See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327335540

Factors Influencing the Purchase Intention of Potential Consumers Towards

Products of Chicken All Ways

Research Proposal · August 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 2,623

1 author:

Brandy Bueno
De La Salle University
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Integrated Marketing Campaign for Robbies Deli in a Hurry in Clark Pampanga View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brandy Bueno on 31 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 De La Salle University - Manila

Ramon V. Del Rosario - Graduate School of Business

Methods of Research

Factors Influencing the Purchase Intention of Potential Consumers Towards

Products of Chicken All Ways

Brandy M. Bueno

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for COB505

Dr. Emilia Sarreal

14 April 2018
 Chapter I

The Problem and its Setting

Introduction

Start-up companies usually bring new ideas to the market. However they struggle
to develop, grow, and stay because of competition and the existence of today’s
discerning market (Calopa, Horvat, & Lalic, 2014). Start-up companies face multiple
challenges in the development phase of their venture (Kesim and Salamzadeh, 2015).
One way to ensure that a venture turns out successful is through assessing the product
in the consumers’ perspective. A product is only profitable if a consumer decides to buy
it. Therefore, consumers’ purchase intention of the product should be understood.

Chicken All Ways (CAW) is a take-out store which offers new roasted or fried
chicken with different flavors such as Signature Fried Chicken, Pinaupong Manok,
Singapore Style Black Pepper Chicken, Portuguese Piri-Piri Chicken, Pollo Barbacoa,
and a featured flavor for the month. CAW was launched in December 2017 by the RDF
Feed, Livestock and Foods, Inc. Dr. Robert Lo, President of RDF inspired by the
countries he visited came up with the idea of offering different flavors of chicken aside
from the traditional flavors. As a start-up venture, CAW is also faced with challenges
particularly on the acquisition and retention of customers.

Table1. SWOT Analysis of Chicken All Ways

SWOT Analysis

Strength

 Integrated from Farm to Stores – Company Owned, Company Operated

 Product Innovation by Research and Development Team
 Good Customer Service (provide customer loyalty program)
Weaknesses

 High-cost and High-priced compared to competitors

 Short shelf life of roasted chicken

Opportunities

 Increase of household expenditure

 Suppliers of raw products are available
 Central Luzon’s 9.5% GDP Growth
 Population of Region III increased by 1.95% annually
 Each Filipino consumes an average of 11.6kg of chicken per year

Threats

 Presence of many substitute products

 Customer Acceptability to new flavors
 Presence of direct competitors

Coming from the SWOT analysis, there are many opportunities for CAW,
however as a start-up company, consumers’ willingness to purchase its product is an
important foundation for its development. This study measured consumers’ purchase
intention through the brand name, product quality, price, packaging, and advertising and
consequently will enable CAW to come up with marketing strategy suited to the
consumers’ intention to purchase. The researchers also wanted to test the relationship
among these factors and its effect to consumers’ purchase intention.

Objectives of the Study

To identify the factors influencing the consumers’ purchase intention in terms of

brand name, product quality, price, packaging and advertising, and consequently come
up with marketing strategy suited to the identified intention.
Statement of the Problem

The consumer purchase intention could be affected by several factors the

researchers aim to answer from the key weakness which is customer acceptability to
new flavors and threats which are presence of many substitute products and presence
of direct competitors from the following questions:

1. What is the level of consumer acceptability to the current and upcoming products
of CAW?
2. Which among brand name, product quality, price, packaging and advertising has
significant impact on consumers’ purchase intention for CAW’s current product
offering?
3. What marketing strategies should CAW implement to increase consumer
purchase intention for both current and upcoming product offerings in terms of
their:
i. Brand name
ii. Product quality
iii. Price
iv. Packaging
v. Advertising

Hypotheses

This study aimed to verify the following hypotheses:

Ho1: Brand name has no significant impact on consumers’ purchase intention.

Ha1: Brand name has a significant impact on consumers’ purchase intention.

Ho2: Product quality has no significant impact on consumers’ purchase

intention.
 Ha2: Product quality has a significant impact on consumers’ purchase
intention.

Ho3: Product packaging has no significant impact on consumers’ purchase

intention

Ha3: Product packaging has a significant impact on consumers’ purchase

intention.

Ho4: Product price has no significant impact on customers' purchase intention.

Ha4: Product price has a significant impact on customers' purchase intention.

