Tata_Nano

[pic] “The people’s car from Tata motors” GROUP 2 (SECTION – A) |Roll No. |Name | |WMP 7010 |AMIT BHUTT | |WMP 7058 |SHRAVAN BHATNAGAR | |WMP 7059 |SOURABH MENDIRATTA | |WMP 7063 |VIKAS | |WMP 7064 |VIKASH | Table of Contents Group Project...........,......................................................................................................1 Table of Contents.....,......................................................................................................2 Acknowledgement.,........................................................................................................3 Executive Summary.,......................................................................................................4 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………5 Positioning of Nano……………………………………………………………………………………..6 Consumer Decision making process in buying TATA Nano.............................................6 CONSUMER SATISFACTION PROCESS…………………………………………………………….15 Improving Tata Nano Sales………………………………………………………………………….16 Research Objectives & Hypothesis…………………………………………………………..…….17 Research Methodology………………………………………………………………………………..18 Findings of the Study.....................................................................................................19 Discussion on findings of Research...............................................................................33 Appendix.......................................................................................................................35 Research framework table............................................................................35 Questionnaire................................................................................................38 SPSS Output...................................................................................................................46 BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................57 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We sincerely record our appreciation to all, who have contributed in preparing this report with suggestions and critical evaluation. We are extremely thankful to Professor Amit Mookherjee for his guidance. All who have contributed have been instrumental in the accomplishment of this Project & we are highly obliged for their contribution. Executive Summary TATA Nano is the cheapest car in the world. It is manufactured by TATA Motors Limited, the Largest automobile company in India. The car was launched as people car in the Indian market in March, 2009 with a pre-launch price offer of INR 100,000.From the first moment that Tata Nano project was published, a huge buzz has been created all over India. This car got 200 patents and it was like a disruptive technology in the car segment. Tata Nano has better millage than any other car and same gas emission as a scooter. It is safer and comfortable than a two wheeler and it should have been dream car for a family of four members, especially in rainy season.  After the initial hypes the sale of TATA Nano never took up. The poor sales performance of TATA Nano can be attributed to the branding strategy, which destroyed this great Indian marvel with around 200 patents. From the beginning itself, instead of marketing as a chick and fun car, the emphasis was given on the low cost and the car was marketed as a poor men’s car. The main problem with the mass is the stigma attached to buying a cheap poor man car as owning of car is considered as some thing of status symbol. People takes the car for their convenience as well as for satisfying their ego. People wishing to upgrade from a two wheeler will normally buy used car for the same price of Nano, or will try to spend one lakh more and get a  Maruti Alto or Hyundai Ion. The 2012 base model costs  around INR1,73,000 on road, while  the 2012 LX version costs INR 2,00,000.(approx) The attempt has been made to analyse different attribute of Nano car and its perception among the consumer. Introduction The Tata Nano is a rear-engine, 3 meters long, four-passenger city car with no frill is built by Tata Motors. The car is very fuel efficient, achieving around 26 Kilometers per liter on the highway and around 22 kilometers per liter in the city. The car has been launched with price tag of just Rs1 lakh for making it easily affordable for a middle class family. The car has achieved its low price by minimizing cost on unnecessary ‘luxuries’, the basic Nano comes without front and rear fog lights, without a heater or air conditioning, without anti-lock brakes, only one