1

A Project Report on

“Consumer Preference Towards

Zomato & Swiggy”

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement

For the award of the degree of

MASTER OF COMMERCE

PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

SESSION 2019-2021

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MRS. LEENA KAKKAR JYOTI

HEAD OF POSTGRADUATE 47729

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
 2

PREFACE

This project report pertains to making of summer training project of M.COM curriculum. The
purpose of this project is to make the students gain through knowledge of the topics given to
them. I learned a lot about the topic after putting in much hard work in collecting the
information regarding the topic allotted. It cannot be said with certainty that full justification
has been done to the topic in the few pages presented there, but I have tried my best to cover
as much as possible about.

JYOTI

M.Com 2nd Sem

Roll No-47729
 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Mrs. Leena Kakkar Mam
who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic, “Consumer
Preference Towards Zomato & Swiggy” which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and
I came to know about so many new things I am really thankful to her.

Secondly, I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing
this project within the limited time frame.

JYOTI

M.Com 2nd Sem

Roll No-47729
 4

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the project entitled a study of “Consumer Preference Towards Zomato VS
Swiggy” is submitted to Punjab University, Chandigarh in the partial fulfilment of the
requirement for the award of the degree of the Master of Commerce is a record of original
project work done by me in during my period of study in Dev Samaj College for Women,
Ferozepur City.

JYOTI

M.Com 2nd Sem

Roll No-47729
 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SN NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1. Introduction 8

Zomato 9-10
• Investment 10

• History 11-12

• Key people 12-13

• SWOT Analysis 14

15-16
Swiggy
16-17
• Investment
17-18
• History
18-19
• Key people
20
• SWOT Analysis

2. Review of Literature 21-24

.3. Data Analysis
3.1 Objectives of Study 26
3.2 Need of Study 26
3.3 Scope of Study 26
3.4 Research Design 26-27
3.5 Sampling Method 27
3.6 Research Method 27
3.7 Limitations of the Study 27-28

4. Data Analysis & Data Interpretation 29-44

5. Findings, Suggestions & Conclusions
5.1 Findings 46-47
 6

5.2 Suggestions 47-48

5.3 Conclusion 48
6. Annexure
References 50

Questionnaire 51-55
 7

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
 8

1.1 ABSTRACT

Developments in technology and reliance on internet has pitched a new pathway for marketing
through mobile applications. According to worldwidewebsize.com the internet holds 15- 50
billion active websites. These websites and applications have outdated many traditional ways
of marketing and selling products. A combination of marketing intelligence and technology
has reached to the development of mobile applications which use internet as a medium to
advertise products as well as services. Customers as well as business houses now a days have
a contemporary perception of products and services available in the market. Marketing
strategies are based on online marketing which suits demands of today’s customers. Keeping
in view the online services this project aims to study the perception of customers ordering food
through online food delivery apps viz. Zomato, Swiggy. The research is focused on the people
who already use above mentioned food delivery apps. A survey was conducted for purposeful
analysis to study various attributes of all two applications to conclude that which amongst the
three applications is having the best overall satisfaction with customers of online food ordering
customer FEROZEPUR(Punjab).

1.2 INTRODUCTION

The Online Ordering System can be defined as a simple and convenient way for customers to
purchase food online, without having to go to the restaurant.
This system is enabled by the internet – it is the internet that connects the restaurant or the food
company on one hand, and the customer on other hand. Therefore, as per this system, the
customer visits the restaurant’s app or website, browses through the various food items, combos
and cuisines available there and goes ahead and selects and purchases the items he or she needs.
These items will then be delivered to the customer at his or her doorstep at the time they choose
by a delivery person. Payments for such online orders can be made through debit cards, credit
cards, cash or card on delivery, or even through digital wallets. This system for online food
delivery is completely safe, secure and is a very popular method that is revolutionizing the way
in which the food industry operates.
 9

ZOMATO

Zomato is a restaurant search, discovery & delivery service which was founded in 2008 by
DEEPINDER GOYAL & PANKAJ CHADDAH. It operates in over 23 countries includes
India, Australia and United States. It features restaurant information which gives the customer
information about best dining places, their menus and photos uploaded by local street teams as
well as users reviews and ratings.

The company also provides a variety of services like online ordering, table reservations and so
on. It collects all the required information from every restaurant on a regular basis to ensure
their data is fresh. They have a vast community of food lovers and bloggers who share their
own photos and reviews so that customers have all that they need to make their preferred
choice.