Ho5: Product advertising has no significant impact on the purchase intention of

customers

Ha5: Product advertising has a significant impact on the purchase intention of

customers

Ho6: Combination of brand name, product quality, price, packaging and

advertising and each of the five factors alone have no significant difference on
their effect on the costumers’ purchase intention

Ha6: Combination of brand name, product quality, price, packaging and

advertising and each of the five factors alone have a significant difference on
their effects on the costumer’s purchase intention

Significance of the Study

This study explored the factors influencing the consumers’ purchase intention.
The results of this study will be beneficial to the following:
 1. RDFFLFI/Chicken All ways. This may help the company to identify the
marketing strategy to be implemented to increase consumer purchase
intention for both current and upcoming product offerings
2. Fast Food Owners. This study may provide them insights on the
consumers’ purchase intention and on the marketing strategies that they
may utilize to improve their own business.
3. Start-up Entrepreneurs. The results of this study may serve as a guide to
start-up entrepreneurs as to how they may face the challenges on
customers’ purchase intention that their business may encounter.

Scope and Limitations

This study aims to identify the factors influencing the purchase intention of
potential consumers towards products of Chicken All Ways (CAW). It has included forty
three (43) individuals residing in the different barangays of Angeles City in year 2018.

Consumer’s purchase intention was described in terms of brand name, product

quality, price, packaging and advertising. The study was delimited to variables
mentioned and resource availability as part of the study. It did not include consumer
behavior, culture and other variables that may influence consumer’s purchase intention.

Operational Definition of Terms

For better understanding of this study, the following terms are defined.

a. Advertising is the promotion strategy which aims to make potential customers

aware of the product.
b. Brand Name is the emotional and experiential benefits provided to the
consumers by the “brand”.
c. Packaging refers to the physical appearance of the product
d. Price is money provided by customers in exchange to products or services.
e. Product Quality refers to the smell, texture, taste and flavor of the product.
f. Purchase Intention is a consumer’s likelihood to buy a product or service in
terms of brand name, product quality, price, packaging, and advertising which
can be measured using a five-point Likert scale (from 1= "Extremely dislike" to 5=
"extremely like").
 Chapter II

Review of Related Literature

This chapter presents a composition of researches and literatures about

purchase intentions, and the factors leading to the customers’ purchase intent.

A. Theoretical Framework

This study was anchored in Theoretical Model of Factors Affecting Consumer

Purchase Intention, developed by Maribi, Akbariyeh and Tahmasebifard (2015).
Purchase intention is a kind of decision-making that studies the reason to buy a
particular brand by consumer. Customers purchase decision is a complex process.
Purchase intention usually is related to the behavior, perceptions and attitudes of
consumers. Purchase behavior is a key point for consumers to access and evaluate the
specific product. Purchase intention may be changed under the influence of price or
perceived quality and value. In addition, consumers are affected by internal or external
motivations during the buying process.

Figure 1. Research Paradigm

This study utilized the following factors-brand name, product quality, price,
packaging and advertising which have highly significant impact on consumers’ purchase
intention. Maribi, Akbariyeh and Tahmasebifard (2015) claim that customers pay more
money to particular brand against similar products; it is more likely that brand
awareness leads to the increase of consumer decision to buy that brand. However, the
product that has a better quality, customer will be more inclined to purchase it. The
higher quality product creates higher purchase intention. On the other hand, consumer
satisfaction is affected by price perception directly and is affected by price fairness
indirectly. The consumer perception of price fairness on its purchase decision and
referred to it as a proper predictor for purchase decision of consumer. With proper
packaging, it creates distinctiveness for most of the companies. Customers’ purchases
intention is due to the fact that customers are affected by appearance aspects of
product especially it’s packaging in unplanned purchases. And also, when the customer
pays attention to advertising, he/she creates a feeling toward it that leads to brand
promotion and those who have good feeling toward brand develop desired attitude
toward it. The effect of brand name, product quality, price, packaging and advertising
influencing the purchase intention of potential consumers towards products of Chicken
All Ways were explored on this study. The researchers sought to identify the extent to
which these factors affect the purchase intention of the products of Chicken All Ways.

B. Start up

Calopa, Horvat, and Lalic (2014) defined start-up companies as “newly

founded companies or entrepreneurial venture that are in a phase of development
and market research”. On the other hand, Kesim and Salamzadeh (2015) stated
these newly born companies face challenges to exist, stay, and grow. This is true
given the aggressive competition and more discerning consumers.