single windscreen wiper, manually operated windows, manual steering with no air bags, tiny 12” wheels, plastic body parts joined with adhesive instead of more conventional metal and welding.Tata has come up with practical ways to reduce car weight and thereby trim down the overall cost. It uses comparatively small and light engine, a 623cc two-cylinder petrol engine made of aluminum, unlike conventional engines which are made out of cast iron and usage of hollow steering wheel shafts, plastic body panels and smaller tubeless tires. As a result of these measures, Tata Nano weighs only about 590kg. It has placed maximum of its component supplier in vicinity of main plant to reduce time overrun and cost overrun..Latest technology is being used in value chain for ensuring spare part in shortest possible time. NANO has been initially targeted at consumer using two-wheeler and second-hand car whereas now it is being targeted on young mobile segment. Segmentation for NANO market is primarily done based on demographics and lifestyle. NANO has been initially targeted at consumer using two-wheeler and second-hand car whereas now it is being targeted on young mobile segment..It has been positioned in peoples’ mind as “THE PEOPLES’ CAR”, “ONE LAKH CAR that drives ONE BILLION DREAMS” and “The World’s cheapest car” without compromising on quality, safety and eco-friendliness. Positioning of Nano : Several strategy have been explored and some of alternative are as follows a.  A dual positioning strategy one for the smaller cities and the other form the urban areas could have worked. b. Focusing on some of the features like maneuverability as parking of car will be easy and driving through congested road in smaller city will be a pleasure with Nano as compared to bigger car. c. Positioning the Tata brand with trust and faith would have been better option as safety is primary consideration . d. Focusing on special segments like Women drivers or college students as the first car or buying Nano as second car in family for wife and grown up children. Consumer Decision making process in buying TATA Nano. Even though Tata Nano is the least price 4 seater car in India, it falls in the category of complex buying behaviour due to high involvement. [pic] To substantiate the above statement, in survey 70% people have respondent that buying TATA NANO is as difficult as buying other cars. Analysis of stages in complex buying behaviour. ➢ Need Recognition ➢ Information search ➢ Evolution of alternative ➢ Purchase decision ➢ Post purchase evaluation. ❖ Need Recognition. Need for Tata Nano can be driven either by internal stimuli (Desire/attitude/perception) or due to external stimuli like advertising. As per need recognition process based on Maslow’s theory safety needs comes first in consumer mind. The need for possessing a car is always there in middle class and there is need of company to tap that need. middle class is growing at phenomenon rate and income level is increasing. Tata has tried to trigger the ignition for converting that need into purchase by making car as more affordable. [pic] Fig: Classification of consumer need. Thus it is clear from the Fig , 68% people buy the car driven by safety need. 24% buy a car driven by esteem need. 8% people buy a car driven by basic need. To arouse the need for Tata Nano, Company should look to aim at 76% people who look for car for safety and basic need . ❖ Information Search While buying a product like car people seek information about the Product, Place, Price and point of purchase from different sources like. A) Personal Sources- Family, friend and neighbours. B) Commercial sources: Advertising, sales people, dealers, display. C) Public Sources: Mass media and consumer rating agencies D) Experiential sources: Demonstration, examining the product. As buying a car a high involvement decision ,people try to find out maximum information available and compare the features and different attributes.The research shows that majority of people depend on reference group for information while buying TATA NANO. [pic] Since buying Tata Nano is complex buying behaviour people seek lots of information and clarification. Company should aim on maximising information content so that consumer should get maximum information while seeking these information. The company should focus more on customer testimonials and word of mouth communication. ❖ Evaluation of alternative: After collecting the information, consumers arrive at some conclusion about the product by comparing different brands based on set parameters which he or