12. CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM

If a smoker who wish to smoke the foreign made brand out of the local made or regional one

then this type of smoker is low ethnocentric consumers. If a smoker buys a cigarette made in

their country in respect to increase the economic conditions and other social responsibilities is

highly ethnocentric. For example if a smoker buys Marlboro even though domestic brands are

available in a shop then he is considered as a low ethnocentric. These types of consumers want to

know how good it would be, and to taste the foreign made. They have the extrinsic

characteristics. Some products are actually foreign made one but due to their low product

cultural uniqueness make them for cross cultural adoption. Marlboro is such a kind of cigarette.

13. KAREN PERSONALITY THEORY

~ 20 ~

Complaint: this type of person smokes cigarette when others to appreciate and like him. They

expect more compliments, this influence them to buy cigarettes. Eve Cigarette- "The first truly

feminine cigarette--almost as pretty as you are"

this tagline made the female cigarette users who are characterized as ‘complaint’ to buy a

cigarette.

Aggressive: this type of person smoke cigarettes who seeks to excel and achieve recognition. So

the marketers try to attract them by tagline meant for winners or achievers.

Detached: These types of person were less likely to be brand loyal and were more likely to try

different brands. These type of person influence to buy cigarette when they feel individualism,

freedom, self–reliance, independence.

14. SOCIAL CHARACTER

Inner directed people: Inner directed smokers seem to prefer ads that stress product features

and personal benefits in cigarette. These smokers tend to rely on their own inner values in

evaluating new product- cigarette. They are the consumer innovator.

Other directed people: Other directed people are seem to prefer ads that feature an approving

social environment or social acceptance but these type of people cannot be found in cigarette

category because in the ad or in cigarette box itself mentioned ‘smoking kills’. So they naturally

don’t accept as a concern over social environment.

15. COGNITIVE PERSONALITY FACTORS

Visualizers: this type of people who get influence to buy cigarettes in the form of visual

communication – video type advertisement.

Verbalizers: this type of people who get influence to buy cigarettes in the form of written or

verbal information ad.

16. STIMULATION LEVEL

~ 21 ~

High stimulation level: highly stimulated smokers always try new one and tend to be more

innovative one. So marketers try to launch new variants of cigarettes in term of flavors, colors,

size in order to not to leave their highly stimulated smokers who always want more innovative

and different variants.

Low stimulation level: low stimulated smokers always tend to be simple and prefer traditional

than innovative. That’s why marketers have a classic style for them (Marlboro classics, gold

flake classic and kings lights). They will not involve in many variants.

17. CONSUMER DOGMATISM

High dogmatic: highly dogmatic smokers who like to choose only well established product and

always use that particular brand alone, no product alternative also.

Low dogmatic: Low dogmatic smokers, who like to prefer innovative products, always try a

new product. These type of smokers only set the market for competition one and influence to

have different variants in different brands.

18. ANALYSING BRAND OF CIGATETTES WITH OTHER FACTORS

~ 22 ~

18.1. Relation between brand of cigarette and quantity of cigarette

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and quantity of cigarette.

H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and quantity of cigarette.

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (1.34>0.05).

Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and quantity of cigarette.

Fig 1. Relation between brand of cigarette and quantity of cigarette

18.2. Relation between brand of cigarette and frequency of purchase

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and frequency of purchase

H1: there is relationship between brand of cigarette and frequency of purchase

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.18 >0.05).

Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is relationship between brand of cigarette and frequency of purchase

~ 23 ~

Fig 2. Relation between brand of cigarette and frequency of purchase

18.3. Relation between brand of cigarette and longness of smoking

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and longness of smoking

H1: there is relationship between brand of cigarette and longness of smoking

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.18 >0.05).

Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is relationship between brand of cigarette and longness of smoking.

Fig 3. Relation between brand of cigarette and longness of smoking

~ 24 ~

18.4. Relation between brand of cigarette and change of brand

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and changing of brand.

H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and changing of brand.

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.81>0.05).

Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and change of brand.

Fig 4. Relation between brand of cigarette and change of brand

18.5. Relation between brand of cigarette and like about brand

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and like about brand.

H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and like about brand

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.03<0.05).

Since t value is lesser than 0.05 there is relationship between brand of cigarette and like of brand.

~ 25 ~

Fig 5. Relation between brand of cigarette and like about brand

18.6. Relation between brand of cigarette and initiator (friends)

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and initiator.

H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and initiator.

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.09 >0.05).

Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and initiator.

Fig 6. Relation between brand of cigarette and initiator (friends)

~ 26 ~

18.7. Relation between brand of cigarette and prefer new brand

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and prefer new brand.

H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and prefer new brand.

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.13 >0.05).

Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and prefer new brand.

Fig 7. Relation between brand of cigarette and prefer new brand

18.8. Relation between brand of cigarette and preference for a foreign brand

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and preference for a foreign brand.

H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and preference for a foreign brand.

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.34 >0.05).

Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and preference for a foreign brand

~ 27 ~

Fig 8. Relation between brand of cigarette and preference for a foreign brand

18.9. Relation between brand of cigarette and friends or alone (smoking)

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and friends or alone(smoking)

H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and friends or alone(smoking)

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.77 >0.05).

Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and friends or alone (smoking)

Fig 9. Relation between brand of cigarette and friends or alone (smoking)

~ 28 ~

18.10. Relation between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking.

H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.78>0.05).

Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is relationship between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking.

Fig 10. Relation between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking

18.11. Relation between brand of cigarette and advertisement

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and advertisement

H1: there is relationship between brand of cigarette and advertisement

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.68 >0.05).

Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and advertisement.