C. Challenges of a start up

According to Shuklev (2006) as cited by Poposka, Nanevski, and Mihajlovska

(2013), start-up business faces many challenges in the development phase which is
the riskiest phase of any ventures. These challenges include lack of resources, lack
of experience, lack of knowledge about the business, lack of knowledge by
customers about the product, lack of high skilled workforce, and choosing the wrong
location. Although these challenges might not all be simultaneously present in a
start-up, each still dictates whether a venture will be successful. However,
resources, high skilled workforce, experience, and location are not major challenges
for CAW since it is owned and operated by RDF Feed, Livestock and Foods, Inc.
which has resources and multiple years of experience in the food industry. Yet,
given that CAW is a new venture for the company, its knowledge about that specific
business and the knowledge of its customers are still lacking
According to Cusumano (2013), some of the key elements of a successful
start- up venture are having a compelling new product or service and having a
strong evidence of customer interest. The product should be directed to a specific
customer and also be well differentiated from its competitors. Consumer’s interest in
the product should also be established in order to prove the profitability of the
venture.

D. Purchase Intention

As cited in the study of Younus, Rasheed, and Zia (2015), purchase intention
is a consumer’s likelihood to buy a product or service (Kelly, 2001). A consumer’s
preference is influenced by multiple factors such as price, design, packaging,
knowledge about the product, promotion or endorsement, fashion, and even
family relations (Shafiq et al, 2011). As cited by Mirabi, Akbariyeh, and
Tahmasebifard (2015), Morinez et al, (2007) stated that consumer purchase a
specific product with specific conditions. It is important to understand purchase
intention of consumers in order to be able to predict a consumer’s buying process
(Ghosh, 1990). Further, according to Gogoi (2013), price, perceived quality, and
perceived value affects a consumer’s purchase intention.

E. Brand Name
 How consumers perceive a brand plays a significant role in fostering
consumer loyalty. Customers who are loyal to a brand are more likely to repurchase
and recommend the brand to others. Moreover, they are also more likely to always
choose a specific brand over other alternatives when they are loyal to a particular
brand (Mirabi, Akbariyeh, & Tahmasebifard, 2015). In the study- “Brand personality
and purchase intention” by Toldos-Romero & Orozco-Gómez (2015), Keller (1993)
stated that more than just the product attributes, brand equity is built through
providing customers both emotional and experiential benefits. Various studies
showed that brand equity positively influences purchase intention (Berry, 2000;
Chang and Liu, 2009; Senthilnathan and Tharmi, 2012). Further, according to
Gordon (1993), there are five facets to consider in brand image which includes user
image, occasion image, product image, brand personality, and salience. Given the
literature, the operation definition of brand name is the emotional and experiential
benefits provided to the consumers by the “brand”.

F. Product Quality

Keller (2008) as cited in Mirabi, Akbariyeh, and Tahmasebifard (2015) defined

perceived quality of a product as the higher quality of the product in comparison to
the other available alternatives. In the study by Beneke, Flynn, Greig, and Mukaiwa
(2013), product quality refers to the product performance while considering how a
product follows the specific attributes and standard in which it has to conform to
(Agarwal & Teas, 2004). Various studies have found that perceived product quality
has a positive influence to the brand equity and in turn, to the consumer’s
willingness to buy (Dodds et al.,1991; Khalifa, 2004; Rangaswamy et al., 1993). The
overall quality has multiple dimensions that would depend on the specific product. In
the food industry, food quality is measured through different variables such as
texture, color, freshness, taste, and flavor (Dagevos & van Ophem, 2013).

G. Price
 Kotler and Armstrong (2010) define price as the money provided by customers in
exchange to products or services. In the study of Mirabi, Akbariyeh, and
Tahmasebifard (2015), multiple literatures show that price is a significant
consideration for consumers’ purchase intention (Hermann et al., 2007; Lee et al.,
2010). One of the weaknesses of CAW is that the price of the product is higher
compared to its competitors. However, in the study of Beneke, Flynn, Greig, and
Mukaiwa (2013), Zeithaml (1988) stated that the product’s perceived value of a
product affects their willingness to purchase despite the price.