she thinks required in the product. This process differs from consumer to consumer as different attribute has different weightage for different customer. In case of Tata Nano people have different importance level to the price, durability and safety. majority of the people are buying the car driven by safety need, People are considering Maruti Alto Hundai Ion as the alternative car..Even though the price of other cars is high compare to the NANO, people are considering compatively high price car due to other attribute . ❖ Point of difference between Tata Nano.and other car |Details |[pic] |[pic] | |1 |RO1 |To identify the major criteria/ choice factors which lead consumers in buying Tata Nano| |2 |RO2 |To find out the reasons why the prospects are not buying Tata Nano | 1 Hypothesis of the Research Project 1 Research Objective 1 To identify the major criteria/ choice factors which lead consumers in buying Tata Nano Hypothesis 1 Tata brand loyal customers prefer buying Nano as an additional car. Hypothesis 2 Brand conscious people prefer buying Nano because of Tata brand Hypothesis 3 People prefer buying Nano because of their perception about good Tata Engine 2 Research Objective 2 To find out the reasons why the prospects are not buying Tata Nano Hypothesis 1 People do not prefer buying small car Nano because Tata is not known for producing small cars Hypothesis 2 People do not prefer buying Nano due of lack of service network of Tata Hypothesis 3 Lack of performance feedback & awareness about model is resulting in low sales of Tata Nano Hypothesis 4 Nano is perceived to be low in comfort due to low level of driver seat Hypothesis 5 Nano is perceived to have less luggage space than other competitors. Hypothesis 6 People do not buy Nano because they do not perceive it as a value for money car Hypothesis 7 People do not prefer buying Nano because of pick up problem 3 Research Methodology A survey research methodology was employed for this study and a questionnaire was developed asking about Tata Nano. Because the purpose of the study was to identify perceptions about Tata Nano, it was determined that the survey would be administered in a face-to-face interview format majorly and Self-administered questionnaire using the Internet. Findings of the Study 1 Research Objective 1 To identify the major criteria/ choice factors which lead consumers in buying Tata Nano 1 Hypothesis 1 Tata brand loyal customers prefer buying Nano as an additional car. Ho: µLoyal ≠ µNon-Loyal H1: µLoyal = µNon-Loyal Data Analysis Tool used- 2 Sample t-test Brand Loyalty: Metric Data (Interval Scale 1-5) Methodology Brand loyalty is calculated on the basis of below parameters: 1. First car 2. Previous car as Tata 3. Satisfaction from previous Tata car 2- Sample t test is used in this case where the ‘Test variable’ is Brand_pref and ‘Grouping variable’ is Brand Loyalty Results SPSS output is showing the below results- |Group Statistics | | |Loyalty | | |F |Sig. |t | | | |Model | Above table is showing that the regression equation is- (Nanopref_brand) Y = 2.113 + 0.423 X (Brand_imp) The significance level is .001 which is less than 0.05. Hence, it is a significant and Null Hypothesis is rejected. |Model Summary | |Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the | | | | | |Estimate | |1 |.423a |.179 |.165 |.864 | |a. Predictors: (Constant), Brand_Imp | Above table represents that correlation coefficient(R) is 0.423, which shows a positive correlation and R-Square (R2) is 0.179 which depicts that 17.9 % of variance in purchase preference for Nano on account of brand (Nanopref_brand) is explained by importance of brand name in purchase decision of a small car (Brand_Imp). Conclusion Null hypothesis is rejected that is, there is enough significant evidence that there is relationship between Purchase preference and Brand Value. 2 Hypothesis 3 People prefer buying Nano because of their perception about good Tata Engine Ho: β1 = 0 i.e. There is no relationship between X and Y H1: β1 ≠ 0 Data Analysis Tool - Regression Purchase Preference (Y) & Engine Performance (X): Metric Data (Interval Scale 1-5) Methodology Regression is used in this case with Purchase preference as dependent variable and Engine Performance as independent variable Results SPSS output is showing the below results- |Coefficientsa | |Model | Above table is showing that the regression result is (Nanopref_perf) = 2.185 + 0.465 (Eng_imp) And significance level is 0.002 which is less than 0.05, Hence it is a significant and Null Hypothesis is rejected. |Model Summary | |Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the | | | | | |Estimate | |1 |.382a |.146 |.132 |.684 | |a. Predictors: (Constant), Eng_Imp | Above table represents that correlation coefficient(R) is .382, which shows a positive correlation and R-Square (R2) is 0.146 which depicts 14.6 % of variance in Nanopref_perf is explained by Eng_Imp. Conclusion Null hypothesis is rejected that is, there is enough significant evidence that there is relationship between Purchase preference and Engine Performance. 