~ 29 ~

Fig 11. Relation between brand of cigarette and advertisement

18.12. Relation between brand of cigarette and variants

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and variants

H1: there is relationship between brand of cigarette and variants

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.16 >0.05).

Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and variants.

~ 30 ~

18.13. Relation between brand of cigarette and medium

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and medium

H1: there is relationship between brand of cigarette and medium

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.61 >0.05).

Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is relationship between brand of cigarette and medium

Fig 13. Relation between brand of cigarette and medium

18.14. Relation between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking

H0: there is no significant difference between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking

H1:there is relationship between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking

By Levene’s test we prove that significance is (0.45 >0.05).

Since t value is greater than 0.05 there is no relationship between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking.

~ 31 ~

Fig 14. Relation between brand of cigarette and feeling after smoking

~ 32 ~

19. ADVERTISEMENT:

Fig 15. Advertisement

~ 33 ~

20. CHANGE:

Fig 16. Change

~ 34 ~

21. CONVINCED:

Fig 17. Convinced

~ 35 ~

22. FEELING:

Fig 18. Feeling

~ 36 ~

23. FRIENDS:

Fig 19. Friends

~ 37 ~

24. GOOD:

Fig 20. Good

~ 38 ~

25. INITIATOR:

Fig 21.Initiator

~ 39 ~

26. LIKE:

Fig 22. Like

~ 40 ~

27. LONGNESS:

Fig 23. Longness

~ 41 ~

28. OCCASIONS:

Fig 24. Occassions

~ 42 ~

29. QUANTITY:

Fig 25. Quantity

~ 43 ~

30. VARIANTS:

Fig 26. Variants

~ 44 ~

31. CONCLUSION

Thus by above research it has been proved that consumer behavior towards the brand of cigarette is not influenced by many factors. But certain factors like inner psychological charcter, ethnocentirism, persnality trait are very important influencer when prefering for certain brand of cigarette. So if a particular brand of cigarette is able to satisfy all these facotrs then the product will be definetly succeed in the market.

~ 45 ~

32. REFERENCES

1.Cigarettes India - ITC Ltd. is a Manufacturers & Supplier of Cigarettes in India & Abroad. 2013. Cigarettes India - ITC Ltd. is a Manufacturers & Supplier of Cigarettes in India & Abroad. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.itcportal.com/businesses/fmcg/cigarettes.aspx. [Accessed 18 September 2013]

2.Schiffman, L. (2010). Consumer Behaviour (Tenth ed., Vol., pp. 2-50). Delhi: Pearson.

3.Schiffman, L. (2010). Consumer Behaviour (Tenth ed., Vol., pp. 50-100). Delhi: Pearson.

4.Schiffman, L. (2010). Consumer Behaviour (Tenth ed., Vol., pp. 100-150). Delhi: Pearson.

5.Schiffman, L. (2010). Consumer Behaviour (Tenth ed., Vol., pp. 150-232). Delhi: Pearson.

6.BRAIN, S. (1997). Segmenting And Targeting. THINKING ABOUT THE CUSTOMER, (Special), 2-30.

7.STEUART, H. (1989). THE STRATEGY OF CONSUMER MOTIVATION. JOURNAL OF MARKETING, (Special), 666-674.

8.HAROLD, K. (1971). PERSONALITY AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR : A REVIEW. JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 8(000004), 409.

9.Marlboro Cigarettes. 2013. Marlboro Cigarettes. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.aboutmarlborocigarettes.blogspot.in. [Accessed 18 September 2013].

10.Gold Flake Cigarettes, Cheap Gold Flake Cigarettes. 2013. Gold Flake Cigarettes, Cheap Gold Flake Cigarettes. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.mycigstore.com/17-gold-flake. [Accessed 18 September 2013].

~ 46 ~

33. APPENDIX

GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE BASED ON CIGARETTE USERS

Name: ____________________________

Date of birth: –/–/—-

Contact No.: _____________________

1. What brand of cigarette do you prefer?

a) Gold flake

b) Marlboro

2. In what quantity do you buy them?

a) 1-3

b) 3-5

~ 47 ~

c) More than 5

d) Whole packs

3. How often do you purchase cigarettes?

a) Once a day

b) More than once in a day

c) Once a week 

4. Since how long have you been smoking?

a) Last one month

b) 1-6months

c) 1year 

d) More than one year 

5. Have you changed your cigarette brand

a. No reason, just for a change

b. Suggestion from a friend

c. Others. Please specify ______________________

d. No, I have not change.

6. What are the things that you like about smoking? (You can tick more than one)

a) It helps in coping with stress

b) It helps to break up my working time

c) It is something I do with my friends and colleagues

d) It helps me to curb hunger 

e) I enjoy it

~ 48 ~

f) It stops me from getting withdrawal symptoms

7. What initiated you to purchase cigarettes for the first time

a) Word of mouth

b) Friends

c) Peers

d) Celebrities/ movie

8. Do you try a variety of a brand when it new to the market ?

a) yes b)no

9. Do you try a foreign brand?

a) yes b)no

10. You interested in smoking a Marlboro/ gold flakes cigarette with friends or alone:

a) Friends b) Alone

11. After smoking Marlboro/ gold flakes cigarettes , what you feel?

a) Feel like independent b) Feel like winning/achieving c) Feel like to be

appreciated

12. In what point of view you see advertisements of Marlboro/ gold flakes cigarettes?

a) Product features b) social environmental concern

13. Do you like more variants in Marlboro/ gold flakes?

a) Yes b) no

14. How you will be impressed when promoting Marlboro/ gold flakes in ad, through visual image (video

tape) or written information (audio tape)?

a) Visual image b) written information

15. Which product do you think as good?

~ 49 ~

a) Kings

b) Marlboro

~ 50 ~