Consumer Preference Analysis: Whiskey
Paired t-testsThe pool of 76 respondents slightly favored Jack Daniels over Maker’s Mark, according to the brand indix scores. Fewer respondents had positive feelings towards Knob Creek Due to the level of significance found in the Knob Creek vs. Maker’s Mark brands and the Knob Creek vs. Jack Daniel’s brands, it can be concluded that, in 85 or more samples out of every 100 taken from the same population as this one, their respective brand index scores can be projected to the population. It is impossible to tell whether or not 85 out of 100 samples drawn from the same population of this sample would result in similar mean scores when comparing Maker’s Mark and Jack Daniel’s because their paired sample relationship is not statistically significant. Between Groups t-testsThese numbers are all statistically significant and can there for be projected 85 out of 100 people from the same population as the 76 respondents. This means that more people will have a negative view of Knob Creek after they see the advertising. This could be devastating for a brand, as it means that its advertising is creating a negative brand image that could ultimately result in a lack of sales and brand equity. Chi-SquareDue to the level of significance we would, in 85 or more samples of 100 samples taken from the same population as this one, be able to project a cross tab distribution as this sample for Jack Daniel’s. The median brand index score for Jack Daniel’s is 29. From this sample, there were 5 people or 7.7% of the population whose pre and post test measurements did not change and whose brand index scores were below the median. There were also 5 people or 7.7% of the population whose pre and post test measurements did not change and whose brand index scores were above the median. Those who favored the Jack Daniel’s brand more after viewing the print ad comprised of 29 people, or 44.6% of the population, who rated the brand above the median and 10, or 15.4% of the population, who still rated below the median. Those who favored the brand less after viewing still had 4 (6.2%) who rated the brand above the median and 12 (18.5%) below. From this analysis we can conclude that those who had a lesser opinion of Jack Daniel’s prior to viewing the advertising would be more likely to change their opinion following ad exposure. This means that Jack Daniel’s advertising is having a positive effect on a greater number of people than those upon whom it is having a negative effect.Brand Comparison (pre/post ad exposure) Jack Daniel’s had the most individuals think positively of its advertising following exposure (45 individuals or 59.2% of the population) while Maker’s Mark had the fewest respondents moving down in their opinions (17 or 22.4%). Knob Creek had the fewest positive increase in opinions (22 ior 28.9%), and the most individuals whose opinion of the brand decreases after ad exposure (39 or 51.3%). Maker’s Mark had the greatest number of people with unchanging opinions (34, 44.7%). From this analysis, we can infer that for the majority of the sample, Jack Daniel’s had the strongest advertising, as brand perception increased. However, Maker’s Mark already had a strong brand awareness, as many people also maintained opinions that they had about the brand prior to ad exposure. Knob Creek clearly has the weakest advertising, as brand perception decreased significantly following ad exposure. Simple Correlation CoefficientThe correlation between Jack Daniel’s and Maker’s Mark is slightly less than moderate, as it is closer to zero than it is to one. Correlation allows us to determine the possibility of an inverse relationship between the two brands (ie. if a person preferred Jack Daniel’s would they be less likely to prefer Maker’s Mark and vice versa) or if there is some other relationship that is strong. However since the correlation we have found is not quite moderate, we cannot come to the conclusion that there is an inverse relationship, or even a strong relationship, between Jack Daniel’s and Maker’s Mark. We can only assume that, if projected onto 85 out of 100 people, the relationship found through these analyses between the two brands might exist, making any conclusions dubious. The correlation between Jack Daniel’s and Maker’s Mark if males are selected from the test group is even lower than before. It is considered to be not terribly significant, therefore projecting that there is no discernable relationship between the two brands with regard to respondents. However there still is somewhat of a relationship, as the correlation statistic is not zero.