2 Research Objective 2 To figure out the demographic & psychographic profiles of customers who are loyal to Tata Nano 1 Hypothesis 1 People do not prefer buying small car Nano because Tata is not known for producing small cars Ho: β1 = 0 i.e. There is no relationship between X and Y H1: β1 ≠ 0 Data Analysis Tool- Regression Purchase Preference (Y) & producer known for small cars (X): Metric Data, (Interval Scale 1-5) Methodology Regression is used in this case with Purchase preference as dependent variable and Small Car Producer as independent variable Results SPSS output is showing the below results- |Coefficientsa | |Model |Unstandardized Coefficients |Standardized |t |Sig. | | | |Coefficients | | | | | Above table is showing that the regression result is Nanopref_smcarp = 2.421 + 0.292 (Smlc_Prod_imp) And significance level is .022 which is less than 005, Hence it is a significant and Null Hypothesis is rejected. |Model Summary | |Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the | | | | | |Estimate | |1 |.285a |.081 |.067 |.859 | |a. Predictors: (Constant), Smlc_Prod_Imp | Above table represents that correlation coefficient(R) is 0.285 which shows a positive correlation and R-Square (R2) is 0.081 which depicts 8.1% of variance in Nanopref_smcarp is explained by Smlc_Prod_Imp. Conclusion Null hypothesis is rejected that is, there is enough significant evidence that there is relationship between Purchase preference and Small car producer. 2 Hypothesis 2 People do not prefer buying Nano due of lack of service network of Tata Ho: β1 = 0 i.e. There is no relationship between X and Y H1: β1 ≠ 0 Data Analysis Tool - Regression Purchase Preference (Y) & Service Network (X): Metric Data, (Interval Scale 1-5) Methodology Regression is used in this case with Purchase preference as dependent variable and Service Network as independent variable Results SPSS output is showing the below results- |Coefficientsa | |Model |Unstandardized Coefficients |Standardized |t |Sig. | | | |Coefficients | | | | | Above table is showing that the regression result is - (Nanopref_serv) Y = 1.758 + 0.434 X (Serv_ntwk_Imp) And significance level is 0.039 which is less than 0.05. Hence, it is significant and Null Hypothesis is rejected. |Model Summary | |Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the | | | | | |Estimate | |1 |.259a |.067 |.052 |1.048 | |a. Predictors: (Constant), Servntwk_Imp | Above table represents that correlation coefficient(R) is 0.259 which shows a positive correlation and R-Square (R2) is 0.067 which depicts 6.7 % of variation in Nanopref_serv is explained by Serv_ntwk_Imp. Conclusion Null hypothesis is rejected that means, there is enough significant evidence that there is relationship between Purchase preference and Service Network. 3 Hypothesis 3 Lack of performance feedback & awareness about model is resulting in low sales of Tata Nano Ho: β1 = 0 i.e. There is no relationship between X and Y H1: β1 ≠ 0 Data Analysis Tool- Regression Purchase Preference (Y) & Performance feedback & awareness (X): Metric Data, (Interval Scale 1-5) Methodology Regression is used in this case with Purchase preference as dependent variable and Performance feedback & awareness as independent variable. Results SPSS output is showing the below results- |Coefficientsa | |Model |Unstandardized Coefficients |Standardized |t |Sig. | | | |Coefficients | | | | | Above table is showing that the regression result is- (Nanopref_fdcbk) Y = 2.831 + 0.178 X (Aware_Imp) And significance level is 0.221 which is greater than 0.05. Hence, it is not significant and Null Hypothesis cannot be rejected. |Model Summary | |Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the | | | | | |Estimate | |1 |.155a |.024 |.008 |.966 | |a. Predictors: (Constant), Aware_Imp | Above table represents that correlation coefficient(R) is 0.155 which shows a positive correlation and R-Square (R2) is 0.024 which depicts 2.4 % of variation in Nanopref_fdcbk is explained by Aware_Imp. Conclusion Null hypothesis is not rejected that is, there is not enough significant evidence that there is relationship between Purchase preference and Performance feedback & awareness. 