Consumer Preference Analysis
|
Consumer Preference Analysis |
|
CONCLUSIONS
These are substantive interpretations of statistical findings:
Basic Statistics:
Paired t-test: It is clear Jack Daniel’s has the highest brand perception but we do not know which brand has lower brand perception between Southern Comfort and Wild Turkey. Therefore, in 85 or more samples out of every 100 taken from the same population as this one, the results for Jack Daniel’s versus the other two brands can be projected onto the population. However, the results for Southern Comfort versus Wild Turkey cannot be projected onto the population; the difference between the perceptions of these two brands is not big enough to be considered important.
Between Groups t-tests: The brand index score for Jack Daniel’s after ad exposure is statistically significant, therefore, in 85 or more samples out of every 100 drawn from the same population as this one, it would be expected that mean brand index scores would be about what the scores are in this sample. The ad brand index score for Jack Daniel’s after ad exposure is not significant, however; it is impossible to tell whether or not 85 or more samples out of 100 drawn from the same population as this one would result in similar ad index scores.
Chi-Squared: The chi-squared value is not significant. Therefore, it is impossible to tell whether or not 85 or more samples out of every 100 drawn from the same population as this one would result in similar results for Jack Daniel’s because the statistical significance is greater than the alpha level of 0.15. We cannot project the results on the population.
The median brand index score for Jack Daniel’s is 35. From this sample, there were 15 people or 25% of the population whose pre and post test measurements did not change and whose brand index scores were below the median. There were also 15 people or 25% 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 included 5 people, (8.3% of the population) who rated the brand above the median; 6 people (10.0%) continued to rate the brand below the median. Those who favored the brand less after viewing included 11 (18.3%) who rated the brand above the median and 8 (13.3%) who rated it below.
From this, it can be concluded that opinions of Jack Daniel’s went down more often than they went up after ad exposure, regardless of initial opinions. This means that Jack Daniel’s advertising is having a negative effect on a greater number of people than it is effecting positively.
Brand Comparison (pre/post ad exposure): Wild Turkey had the most individuals move up following exposure to its advertising (23 individuals or 38.3% of the population) and the fewest respondents moving down in their opinions (5 or 8.3%). Jack Daniel’s had the fewest increases in opinion (11 or 18.3%) and the most individuals whose opinion of the brand decreased after ad exposure (19 or 31.7%). Southern Comfort had the greatest number of people with unchanging opinions (33 or 55.0%).
From this analysis, we can infer that for the majority of the sample, Wild Turkey had the strongest advertising, as brand perception increased the most for this brand. Jack Daniel’s clearly has the weakest advertising, as brand perception decreased significantly following ad exposure.
Simple Correlation Coefficient: The correlation between Jack Daniel’s and Southern Comfort is weakly indirect (negative), as it is closer to zero than it is to negative one. Correlation allows us to determine the possibility of an inverse relationship between the two brands (that is, if a person preferred Jack Daniel’s would they be less likely to prefer Southern Comfort and vice versa) or if there is some other relationship that is strong. However since the correlation we have found is weak, we cannot come to the conclusion that there is an inverse relationship, or even a strong relationship, between Jack Daniel’s and Southern Comfort. It is also impossible to tell whether or not 85 or more samples out of every 100 drawn from the same population as this one would result in similar results. We cannot project the results on the population.
The correlation between Jack Daniel’s and Southern Comfort if males are selected from the test group is also weak. Therefore, while men’s perceptions of Jack Daniel’s do not necessarily predict their perceptions of Southern Comfort, there is a slight chance men’s positive views of Jack Daniel’s lead to positive views of Southern Comfort among men as well. This correlation is not significant; therefore, we cannot project these results onto the population.
Regression Analysis:
Only one of the Jack Daniel’s 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: “Drinking Jack Daniel’s doesn’t fit my lifestyle”. In 85 or more of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we would expect the brand attribute, “I would serve Jack Daniel’s while entertaining” to be able to be projected and we could expect to find results of the same magnitude.