H. Packaging

With today’s consumers offered with various choices in almost all types of
products, distinctiveness and differentiation in the appearance is important to stand
out among competition. Packaging of products according to Rahimniya et al, (2012)
also has an influence on the purchase of consumers. It is said that it is used as a
representation or a way of communicating their advertising messages to consumers.
Cahyorini and Rusfian (2011) further stated that the appearance of the product has
momentary effect on consumers which may sometimes urge them to buy the product
instantaneously. Packaging affects the loyalty of consumers which leads to purchase
intention (Khraim, 2011). A study of Kawa et al. (2013) also revealed that there is a
relationship between the product packaging and purchase intention (Mirabi,
Akbariyeh, & Tahmasebifard, 2015).

I. Advertising

Advertising was defined as a type of promotion strategy which aims to make

potential customers aware of the product (Kesim & Salamzadeh, 2015). It is also a
tool to urge consumers to purchase through giving an emotional value to the product
(Latif and Abideen, 2011). Further, Tang et al. (2007) said that “positive response to
brand or certain advertising increases the likelihood of its positive evaluation”.
Advertising increases the perceived value of a product or a brand through the
emotional and experiential value it brings. The study by Beneke, Flynn, Greig, and
Mukaiwa (2013) said that perceived value is critical to a consumer’s purchase
intention (Chang and Wang, 2011; Ulaga and Chacour, 2001).

J. Global and Local Lanscape

Poultry is the most progressive animal enterprise today. It is one of the world’s major
and fastest producers of meat while in the Philippines; it has been a significant
contributor to the country's agriculture sector.

The output of the Philippine poultry sector reached a value of almost 123.5 billion
pesos (PHP; US$2.49 billion) in 2016, up from nearly PHP121.8 billion (US$2.45
billion) in 2015. The largest sub-sector is chicken meat, which increased just 0.82
percent from 2015 to 1.675 million metric tons (mt) last year.

Source: United Broiler Raisers Association

Figure 2. Volume of Broiler Production in the Philippines

K. Market Size and Growth Rate

The growth rate of the Philippines’ per capita disposable income and expenditure
was higher than Asia Pacific averages over 2011-2016. Nevertheless, the
discretionary spending capacity of Filipino households remains limited, while income
inequality is still relatively high by global standards. Rising income levels and a
growing middle class are expected to keep generating opportunities in the Filipino
consumer market over the long term, although external risks have increased.

Source: Euromonitor International from national statistics

Note: Data for 2017-2030 are forecasts

Figure 3. Per Capita Gross Income

According to the Philippine Statistics Authority all regions showed increases in the
average annual family income at 2015 prices. Families in the National Capital
Region (NCR), had the highest average annual family income for both years at 425
thousand pesos in 2015 and 379 thousand pesos in 2012.

In 2015, about 41.9 percent of the total annual family expenditures was spent on
food. For families in the bottom 30 percent income group, the percentage was much
higher at 59.7percent, while for families in the upper 70 percent income group, it was
38.8 percent.
L. Research Opportunities and Gap

With the increase in the average family income of Filipino families and the growth in
the Philippines poultry sector, there are many opportunities for a roasted chicken
start up company to grow. However, it is only through a research based strategy that
a start-up food business can ensure their success, especially in their development
stage.

Most of the related literature used in this study are focused on other industries such
as retail and constrution while food industry related study studies it in general. As
such a study on purchase intention that is specifically the roasted-chicken business
can be explored.

Further, literature in this study revealed that purchase intention is affected by

product quality, price, and perceived value. These three factors are common among
these studies, with each factor influenced by the other(s). Product value is positively
influenced by perceived relative price and perceived product quality. Perceived
relative price is influnced by perceived product quality. Product quality on the other
hand is influenced by the risks perceived in purchasing the product.

Moreover, there is little focus on how packaging, brand name, and advertising plays
in the picture. Marketers need to know how advertising and initiatives to improve
brand name can affect the purchase intention and add value to the business. For a
start-up food business in Pampanga where various competition is present, it is
important to know the purchase intention of the market. This is key to the success of
the start-up.
 Chapter III

Research Methodology

This chapter presents the methods used in gathering data for this study. This
includes the sampling technique, the respondents, the data gathering instrument and
the statistical treatment used to analyze and interpret the results of the study.