Regression AnalysisOnly one of the Knob Creek brand attributes can be considered important, meaning that this particular attribute is the only one that can somewhat explain the variance in pre-post ad exposure change scores: (7) This whiskey’s packaging is unattractive. In 85 or more of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would expect this particular brand attribute, as well as the constant term (a), to be able to be projected and we could expect to find results of the same magnitude. None of the ten Maker’s Mark brand attributes can be considered important, and so they cannot explain the variance between pre-post ad exposure change scores relative to other brand attributes. None of these Likert questions’ responses can be projected onto the entire population. Two of the Jack Daniel’s brand attributes can be considered important, meaning that these particular attributes can somewhat explain the variance in pre-post ad exposure change scores: (1) This is a good whiskey and (10) I prefer this whiskey to other brands of whiskey. In 85 or more of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would expect these particular brand attributes to be able to be projected and we could expect to find results of the same magnitude.
Discriminant Analysis
The rest of the discriminant analysis results, based on this sample of 42 respondents, cannot be projected to the entire population. In other words, we can only project with 71.4% accuracy whether or not people exposed to the ads will be in favor of it or not, using positive pre-post ad exposure change scores.
ANOVA/MANOVAThere is little difference between the mean scores on the cost of Maker’s attribute (Likert item) between those who make less than $30,000 a year (mean score of 2.4) and those who make more (mean score of 2.6). There was also very little difference among the pre-post ad exposure change score groups, as the down-movers mean score was 2.5, the up-movers had a mean score of 2.7, and the same (no change) group had a mean score of 2.4. The total mean for the entire sample was 2.5. All groups seem to be similarly sensitive to the cost of Maker’s Mark, as their mean scores are respectively similar regardless of income level. Perhaps this means that people drink Maker’s Mark because of the whiskey itself, regardless of any other circumstances. Based on a sum of squares to test for the significance of pre-post ad exposure change score, income level, and the relationship between change score and income level, we can come to the following conclusion: We cannot project the mean scores among income level (above/below $30,000) in this sample to the entire population, as none of these numbers were found to be significant. Based on the Wilks’ Lambda to test for the significance of pre-post ad exposure change score, income level, and the relationship/interaction between change score and income level, we can determine that we cannot project the mean scores of the same magnitude among pre-post ad exposure change score groups (up/same/down) in this sample to the entire population. We can also not project the mean scores among income level in this sample to the entire population. Lastly, we cannot project the mean scores of the same magnitude among pre-post ad exposure change score / income levels in this sample to the entire population.
Factor AnalysisThere are three factors out of ten (Factors I, II, and III) for each whiskey that had Eigenvalues greater than one. For all three brands, the ‘good,’ ‘time’ and ‘taste’ factors (These are good whiskeys respectively, more time is spent making these whiskeys respectively and these whiskeys taste better than the other to which they are compared, respectively) are loaded on Factors I-III. Thus, results loaded in each respective Factor are in some way related to one another independent of all other factors. These ten items were also used in computing the attitude scores for each brand of whiskey.
For the Jack Daniel’s, 39.0% of the variance can be explained by Factor I (“Jack Daniel’s is a good whiskey”), while 61.0% is unexplained or lost variance. 14.5% of the variance can be explained by Factor II (“More time is spent making Jack Daniel’s than other whiskeys”), while 85.5% is unexplained or lost variance. 10.3% of the variance can be explained by Factor III (“Jack Daniel’s tastes better than other whiskeys”), while 89.7 % is unexplained or lost variance. The mean attitude score for Jack Daniel’s was 3.3, while the mean attitude scores for Knob Creek and Maker’s Mark were lower, at 2.9. From this, we can infer that Jack Daniel’s has the higher brand perception than the other two whiskeys. It is important to note, however, that this difference in mean attitude scores is still slight, and so the perception that Jack Daniel’s is the better brand is only of a semi-important magnitude. 1) In 85 or more out of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this one, we would expect to find the same magnitude of difference between the Knob Creek and Jack Daniel’s mean attitude scores 2) In 85 or more out of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this one, we would expect to find the same magnitude of difference between the Maker’s Mark and Jack Daniel’s mean attitude scores. 3) From the results of this analysis, we cannot predict with confidence or accuracy that we would find the same magnitude of difference between the Knob Creek and Maker’s Mark attitude scores. |
|
Consumer Preference Analysis: Whiskey |