Description
Influence of Behavioral Pattern of Men on Formal Shoes
Case Study the Influence of Behavioral Pattern of Men on Formal Shoes
ABSTRACT The present study attempts to present a model in which the footwear attributes are associated with the behavioural patterns of the consumers. The behavioural pattern of the consumers was studied through the AIO statements. The consumers were profiled into eleven clusters using factor analysis namely stylistic, confident, cautious shoppers, traditional, relaxed, optimistic, strivers, systematic, dominant, spiritual and stay trim. Regression scores were used to assign the respondents into the respective components that were extracted through factor analysis. Reliability Test and KMO Test were conducted to check the reliability and adequacy of the sample size. Further only those variables that qualified the collinearity test were alone subject to regression analysis. Through ANOVA test it was observed that significant differences existed among the consumers within the clusters. Therefore the AIO statements were considered as independent variables that were regressed against ten selected footwear attributes. The study finds that consumers' footwear preferences varied according to their behavioural patterns. This model can help the retailers and manufacturers to revisit their existing strategies of targeting the consumers based on demography or material construction. Key Words: Footwear, Behavioral pattern, Regression, Lifestyle, Consumer, Clusters
72
1.1 INTRODUCTION With low production cost, abundant supply of raw material, evolving retail system, buying patterns and huge consumption market, this sector is posed to grow to great heights. India being a country of artisans is known for its traditional craft of footwear making. Some of the traditional footwear created by village craftsmen include leather chappals in Kohlapur' embroidered Juttis in Jodhpur, Indo-Tibetan felt boots in Sikkim and vegetable fibre shoes in Ladakh. The industrial policy 1967 reserved the leather industry including footwear only for small scale sectors. It was only during the mid 1970s, 100% export oriented footwear units in large scale sector were promoted. From June 2001 onwards the Government of India de-reserved the leather sector. During the past four decades starting from the year 1981 - 1982, the export of footwear from India had increased tremendously. Though India has a negligible proportion of exports in world trade, it is the second largest producer of footwear next to China. India accounts for 14% of the global annual footwear production of 14.52 billion pairs. India manufactures around 2065million pairs of footwear every year of which 909 million pairs are made of leather, 1056 million pairs of non leather footwear and 100 million pairs of shoe uppers. Nearly 70 percent of the labour constituting around 15 lakh people are employed in the unorganised sector majority of them are rural artisans, cottage and household units, while the organised sector accounts for remaining 30 percent and employs over 5 lakh people. The Indian consumer markets are growing and changing rapidly in terms of its nature and composition. With the revolution taking place in the distribution system through entry of super markets, shopping malls, chain stores etc in the metros, small cities and towns the potential for lifestyle products have increased drastically (S L Rao, 2000). With the change in the lifestyle patterns among the people especially the youth, this product has also undergone a tremendous transition in terms of its character. Though Indians have not been the ones to spend on items like footwear, for the past two decades due to liberalization, there has been a tremendous change in the buying habits of the consumers. More than sixty international brands are sourced from India. Most of these brands are manufactured in Agra, Kanpur or Chennai footwear clusters. 1.2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE India is a country of artisans comprising of footwear clusters spread in many parts of the country. These clusters predominantly consist of small-scale manufacturers with skilled craftsmen, out dated technologies having less access to automation. In a developing country like India, there exist tremendous opportunity for combining the artisanal touch with high technology (knorringar 1998). Unlike India after Liberalization the textile and footwear industries collapsed in Zimbabwe due to improper restructuring and low labour productivity (Carmody 1998) where as countries like India, Korea and Taiwan enjoy high labour productivity. The author finds the African market to be generally uncompetitive due to shrinking markets, low labour productivity, and poor infrastructure with poor political instability due to which foreign investment is scarce when compared to the Asian countries. Heather (1998) draws attention to the existence of fashion consciousness of the people towards footwear even before 8000 years ago. The author throws light on the evolution of the bear-fur shoes that the Japanese Samurai used to wear to the platform sandals that is worn by people today are all due to the fashion desire. The article was the result of excavation of shoes dated more than 8000 years from the Missouri cave. The complex weaving and design of the excavated shoes reveal that the people were fashion
73
conscious as we are today and specialized artisans and craftsmen existed even at that time. The study by Troy (2000) stipulates the need for appropriate footwear as they are more than just shoes. According to the author shoes give identity and image and is also a symbol of status. Despite the benefits, diabetes patients refrain from purchase of therapeutic footwear as they are not attractive with limited colours and designs (Carolyn et al 2002, Gautham et al, 2004). Miranda (2009) explores the rise of Bata as a major player in the footwear sector. Post World War I, the international trade in footwear took a different turn. The large footwear exporting countries like United States and UK gradually became world's leading importers. 1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Though the Indian consumers have become discerning and brand conscious, but in this sector the proliferation of the unorganized sector seem to be higher. The unorganized sector dominates the industry posing a threat to the organised players. In the organised sector, men's footwear accounts for only half of the total market. Therefore it is clear that only 50% - 55% of the sales take place in the organized sector even in the men's sector. Though footwear is considered as lifestyle enhancement product, the manufacturers and retailers have failed to understand this. Still the traditional segmentation patterns are followed in this industry, which include materials used for construction of the footwear, usage patterns and demographics. Also there are innumerable literatures that focus on trade policies followed in the footwear market in international countries, treatment of workers in the footwear industry, therapeutic use of footwear, supply chain patterns etc but there are hardly any study that explores the consumer behaviour and their association towards the footwear preferences. Behavioral segmentation though has been used in many other products like apparels, insurance, real estate etc., but not in the footwear sector. The present study is an attempt to fill the gap. This sector is a highly promising one with less knowledge about its customers. 1.4 OBJECTIVES From the problems stated above the objectives have been derived as under: • To profile men into different clusters based on their activities, interest and opinions • To examine the differences that exists in the preferences towards the formal footwear attributes according to the consumers' behavioural patterns 1.5 STUDY AREA The study was conducted in Bangalore being the capital of Karnataka and a fast emerging metropolitan city. Further it is the third most populous city and stands fifth in the urban population. As on 2011 the total population of the city stood at 8,425,970. Geographically the city is divided into 5 regions namely East, West, North, South and Central Bangalore. Bangalore has only 41% of local population and the rest of them belong to other states and countries especially from Europe. Hence, it is vivid that Bangalore has a population with diverse profiles. Therefore the city of Bangalore has been selected for the study purposively.
74
1.6 SAMPLE RESPONDENTS The respondents for the study include men between the age group of 20 - 55 yrs and between the income classes of Rs 12000 to Rs 200000 per month. The respondents were drawn randomly from the various strata of East, West, North, South and Central Bangalore. 500 men were selected from each stratum totaling to 2500 men. Out of the total respondents only 2074 men qualified for the study as the responses furnished by the rest of them was incomplete hence were eliminated. 1.7 SURVEY INSTRUMENT Primary data was collected through distribution of questionnaires. The questionnaire comprised of three sections. Section I includes 50 statements (Mitchell, A. 1983, Anderson, W.T. and Golden, L. 1984; Hanspal et al, 1999; Hanspal et al, 2000 ) that would help in profiling the customers into behavioural clusters based on the activities they normally engage in their day to day life, interests and opinions on certain common issues. These statements were to be rated in a 7 point likert scale. Section II comprised of their demographic details and the attributes they expect their formal and casual footwear to possess. These attributes were arrived after an exploratory study. The exploratory study was conducted to a group of 20 members. The group members comprised of consumers who belonged to different age groups. They were asked to list the attributes they generally preferred their footwear to possess. Eighteen attributes were listed. Though all the eighteen attributes were included in the instrument only ten attributes were selected for analysis. These ten attributes were selected based on the ranking given by majority of the group members. These attributes were also to be rated in a 7 point likert scale. The instrument so constructed was pre-tested on thirty respondents to find out if the questions framed had sufficient clarity. Then based on their suggestions the final instrument was constructed and administered. 1.8 STATISTICAL TOOLS USED The statistical tools used for the study include Reliability Test, KMO test, Factor analysis, ANOVA, and Multiple Regression Analysis. Statiscal packages such as SPSS 16 and EXCEL were employed in the study. 1.9 SCOPE The study will be helpful for the retailers to restructure their product offerings. The report will also be useful for new retailers for designing their market strategies. It also offers a scope for further research as there is not much study done in this area. Many international brands are looking out for a place of business in India, this study will help them in understanding the consumer characteristics and the factors that influence their purchase decision. The study can be extended to global markets as similar purchase patterns may exist in multiple countries.
75
1.10 ANALYSIS: 1.10.1 CONSUMER PROFILING For profiling the respondents on the basis of their behaviour, factor analysis was employed on the 50 AIO statements (See Appendix1). Initially inorder to test the reliability of these AIO statements, Cronbach's alpha score was computed. The Cronbach's alpha on 50 AIO statements revealed a score of 0.803 showing that the statements were reliable enough for further analysis. Also Kaiser-Mayo-Olkin (KMO) Test was conducted to measure the adequacy of sample size. The test generated a score of 0.694. Thus KMO test also proved that the samples were adequate enough to conduct factor analysis. On employing factor analysis 11 factors that constitutes 52% of the variance was considered for the study. Further for authentication Scree plot was also read. Only those factors that constituted Eigen value above 1 were considered as principal component analysis was employed. Varimax rotation was used to extract the factors with factor loadings greater than +/- 0.30.
Table 1.1 Components with total and cumulative variance Initial Eigen values Components 1 23 45 67 89 10 11 Total 5.81 3.20 3.07 2.46 1.98 1.87 1.68 1.56 1.40 1.39 1.34 % of Variance 11.63 6.406 .134 .923 .963 .743 .363 .112 .802 .792 .69 Cumulative % 11.63 18.0324.1 629.0933 .0436.784 0.1443.25 46.0648.8 551.54
As Varimax rotation was utilized, those statements which had a factor loading of 0.3 and above was assigned to the respective component. Further case wise regression scores were considered to classify each individual to the respective components. The 11 components that were extracted include Stylistic, Independents, Economicals, Traditional, Socialising, Globe trotters, Strivers, Systematic and Dominant (See Table 4.5). It should be noted that the components have been named according to the variable (Statement) with higher rotated factor loadings.
76
Table 1.2 Statements with Rotated Factor Loadings and assignment to respective components Components Component 1: Stylistic I like to spend a year in a foreign country I have one or more outfits that are of very latest style I pay cash for everything I buy I enjoy stylistic dresses The most important of life is to dress smartly I am fashionable in the eyes of others Component 2: Confident I have more self confidence than most people As far as possible after marriage nuclear family is better I am more independent than most people I have a lot of personal ability Component 3: Cautious Shoppers I visit many shops before I finalise my sales I am active in all social functions I check the prices even for small items I watch advertisements for announcements of sales One should bargain before a purchase I prefer my friends to spend when I am out on a party Component 4: Traditional Women are dependents and need men's protection A women should not work if her husband does not like her to work Looking after the house is primarily a woman's responsibility In the evenings, it is better to stay at home Component 5: Relaxed I drink soft drinks several times in a week I spend a lot of time with friends talking about brands and products I participate in sports activities One should have own credit/debit cards Component 6: Optimistic Think I will have more money to spend next year I want to take a trip around the world Component 7: Strivers Doing nothing makes me feel uncomfortable I will take some courses to brighten my future Component 8: Systematic One should always keep the house neat and clean One must save for the rainy day A distinctive living attracts me Rotated Factor L oad i n gs 0.720.7 20.680 .650.58 0.58 0.770.7 40.710 .64 0.810.6 40.610 .560.40 0.37 0.730.7 20.590 .53 0.760.7 0 -0.53 0.4 3 0.830.7 7 0.770.4 5 0.660.6 30.52
77
Component 9: Dominant Friends often come to me for advice Giving dowry in marriage is a tradition and cannot be done away I would go for a walk than sit idle I can be considered a leader Component 10: Spiritual, Diet conscious and Socialising I eat only home food Spiritual values are important than material things I can mingle with strangers easily Component 11: Stay Trim (6%) I skip breakfast regularly I like to watch games than any other entertainment channels
0.660.5 40.520 .39 0.590.5 80.50 0.770.7 1
For the purpose of the study the AIO statements were considered as predictor variables and the footwear attributes were considered the criterion variables. Further only those statements that satisfied the collinearity test was selected. ANOVA test revealed the existence of significant differences among the consumers in the same component. Therefore multiple regressions were employed to study the association between the behavioural pattern of consumers and the preferences towards formal footwear attributes. COMPONENT 1 - STYLISTIC CONSUMERS Table 1.3: COLLINARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES I pay cash for everything I buy (Budgeted spenders) I enjoy stylistic dresses (Stylistic) The important part of life is to dress smartly (Smartly dressed) I like to spend a year in a foreign country (Foreign land) I am fashionable in the eyes of others (Fashionable) TOLERANCE VIF* .7 2 6 1 .3 7 7 .9 0 0 1 .1 1 2 .9 4 3 1 .0 6 0 .6 7 5 1 .4 8 2 .7 0 3 1 .4 2 2
Table 1.4 Multiple Regression Analysis for Stylistic Consumers (Component 1) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR PREFERENCES tVariables B value Criterion ** Family -1.20 2 .62 Predictor -.31 -.439 -4.1** Btudgseted spenders -.03 .142 -.43** Smart Dressers S .2 8 .288 yli tic Foreign land Fashionable -.35 .8 9 .2 2 .2 2 -.13 .3 1 4 .29 -1.62 Foreign land Fashionable
Variables Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours Predictor Variables Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers
B
SE
Beta
SE
Beta
t-value
5 .23 -1.02 -.09 .5 4
1 .99 .2 5 .2 3 .1 3
1 .62 .203 .186 .102 -.163 .052 .186
-.74 -2.17* . 7 6 ** 2 . 8 2**
7 8
.902 .131
.176 .176
.400 .056
5 .13
.