A. Research Design

This study employed the casual design of research where researchers determine
which among the variables have the strongest effect on customer’s purchase intention
using cross-sectional time dimension in data gathering. It is describing the nature,
characteristics and components of the population or a phenomenon. Also, this study
utilized survey method since the data were obtained through sampling of population to
examine its distribution parameters.

B. Research Locale

This study was conducted in Angeles City, Pampanga where branches of

Chicken All Ways (CAW) are located.

Angeles City is a haven for culinary, culture, arts and entertainment. It is a highly
urbanized city in the province of Pampanga comprising of 33 barangays with a
population of 412,000 as of 2015 (Philippine Statistics Authority).

C. Sampling Design

The researchers used purposive sampling to determine the respondents of the

study. Purposive sampling is non-probability sampling where respondents were chosen
based on a certain criteria set by the researchers. The respondents will be any person
in Angeles City who is 20 years old and above, is working, and has an average monthly
income of 15,000 and above.

D. Research Instrument

An interview questionnaire was used to gather data for the purposes of this
study. The questionnaire was divided into three parts.

The first part of the questionnaire was the introduction of the interviewers, asking
the respondents’ permission to be part of the study, and giving them an assurance on
the confidentiality of their responses and identity.

The second part of the questionnaire was consisted of 11 items which sought to
describe consumer acceptability of the products of Chicken All Ways in terms of
packaging, product quality, price, brand name, and advertising using five-point Likert
scale (from 1= "Extremely dislike" to 5= "extremely like"). It also included open-ended
questions which enabled respondents to give their feedback comments and
suggestions.

The third part of the questionnaire aimed to describe the respondents’ profile. It
includes checklists on respondents’ sex, civil status and monthly income. Responded
age was also included.

E. Administration of Questionnaire

The data were gathered using a questionnaire. The researchers sought the
permission from the Fresh Options’ managers to conduct the survey in front of their
establishment.

Upon the approval of research adviser for the distribution of the questionnaire the
survey was conducted. The researchers facilitated the survey themselves with the help
of RDFFLFI research assistants.
 The completion of the instrument took ten minutes to accomplish. A token was
provided to the respondents who have completed the survey.

F. Construction and Validation of the Instrument

The set of questionnaires was composed of parts: (1) How consumers affect their
purchase intention; (2) the profile of the respondents. The first part in the study success
contributing to the factors affecting on the purchase intention of the customer was
composed of 10 items. The last part which is profile of the respondents is composed of
4 items identifying the age, sex, civil status, and monthly income.

The researchers also conduct of the finalization of the instrument. After finalizing
the content and receiving the approval, the researchers prepared for the conduct of the
survey questionnaires to selected resident of Angeles City who is not respondents of
the study for clarity, validity, and reliability of the items in the questionnaire.

G. Statistical Treatment of Data

After the questionnaire had been collected from the respondents, their responses
were tallied accordingly after which, they were organized in tables.

Frequency count and percentage was used for demographics, price, and brand
name. Weighted mean was used for respondents level of product acceptability, product
quality, packaging, and advertising. Lastly, regression was used to test priority variable
in purchase consideration
 Chapter IV

Discussion of Results

This chapter presents the findings of the study. It contains the presentation,
analysis and interpretation of data collected.

A. Demographics
Respondents’ Profile

Table 2. Demographic Profile of

respondents
Monthly
Age Sex Civil Status Income

Mean 41.00 1.72 2.37 3.02

Median 38.00 2.00 3.00 2.00

Mode 29.00 2.00 3.00 1.00

Range 57.00 1.00 3.00 7.00

Minimum 21.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Maximum 78.00 2.00 4.00 8.00

Count 43.00 43.00 43.00 43.00

Confidence
Level (95.0%) 4.66 0.14 0.29 0.81

Table 2 shows the demographic profile of the respondent. Among the 43

respondents, majority of them are females with the mode score of 2 (females). It also
shows that respondents average income is below P15,000.00 with mode score of 1. In
terms of civil status, majority of the respondents are married with mode score of 3
(married).