Zomato also began grocery delivery amid the COVID-19 outbreak As of 2019, the service is
available in 24 countries and in more than 10,000 cities.

Types of Business Private

Available In English, Turkish, Portuguese, Indonesian,
Spanish, Italian, Vietnamese
 10

Founded July 2008

Headquarters DLF Phase V, Gurugram, Haryana India
Areas Served 24 Countries: Australia, Brazil, India, New
Zealand, Qatar, Singapore, UAE, UK, US,
Portugal, Poland, Malaysia, South Africa, Sri
Lanka, Turkey
Services Restaurant Search & Discovery, Online
Ordering, Table Reservations, Subscription
Services
Revenue ₹1530 crore (H1-FY 2020)
Employees 5000+
Parent Info Edge, Ant Financial, Uber
URL https://www.zomato.com/akola?city_id=11434
Users 8 crores
Native Clients Windows Phone, iOS, Android, Universal
Windows Platform

INVESTMENT

Zomato has approximately raised around USD 16.7 million in the year 2010-13 from Info Edge
India, by offering stakes of 57.9% in Zomato. It also raised USD 37 million additionally from
Sequoia Capital Info Edge India.

Zomato completed another round of funding which was jointly taken from Info Edge India &
Vy Capital in November 2014, the funding being around USD 60 million.

While in April 2015, Info Edge India, Vy Capital and Sequoia Capital led another round of
funding for US$50 million. This was followed by another US$60 million funding led
by Temasek, a Singapore government-owned investment company, along with Vy Capital in
September.

In October 2018, Zomato raised $210 million from Alibaba's payment affiliate Ant Financial.
Ant Financial received an ownership stake of over 10% of the company as part of the round,
which valued Zomato at around $2 billion. Zomato had also raised an additional $150 million
also from Ant Financial earlier in 2018.
 11

HISTORY

Like most other start-ups, India’s pioneering foodtech unicorn Zomato has seen many peaks
and troughs in its journey. While there were some illustrious moments and accomplishments,
there were troubled times too, some that even brought the very existence of the company into
question. Zomato kicked off essentially as a rebranded version of the food directory services
Foodie bay. Goyal and Chaddah, both IIT graduates and both working as analysts at Bain and
Company back then, had started Foodie bay in 2008.

In a matter of just nine months, Foodie bay became the largest restaurant directory in Delhi
NCR. After two successful years, the company was rebranded Zomato and since then there was
no looking back. With support from its investors and multiple rounds of consecutive funding,
Zomato built not only its valuation but also an interesting portfolio of investors which includes
Info Edge India, Sequoia, Vy Capital, Singapore-based investment firm Temasek, and
Alibaba’s Ant Financial. Ant Financials’ $200 Mn investment earlier this year led Zomato to
cross the $1 Bn valuation. Zomato’s quick growth can also be attributed to its rapid expansion
to countries other than India. Soon after its success in Delhi-NCR, the company started
branching out to cities like Pune, Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, and Hyderabad.

By 2012, Zomato had started expanding overseas by extending its services to Sri Lanka, UAE,
Qatar, South Africa, UK, and the Philippines. The year 2013 saw New Zealand, Turkey, and
Brazil get added to its list. During this time, Zomato also kept working on its tech backbone to
match the boom in the smartphone trend and launched its app. It was also in 2015 that Zomato,
struggling with falling revenues, carried out its massive layoff. After a slow 2016, in which
Zomato saw further loss in revenues, the company decided to roll back operations in nine of
the countries it had expanded to, handling them remotely to ensure it did not lose out on the
markets. In terms of numbers, Zomato recorded a 225% rise in revenue in the first half of
FY2020. According to the company’s biannual report, it has registered $205 Mn in revenue,
compared to $63 Mn in the first half of last year. Zomato claimed to have registered an increase
of 177% of restaurant partners after getting an additional 73K restaurant on board. In the
H1FY20, the food aggregator and delivery start-up has around 119K restaurants, compared to
43K last year. Zomato Gold service has registered a 180% increase with 1.4 Mn users. With an
eventful FY20, Zomato’s rival Swiggy has also been out on the block seeking fresh funds. The
 12

Bengaluru-based food delivery unicorn is also in talks to raise $500 Mn fresh funds led by
Naspers at a valuation of $3.3 Bn.