7
4
4 . 1 1** Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers
**
1 .19 .2 6 .0 1 .0 3 -.51 1 .01 6 .34 .027 -.065 -.061 .046 .115 3 .98 .465 -.226 -.067 -.483 .629 -1.54 -.382 -.051 -.353 .913 .907
.6 0 .0 8 .0 7 .0 4 .0 7 .0 7 .417 .052 .048 .026 .045 .045 .994 .124 .114 .063 .108 .108 1 .73 .217 .199 .109 .188 .189 -.13 -.02 -.20 .356 .346 .268 -.13 -.07 -.33 .423 .042 -.09 -.16 .084 .208 .1 8 .0 0 .0 4 -.42 .8 1
1 .9 8* 3 . 4 3** .0 7 . 8 4 ** -7.8 ** 15 .4 1 5 . 2** .521 -1.35* -2.31 1 .0 1* 2 .54 4 . 0 1** 3.74*** -1.98 -1.07* -4.5*** 5 .81 -.89 -1.76 -.26** -3.2 ** 4 . 8 5** 4 .80
Criterion Posture Predictor Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable Criterion Ambience Predictor Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable Criterion Variable Salesmen Predictor Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable Criterion Variable Amenities Predictor Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable
-1.10 -.015 -.540 -.149 1 .28 .422 .244 .302 .747 .182 -1.09 .718 .263 .364 .618 .150 -1.09 .787 11 .3 -.991 .696 .207 -.785 -.128
1 .07 .133 .122 .067 .116 .116 1 .35 .169 .155 .085 .147 .147 1 .35 .169 .156 .085 .147 .148 1 .88 .236 .217 .119 .204 .205 -.305 .210 .111 -.289 -.046 .153 .253 .109 -.549 .385 .127 .307 .133 -.550 .352 -.007 -.228 -.112 .660 .213
-1.03 -.12 ** -4.41* -2.22 ** 11.08 * 3 .6 4* .1 8 1 . 7 9** 4 .8 1* 2 . 1 4** -7.48** 4 .88 .194 2.15*** 3 .97 1 . 7 5** -7.45** 5 .33 6 . 0 1** -4.2**** 3 .21 1.74 -3.84 -.62
Foreign land Fashionable
** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level COMPONENT 2- CONFIDENT CONSUMERS Table 1.5 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES As far as possible nuclear family is better (Nuclear Family) I have more self confidence than most people (Confident) I am more independent (Independent) I have a lot of personal ability (Skilled) *Variance Inflation Factor TOLERANCE VIF* .8 4 7 1 .1 8 1 .7 8 9 1 .2 6 7 .8 2 1 1 .2 1 8 .9 0 0 1 .1 1 1
79
Table 1.6 Multiple Regression Analysis of Confident Men (Component 2) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion .911 Family 8 .16 Predictor .155 Nuclear Family -.42 -.274 ** Confident .360 5 .019 Independent .191 -.186 Skilled -.67 Criterion 5.682** Posture 6 .99 Predictor -3.07** Nuclear Family -.21 -.180 * Confident 2.094** Independent 2 .606 Skilled Criterion 9.803** Ambience Predictor -1.160* Nuclear Family -.374 -4.14*** Confident 3.700** Independent 2 .575 Skilled Criterion -.318 Salesmen Predictor .447 -.425 -.339 4 .85 .292 -.35 -.04 9 .19
Variables Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours Predictor Variables Nuclear Family Confident Independent Skilled Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Nuclear Family Confident Independent Skilled Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Nuclear Family 2.976**** Confident Independent Skilled Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Nuclear Family Confident Independent Skilled Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables Nuclear Family Confident Independent Skilled
B .995 .014 -.033 .708 -.023 4 .57 -.208 -.016 .217 .234 5 .82 -.058 -.273 .284 .171 -.319 -.299 .559 .647 -.014 11 .5 -.493 .196 -.556 -.280
SE 1 .09 .092 .122 .141 .122 .804 .068 .090 .104 .090 .594 .050 .066 .077 .066 1 .00 .085 .112 .130 .112 1 .57 .132 .175 .203 .175
Beta
SE 1 .46 .123 .163 .188 .163 1 .41 .119 .157 .183 .158 1 .49 .126 .166 .193 .167 1 .33 .112 .148 .171 .148 1 .11 .094 .124 .144 .124
Beta
t-value 5 . 5 9**
.010 -.018 .328 -.012
-.220 .148 .066 -.257
-3.4*** 2 .22 1.01** -4.1 4 . 9 4**
-.202 -.012 .140 .166
-.117 .128 -.129 -.016
-1.75 1 .853 -1.89 -.243 6 . 1 5 7**
-.075 -.276 .242 .161
-.194 .181 -.146 -.128
2 .6 8 9* -2.206* -2.034 3 . 6 6 2**
-.213 .312 .306 -.007
-.238 .074 -.178 -.099
-3.54**** Nuclear Family -.037 5.001** Confident .380 4 .996 Independent -.345 -.126 Skilled .043 Criterion 7.331** Amenities 6 .69 Predictor -3.72** Nuclear Family -.397 1.121** Confident -2.74 Independent -1.595 Skilled -.236 .005 .152
-.022 .178 -.137 .019
-.330 ** 2.575* -2.02 .289 6 . 0 1 8**
-.272 -.127 .002 .077
-4.23** -1.91 .036 1 .225
** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level COMPONENT 3 - CAUTIOUS SHOPPERS Table 1.7 COLLINARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES TOLERANCE VIF* I am active in all social functions (Social) .8 1 0 1 .2 3 5 I visit many shops before I finalise my sales (Cautious buyers) I check the prices even for small items (Price Conscious) *Variance Inflation Factor .8 0 0 1 .2 5 0 .9 1 1 1 .0 9 8
80
Table 1.8 Multiple Regression Analysis of Cautious Shoppers (Component 3) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion 3.485** Family 4 .99 Predictor 1.071** Social .839 -2.92 ** Cautious buyers -.703 4 .289 Price Conscious -.066 Criterion 3.030** Posture 5 .95 Predictor 2.587** Social -.165 .051 ** Cautious buyers -.169 6 .577 Price Conscious .298 Criterion 6.908** Ambience 1 .34 Predictor -2.93**** Social .350 5.302* Cautious buyers -.133 2 .042 Price Conscious .294 Criterion 2.303* Salesmen .367 Predictor 3.773**** Social .523 -3.38 ** Cautious buyers .027 6 .544 Price Conscious .135 Criterion 1 .084 Amenities -2.33 Predictor 4.81**** Social .753 -2.76 ** Cautious buyers .134 4 .879 Price Conscious .200
Variables Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours Predictor Variables Social Cautious buyers Price Conscious Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Social Cautious buyers Price Conscious Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Social Cautious buyers Price Conscious Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Social Cautious buyers Price Conscious Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables Social Cautious buyers Price Conscious
B 4 .59 .171 -.552 .435 2 .23 .230 .005 .373 4 .21 -.216 .463 .096 2 .15 .425 -.452 .470 1 .17 .628 -.427 .406
SE 1 .32 .159 .189 .102 .736 .089 .105 .057 .609 .074 .087 .047 .932 .113 .133 .072 1 .08 .131 .155 .083
Beta
SE 1 .29 .157 .186 .100 .961 .116 .138 .074 .981 .119 .140 .076 1 .05 .128 .152 .081 1 .06 .129 .152 .082
Beta
t-value 3 . 8 4 8**
.075 -.207 .285
.366 -.261 -.042
5.345**** -3.782 -.657 6 . 1 9 6**
.173 .003 .415
-.100 -.087 .268
-1.421 -1.230** 4 .036 1 .370
-.199 .362 .131
.209 -.067 .260
2 . 9 5 5** -.947 ** 3 .891 .347
.253 -.228 .414
.289 .013 .110
4 . 0 9 1** .177 1 .651 -2.190*
.329 -.190 .315
.391 .059 .154
5 . 8 5 1** .8 7 7 * 2 .441
** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level COMPONENT 4 - TRADITIONAL Table 1.9 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES A woman should not work if her husband does not like her to work outside the house (dominating) Women are dependants and need men's protection (protectionist) Looking after the house is primarily a woman's responsibility irrespective of whether she is working or not (egotistic) In the evenings, it is better to stay at home rather than going out (conservative) *Variance Inflation Factor TOLERANCE VIF* .8 5 9 1 .1 6 4 .8 2 9 1 .2 0 7 .8 9 2 1 .1 2 1 .9 0 0 1 .1 1 1
81
Table 1.10 Multiple Regression Analysis of Traditional (Component 4) and Formal Footwear Attributes
Variables Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours Predictor Variables Dominating Protectionist Egotistic Conservative Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Dominating Protectionist Egotistic Conservative Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Dominating Protectionist Egotistic Conservative Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Dominating Protectionist Egotistic Conservative Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables Dominating Protectionist Egotistic Conservative B 1 .34 .249 .114 -.060 .392 1 .43 .118 7.588**** .288 .216 .102 4 .00 -.044 .206 .251 .002 -.45 .358 .388 .050 .238 1 .48 -.028 .252 .376 .097 .054 .059 .041 .425 .046 .050 .055 .038 .394 .043 .047 .051 .036 .614 .067 .073 .079 .056 -.027 .224 .296 .105 .397 .405 .046 .301 -.060 .265 .287 .003 .323 .215 .139 5.317** Protectionist 3.669* Egotistic 2 .468 Conservative Criterion 9.422** Ambience Predictor -.951 ** Dominating 4.096** Protectionist 4 .592 Egotistic .055 Conservative Criterion -1.128 Salesmen Predictor 8.306**** Dominating 8 .318 Protectionist .984 ** Egotistic 6 .690 Conservative Criterion 2.413* Amenities Predictor -.418 ** Dominating 3.469** Protectionist 4 .752 Egotistic 1 .754 Conservative .276 .171 .018 1 .83 .217 -.025 .200 .270 2 .47 .080 .327 .127 .016 2 .68 .059 .151 .157 .068 .046 .050 .035 .618 .068 .073 .080 .056 .596 .065 .071 .077 .054 .617 .067 .073 .079 .056 .060 .143 .132 .078 .080 .305 .106 .018 .207 -.023 .160 .295 .321 .177 .025 6 . 0 0 6** 3 .434 .501 2 . 9 6 8** 3 . 2 0 6** -.346 * 2 . 5 1 8** 4 .842 4 . 1 3 6** 1 . 2 2 6** 4 .626 1 .658 .296 4 . 3 5 1** .8 8 1 * 2 .0 6 8* 1 .978 1 .214 SE .782 .085 .093 .101 .071 .457 .050 .141 .189 .081 -.038 .338 Beta FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion 1 .718 Family 1 .69 Predictor 2.917** Dominating .268 1 .236 Protectionist -.047 -.592 ** Egotistic 5 .550 Conservative Criterion 3.128** Posture Predictor 2.358*** Dominating -.049 .507 1 .34 .321 SE .563 .062 .067 .072 .051 .387 .042 .399 .253 -.042 -.038 .544 Beta t-value 3 . 0 1 0** 4 . 3 5 1** -.709 -.674 ** 9 .963 3 . 4 6 4**
** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level COMPONENT 5 - RELAXED Table 1.11 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES TOLERANCE VIF* One should have his/her own credit/debit cards (Practical) .9 5 2 1 .0 5 1 I spend a lot of time with friends talking about brands and products .9 6 5 1 .0 3 6 (Brand Analyst) I drink soft drinks several times a week (unhealthy) .8 3 9 1 .1 9 2 I do not participate in sports activities (non playful) .8 7 3 1 .1 4 6 *Variance Inflation Factor
82
Table 1.12 Multiple Regression Analysis of Relaxed (Component 5) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion 3.510** Family 2 .22 Predictor -.216 .477 Practical Brand Analyst -.184 .512 -.050 .314 -.622 -.123 .574 .327 .330 -3.25 .182 .522 .710 -.314 -3.25 .197 .757 .389 -.014 3 .37 -.470 .008 .552 .221