Table 3. Percentage Distribution as to Respondents’ Sex

Gender Frequency %Share

Male 12 27.91%
Female 31 72.09%
Total 43 100.00%

Table 3 shows the respondents’ sex distribution. There are 12 or 27.91% male
respondents, while 31 or 72.09% of them were females. The findings show that majority
of the respondents were female

. Frequency Distribution of Income

Table 4. Income Frequency

Income Cumulative
Bracket Frequency %
1 Below 15k 17 39.53%
2 16k to 25K 11 25.58%
3 26k to 35k 4 9.30%
4 36k to 45k 1 2.33%
5 46k to 55k 1 2.33%
6 56k to 65k 1 2.33%
7 66k to 75k 0 0.00%
8 75k Above 8 18.60%
Total 43 100.00%

Table 4 shows the respondents’ income frequency distribution. There are

17 or 39.53% below 15k respondents, 11 or 25.58% 16k to 25k, 4 or 9.30%
respondents in 26k to 35k, while 36k to 45k, 46k to 55k and 56k to 65k are 1 or 2.33%
each and last 8 or 18.60% of respondents are 75k and above. The findings show that
majority of the respondents were below 15k.

B. Consumer Acceptability

Table 5. Respondents' General Acceptability level

Level of Consumer Acceptability Weighted Mean Verbal Interpretation

Pollo Barbacoa 1.581 Extremely Like
Black Pepper Chicken 1.256 Extremely Like
Signature Chicken 1.442 Extremely Like
Pinaupong Manok 1.372 Extremely Like
Piri-piri Chicken 1.488 Extremely Like
Poulet a l'orange 1.419 Extremely Like

Table 5 shows the level of acceptability of the respondents. The results of the
research survey all of the products of Chicken All Ways such as Pollo Barbacoa, Black
Pepper Chicken, Signature Chicken, Pinaupong Manok, Piri-piri Chicken and Poulet a
l’orange are Extremely like. However the most extremely like among those products is
Black Pepper chicken, followed by Pinaupong manok, Poulet a l’orange, Signature
Chicken, Piri-piri Chicken and last is Pollo Barbacoa.

Table 6. Product Quality Acceptability

Product Quality Weighted Mean Interpretation

Smell 4.84 Extremely Like

Taste 4.84 Extremely Like

Texture 4.77 Extremely Like

Flavor 4.79 Extremely Like

 1-1.79= Extremely Dislike; 1.80-2.59= Moderately Dislike; 2.60-3.39= Neither like or dislike;

3.40-4.19 Moderately Like; 4.20-5= Extremely Like

Table 6 shows that all aspect of the product quality are extremely liked by the
respondents.

Table 7.1. Price Acceptability

Price Pollo Barbacoa Frequency % Share

Yes 39 90.70%

No 4 9.30%

Table 7.2. Price Acceptability

Price Black Pepper Chicken Frequency % Share

Yes 34 79.07%

No 9 20.93%

Table 7.3. Price Acceptability

Price Signature Chicken Frequency % Share

Yes 36 83.72%

No 7 16.28%

Table 7.4. Price Acceptability

Price Pinaupong Manok Frequency % Share

Yes 32 74.42%

No 11 25.58%
Table 7.5. Price Acceptability

Price Piri-piri Chicken Frequency % Share

Yes 33 76.74%

No 10 23.26%

Table 7.6. Price Acceptability

Price Poulet a l'orange Frequency % Share

Yes 33 76.74%

No 10 23.26%

Table 7 shows that all product prices are acceptable in relation to its product
quality.

Table 8. Advertising Acceptability

Advertising Weighted Mean Interpretation

Flyers 1.47 Extremely Preferred

TV 1.33 Extremely Preferred

Radio 2.12 Moderately Preferred

Billboard 1.51 Extremely Preferred

Facebook 1.23 Extremely Preferred

*1-1.79= Extremely Preferred; 1.80-2.59= Moderately Preferred; 2.60-3.39= Neither preferred or

unpreferred; 3.40-4.19 Moderately unpreferred; 4.20-5= Extremely unpreferred

Table 8 shows that all medium used are effective but Facebook is the strongest.
Table 9. Brand Name Acceptability

Brand Name Frequency % Share

Yes 37 86.05%

No 6 13.95%

Table 8 shows that respondents consider the brand name in purchasing CAW
products.

C. Regression

Table 10. Linear Regression

Variables R Square Coefficients P-value Interpretation

Product Accept Null Hypothesis,

Quality 0.015 -0.031 0.442 no significance

Accept Null Hypothesis,

Price 0.051 0.069 0.147 no significance

Accept Null Hypothesis,

Packaging 0.004 -0.018 0.678 no significance

Accept Null Hypothesis,

Advertising 0.006 -0.021 0.627 no significance

Brand Accept Null Hypothesis,

Name 0.015 -0.032 0.442 no significance

Table 10 shows that all variables have no significant impact to purchase

intention.