4 Hypothesis 4 Nano is perceived to be low in comfort due to low level of driver seat. Ho: β1 = 0 i.e. There is no relationship between X and Y H1: β1 ≠ 0 Data Analysis Tool- Regression Purchase Preference (Y) & Comfort (X): Metric Data, (Interval Scale 1-5) Methodology Regression is used in this case with Purchase preference as dependent variable and Comfort independent variable Results SPSS output is showing the below results- |Coefficientsa | |Model |Unstandardized Coefficients |Standardized |t |Sig. | | | |Coefficients | | | | | Above table is showing that the regression result is - (Nanopref_comfort) Y = 2.335 + 0.350 X (Comfort_Imp) And significance level is .081 which is greater than 0.05. Hence, it is not significant and Null Hypothesis cannot be rejected. |Model Summary | |Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the | | | | | |Estimate | |1 |.220a |.048 |.033 |.983 | |a. Predictors: (Constant), Comfort_Imp | Above table represents that correlation coefficient(R) is 0.220 which shows a positive correlation and R-Square (R2) is 0.048 which depicts 4.8 % of variation in Nanopref_comfort is explained by Comfort_Imp. Conclusion Null hypothesis is not rejected that is, there is not enough significant evidence that there is relationship between Purchase preference and Comfort. 5 Hypothesis 5 Nano is perceived to have less luggage space than other competitors. Ho: β1 = 0 i.e. There is no relationship between X and Y H1: β1 ≠ 0 Data Analysis Tool- Regression Purchase Preference (Y) & Luggage space (X): Metric Data, (Interval Scale 1-5) Methodology Regression is used in this case with Purchase preference as dependent variable and Luggage Space independent variable Results SPSS output is showing the below results- |Coefficientsa | |Model |Unstandardized Coefficients |Standardized |t |Sig. | | | |Coefficients | | | | | Above table is showing that the regression result is- (Nanopref_luggage) Y = 4.821 - 0.459 X (Space_Imp) (Negative association) And significance level is 0.000 which is less than 0.05. Hence, it is significant and Null Hypothesis can be rejected. |Model Summary | |Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the | | | | | |Estimate | |1 |.446a |.199 |.186 |.991 | |a. Predictors: (Constant), Space_Imp | Above table represents that correlation coefficient(R) is 0.446 which shows a positive correlation and R-Square (R2) is 0.199 which depicts 19.9 % of variation in Nanopref_luggage is explained by Space_Imp. Conclusion Null hypothesis is rejected that means, there is enough significant evidence that there is relationship between Purchase preference and Luggage Space. 6 Hypothesis 6 People do not buy Nano because they do not perceive it as a value for money car Ho: β1 = 0 i.e. There is no relationship between X and Y H1: β1 ≠ 0 Data Analysis Tool- Regression Purchase Preference (Y) & Value for money (X): Metric Data, (Interval Scale 1-5) Methodology Regression is used in this case with Purchase preference as dependent variable and Value for money as independent variable. Results SPSS output is showing the below results- |Coefficientsa | |Model |Unstandardized Coefficients |Standardized |t |Sig. | | | |Coefficients | | | | | Above table is showing that the regression result is (Nanopref_vfm) Y = 2.740 + 0.164 X (VFM_Imp)) And significance level is .348 which is greater than 0.05, Hence it is not significant and Null Hypothesis can not be rejected. |Model Summary | |Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the | | | | | |Estimate | |1 |.119a |.014 |-.002 |1.039 | |a. Predictors: (Constant), VFM_Imp | Above table represents that correlation coefficient(R) is 0.119 which shows a positive correlation and R-Square (R2) is 0.014 which depicts 1.4% of variation in Nanopref_vfm is explained by VFM_Imp. Conclusion Null hypothesis is not rejected that is, there is not enough significant evidence that there is relationship between Purchase preference and Value for money. 