Variables B Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours 4.83 Predictor Variables Practical 2.112*** Brand Analyst Unhealthy Nonplayful Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Practical Brand Analyst Unhealthy Nonplayful Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Practical Brand Analyst Unhealthy Nonplayful Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Practical Brand Analyst Unhealthy Nonplayful Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables Practical -.015 .054 .008 -.302 3 .92 -.143 .005 .183 .468 7 .39 -.082
SE 1 .38
Beta
SE 1 .69 .087 .138 .193 .161 1 .32 .068 .108 .151 .126 1 .26 .065 .103 .143 .120 1 .25 .064 .102 .142 .119 1 .60 .083 .131 .183 .153
Beta
t-value 1 .313
.071 -.015 .1 1 2 .0 3 3 .1 5 7 .0 0 4 .131 -.169 1 .14 .058 -.165 .0 9 3 .0 0 3 .1 2 9 .1 0 2 .1 0 8 .3 0 5 .731 .038 -.151
-.145 .251 -.019 .139
3 .700 -.261 1 .946 -.470
.049 * Unhealthy -2.303 Nonplayful Criterion 3.451** Posture Predictor -2.443* Practical .050 Brand Analyst 1.417** Unhealthy 4 .327 Nonplayful Criterion 10.10** Ambience Predictor -2.181* Practical .057 Brand Analyst -.124** Unhealthy -2.89 Nonplayful Criterion 7.288** Salesmen Predictor -2.500** Practical -4.58*** Brand Analyst 2.588** Unhealthy -4.79 Nonplayful Criterion 4.448** Amenities Predictor -4.62** Practical 1 .288 -.179 1 .491 Brand Analyst Unhealthy Nonplayful
-.118 .344 .151 .179
-1.804** 5 .3 0 1* 2 . 1 6 6** 2 .614 -2.577*
.168 .301 .315 -.164 5 . 0 6 7** 4 . 9 4 5** -2.617 -2.601** .186 .445 .176 -.007 7 . 4 2 1** 2 .736 -.117 2 .1 0 0* -.366 .004 .207 .097 -5.691** . 0 6 5 ** 3 .021 1 .449
2.811**** .003 .0 6 0 .0 0 4 -.010 .083 -.009 -.201 .070 -.209 7 .59 -.134 3.074**** -.390 .307 -.476 5 .78 -.309 .085 -.281 .1 1 9 .1 7 0 .099 -.309 1 .30 .067 -.313 1 .04 .054 -.154
Brand Analyst .137 .1 0 6 .0 8 7 Unhealthy -.026 .148 -.013 Nonplayful .185 .1 2 4 .1 0 6 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
83
COMPONENT 6 - OPTIMISITIC Due to multi collinearity only one variable was considered for regression analysis Table 1.13 Regression Analysis of Optimistic (Component 6) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion 7.447** Family 4 .88 Predictor -1.418 Variables -.134 Globe Trippers Criterion 8.423** Posture 6 .87 Predictor -2.62** Globe Trippers -.296 Criterion 20.31** Ambience .749 Predictor -.871 Globe Trippers .570 Criterion 8.261** Salesmen 7 .29 Predictor -2.397* Globe Trippers -.246 Criterion 7.496** Amenities -1.92 Predictor -2.328* Globe Trippers .810
Variables Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours Predictor Variables Globe Trippers
B 6 .46 -.184
SE .868
Beta
SE 1 .23 .184
Beta
t-value 3 . 9 7 0**
.130 -.129
-.067
-.728
Criterion Variable Elegance 7 .93 .941 Predictor Variables Globe Trippers -.369 .141 -.234 Criterion Variable Comfort 6 .96 .343 Predictor Variables Globe Trippers -.045 .051 -.080 Criterion Variable Branded 7 .59 .918 Predictor Variables Globe Trippers -.330 .138 -.215 Criterion Variable Friends 6 .97 .929 Predictor Variables Globe Trippers -.324 .139 -.210 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
1 .31 .196 .844 .126 .708 .106 1 .14 .170 .401 -.209 .383 -.138
5 . 2 4 7** -1.511 .886 4 . 5 0 5** 10.296** -2.320* -1.684 4 . 7 5 3**
COMPONENT 7 - STRIVERS Table 1.14 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES Doing nothing makes me feel uncomfortable (Active) TOLERANCE VIF* .974 1.027 1.027
I will take some courses to brighten my future (Hard Working) .974 *Variance Inflation Factor
84
Table 1.15 Multiple Regression Analysis of Strivers (Component 7) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion -1.945 Family 5 .06 Predictor 6.949** Active -1.213 Hard Working Criterion 3.005** Posture Predictor .342 Active .514 Hard Working Criterion 5.736** Ambience Predictor 6.745** Active 1 .087 Hard Working Criterion 7.128** Salesmen Predictor -1.510* Active -5.11* Hard Working Criterion 7 .828 Amenities Predictor -4.72**** Active -4.33 Hard Working .740 -.680 11 .2 -.360 -.480 6 .74 -.040 -.220 9 .38 -.480 -.140 8 .38 1 .02 -1.64
Variables B Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours -4.58 Predictor Variables Active Hard Working Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Active Hard Working Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Active Hard Working Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Active Hard Working Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables 1 .68 -.260 5 .14 .060 .080 3 .48 .420 .060 13 .8 -.300 -.900 20 .7
SE 2 .36
Beta
SE 1 .66 .170 .151 2 .77 .284 .252 2 .22 .228 .202 2 .56 .263 .233 2 .87 .295 .261
Beta
t-value 3 . 0 5 4**
.2 4 2 .5 3 9 .214 -.094 1 .71 .1 7 6 .0 3 2 .1 5 6 .0 4 8 .607 .0 6 2 .5 3 6 .0 5 5 .0 8 6 1 .93 .199 -.128 .176 -.432 2 .64
.345 -.357
4.352**** -4.512 4 . 0 3 5**
-.117 -.175
-1.268 -1.907 3 . 0 3 0**
-.016 -.101
-.175 -1.087 3 . 6 6 6**
-.169 -.056
-1.828 -.601 2 . 9 1 7**
Active -1.28 .271 -.388 Hard Working -1.04 .240 -.355 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
.264 -.478
3.460**** -6.276
COMPONENT 8 - SYSTEMATIC Table 1.16 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES One should always keep the house neat and clean (Neatness) A fancy and distinctive living attracts me (Distinctive) One must save for the rainy day (Cautious) *Variance Inflation Factor TOLERANCE VIF* .8 2 1 1 .2 1 9 .9 4 6 1 .0 5 7 .8 2 1 1 .2 1 7
85
Table 1.17 Multiple Regression Analysis of Systematic (Component 8) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion -1.349 Family -12.4 Predictor 3.445**** Neatness -2.71 Distinctive -.886 Cautious Criterion -13.9** Posture Predictor 13.82** Neatness -1.75** Distinctive 5 .19 Cautious Criterion .729 Ambience Predictor 2.89**** 2 . 8 3** 4 .78 Neatness Distinctive Cautious Criterion -8.74** Salesmen Predictor 4.65*** Neatness -2.21 ** Distinctive 11 .65 Cautious Criterion -4.30** Amenities Predictor 5 . 3 0** Neatness -.794 Distinctive .146 Cautious 2 .48 .028 .056 -21.4 3 .79 .274 -.167 -20.7 2 .36 .525 .907 3 .39 .006 -.008 .270 -14.2 2 .38 -.179 .499
Variables B Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours -5.19 Predictor Variables Neatness Distinctive Cautious Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Neatness Distinctive Cautious Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Neatness Distinctive Cautious Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables 2 .07 -.425 -.278 -24.8 3 .85 -.127 .746 .676 .419 .109 .360 -23.3
SE 3 .85
Beta
SE 3 .59 .561 .146 .293 3 .06 .477 .125 .249 3 .0 .469 .122 .245 2 .36 .367 .096 .192 4 .31 .671 .175 .350
Beta
t-value -3.44**
.6 0 0 .2 8 9 .157 -.212 .313 -.074 1 .79 .2 7 8 .6 9 2 .073 -.08 .1 4 5 .2 5 7 .927 .1 4 4 .2 1 9 .0 3 8 .2 0 2 .0 7 5 .3 6 0 2 .67
.363 .015 .016
4 . 4 2** .193 .193 -6.99**
.567 .146 -.048
7.95*** 2 .19 -.67 -6.89**
.357 .284 .263
5.03**** 4 . 2 9** 3 .71 1 .44
Neatness 1 .93 .4 1 5 .2 5 4 Distinctive -.239 .108 -.113 Cautious 2 .52 .2 1 6 .6 3 6 Criterion Variable Friends -16.1 3 .74 Predictor Variables Neatness 3 .09 .5 8 3 .4 2 4 Distinctive -.121 .152 -.059 Cautious .044 .3 0 4 .0 1 2 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
.001 -.007 .123
.016 -.084 1 .41 -3.30**
.293 -.079 .117
3 . 5 5** -1.02 1 .43
COMPONENT 9 - DOMINANT Table 1.18 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES Giving dowry in marriage is a tradition and cannot be done away with (Conventional) Friends often come to me for advice (Opinion Leaders) I would go for a walk or do some exercise than sit idle (Stay Fit) *Variance Inflation Factor TOLERANCE VIF* .9 6 2 1 .0 3 9 .9 7 5 1 .0 2 5 .9 8 2 1 .0 1 8
86
Table 1.19 Multiple Regression Analysis of Dominant (Component 9) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion -2.549* Family 3 .86 Predictor 6.440**** Conventional -.112 8.241** Opinion leaders .186 3 .213 Stay Fit .144 Criterion 4.042** Posture 1 .59 Predictor 7.304**** Conventional 6 .264 1 .067 .227
Variables B Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours -1.88 Predictor Variables Conventional Opinion leaders Stay Fit Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Conventional Opinion leaders Stay Fit Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Conventional Opinion leaders Stay Fit Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Conventional Opinion leaders Stay Fit Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables .369 .630 .292 2 .17 .305 4.240**** .349 .071 3 .22 .213
SE .738
Beta
SE .858 .067 .089 .106 .688 .053 .071 .085 .625 .049 .065 .077 .836 .065 .087 .103 1 .02 .079 .106 .126
Beta
t-value 4 . 4 9 3**
.0 5 7 .3 6 9 .0 7 6 .4 6 9 .0 9 1 .1 8 2 .538 .0 4 2 .4 3 5 .0 5 6 .3 7 0 .0 6 6 .0 6 3 .360 .0 2 8 .4 4 4
-.114 .142 .092
-1.676* 2 .091 1 .364 2 .3 1 5*
.272 .313 .128 4 .9 1 4* 2 .015 3 . 9 5 3** .413 .208 -.027 3 .330 -.438 3 . 2 0 7** .134 .215 .046 1 . 9 6 5** 3 .180 .688 3 . 3 1 7** .096 -.113 .128 1 .396 -1.654 1 .878
Opinion leaders .350 Stay Fit .171 Criterion 8.926** Ambience 2 .47 Predictor 7.620**** Conventional .319
6.567**** .196 .0 3 7 .3 0 5 .221 .0 4 4 .2 8 7 -2.50 .243 .705 .594 -.077 .666 .0 5 2 .2 4 6 .0 6 9 .5 3 1 .0 8 2 .3 7 5 .875
5.264** Opinion leaders .215 4 .979 Stay Fit -.034 Criterion -3.76** Salesmen 2 .68 Predictor 4.702**** Conventional .128 10.22** Opinion leaders .275 7 .244 Stay Fit .071 Criterion -.088 Amenities 3 .38 Predictor -.106 ** Conventional .110 8 .839 Opinion leaders -.175 1 .537 Stay Fit .236
Conventional -.007 .068 -.006 Opinion leaders .801 .0 9 1 .5 2 0 Stay Fit .166 .1 0 8 .0 9 0 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
COMPONENT 10 - SPIRITUAL, DIET CONSCIOUS AND SOCIALISING Table 1.20 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES Spiritual values are more important that material things (Spiritual) I eat only home food and do not like to eat out (Diet Conscious) I can mingle with strangers easily (Socialising) *Variance Inflation Factor TOLERANCE VIF* .9 1 0 1 .0 9 9 .8 9 7 1 .1 1 4 .8 4 9 1 .1 7 8
87