Product quality coefficient shows that for every 1 unit increase in product
quality, purchase intention decrease in 0.031. The R-square shows that 1.5% of
purchase intent score can be explained by product quality.
Price coefficient shows that for every 1 unit increase in price, purchase intention
increase in 0.069. The R-square shows that 5.1% of purchase intent score can
be explained by price.

Packaging coefficient shows that for every 1 unit increase in packaging

purchase intention decrease in 0.018. The R-square shows that 0.4% of
purchase intent score can be explained by product quality.

Advertising coefficient shows that for every 1 unit increase in packaging,

purchase intention decrease in 0.021. The R-square shows that 0.6% of
purchase intent score can be explained by advertising.

Brand Name coefficient shows that for every 1 unit increase in brand name,
purchase intention decrease in 0.032. The R-square shows that 1.5% of
purchase intent score can be explained by product quality.

Table 11 Multiple Regression

Rsquare 0.247
Coefficients P-value
Intercept 1.572 0.000
A Product Quality (X25) 0.223 0.116
B Price (X26) -0.228 0.005
C Packaging (X27) 0.013 0.914
D Advertising (X28) -0.008 0.964
E Brand Name (X29) -0.058 0.773

a. Product Quality
With the p value at 0.116, we accept the null hypothesis. As the
product quality unit increases by 1 the purchase intention also
increases by 0.223. The product quality has no significant impact to
purchase intent.
b. Price
With the p value at 0.005, we reject the null hypothesis. As the price
unit increases by 1 the purchase intention also increases by -0.228.
The price or the product as has significant impact to purchase intent.
The relationship is negative because of the -0.228 coefficient.

c. Packaging
With the p value at 0.914, we accept the null hypothesis. As the
packaging unit increases by 1 the purchase intention also increases by
0.013. The packaging has no significant impact to purchase intent.

d. Advertising
With the p value at 0.964, we accept the null hypothesis. As the
advertising unit increases by 1 the purchase intention also increases
by -0.008. The advertising efforts the product has no significant impact
to purchase intent.

e. Brand Name
With the p value at 0.773, we accept the null hypothesis. As the brand
name unit increases by 1 the purchase intention also increases by -
0.058. The brand name the product has no significant impact to
purchase intent.
 Chapter V

Summary and Recommendation

The purpose of this study is to identify the factors influencing the consumers’
purchase intention in terms of brand name, product quality, price, packaging and
advertising, and consequently come up with marketing strategy suited to the identified
intention.

A. Consumer Acceptability

All 6 products tested in the study rated as extremely liked by the respondents.
The six products were almost at par but the Pollo Barbacoa was rated highest
among the choices. The result is consistent to the differentiation that CAW wants
to establish. Price acceptability is also high in relation to the product quality. All
four sub-variables of product quality is positive among the respondents. Result
also showed that Facebook is strongest while radio is the weakest media.
Respondents consider brand name when purchasing a CAW roasted chicken
product. In terms of packaging, respondents’ acceptability was high.

B. Consumer Purchase Intention

Linear regression shows that all five variables- product quality, price, packaging,
brand name, and advertising has no significant impact to purchase intention.
However, multiple regression reveals that Price has a negative impact to
purchase intention. This may be because price is a high consideration for
purchase intention of roasted chicken products. Matching it with the monthly
income of 40% the respondents is below PhP 15,000.00, therefore, the price of
CAW products may not be within their budget or purchasing power. Further,
there are also cheaper alternatives to CAW products that is available in the area.
C. Recommendation

Based on the result of the data, there are a few improvements that needs to be
made in terms of the five variables.