7 Hypothesis 7 People do not prefer buying Nano because of pick up problem Ho: β1 = 0 i.e. There is no relationship between X and Y H1: β1 ≠ 0 Data Analysis Tool- Regression Purchase Preference (Y) & Pickup (X): Metric Data, (Interval Scale 1-5) Methodology Regression is used in this case with Purchase preference as dependent variable and Pickup as independent variable. Results SPSS output is showing the below results- |Coefficientsa | |Model |Unstandardized Coefficients |Standardized |t |Sig. | | | |Coefficients | | | | | Above table is showing that the regression result is (Nanopref_pickup) Y = 3.718 + 0.015 X (Pickup_Imp)) And significance level is 0.895 which is greater than 0.05. Hence, it is not significant and Null Hypothesis can not be rejected. |Model Summary | |Model |R |R Square |Adjusted R Square |Std. Error of the | | | | | |Estimate | |1 |.017a |.000 |-.016 |.851 | |a. Predictors: (Constant), Pickup_Imp | Above table represents that correlation coefficient(R) is 0.017 which shows a positive correlation and R-Square (R2) is 0.000 which depicts 0 % of variation in Nanopref_pickup is explained by Pickup_Imp. Conclusion Null hypothesis is not rejected that is, there is not enough significant evidence that there is relationship between Purchase preference and Pickup. Discussion on findings of Research 1 RO1 - To identify the major criteria/ choice factors which lead consumers in buying Tata Nano |Hypothesis |Data Analysis Result |Recommendation To Management | |1. Tata brand loyal customers prefer buying|No significant evidence that preference is |No management action required for this hypothesis. | |Nano as an additional car. |associated with Brand Loyalty. | | |2. Brand conscious people prefer buying |No significant evidence that there is |No management action required for this hypothesis. | |Nano because of Tata brand |relationship between Purchase Preference | | | |and Brand Value, | | |3. People prefer buying Nano because of |Significant evidence that there is |Management should capitalize on the perception of customer | |their perception about good Tata Engine |relationship between Purchase Preference |regarding good Tata Engine by showing it in the advertisements.| | |and Engine | | | |Performance. | | 2 RO2- To find out the reasons why the prospects are not buying Tata Nano |Hypothesis |Data Analysis Result |Recommendation To Management | |1. People do not prefer buying small car Nano |Significant evidence that there is |Management should try to reduce/remove the perception of customers | |because Tata is not known for producing small cars|relationship between Purchase Preference and |that non-small car producer can also produce good small cars through | | |Small Car Producer, |advertisements. | |2. People do not prefer buying Nano due of lack of|Significant evidence that there is |Management should try to improve on the number of service stations in| |service network of Tata |relationship between Purchase Preference and |the city and promote it through advertisements. | | |Service | | | |Network., | | |3. Lack of performance feedback & awareness about |No significant evidence that there is |No management action required for this | |model is resulting in low sales of Tata Nano |relationship between Purchase Preference and |Hypothesis. | | |Feedback & Awareness. | | |4. Nano is perceived to be low in comfort due to |No significant evidence that there is |No management action required for this | |low level of driver seat |relationship between Purchase Preference and |Hypothesis. | | |Comfort. | | |5. Nano is perceived to have less luggage space |Significant evidence that there is |Management should try to improve the | |than other competitors. |relationship between Purchase Preference and |Luggage space (constrained to design) and promote it as a car with | | |Luggage Space. |more luggage space than competitors. | |6. People do not buy Nano because they do not |No significant evidence that there is |No management action required for this hypothesis. | |perceive it as a value for money car |relationship between Purchase Preference and | | | |Value For Money. | | |7. People do not prefer buying Nano because of |No significant evidence that there is |No management action required for this hypothesis. | |pick up problem |relationship between Purchase Preference and | | | |Pickup. | | Appendix 1 Research framework table |RESEARCH FRAMEWORK | | | | | | | | |MDP | TATA NANO is trailing its sales target from the time of its launch 3 years ago. | | |What should be done to increase TATA NANO Sales in Delhi & NCR region' | | | | | | | | |S.No. |MRP |Hypothesis |Variable No. |Data Analysis Plan |Ques. No. | | | | | | | | |1 |What criterion do consumers use for|1. TATA brand loyal customers prefer|V7, V8, V9, V10 |2 Sample t-test |6,7,8,9 | | |buying TATA NANO' |buying Nano as an additional car. | |Brand Loyalty: Metric Data | | | | | | |(Interval Scale 1-5) | | | | |2. Brand conscious people prefer |V13 & V26 |Correlation |12, 13 | | | |buying Nano because of TATA brand | |Purchase Preference (Y) & Brand | | | | | | |Value (X): Metric Data | | | | | | |(Interval Scale 