Table 1.21 Multiple Regression Analysis of Spiritual, Diet conscious and Socialising (Component 10) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion 2.341* Family 3 .28 Predictor -1.512** Spiritual 3.911** Diet Conscious 2 .704 Socialising Criterion 3.056** Posture Predictor -.873 Spiritual -.034 ** Diet Conscious 13 .11 Socialising Criterion 10.77** Ambience Predictor -2.108* Spiritual -1.501** Diet Conscious 3 .312 Socialising Criterion 1.971* Salesmen Predictor -2.081*** Spiritual 5.613** Diet Conscious 2 .343 Socialising Criterion .518 Amenities Predictor 3.387** Spiritual -.190 Diet Conscious 1 .132 Socialising .552 -.397 .083 .196 .208 .240 .463 .551 .568 .319 -.185 -.949 .920 .291 -.240 2 .69 .307 .018 -.086
Variables B Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours 2.30 Predictor Variables Spiritual Diet Conscious Socialising Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Spiritual Diet Conscious Socialising Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Spiritual Diet Conscious Socialising Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Spiritual -.208 .448 .207 2 .24 -.090 -.003 .749 7 .52 -.206
SE .982
Beta
SE 1 .19 .166 .139 .093 .866 .121 .101 .067 .910 .127 .106 .071 .906 .127 .106 .070 1 .21 .170 .141 .094
Beta
t-value 2 . 7 5 3**
.137 -.109 .1 1 4 .2 8 3 .0 7 6 .2 0 1 .734 .103 -.047 .086 -.002 .0 5 7 .7 3 2 .698 -.158 .098 -.113
.246 -.214 .069
3.318**** -2.865 .896 .227
.110 .154 .456
1 .7 2 0* 2.383 * 6 .8 7* .605
.320 .217 -.194 3 . 0 0 8** -2.611 -1.048 .485 .185 -.235 2 . 7 5 9** -3.401 2 .2 2 3* .139 .010 -.072 1 .806 .126 -.909
4.465**** -.122 .0 8 1 .2 5 7 .180 .054 1 .98 -.293 7.267**** 1 .01 .141 -.144
Diet Conscious .658 .1 1 7 .3 9 1 Socialising .183 .0 7 8 .1 6 8 Criterion Variable Friends .589 1 .14 Predictor Variables Spiritual .538 .1 5 9 .2 5 2 Diet Conscious -.025 .132 -.014 Socialising .100 .0 8 8 .0 8 7 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
COMPONENT 11 - STAY TRIM Table 1.22 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES I skip breakfast regularly (Stay Trim) I like to watch games than any other entertainment channels (Sports Viewers) *Variance Inflation Factor TOLERANCE VIF* .9 8 5 1 .0 1 5 .9 8 5 1 .0 1 5
88
Table 1.23 Multiple Regression Analysis of Stay Trim (Component 11) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion -.184 Family -4.38 Predictor -.605 ** Stay Trim 3 .323 Sports Viewers Criterion -2.96** Posture Predictor 5.297** Stay Trim .929 Sports Viewers Criterion 2.548** Ambience Predictor -.272 ** Stay Trim 3 .855 Sports Viewers Criterion -4.058 Salesmen Predictor 4.975**** Stay Trim 3 .480 Sports Viewers Criterion -2.67** Amenities Predictor 6 . 4 8** -1.58 Stay Trim Sports Viewers 1 .68 -.351 -5.59 1 .67 -.213 -8.99 2 .28 -.318 -21.1 3 .06 .753 -11.8 1 .16 1 .18
Variables B Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours -.65 Predictor Variables Stay Trim Sports Viewers Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Stay Trim Sports Viewers Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Stay Trim Sports Viewers Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Stay Trim Sports Viewers Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables Stay Trim -.270 1 .04 -7.24 1 .65 .203 3 .49 -.047 .470 -9.03 1 .41 7.818**** .689 -5.97 1 .85 2.534****
SE 3 .52
Beta
SE 3 .28 .416 .292 3 .01 .383 .268 3 .73 .474 .332 3 .08 .392 .274 3 .61 .459 .322
Beta
t-value -1.337
.447 -.052 .3 1 3 .2 8 3 2 .45 .3 1 1 .4 2 2 .2 1 8 .0 7 4 1 .37 .174 -.023 .1 2 2 .3 2 4 2 .22 .2 8 3 .3 8 4 .1 9 8 .2 6 8 2 .24 .2 8 5 .4 9 9
.336 -.101
4 . 0 2 8** -1.205 -1.857
.361 -.066
4 . 3 6 2** -.794 -2.390*
.393 -.078
4 . 8 1 9** -.956 -6.830**
.551 .194 2 .745 -3.270** .208 .299 3 .657
Sports Viewers -.314 .199 -.12 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
1.11 RESULT AND DISCUSSION A brief discussion on the highest preferences of the consumers for formal shoes (based on the highest Beta value and significant t-value) in each of the factors extracted is given below. Component 1 comprised of stylistic consumers. Six variables (AIO statements) were loaded in this component. Out of which five variables qualified for study due to multicollinearity. Therefore the five types of consumers in this component include Budgeted spenders, stylistic, smart dressers, foreign settlers and fashionables. From Table 1.4 it can be observed that the Budgeted spenders preferred more of branded shoes for formal wear. The stylistic consumers were more store conscious. They preferred to purchase formal wear from the store that had good ambiences. The smart dressers preferred their formal shoes to coordinate with the colour of their attire. The consumers who preferred to settle abroad preferred to wear formal shoes that enhanced their postures. The fashionables preferred elegant formal shoes. Component 2 comprised of confident consumers. Four variables (AIO statements) were loaded in this component. The four types of consumers in this category include Nuclear Family oriented, Confident, Independent and Skilled. From Table 1.6 it can be observed that the consumers who preferred to live in nuclear family were bound to purchase shoes from the store that exclusively sold footwear and no other amenities. The confident consumers purchased formal shoes based on
89
brands. The independent consumers preferred to wear formal shoes with coordinated colours. The skilled consumers who perceived that they had lot of personal ability preferred elegant and comfortable shoes and they never consult their family in the purchase of formal shoes. Component 3 was named as cautious shoppers. This component comprised of three types of consumers namely social, cautious shoppers and price conscious. From Table 1.8 it can be inferred that the social consumers who are very active in all the social functions preferred to purchase formal shoes from the outlets that sold other amenities as well. The cautious shoppers who visit many shops before they finalised their sales preferred to wear formal shoes that were comfortable. The price conscious consumers preferred to wear formal shoes that were elegant and branded. Component 4 named as traditional comprised of four types of consumers namely dominating, protectionist, egotistic and conservative. From Table 1.10 it can be read that the dominating types preferred to purchase formal shoes on the basis of brand and those that enhance their postures. The protectionist also purchased formal shoes on the basis of brand. The Egotistic consumers purchased formal shoes primarily after consultation with their friends. The conservative consumers were very family oriented. Component 5 comprised of relaxed consumers. The four types of consumers in this category include Practical, Brand Analyst, Unhealthy lifestyle and Nonplayful. From Table 1.12 it can be observed that the practical consumers preferred to purchase shoes from specialized store. The brand analysts were highly influenced by the behaviour of the salesmen. The consumers who lead unhealthy lifestyle preferred to purchase formal shoes from the outlets that had better ambiences. The consumers who generally do not participate in sports activities preferred to purchase unbranded shoes. Component 6 were named as optimistic consumers. Due to multicollinearity only one variable qualified for the study. Therefore there was only one type of consumers i.e., the globe trippers who were passionate about touring around the world. From Table 1.13 it can be observed that the consumers in this category preferred to purchase formal shoes from the store that sold other amenities also. Component 7 was named as strivers. The two types of consumers in this category were active and hard working. The active consumers were colour conscious. The hard working consumers preferred to purchase formal shoes from specialized store (Refer Table 1.15). Component 8 was named as systematic. The three types of consumers in this category include, men who preferred to keep their house neat and clean, men who were attracted towards a distinctive lifestyle and men who were very cautious about saving money. The first category preferred formal shoes that were elegant. The second category preferred to purchase formal shoes from the outlets that had better ambiences. The cautious men who were very particular about saving money preferred branded footwear (Table 1.17). Component 9 was named as dominant. Under this category, there were the conventional consumers who primarily preferred formal shoes that were comfortable. The opinion leaders and the Stay fit type of consumers in this category were very brand conscious (Table 1.19). Component 10 comprised of spiritual and diet conscious consumers. There were three types of consumers in this category, the spiritual, diet conscious and socialising. The spiritual consumers took their purchase decision based on the behaviour of the salesmen. The diet conscious consumers were highly brand conscious and the socialising ones preferred formal shoes that were elegant (Table 1.21). Component 11 was named as stay trim. The two types of consumers in this component include stay trim, the men who often skipped their breakfast and the Sports Viewers, the men who preferred to watch sports than any other channels. The stay trim preferred to purchase formal shoes from the outlets, where the salesmen treated them well. The sports viewers preferred to wear footwear that was primarily comfortable.
90
CONCLUSION The footwear industry is susceptible to certain vital issues namely, market volatility due to frequent changes in fashion, diverse market, competition from innumerable manufacturers both from the organised and unorganized sector and the dissimilar buying habits of the customers. The conclusion reached through the present study is that mapping the behavioural pattern of the consumers and then associating with the footwear attributes can help the manufacturers and retailers to understand their target market better. Further similar behavioural patterns can also exist in other countries, therefore it becomes easier to tap the global markets. The Indian Footwear is a sector with tremendous opportunity but still untapped.