In terms of brand name, there is a need to increase presence and brand affinity
as brand name is a consideration for purchasing. A start-up like CAW should
reach their market to establish familiarity and should also offer opportunities for
the market to get to know the brand. For product quality, there is a continuous
need to focus on taste. As taste is one of the biggest differentiation of CAW, their
current products should be consitent in quality while new products should adhere
to the expectations of the market. Their price should consider buying power of
their market. Given that price has impact on purchase intent, and the threat of
having available substitute, their price should be competitive. It could be that their
product is good and the price is acceptable for that quality, but it might be way
out of their market’s buying capabilities. In terms of packaging, they can maintain
their current packaging and that should also help build the brand familiarity
among their market. Lastly, for advertising, they need to focus their efforts on
social media, specifically Facebook. This is also an opportunity for them to reach
greater market at a cheaper price compared to traditional media.
References
Bassi, M., Pagnozzi, M., & Piccolo, S. (2015). Product Differentiation by Competing
Vertical Hierarchies. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 904–933.

Bedinelli, G., & Silva, R. (2013). Analysis of differentiation strategy and profitability of
business auto parts industry in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Marketing, Opinion,
and Media Research, 1983-9456.

Beneke, J., Flynn, R., Greig, T., & Mukaiwa, M. (2013). The influence of perceived
product quality,relative price and risk on customer value and willingess to buy: a
study of private label merchandise. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
218-228.

Brecic, R., Mesic, Z., & Cerjak, M. (2017). Importance of intrinsic and extrinsic quality
food characteristics by different. British Food Journal, 845-862.

Bussgang, J. (2017). Are you suited for a start-up? Harvard Business Review, 150-153.

Calopa, M., Horvat, J., & Lalic, M. (2014). Analysis of Financing Sources for Start-up
Companies. Management, 19-44.

Cusumano, M. (2013). Evaluating a Startup Venture. Technology Strategy and

Management.

Dagevos, H., & van Ophem, J. (2013). Food consumptioon value: Developing a
consumer-centered concept of value in the field of food. British Food Journal,
1473-1486.

Davcik, N., & Sharma, P. (2015). "Impact of product differentiation, marketing

investments and brand equity on pricing strategies: A brand level investigation.
European Journal of Marketing, 760-781.

Davcik, N., & Sharma, P. (2015). Impact of product differentiation, marketing

investments and brand equity on pricing strategies: A brand level investigation.
European Journal of Marketing, 760-781.
De Tonia, D., Milanb, G., Sacilotob, E., & Larentis, F. (2017). Pricing strategies and
levels and their impact on corporate profitability. Management Journal, 120-133.

Durham, C., & Colonna, A. (2016). The Market Research for Market Readiness Manual.
Oregon: Oregon State University, Food Innovation Center.

Iyiola, D., & Ibidunni, O. (2013). Product differentiation: A tool of competitive advantage
and optimal organizational performance (A study of Unilever Nigeria PLC).
European Scientific Journal, 258-281.

Kesim, H., & Salamzadeh, A. (2015). Start up Companies: Life Cycle and Challenges.
4th International Conferene on Employment, Education, and Entrepreneruship (p.
2). Belgrade, Serbia: Research Gate.

Makadok, R., & David, R. (2013). Taking Industry Structuring Seriously: A Strategic
Perspective on Product Differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 509-532.

Mirabi, V., Akbariyeh, H., & Tahmasebifard, H. (2015). A Study of Factors Affecting on
Customers Purchase Intention; Case Study on the Agencies of Bono Brand Tile
in Tehran. Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology, 267-
273.

Poposka, C., Nanevski, B., & Mihajlovska, E. (2013). The start-up phase in SME
development: Main challenges, motives and financing opportunities. Journal of
Sustainable Development.

Raza, S. (2015). The impact of differentiation price and demand leakage on a firm’s
profitability. Journal of Modelling in Management, 270-295.

Shafiwu, A., & Mohammed, A. (2013). The effect of product differentiation on profitability
in the petrolium industry of ghana. European Journal of Business and Innovation
Research, 49-65.

Shao, X.-F. (2014). Product differentiation design under sequential consumer choice
process. International Journal of Production Research, 2342–2364.
 Toldos-Romero, M., & Orozco-Gómez, M. (2015). Brand personality and purchase
intention. European Business Review, 462-472.

Turner, S., & Endres, A. (20117). Strategies for Enhancing Small-Business Owners'
Success Rates. International Journal of Applied Management and Technology,
34-49.

Usman, G., & Onuk, E. (2016). Profitability investigation of rice production in fufore local
government area of adamawa state. European Journal of Academic Essays,
137-140.

Younus, S., Rasheed, F., & Zia, A. (2015). Identifying the Factors Affecting Customer
Purchase Intention. Global Journal of Management and Business Research: A.

View publication stats