Four of the Southern Comfort brand attributes can be considered important, meaning that these particular attributes can somewhat explain the variance in pre-post exposure change scores: “Southern Comfort is too expensive”, “Southern Comfort is better than other whiskeys”, “Drinking Southern Comfort doesn’t fit my lifestyle”, and “I prefer Southern Comfort to other brands of whiskey”. In 85 out of 100 samples drawn from the same population as this one, we would expect these particular brand attributes, along with the constant, to be able to be projected and we would expect to find results of the same magnitude.
Two of the Wild Turkey brand attributes can be considered important, meaning that these particular attributes can somewhat explain the variance in pre-post ad exposure change scores: “Wild Turkey is a brand I trust” and “I would serve Wild Turkey while entertaining”. 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:
When comparing the mean scores of each Likert item between “up” movers and “down” movers, there are no items with dramatically different mean scores, thus there does not seem to be much to discriminate. There are, however, three brand attributes that were found to have important discriminating variables. First, the more respondents think they prefer Southern Comfort to other brands of whiskey, the less they like the ad. Second, the more respondents think they would serve Southern Comfort while entertaining, the more they like the ad. Finally, the more respondents think drinking Southern Comfort doesn’t fit their lifestyle, the less they like the ad.
The t-ratio to test the significance of classification was significant and can, therefore, be projected onto 85 out of 100 samples similar to this one. The relationship, if projected, would be of a similar magnitude. We can project with 88.9% 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/MANOVA:
There is little difference between the mean scores regarding the likelihood of serving Southern Comfort while entertaining (Likert item) and the gender of the respondents. There was also very little difference among the pre-post ad exposure change score groups. Therefore, men and women seem similarly inclined to serve Southern Comfort while entertaining.
Based on a sum of squares to test for the significance of pre-post ad exposure change score, gender, and the relationship between change score and gender, we can come to the following conclusion: We cannot project the mean scores among gender 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, gender, and the relationship/interaction between change score and gender, 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 based on gender 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/gender in this sample to the entire population.
Factor Analysis:
There are two factors out of ten (Factors I & II) for each brand of whiskey that had Eigenvalues greater than one. For Jack Daniel’s, 59.5% of the variance can be explained by these two factors. The Varimax Rotated Matrix was used in this analysis with the “good” item (“Jack Daniel’s is a good brand of whiskey”) loading on factor I. Those items that also loaded on factor I are as follows: “Jack Daniel’s is better than other whiskeys”, “Jack Daniel’s is smoother than other brands of whiskey”, “Drinking Jack Daniel’s makes me feel refined”, “I would serve Jack Daniel’s while entertaining”, “Drinking Jack Daniel’s doesn’t fit my lifestyle”, and “I prefer Jack Daniel’s to other brands of whiskey”. These seven factors were also used in computing the attitude score of 3.5 for Jack Daniel’s.
For Southern Comfort, 62.7% of the variance can be explained by these two factors. The Factor Matrix was used in this analysis with the “good” item (“Southern Comfort is a good brand of whiskey”) loading on factor I. All other items loaded on factor I except “Southern Comfort doesn’t taste good” and “Southern Comfort is too expensive”. The eight items that loaded on factor I were also used in computing the attitude score of 2.8 for Southern Comfort.
For Wild Turkey, 64.6% of variance can be explained by two factors. The Factor Matrix was used in this analysis “Wild Turkey is a good brand of whiskey” loading on factor I. All other items loaded on factor I except for “ Wild Turkey is too expensive”. These nine items were also used in computing the attitude score of 2.9 for Wild Turkey.
Based on the mean attitude scores for the three brands, it is clear that Jack Daniel’s has higher brand perception than Southern Comfort and Wild Turkey. Additionally, Wild Turkey has a slightly higher brand perception than Southern Comfort, however, the magnitude of this difference is not big enough to be considered important. Based on the results from a paired t-test to test for significance of the mean attitude scores, the following statements can be made: In 85 or more samples out of every 100 drawn from the same population as this one, we would expect that the differences between the mean of attitude score for the pair Jack Daniel’s & Southern Comfort and the pair Jack Daniel’s & Wild Turkey would be about the same as they are in this sample. However, the difference between the mean of attitude score for the pair Southern Comfort & Wild Turkey cannot be projected onto the population.