REFERENCES 1. Peter Knorringar, Mar 1998, "Economics of Collaboration in Producer-Trader Relations: Transaction Regimes between markets and hierarchy in the Agra Footwear cluster" Small Business Economics, 10 (2), 193 - 195, Springer 2. Carmody, Padraig, Oct 1998, "Neoclassical practice and the collapse of industry in Zimbabwe: The cases of Textiles, Clothing and Footwear", 74(4): ProQuest Research Library 319-343 3. Pringle Heather, Jul 3, 1998, "Eight Millennia of footwear fashion" Science, 281, 5373, ProQuest, 23 - 25 4. Segal Troy, Aug (2000), "Footwear Fervor", ABA Journal, 86, 82 - 84 5. Gayle E Reiber, Douglas G Smith, Carolyn M Wallace, Christy A, Vath B S, Katrina Sullivan, Shane Hayes, Onchee Yu, Don Martin, Mathew Maciejewski Sep/Oct 2002, "Footwear used by individuals with diabetes and a history of foot ulcer" Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 39(5) , ProQuest Research Library, PP 615 622 6. Vijay Viswanathan, Sivagami Madahavan, saraswathy Gnansundaram, Gauthan Rajasekar, Ambady Ramachandran, Feb 2004, "Effectiveness of different types of footwear insoles for the diabetic neuropathic foot", Diabetes Care, 27 (2), ProQuest Research Library Pg 474 - 477 7. Jose Antonio Miranda, 2009, "Competing in Fashion Goods: Firms and Industrial Districts in the development of the Spanish Shoe Industry ", 7, 1 - 34 8. Zakim, Michael, 2007, "A foot in the past: Consumers, Producers and Footwear in the long Eighteenth Century", Business History Review, 81(1), ProQuest Research Library, 194 - 196 9. S L Rao (September 30, 2000) "India's Rapidly Changing Consumer Markets", Economic and Political Weekly, 3570 - 3572 Web References 1. 2. 3. 4.http://www.leatherindia.org/products/footwear.asp,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalorehttp://www.aplfindia.com/seminars.asphttp://www.indianexpress.com/news/footwear-industry-seen-at-rs-38-500-cr/912014/
91
doc_116297652.docx
Influence of Behavioral Pattern of Men on Formal Shoes
Case Study the Influence of Behavioral Pattern of Men on Formal Shoes
ABSTRACT The present study attempts to present a model in which the footwear attributes are associated with the behavioural patterns of the consumers. The behavioural pattern of the consumers was studied through the AIO statements. The consumers were profiled into eleven clusters using factor analysis namely stylistic, confident, cautious shoppers, traditional, relaxed, optimistic, strivers, systematic, dominant, spiritual and stay trim. Regression scores were used to assign the respondents into the respective components that were extracted through factor analysis. Reliability Test and KMO Test were conducted to check the reliability and adequacy of the sample size. Further only those variables that qualified the collinearity test were alone subject to regression analysis. Through ANOVA test it was observed that significant differences existed among the consumers within the clusters. Therefore the AIO statements were considered as independent variables that were regressed against ten selected footwear attributes. The study finds that consumers' footwear preferences varied according to their behavioural patterns. This model can help the retailers and manufacturers to revisit their existing strategies of targeting the consumers based on demography or material construction. Key Words: Footwear, Behavioral pattern, Regression, Lifestyle, Consumer, Clusters
72
1.1 INTRODUCTION With low production cost, abundant supply of raw material, evolving retail system, buying patterns and huge consumption market, this sector is posed to grow to great heights. India being a country of artisans is known for its traditional craft of footwear making. Some of the traditional footwear created by village craftsmen include leather chappals in Kohlapur' embroidered Juttis in Jodhpur, Indo-Tibetan felt boots in Sikkim and vegetable fibre shoes in Ladakh. The industrial policy 1967 reserved the leather industry including footwear only for small scale sectors. It was only during the mid 1970s, 100% export oriented footwear units in large scale sector were promoted. From June 2001 onwards the Government of India de-reserved the leather sector. During the past four decades starting from the year 1981 - 1982, the export of footwear from India had increased tremendously. Though India has a negligible proportion of exports in world trade, it is the second largest producer of footwear next to China. India accounts for 14% of the global annual footwear production of 14.52 billion pairs. India manufactures around 2065million pairs of footwear every year of which 909 million pairs are made of leather, 1056 million pairs of non leather footwear and 100 million pairs of shoe uppers. Nearly 70 percent of the labour constituting around 15 lakh people are employed in the unorganised sector majority of them are rural artisans, cottage and household units, while the organised sector accounts for remaining 30 percent and employs over 5 lakh people. The Indian consumer markets are growing and changing rapidly in terms of its nature and composition. With the revolution taking place in the distribution system through entry of super markets, shopping malls, chain stores etc in the metros, small cities and towns the potential for lifestyle products have increased drastically (S L Rao, 2000). With the change in the lifestyle patterns among the people especially the youth, this product has also undergone a tremendous transition in terms of its character. Though Indians have not been the ones to spend on items like footwear, for the past two decades due to liberalization, there has been a tremendous change in the buying habits of the consumers. More than sixty international brands are sourced from India. Most of these brands are manufactured in Agra, Kanpur or Chennai footwear clusters. 1.2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE India is a country of artisans comprising of footwear clusters spread in many parts of the country. These clusters predominantly consist of small-scale manufacturers with skilled craftsmen, out dated technologies having less access to automation. In a developing country like India, there exist tremendous opportunity for combining the artisanal touch with high technology (knorringar 1998). Unlike India after Liberalization the textile and footwear industries collapsed in Zimbabwe due to improper restructuring and low labour productivity (Carmody 1998) where as countries like India, Korea and Taiwan enjoy high labour productivity. The author finds the African market to be generally uncompetitive due to shrinking markets, low labour productivity, and poor infrastructure with poor political instability due to which foreign investment is scarce when compared to the Asian countries. Heather (1998) draws attention to the existence of fashion consciousness of the people towards footwear even before 8000 years ago. The author throws light on the evolution of the bear-fur shoes that the Japanese Samurai used to wear to the platform sandals that is worn by people today are all due to the fashion desire. The article was the result of excavation of shoes dated more than 8000 years from the Missouri cave. The complex weaving and design of the excavated shoes reveal that the people were fashion
73
conscious as we are today and specialized artisans and craftsmen existed even at that time. The study by Troy (2000) stipulates the need for appropriate footwear as they are more than just shoes. According to the author shoes give identity and image and is also a symbol of status. Despite the benefits, diabetes patients refrain from purchase of therapeutic footwear as they are not attractive with limited colours and designs (Carolyn et al 2002, Gautham et al, 2004). Miranda (2009) explores the rise of Bata as a major player in the footwear sector. Post World War I, the international trade in footwear took a different turn. The large footwear exporting countries like United States and UK gradually became world's leading importers. 1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Though the Indian consumers have become discerning and brand conscious, but in this sector the proliferation of the unorganized sector seem to be higher. The unorganized sector dominates the industry posing a threat to the organised players. In the organised sector, men's footwear accounts for only half of the total market. Therefore it is clear that only 50% - 55% of the sales take place in the organized sector even in the men's sector. Though footwear is considered as lifestyle enhancement product, the manufacturers and retailers have failed to understand this. Still the traditional segmentation patterns are followed in this industry, which include materials used for construction of the footwear, usage patterns and demographics. Also there are innumerable literatures that focus on trade policies followed in the footwear market in international countries, treatment of workers in the footwear industry, therapeutic use of footwear, supply chain patterns etc but there are hardly any study that explores the consumer behaviour and their association towards the footwear preferences. Behavioral segmentation though has been used in many other products like apparels, insurance, real estate etc., but not in the footwear sector. The present study is an attempt to fill the gap. This sector is a highly promising one with less knowledge about its customers. 1.4 OBJECTIVES From the problems stated above the objectives have been derived as under: • To profile men into different clusters based on their activities, interest and opinions • To examine the differences that exists in the preferences towards the formal footwear attributes according to the consumers' behavioural patterns 1.5 STUDY AREA The study was conducted in Bangalore being the capital of Karnataka and a fast emerging metropolitan city. Further it is the third most populous city and stands fifth in the urban population. As on 2011 the total population of the city stood at 8,425,970. Geographically the city is divided into 5 regions namely East, West, North, South and Central Bangalore. Bangalore has only 41% of local population and the rest of them belong to other states and countries especially from Europe. Hence, it is vivid that Bangalore has a population with diverse profiles. Therefore the city of Bangalore has been selected for the study purposively.
74
1.6 SAMPLE RESPONDENTS The respondents for the study include men between the age group of 20 - 55 yrs and between the income classes of Rs 12000 to Rs 200000 per month. The respondents were drawn randomly from the various strata of East, West, North, South and Central Bangalore. 500 men were selected from each stratum totaling to 2500 men. Out of the total respondents only 2074 men qualified for the study as the responses furnished by the rest of them was incomplete hence were eliminated. 1.7 SURVEY INSTRUMENT Primary data was collected through distribution of questionnaires. The questionnaire comprised of three sections. Section I includes 50 statements (Mitchell, A. 1983, Anderson, W.T. and Golden, L. 1984; Hanspal et al, 1999; Hanspal et al, 2000 ) that would help in profiling the customers into behavioural clusters based on the activities they normally engage in their day to day life, interests and opinions on certain common issues. These statements were to be rated in a 7 point likert scale. Section II comprised of their demographic details and the attributes they expect their formal and casual footwear to possess. These attributes were arrived after an exploratory study. The exploratory study was conducted to a group of 20 members. The group members comprised of consumers who belonged to different age groups. They were asked to list the attributes they generally preferred their footwear to possess. Eighteen attributes were listed. Though all the eighteen attributes were included in the instrument only ten attributes were selected for analysis. These ten attributes were selected based on the ranking given by majority of the group members. These attributes were also to be rated in a 7 point likert scale. The instrument so constructed was pre-tested on thirty respondents to find out if the questions framed had sufficient clarity. Then based on their suggestions the final instrument was constructed and administered. 1.8 STATISTICAL TOOLS USED The statistical tools used for the study include Reliability Test, KMO test, Factor analysis, ANOVA, and Multiple Regression Analysis. Statiscal packages such as SPSS 16 and EXCEL were employed in the study. 1.9 SCOPE The study will be helpful for the retailers to restructure their product offerings. The report will also be useful for new retailers for designing their market strategies. It also offers a scope for further research as there is not much study done in this area. Many international brands are looking out for a place of business in India, this study will help them in understanding the consumer characteristics and the factors that influence their purchase decision. The study can be extended to global markets as similar purchase patterns may exist in multiple countries.
75
1.10 ANALYSIS: 1.10.1 CONSUMER PROFILING For profiling the respondents on the basis of their behaviour, factor analysis was employed on the 50 AIO statements (See Appendix1). Initially inorder to test the reliability of these AIO statements, Cronbach's alpha score was computed. The Cronbach's alpha on 50 AIO statements revealed a score of 0.803 showing that the statements were reliable enough for further analysis. Also Kaiser-Mayo-Olkin (KMO) Test was conducted to measure the adequacy of sample size. The test generated a score of 0.694. Thus KMO test also proved that the samples were adequate enough to conduct factor analysis. On employing factor analysis 11 factors that constitutes 52% of the variance was considered for the study. Further for authentication Scree plot was also read. Only those factors that constituted Eigen value above 1 were considered as principal component analysis was employed. Varimax rotation was used to extract the factors with factor loadings greater than +/- 0.30.
Table 1.1 Components with total and cumulative variance Initial Eigen values Components 1 23 45 67 89 10 11 Total 5.81 3.20 3.07 2.46 1.98 1.87 1.68 1.56 1.40 1.39 1.34 % of Variance 11.63 6.406 .134 .923 .963 .743 .363 .112 .802 .792 .69 Cumulative % 11.63 18.0324.1 629.0933 .0436.784 0.1443.25 46.0648.8 551.54
As Varimax rotation was utilized, those statements which had a factor loading of 0.3 and above was assigned to the respective component. Further case wise regression scores were considered to classify each individual to the respective components. The 11 components that were extracted include Stylistic, Independents, Economicals, Traditional, Socialising, Globe trotters, Strivers, Systematic and Dominant (See Table 4.5). It should be noted that the components have been named according to the variable (Statement) with higher rotated factor loadings.
76
Table 1.2 Statements with Rotated Factor Loadings and assignment to respective components Components Component 1: Stylistic I like to spend a year in a foreign country I have one or more outfits that are of very latest style I pay cash for everything I buy I enjoy stylistic dresses The most important of life is to dress smartly I am fashionable in the eyes of others Component 2: Confident I have more self confidence than most people As far as possible after marriage nuclear family is better I am more independent than most people I have a lot of personal ability Component 3: Cautious Shoppers I visit many shops before I finalise my sales I am active in all social functions I check the prices even for small items I watch advertisements for announcements of sales One should bargain before a purchase I prefer my friends to spend when I am out on a party Component 4: Traditional Women are dependents and need men's protection A women should not work if her husband does not like her to work Looking after the house is primarily a woman's responsibility In the evenings, it is better to stay at home Component 5: Relaxed I drink soft drinks several times in a week I spend a lot of time with friends talking about brands and products I participate in sports activities One should have own credit/debit cards Component 6: Optimistic Think I will have more money to spend next year I want to take a trip around the world Component 7: Strivers Doing nothing makes me feel uncomfortable I will take some courses to brighten my future Component 8: Systematic One should always keep the house neat and clean One must save for the rainy day A distinctive living attracts me Rotated Factor L oad i n gs 0.720.7 20.680 .650.58 0.58 0.770.7 40.710 .64 0.810.6 40.610 .560.40 0.37 0.730.7 20.590 .53 0.760.7 0 -0.53 0.4 3 0.830.7 7 0.770.4 5 0.660.6 30.52
77
Component 9: Dominant Friends often come to me for advice Giving dowry in marriage is a tradition and cannot be done away I would go for a walk than sit idle I can be considered a leader Component 10: Spiritual, Diet conscious and Socialising I eat only home food Spiritual values are important than material things I can mingle with strangers easily Component 11: Stay Trim (6%) I skip breakfast regularly I like to watch games than any other entertainment channels
0.660.5 40.520 .39 0.590.5 80.50 0.770.7 1
For the purpose of the study the AIO statements were considered as predictor variables and the footwear attributes were considered the criterion variables. Further only those statements that satisfied the collinearity test was selected. ANOVA test revealed the existence of significant differences among the consumers in the same component. Therefore multiple regressions were employed to study the association between the behavioural pattern of consumers and the preferences towards formal footwear attributes. COMPONENT 1 - STYLISTIC CONSUMERS Table 1.3: COLLINARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES I pay cash for everything I buy (Budgeted spenders) I enjoy stylistic dresses (Stylistic) The important part of life is to dress smartly (Smartly dressed) I like to spend a year in a foreign country (Foreign land) I am fashionable in the eyes of others (Fashionable) TOLERANCE VIF* .7 2 6 1 .3 7 7 .9 0 0 1 .1 1 2 .9 4 3 1 .0 6 0 .6 7 5 1 .4 8 2 .7 0 3 1 .4 2 2
Table 1.4 Multiple Regression Analysis for Stylistic Consumers (Component 1) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR PREFERENCES tVariables B value Criterion ** Family -1.20 2 .62 Predictor -.31 -.439 -4.1** Btudgseted spenders -.03 .142 -.43** Smart Dressers S .2 8 .288 yli tic Foreign land Fashionable -.35 .8 9 .2 2 .2 2 -.13 .3 1 4 .29 -1.62 Foreign land Fashionable
Variables Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours Predictor Variables Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers
B
SE
Beta
SE
Beta
t-value
5 .23 -1.02 -.09 .5 4
1 .99 .2 5 .2 3 .1 3
1 .62 .203 .186 .102 -.163 .052 .186
-.74 -2.17* . 7 6 ** 2 . 8 2**
7 8
.902 .131
.176 .176
.400 .056
5 .13
.