1-5) | | | | |3. People prefer buying Nano because |V15 & V36 |Correlation |12, 15 | | | |of their perception about good TATA | |Purchase Preference (Y) & Engine| | | | |Engine | |Performance (X) : Metric Data | | | | | | |(Interval Scale 1-5) | | |S.No. |MRP |Hypothesis |Variable No. |Data Analysis Plan |Ques. No. | | | | | | | | |2 |Why prospects do not buy |1. People do not prefer buying small |V17 & V46 |Correlation Purchase Preference (Y) & |12, 17 | | |TATA NANO' |car Nano because TATA is not known | |producer known for small cars (X): | | | | |for producing small cars | |Metric Data(Interval Scale 1-5) | | | | |2. People do not prefer buying Nano |V18 & V51 |Correlation |12, 18 | | | |due of lack of service network of | |Purchase Preference (Y) & Service Network| | | | |TATA | |(X): Metric Data | | | | | | |(Interval Scale 1-5) | | | | |3. Lack of performance feedback & |V20 & V61 |Correlation |12, 20 | | | |awareness about model is resulting in | |Purchase Preference (Y) & Performance | | | | |low sales of TATA NANO | |feedback & awareness (X): Metric Data | | | | | | |(Interval Scale 1-5) | | | | |4. Nano is perceived to be low in |V21 & V66 |Correlation |12, 21 | | | |comfort due to low level of driver | |Purchase Preference (Y) & Comfort (X): | | | | |seat | |Metric Data | | | | | | |(Interval Scale 1-5) | | | | |5. Nano is perceived to have less |V22 & V71 |Correlation |12, 22 | | | |luggage space than other competitors. | |Purchase Preference (Y) & Luggage space | | | | | | |(X): Metric Data | | | | | | |(Interval Scale 1-5) | | | | |6. People do not buy Nano because they|V23 & V76 |Correlation |12, 23 | | | |do not perceive it as a value for | |Purchase Preference (Y) & Value for money| | | | |money car | |(X): Metric Data | | | | | | |(Interval Scale 1-5) | | | | |7. People do not prefer buying Nano |V24 & V81 |Correlation |12, 24 | | | |because of pick up problem | |Purchase Preference (Y) & pickup (X): | | | | | | |Metric Data | | | | | | |(Interval Scale 1-5) | | |S.No. |MRP |Hypothesis |Variable No. |Data Analysis Plan |Ques. No. | | | | | | | | |  |  |To capture positioning of different cars of hatch back segment with |V25 to V89 |Perceptual Map |13 to 25 | | | |respect to different attributes using Perceptual Map | | | | [pic] 2 Questionnaire [pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] 3 Positioning Map [pic] 6 SPSS Output MRP-1 What criterion do consumers use for buying Tata Nano' Hypothesis -1 Tata brand loyal customers prefer buying Nano as an additional car. 2 Sample t test Output [pic] [pic] Hypothesis -2 Brand conscious people prefer buying Nano because of Tata brand Regression Output [pic] [pic] Hypothesis -3 People prefer buying Nano because of their perception about good Tata Engine Regression Output [pic][pic] MRP-3 Why prospects do not buy Tata Nano' Hypothesis -1 - People do not prefer buying small car Nano because Tata is not known for producing small cars Regression Output [pic][pic]Hypothesis -2 Hypothesis -2 - People do not prefer buying Nano due of lack of service network of Tata Regression Output [pic] [pic] Hypothesis -3 Lack of performance feedback & awareness about model is resulting in low sales of Tata Nano Regression Output [pic] [pic] Hypothesis -4 Nano is perceived to be low in comfort due to low level of driver seat Regression Output [pic] Hypothesis -5 Nano is perceived to have less luggage space than other competitors. Regression Output [pic] Hypothesis -6 People do not buy Nano because they do not perceive it as a value for money car Regression Output [pic] Hypothesis -7 People do not prefer buying Nano because of pick up problem Regression Output [pic] BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Marketing Management by Philip Kotler, Pearson Education 2003 2. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm'abstract_id=1710499- Accessed on 13.12.2012 at 23:42 3. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/74113401/Tata-Nano-EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY-Tata-Nano-is - accessed on 14.12.2012 at 22:45 4. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/case_studies.htm'articleid=17004980 at 23:16[pic][pic][pic] ----------------------- CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR - TATA NANO HIGH INVOLVEMENT LOW INVOLVEMENT FEW DIFFERENCES SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE FIG: Buying behaviour Fig: Preference of channel of information 8o% Satisfied 20% Dissatisfied 8o% Average Safe 20% Equally safe Safe Fig .consumer preference of Tata Nano Fig: Advertisement preference by consumers.