7
4
4 . 1 1** Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers
**
1 .19 .2 6 .0 1 .0 3 -.51 1 .01 6 .34 .027 -.065 -.061 .046 .115 3 .98 .465 -.226 -.067 -.483 .629 -1.54 -.382 -.051 -.353 .913 .907
.6 0 .0 8 .0 7 .0 4 .0 7 .0 7 .417 .052 .048 .026 .045 .045 .994 .124 .114 .063 .108 .108 1 .73 .217 .199 .109 .188 .189 -.13 -.02 -.20 .356 .346 .268 -.13 -.07 -.33 .423 .042 -.09 -.16 .084 .208 .1 8 .0 0 .0 4 -.42 .8 1
1 .9 8* 3 . 4 3** .0 7 . 8 4 ** -7.8 ** 15 .4 1 5 . 2** .521 -1.35* -2.31 1 .0 1* 2 .54 4 . 0 1** 3.74*** -1.98 -1.07* -4.5*** 5 .81 -.89 -1.76 -.26** -3.2 ** 4 . 8 5** 4 .80
Criterion Posture Predictor Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable Criterion Ambience Predictor Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable Criterion Variable Salesmen Predictor Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable Criterion Variable Amenities Predictor Budgeted spenders Stylistic Smart Dressers Foreign land Fashionable
-1.10 -.015 -.540 -.149 1 .28 .422 .244 .302 .747 .182 -1.09 .718 .263 .364 .618 .150 -1.09 .787 11 .3 -.991 .696 .207 -.785 -.128
1 .07 .133 .122 .067 .116 .116 1 .35 .169 .155 .085 .147 .147 1 .35 .169 .156 .085 .147 .148 1 .88 .236 .217 .119 .204 .205 -.305 .210 .111 -.289 -.046 .153 .253 .109 -.549 .385 .127 .307 .133 -.550 .352 -.007 -.228 -.112 .660 .213
-1.03 -.12 ** -4.41* -2.22 ** 11.08 * 3 .6 4* .1 8 1 . 7 9** 4 .8 1* 2 . 1 4** -7.48** 4 .88 .194 2.15*** 3 .97 1 . 7 5** -7.45** 5 .33 6 . 0 1** -4.2**** 3 .21 1.74 -3.84 -.62
Foreign land Fashionable
** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level COMPONENT 2- CONFIDENT CONSUMERS Table 1.5 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES As far as possible nuclear family is better (Nuclear Family) I have more self confidence than most people (Confident) I am more independent (Independent) I have a lot of personal ability (Skilled) *Variance Inflation Factor TOLERANCE VIF* .8 4 7 1 .1 8 1 .7 8 9 1 .2 6 7 .8 2 1 1 .2 1 8 .9 0 0 1 .1 1 1
79
Table 1.6 Multiple Regression Analysis of Confident Men (Component 2) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion .911 Family 8 .16 Predictor .155 Nuclear Family -.42 -.274 ** Confident .360 5 .019 Independent .191 -.186 Skilled -.67 Criterion 5.682** Posture 6 .99 Predictor -3.07** Nuclear Family -.21 -.180 * Confident 2.094** Independent 2 .606 Skilled Criterion 9.803** Ambience Predictor -1.160* Nuclear Family -.374 -4.14*** Confident 3.700** Independent 2 .575 Skilled Criterion -.318 Salesmen Predictor .447 -.425 -.339 4 .85 .292 -.35 -.04 9 .19
Variables Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours Predictor Variables Nuclear Family Confident Independent Skilled Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Nuclear Family Confident Independent Skilled Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Nuclear Family 2.976**** Confident Independent Skilled Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Nuclear Family Confident Independent Skilled Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables Nuclear Family Confident Independent Skilled
B .995 .014 -.033 .708 -.023 4 .57 -.208 -.016 .217 .234 5 .82 -.058 -.273 .284 .171 -.319 -.299 .559 .647 -.014 11 .5 -.493 .196 -.556 -.280
SE 1 .09 .092 .122 .141 .122 .804 .068 .090 .104 .090 .594 .050 .066 .077 .066 1 .00 .085 .112 .130 .112 1 .57 .132 .175 .203 .175
Beta
SE 1 .46 .123 .163 .188 .163 1 .41 .119 .157 .183 .158 1 .49 .126 .166 .193 .167 1 .33 .112 .148 .171 .148 1 .11 .094 .124 .144 .124
Beta
t-value 5 . 5 9**
.010 -.018 .328 -.012
-.220 .148 .066 -.257
-3.4*** 2 .22 1.01** -4.1 4 . 9 4**
-.202 -.012 .140 .166
-.117 .128 -.129 -.016
-1.75 1 .853 -1.89 -.243 6 . 1 5 7**
-.075 -.276 .242 .161
-.194 .181 -.146 -.128
2 .6 8 9* -2.206* -2.034 3 . 6 6 2**
-.213 .312 .306 -.007
-.238 .074 -.178 -.099
-3.54**** Nuclear Family -.037 5.001** Confident .380 4 .996 Independent -.345 -.126 Skilled .043 Criterion 7.331** Amenities 6 .69 Predictor -3.72** Nuclear Family -.397 1.121** Confident -2.74 Independent -1.595 Skilled -.236 .005 .152
-.022 .178 -.137 .019
-.330 ** 2.575* -2.02 .289 6 . 0 1 8**
-.272 -.127 .002 .077
-4.23** -1.91 .036 1 .225
** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level COMPONENT 3 - CAUTIOUS SHOPPERS Table 1.7 COLLINARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES TOLERANCE VIF* I am active in all social functions (Social) .8 1 0 1 .2 3 5 I visit many shops before I finalise my sales (Cautious buyers) I check the prices even for small items (Price Conscious) *Variance Inflation Factor .8 0 0 1 .2 5 0 .9 1 1 1 .0 9 8
80
Table 1.8 Multiple Regression Analysis of Cautious Shoppers (Component 3) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion 3.485** Family 4 .99 Predictor 1.071** Social .839 -2.92 ** Cautious buyers -.703 4 .289 Price Conscious -.066 Criterion 3.030** Posture 5 .95 Predictor 2.587** Social -.165 .051 ** Cautious buyers -.169 6 .577 Price Conscious .298 Criterion 6.908** Ambience 1 .34 Predictor -2.93**** Social .350 5.302* Cautious buyers -.133 2 .042 Price Conscious .294 Criterion 2.303* Salesmen .367 Predictor 3.773**** Social .523 -3.38 ** Cautious buyers .027 6 .544 Price Conscious .135 Criterion 1 .084 Amenities -2.33 Predictor 4.81**** Social .753 -2.76 ** Cautious buyers .134 4 .879 Price Conscious .200
Variables Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours Predictor Variables Social Cautious buyers Price Conscious Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Social Cautious buyers Price Conscious Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Social Cautious buyers Price Conscious Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Social Cautious buyers Price Conscious Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables Social Cautious buyers Price Conscious
B 4 .59 .171 -.552 .435 2 .23 .230 .005 .373 4 .21 -.216 .463 .096 2 .15 .425 -.452 .470 1 .17 .628 -.427 .406
SE 1 .32 .159 .189 .102 .736 .089 .105 .057 .609 .074 .087 .047 .932 .113 .133 .072 1 .08 .131 .155 .083
Beta
SE 1 .29 .157 .186 .100 .961 .116 .138 .074 .981 .119 .140 .076 1 .05 .128 .152 .081 1 .06 .129 .152 .082
Beta
t-value 3 . 8 4 8**
.075 -.207 .285
.366 -.261 -.042
5.345**** -3.782 -.657 6 . 1 9 6**
.173 .003 .415
-.100 -.087 .268
-1.421 -1.230** 4 .036 1 .370
-.199 .362 .131
.209 -.067 .260
2 . 9 5 5** -.947 ** 3 .891 .347
.253 -.228 .414
.289 .013 .110
4 . 0 9 1** .177 1 .651 -2.190*
.329 -.190 .315
.391 .059 .154
5 . 8 5 1** .8 7 7 * 2 .441
** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level COMPONENT 4 - TRADITIONAL Table 1.9 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES A woman should not work if her husband does not like her to work outside the house (dominating) Women are dependants and need men's protection (protectionist) Looking after the house is primarily a woman's responsibility irrespective of whether she is working or not (egotistic) In the evenings, it is better to stay at home rather than going out (conservative) *Variance Inflation Factor TOLERANCE VIF* .8 5 9 1 .1 6 4 .8 2 9 1 .2 0 7 .8 9 2 1 .1 2 1 .9 0 0 1 .1 1 1
81
Table 1.10 Multiple Regression Analysis of Traditional (Component 4) and Formal Footwear Attributes
Variables Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours Predictor Variables Dominating Protectionist Egotistic Conservative Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Dominating Protectionist Egotistic Conservative Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Dominating Protectionist Egotistic Conservative Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Dominating Protectionist Egotistic Conservative Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables Dominating Protectionist Egotistic Conservative B 1 .34 .249 .114 -.060 .392 1 .43 .118 7.588**** .288 .216 .102 4 .00 -.044 .206 .251 .002 -.45 .358 .388 .050 .238 1 .48 -.028 .252 .376 .097 .054 .059 .041 .425 .046 .050 .055 .038 .394 .043 .047 .051 .036 .614 .067 .073 .079 .056 -.027 .224 .296 .105 .397 .405 .046 .301 -.060 .265 .287 .003 .323 .215 .139 5.317** Protectionist 3.669* Egotistic 2 .468 Conservative Criterion 9.422** Ambience Predictor -.951 ** Dominating 4.096** Protectionist 4 .592 Egotistic .055 Conservative Criterion -1.128 Salesmen Predictor 8.306**** Dominating 8 .318 Protectionist .984 ** Egotistic 6 .690 Conservative Criterion 2.413* Amenities Predictor -.418 ** Dominating 3.469** Protectionist 4 .752 Egotistic 1 .754 Conservative .276 .171 .018 1 .83 .217 -.025 .200 .270 2 .47 .080 .327 .127 .016 2 .68 .059 .151 .157 .068 .046 .050 .035 .618 .068 .073 .080 .056 .596 .065 .071 .077 .054 .617 .067 .073 .079 .056 .060 .143 .132 .078 .080 .305 .106 .018 .207 -.023 .160 .295 .321 .177 .025 6 . 0 0 6** 3 .434 .501 2 . 9 6 8** 3 . 2 0 6** -.346 * 2 . 5 1 8** 4 .842 4 . 1 3 6** 1 . 2 2 6** 4 .626 1 .658 .296 4 . 3 5 1** .8 8 1 * 2 .0 6 8* 1 .978 1 .214 SE .782 .085 .093 .101 .071 .457 .050 .141 .189 .081 -.038 .338 Beta FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion 1 .718 Family 1 .69 Predictor 2.917** Dominating .268 1 .236 Protectionist -.047 -.592 ** Egotistic 5 .550 Conservative Criterion 3.128** Posture Predictor 2.358*** Dominating -.049 .507 1 .34 .321 SE .563 .062 .067 .072 .051 .387 .042 .399 .253 -.042 -.038 .544 Beta t-value 3 . 0 1 0** 4 . 3 5 1** -.709 -.674 ** 9 .963 3 . 4 6 4**
** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level COMPONENT 5 - RELAXED Table 1.11 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES TOLERANCE VIF* One should have his/her own credit/debit cards (Practical) .9 5 2 1 .0 5 1 I spend a lot of time with friends talking about brands and products .9 6 5 1 .0 3 6 (Brand Analyst) I drink soft drinks several times a week (unhealthy) .8 3 9 1 .1 9 2 I do not participate in sports activities (non playful) .8 7 3 1 .1 4 6 *Variance Inflation Factor
82
Table 1.12 Multiple Regression Analysis of Relaxed (Component 5) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion 3.510** Family 2 .22 Predictor -.216 .477 Practical Brand Analyst -.184 .512 -.050 .314 -.622 -.123 .574 .327 .330 -3.25 .182 .522 .710 -.314 -3.25 .197 .757 .389 -.014 3 .37 -.470 .008 .552 .221
Variables B Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours 4.83 Predictor Variables Practical 2.112*** Brand Analyst Unhealthy Nonplayful Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Practical Brand Analyst Unhealthy Nonplayful Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Practical Brand Analyst Unhealthy Nonplayful Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Practical Brand Analyst Unhealthy Nonplayful Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables Practical -.015 .054 .008 -.302 3 .92 -.143 .005 .183 .468 7 .39 -.082
SE 1 .38
Beta
SE 1 .69 .087 .138 .193 .161 1 .32 .068 .108 .151 .126 1 .26 .065 .103 .143 .120 1 .25 .064 .102 .142 .119 1 .60 .083 .131 .183 .153
Beta
t-value 1 .313
.071 -.015 .1 1 2 .0 3 3 .1 5 7 .0 0 4 .131 -.169 1 .14 .058 -.165 .0 9 3 .0 0 3 .1 2 9 .1 0 2 .1 0 8 .3 0 5 .731 .038 -.151
-.145 .251 -.019 .139
3 .700 -.261 1 .946 -.470
.049 * Unhealthy -2.303 Nonplayful Criterion 3.451** Posture Predictor -2.443* Practical .050 Brand Analyst 1.417** Unhealthy 4 .327 Nonplayful Criterion 10.10** Ambience Predictor -2.181* Practical .057 Brand Analyst -.124** Unhealthy -2.89 Nonplayful Criterion 7.288** Salesmen Predictor -2.500** Practical -4.58*** Brand Analyst 2.588** Unhealthy -4.79 Nonplayful Criterion 4.448** Amenities Predictor -4.62** Practical 1 .288 -.179 1 .491 Brand Analyst Unhealthy Nonplayful
-.118 .344 .151 .179
-1.804** 5 .3 0 1* 2 . 1 6 6** 2 .614 -2.577*
.168 .301 .315 -.164 5 . 0 6 7** 4 . 9 4 5** -2.617 -2.601** .186 .445 .176 -.007 7 . 4 2 1** 2 .736 -.117 2 .1 0 0* -.366 .004 .207 .097 -5.691** . 0 6 5 ** 3 .021 1 .449
2.811**** .003 .0 6 0 .0 0 4 -.010 .083 -.009 -.201 .070 -.209 7 .59 -.134 3.074**** -.390 .307 -.476 5 .78 -.309 .085 -.281 .1 1 9 .1 7 0 .099 -.309 1 .30 .067 -.313 1 .04 .054 -.154
Brand Analyst .137 .1 0 6 .0 8 7 Unhealthy -.026 .148 -.013 Nonplayful .185 .1 2 4 .1 0 6 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
83
COMPONENT 6 - OPTIMISITIC Due to multi collinearity only one variable was considered for regression analysis Table 1.13 Regression Analysis of Optimistic (Component 6) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion 7.447** Family 4 .88 Predictor -1.418 Variables -.134 Globe Trippers Criterion 8.423** Posture 6 .87 Predictor -2.62** Globe Trippers -.296 Criterion 20.31** Ambience .749 Predictor -.871 Globe Trippers .570 Criterion 8.261** Salesmen 7 .29 Predictor -2.397* Globe Trippers -.246 Criterion 7.496** Amenities -1.92 Predictor -2.328* Globe Trippers .810
Variables Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours Predictor Variables Globe Trippers
B 6 .46 -.184
SE .868
Beta
SE 1 .23 .184
Beta
t-value 3 . 9 7 0**
.130 -.129
-.067
-.728
Criterion Variable Elegance 7 .93 .941 Predictor Variables Globe Trippers -.369 .141 -.234 Criterion Variable Comfort 6 .96 .343 Predictor Variables Globe Trippers -.045 .051 -.080 Criterion Variable Branded 7 .59 .918 Predictor Variables Globe Trippers -.330 .138 -.215 Criterion Variable Friends 6 .97 .929 Predictor Variables Globe Trippers -.324 .139 -.210 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
1 .31 .196 .844 .126 .708 .106 1 .14 .170 .401 -.209 .383 -.138
5 . 2 4 7** -1.511 .886 4 . 5 0 5** 10.296** -2.320* -1.684 4 . 7 5 3**
COMPONENT 7 - STRIVERS Table 1.14 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES Doing nothing makes me feel uncomfortable (Active) TOLERANCE VIF* .974 1.027 1.027
I will take some courses to brighten my future (Hard Working) .974 *Variance Inflation Factor
84
Table 1.15 Multiple Regression Analysis of Strivers (Component 7) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion -1.945 Family 5 .06 Predictor 6.949** Active -1.213 Hard Working Criterion 3.005** Posture Predictor .342 Active .514 Hard Working Criterion 5.736** Ambience Predictor 6.745** Active 1 .087 Hard Working Criterion 7.128** Salesmen Predictor -1.510* Active -5.11* Hard Working Criterion 7 .828 Amenities Predictor -4.72**** Active -4.33 Hard Working .740 -.680 11 .2 -.360 -.480 6 .74 -.040 -.220 9 .38 -.480 -.140 8 .38 1 .02 -1.64
Variables B Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours -4.58 Predictor Variables Active Hard Working Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Active Hard Working Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Active Hard Working Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Active Hard Working Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables 1 .68 -.260 5 .14 .060 .080 3 .48 .420 .060 13 .8 -.300 -.900 20 .7
SE 2 .36
Beta
SE 1 .66 .170 .151 2 .77 .284 .252 2 .22 .228 .202 2 .56 .263 .233 2 .87 .295 .261
Beta
t-value 3 . 0 5 4**
.2 4 2 .5 3 9 .214 -.094 1 .71 .1 7 6 .0 3 2 .1 5 6 .0 4 8 .607 .0 6 2 .5 3 6 .0 5 5 .0 8 6 1 .93 .199 -.128 .176 -.432 2 .64
.345 -.357
4.352**** -4.512 4 . 0 3 5**
-.117 -.175
-1.268 -1.907 3 . 0 3 0**
-.016 -.101
-.175 -1.087 3 . 6 6 6**
-.169 -.056
-1.828 -.601 2 . 9 1 7**
Active -1.28 .271 -.388 Hard Working -1.04 .240 -.355 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
.264 -.478
3.460**** -6.276
COMPONENT 8 - SYSTEMATIC Table 1.16 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES One should always keep the house neat and clean (Neatness) A fancy and distinctive living attracts me (Distinctive) One must save for the rainy day (Cautious) *Variance Inflation Factor TOLERANCE VIF* .8 2 1 1 .2 1 9 .9 4 6 1 .0 5 7 .8 2 1 1 .2 1 7
85
Table 1.17 Multiple Regression Analysis of Systematic (Component 8) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion -1.349 Family -12.4 Predictor 3.445**** Neatness -2.71 Distinctive -.886 Cautious Criterion -13.9** Posture Predictor 13.82** Neatness -1.75** Distinctive 5 .19 Cautious Criterion .729 Ambience Predictor 2.89**** 2 . 8 3** 4 .78 Neatness Distinctive Cautious Criterion -8.74** Salesmen Predictor 4.65*** Neatness -2.21 ** Distinctive 11 .65 Cautious Criterion -4.30** Amenities Predictor 5 . 3 0** Neatness -.794 Distinctive .146 Cautious 2 .48 .028 .056 -21.4 3 .79 .274 -.167 -20.7 2 .36 .525 .907 3 .39 .006 -.008 .270 -14.2 2 .38 -.179 .499
Variables B Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours -5.19 Predictor Variables Neatness Distinctive Cautious Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Neatness Distinctive Cautious Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Neatness Distinctive Cautious Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables 2 .07 -.425 -.278 -24.8 3 .85 -.127 .746 .676 .419 .109 .360 -23.3
SE 3 .85
Beta
SE 3 .59 .561 .146 .293 3 .06 .477 .125 .249 3 .0 .469 .122 .245 2 .36 .367 .096 .192 4 .31 .671 .175 .350
Beta
t-value -3.44**
.6 0 0 .2 8 9 .157 -.212 .313 -.074 1 .79 .2 7 8 .6 9 2 .073 -.08 .1 4 5 .2 5 7 .927 .1 4 4 .2 1 9 .0 3 8 .2 0 2 .0 7 5 .3 6 0 2 .67
.363 .015 .016
4 . 4 2** .193 .193 -6.99**
.567 .146 -.048
7.95*** 2 .19 -.67 -6.89**
.357 .284 .263
5.03**** 4 . 2 9** 3 .71 1 .44
Neatness 1 .93 .4 1 5 .2 5 4 Distinctive -.239 .108 -.113 Cautious 2 .52 .2 1 6 .6 3 6 Criterion Variable Friends -16.1 3 .74 Predictor Variables Neatness 3 .09 .5 8 3 .4 2 4 Distinctive -.121 .152 -.059 Cautious .044 .3 0 4 .0 1 2 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
.001 -.007 .123
.016 -.084 1 .41 -3.30**
.293 -.079 .117
3 . 5 5** -1.02 1 .43
COMPONENT 9 - DOMINANT Table 1.18 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES Giving dowry in marriage is a tradition and cannot be done away with (Conventional) Friends often come to me for advice (Opinion Leaders) I would go for a walk or do some exercise than sit idle (Stay Fit) *Variance Inflation Factor TOLERANCE VIF* .9 6 2 1 .0 3 9 .9 7 5 1 .0 2 5 .9 8 2 1 .0 1 8
86
Table 1.19 Multiple Regression Analysis of Dominant (Component 9) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion -2.549* Family 3 .86 Predictor 6.440**** Conventional -.112 8.241** Opinion leaders .186 3 .213 Stay Fit .144 Criterion 4.042** Posture 1 .59 Predictor 7.304**** Conventional 6 .264 1 .067 .227
Variables B Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours -1.88 Predictor Variables Conventional Opinion leaders Stay Fit Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Conventional Opinion leaders Stay Fit Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Conventional Opinion leaders Stay Fit Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Conventional Opinion leaders Stay Fit Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables .369 .630 .292 2 .17 .305 4.240**** .349 .071 3 .22 .213
SE .738
Beta
SE .858 .067 .089 .106 .688 .053 .071 .085 .625 .049 .065 .077 .836 .065 .087 .103 1 .02 .079 .106 .126
Beta
t-value 4 . 4 9 3**
.0 5 7 .3 6 9 .0 7 6 .4 6 9 .0 9 1 .1 8 2 .538 .0 4 2 .4 3 5 .0 5 6 .3 7 0 .0 6 6 .0 6 3 .360 .0 2 8 .4 4 4
-.114 .142 .092
-1.676* 2 .091 1 .364 2 .3 1 5*
.272 .313 .128 4 .9 1 4* 2 .015 3 . 9 5 3** .413 .208 -.027 3 .330 -.438 3 . 2 0 7** .134 .215 .046 1 . 9 6 5** 3 .180 .688 3 . 3 1 7** .096 -.113 .128 1 .396 -1.654 1 .878
Opinion leaders .350 Stay Fit .171 Criterion 8.926** Ambience 2 .47 Predictor 7.620**** Conventional .319
6.567**** .196 .0 3 7 .3 0 5 .221 .0 4 4 .2 8 7 -2.50 .243 .705 .594 -.077 .666 .0 5 2 .2 4 6 .0 6 9 .5 3 1 .0 8 2 .3 7 5 .875
5.264** Opinion leaders .215 4 .979 Stay Fit -.034 Criterion -3.76** Salesmen 2 .68 Predictor 4.702**** Conventional .128 10.22** Opinion leaders .275 7 .244 Stay Fit .071 Criterion -.088 Amenities 3 .38 Predictor -.106 ** Conventional .110 8 .839 Opinion leaders -.175 1 .537 Stay Fit .236
Conventional -.007 .068 -.006 Opinion leaders .801 .0 9 1 .5 2 0 Stay Fit .166 .1 0 8 .0 9 0 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
COMPONENT 10 - SPIRITUAL, DIET CONSCIOUS AND SOCIALISING Table 1.20 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES Spiritual values are more important that material things (Spiritual) I eat only home food and do not like to eat out (Diet Conscious) I can mingle with strangers easily (Socialising) *Variance Inflation Factor TOLERANCE VIF* .9 1 0 1 .0 9 9 .8 9 7 1 .1 1 4 .8 4 9 1 .1 7 8
87
Table 1.21 Multiple Regression Analysis of Spiritual, Diet conscious and Socialising (Component 10) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion 2.341* Family 3 .28 Predictor -1.512** Spiritual 3.911** Diet Conscious 2 .704 Socialising Criterion 3.056** Posture Predictor -.873 Spiritual -.034 ** Diet Conscious 13 .11 Socialising Criterion 10.77** Ambience Predictor -2.108* Spiritual -1.501** Diet Conscious 3 .312 Socialising Criterion 1.971* Salesmen Predictor -2.081*** Spiritual 5.613** Diet Conscious 2 .343 Socialising Criterion .518 Amenities Predictor 3.387** Spiritual -.190 Diet Conscious 1 .132 Socialising .552 -.397 .083 .196 .208 .240 .463 .551 .568 .319 -.185 -.949 .920 .291 -.240 2 .69 .307 .018 -.086
Variables B Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours 2.30 Predictor Variables Spiritual Diet Conscious Socialising Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Spiritual Diet Conscious Socialising Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Spiritual Diet Conscious Socialising Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Spiritual -.208 .448 .207 2 .24 -.090 -.003 .749 7 .52 -.206
SE .982
Beta
SE 1 .19 .166 .139 .093 .866 .121 .101 .067 .910 .127 .106 .071 .906 .127 .106 .070 1 .21 .170 .141 .094
Beta
t-value 2 . 7 5 3**
.137 -.109 .1 1 4 .2 8 3 .0 7 6 .2 0 1 .734 .103 -.047 .086 -.002 .0 5 7 .7 3 2 .698 -.158 .098 -.113
.246 -.214 .069
3.318**** -2.865 .896 .227
.110 .154 .456
1 .7 2 0* 2.383 * 6 .8 7* .605
.320 .217 -.194 3 . 0 0 8** -2.611 -1.048 .485 .185 -.235 2 . 7 5 9** -3.401 2 .2 2 3* .139 .010 -.072 1 .806 .126 -.909
4.465**** -.122 .0 8 1 .2 5 7 .180 .054 1 .98 -.293 7.267**** 1 .01 .141 -.144
Diet Conscious .658 .1 1 7 .3 9 1 Socialising .183 .0 7 8 .1 6 8 Criterion Variable Friends .589 1 .14 Predictor Variables Spiritual .538 .1 5 9 .2 5 2 Diet Conscious -.025 .132 -.014 Socialising .100 .0 8 8 .0 8 7 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
COMPONENT 11 - STAY TRIM Table 1.22 COLLINEARITY STATISTICS BETWEEN THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES PREDICTOR VARIABLES I skip breakfast regularly (Stay Trim) I like to watch games than any other entertainment channels (Sports Viewers) *Variance Inflation Factor TOLERANCE VIF* .9 8 5 1 .0 1 5 .9 8 5 1 .0 1 5
88
Table 1.23 Multiple Regression Analysis of Stay Trim (Component 11) and Formal Footwear Attributes
FORMAL FOOTWEAR t-value Variables B Criterion -.184 Family -4.38 Predictor -.605 ** Stay Trim 3 .323 Sports Viewers Criterion -2.96** Posture Predictor 5.297** Stay Trim .929 Sports Viewers Criterion 2.548** Ambience Predictor -.272 ** Stay Trim 3 .855 Sports Viewers Criterion -4.058 Salesmen Predictor 4.975**** Stay Trim 3 .480 Sports Viewers Criterion -2.67** Amenities Predictor 6 . 4 8** -1.58 Stay Trim Sports Viewers 1 .68 -.351 -5.59 1 .67 -.213 -8.99 2 .28 -.318 -21.1 3 .06 .753 -11.8 1 .16 1 .18
Variables B Criterion Variable Coordinated Colours -.65 Predictor Variables Stay Trim Sports Viewers Criterion Variable Elegance Predictor Variables Stay Trim Sports Viewers Criterion Variable Comfort Predictor Variables Stay Trim Sports Viewers Criterion Variable Branded Predictor Variables Stay Trim Sports Viewers Criterion Variable Friends Predictor Variables Stay Trim -.270 1 .04 -7.24 1 .65 .203 3 .49 -.047 .470 -9.03 1 .41 7.818**** .689 -5.97 1 .85 2.534****
SE 3 .52
Beta
SE 3 .28 .416 .292 3 .01 .383 .268 3 .73 .474 .332 3 .08 .392 .274 3 .61 .459 .322
Beta
t-value -1.337
.447 -.052 .3 1 3 .2 8 3 2 .45 .3 1 1 .4 2 2 .2 1 8 .0 7 4 1 .37 .174 -.023 .1 2 2 .3 2 4 2 .22 .2 8 3 .3 8 4 .1 9 8 .2 6 8 2 .24 .2 8 5 .4 9 9
.336 -.101
4 . 0 2 8** -1.205 -1.857
.361 -.066
4 . 3 6 2** -.794 -2.390*
.393 -.078
4 . 8 1 9** -.956 -6.830**
.551 .194 2 .745 -3.270** .208 .299 3 .657
Sports Viewers -.314 .199 -.12 ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level
1.11 RESULT AND DISCUSSION A brief discussion on the highest preferences of the consumers for formal shoes (based on the highest Beta value and significant t-value) in each of the factors extracted is given below. Component 1 comprised of stylistic consumers. Six variables (AIO statements) were loaded in this component. Out of which five variables qualified for study due to multicollinearity. Therefore the five types of consumers in this component include Budgeted spenders, stylistic, smart dressers, foreign settlers and fashionables. From Table 1.4 it can be observed that the Budgeted spenders preferred more of branded shoes for formal wear. The stylistic consumers were more store conscious. They preferred to purchase formal wear from the store that had good ambiences. The smart dressers preferred their formal shoes to coordinate with the colour of their attire. The consumers who preferred to settle abroad preferred to wear formal shoes that enhanced their postures. The fashionables preferred elegant formal shoes. Component 2 comprised of confident consumers. Four variables (AIO statements) were loaded in this component. The four types of consumers in this category include Nuclear Family oriented, Confident, Independent and Skilled. From Table 1.6 it can be observed that the consumers who preferred to live in nuclear family were bound to purchase shoes from the store that exclusively sold footwear and no other amenities. The confident consumers purchased formal shoes based on
89
brands. The independent consumers preferred to wear formal shoes with coordinated colours. The skilled consumers who perceived that they had lot of personal ability preferred elegant and comfortable shoes and they never consult their family in the purchase of formal shoes. Component 3 was named as cautious shoppers. This component comprised of three types of consumers namely social, cautious shoppers and price conscious. From Table 1.8 it can be inferred that the social consumers who are very active in all the social functions preferred to purchase formal shoes from the outlets that sold other amenities as well. The cautious shoppers who visit many shops before they finalised their sales preferred to wear formal shoes that were comfortable. The price conscious consumers preferred to wear formal shoes that were elegant and branded. Component 4 named as traditional comprised of four types of consumers namely dominating, protectionist, egotistic and conservative. From Table 1.10 it can be read that the dominating types preferred to purchase formal shoes on the basis of brand and those that enhance their postures. The protectionist also purchased formal shoes on the basis of brand. The Egotistic consumers purchased formal shoes primarily after consultation with their friends. The conservative consumers were very family oriented. Component 5 comprised of relaxed consumers. The four types of consumers in this category include Practical, Brand Analyst, Unhealthy lifestyle and Nonplayful. From Table 1.12 it can be observed that the practical consumers preferred to purchase shoes from specialized store. The brand analysts were highly influenced by the behaviour of the salesmen. The consumers who lead unhealthy lifestyle preferred to purchase formal shoes from the outlets that had better ambiences. The consumers who generally do not participate in sports activities preferred to purchase unbranded shoes. Component 6 were named as optimistic consumers. Due to multicollinearity only one variable qualified for the study. Therefore there was only one type of consumers i.e., the globe trippers who were passionate about touring around the world. From Table 1.13 it can be observed that the consumers in this category preferred to purchase formal shoes from the store that sold other amenities also. Component 7 was named as strivers. The two types of consumers in this category were active and hard working. The active consumers were colour conscious. The hard working consumers preferred to purchase formal shoes from specialized store (Refer Table 1.15). Component 8 was named as systematic. The three types of consumers in this category include, men who preferred to keep their house neat and clean, men who were attracted towards a distinctive lifestyle and men who were very cautious about saving money. The first category preferred formal shoes that were elegant. The second category preferred to purchase formal shoes from the outlets that had better ambiences. The cautious men who were very particular about saving money preferred branded footwear (Table 1.17). Component 9 was named as dominant. Under this category, there were the conventional consumers who primarily preferred formal shoes that were comfortable. The opinion leaders and the Stay fit type of consumers in this category were very brand conscious (Table 1.19). Component 10 comprised of spiritual and diet conscious consumers. There were three types of consumers in this category, the spiritual, diet conscious and socialising. The spiritual consumers took their purchase decision based on the behaviour of the salesmen. The diet conscious consumers were highly brand conscious and the socialising ones preferred formal shoes that were elegant (Table 1.21). Component 11 was named as stay trim. The two types of consumers in this component include stay trim, the men who often skipped their breakfast and the Sports Viewers, the men who preferred to watch sports than any other channels. The stay trim preferred to purchase formal shoes from the outlets, where the salesmen treated them well. The sports viewers preferred to wear footwear that was primarily comfortable.
90
CONCLUSION The footwear industry is susceptible to certain vital issues namely, market volatility due to frequent changes in fashion, diverse market, competition from innumerable manufacturers both from the organised and unorganized sector and the dissimilar buying habits of the customers. The conclusion reached through the present study is that mapping the behavioural pattern of the consumers and then associating with the footwear attributes can help the manufacturers and retailers to understand their target market better. Further similar behavioural patterns can also exist in other countries, therefore it becomes easier to tap the global markets. The Indian Footwear is a sector with tremendous opportunity but still untapped.
REFERENCES 1. Peter Knorringar, Mar 1998, "Economics of Collaboration in Producer-Trader Relations: Transaction Regimes between markets and hierarchy in the Agra Footwear cluster" Small Business Economics, 10 (2), 193 - 195, Springer 2. Carmody, Padraig, Oct 1998, "Neoclassical practice and the collapse of industry in Zimbabwe: The cases of Textiles, Clothing and Footwear", 74(4): ProQuest Research Library 319-343 3. Pringle Heather, Jul 3, 1998, "Eight Millennia of footwear fashion" Science, 281, 5373, ProQuest, 23 - 25 4. Segal Troy, Aug (2000), "Footwear Fervor", ABA Journal, 86, 82 - 84 5. Gayle E Reiber, Douglas G Smith, Carolyn M Wallace, Christy A, Vath B S, Katrina Sullivan, Shane Hayes, Onchee Yu, Don Martin, Mathew Maciejewski Sep/Oct 2002, "Footwear used by individuals with diabetes and a history of foot ulcer" Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 39(5) , ProQuest Research Library, PP 615 622 6. Vijay Viswanathan, Sivagami Madahavan, saraswathy Gnansundaram, Gauthan Rajasekar, Ambady Ramachandran, Feb 2004, "Effectiveness of different types of footwear insoles for the diabetic neuropathic foot", Diabetes Care, 27 (2), ProQuest Research Library Pg 474 - 477 7. Jose Antonio Miranda, 2009, "Competing in Fashion Goods: Firms and Industrial Districts in the development of the Spanish Shoe Industry ", 7, 1 - 34 8. Zakim, Michael, 2007, "A foot in the past: Consumers, Producers and Footwear in the long Eighteenth Century", Business History Review, 81(1), ProQuest Research Library, 194 - 196 9. S L Rao (September 30, 2000) "India's Rapidly Changing Consumer Markets", Economic and Political Weekly, 3570 - 3572 Web References 1. 2. 3. 4.http://www.leatherindia.org/products/footwear.asp,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalorehttp://www.aplfindia.com/seminars.asphttp://www.indianexpress.com/news/footwear-industry-seen-at-rs-38-500-cr/912014/
91
doc_116297652.docx