KEY PEOPLE

Name: Deepinder Goyal

Designation: Founder & CEO

LinkedIn Profile:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/deepigoyal

Twitter: https://twitter.com/deepigoyal

Name: Pankaj Chaddah

Designation: Co-Founder
LinkedIn Profile:
https://in.linkedin.com/in/pankaj-
chaddah-0a54979

Twitter:
https://twitter.com/pankajchaddah
 13

Name: Gaurav Gupta

Designation: Chief Operating Officer

LinkedIn Profile:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/gaurav-
gupta-4873212/

Name: Akriti Chopra

Designation: Chief Financial Officer

LinkedIn Profile:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/akriti-
chopra-2a21aa56/

Name: Pramod Rao

Designation: Senior Vice President

LinkedIn Profile:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/prao24
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prao24
 14

SWOT ANALYSIS

# Strengths:

1. It is the first delivery service in most of the nations.

2. It has a fast expanding & growing market.
3. The app is user friendly compared to its competitors and also has won many awards for
its design.
4. Zomato has made a lot of profits since the time it was launched.
5. Zomato has a huge customer base which is an added advantage.
6. It has a large number of investors and has enough funding.
7. It has a very good marketing strategy which has helped in acquiring a lot of customers.

#Weakness:

1. The major concern was related to the privacy and security issues for the app.
2. Zomato still requires a lot of expansion.
3. Word of mouth and Facebook check-ins have lessened the number of people using
Zomato.

#Opportunities:

1. Further expansion.
2. More acquisitions.
3. Cloud Restaurant-where the restaurants need not have a physical existence to sell their
food, instead they can sell their food through Zomato.
4. Creating a forum and a community out of the users already following Zomato can be a
huge benefit for the brand.

#Threats

1. Major threat would be from the new entrants, many new food deliveries start ups have
been emerging in the recent years.
2. Not all the customers will be loyal towards one aggregator, if there is a better one
providing more offers and discounts the existing customers may move on.
3. Uncertain Research & Development outcomes, sometimes if the prediction of R&D
may not work as thought it might lead to failure.
 15

SWIGGY

Swiggy is an online food delivery business founded in 2014 by Sriharsha Majety and Nandan
Reddy.

Swiggy is an online Food Ordering & Delivery Company whose Headquarter is located in
Bangalore. The idea was induced into their heads noticing the vast gap between the food
ordering and delivery space, where in a lot of restaurants faced the issue of not having sufficient
delivery boys, so this sparked a thought and they started a small setup on August 2014 with a
team of six delivery boys and covering 25 restaurants which soon became a hit and now it
operates around13 cities and it offers a single window for ordering from a large range of
restaurants, they have their own exclusive fleet of delivery personnel to pick up orders from
restaurants and deliver it to customers.

Swiggy is India's largest and most valuable online food ordering and delivery platform.
Founded in 2014, Swiggy is based out of Bangalore, India and, as of March 2019, was
operating out of 100 Indian cities. In early 2019, Swiggy expanded into general product
deliveries, under the brand name Swiggy Stores.

In September 2019, Swiggy launched instant pick up and drop service Swiggy Go. The service
is used to pick up and drop off a diverse array of items, including laundry and document or
parcel deliveries to business clients and retail customers.
 16

Type of Business Private

Founded 2014

Headquarters Bangalore

Areas Served 300+ cities across India-Abohar, Agra, Ahmedabad,

Akola, Bathinda, Chandigarh, Delhi, Firozpur,
Mumbai, Sangaria, Hanumangarh, Sri Ganganagar,
Manipur, Mathura, Moga, Nanital, Jaipur, Jalandhar,
Pune, Ranchi & many more.

Founders Nandan Reddy,

Sriharsha Majety,
Rahul Jaimini

Products & Services Consumer Service, Restaurant Search, Online

Ordering

Revenue 875 crore (November 2019)

Employees 2,18,000

URL https://www.swiggy.com/

Native Clients Android, iOS, Website

INVESTMENT

By 2015, the company began attracting external investments. The first was a $2 million
investment from Accel and Saif Partners, along with an additional investment from Norwest
Venture Partners. The next year, Swiggy raised $15 million from new and existing investors,
including Bessemer Venture Partners and Harmony Partners.
 17

In 2017, Naspers led an $80 million funding round into Swiggy. Swiggy received $100 million
from China-based Meituan-Dianping and Naspers in 2018 and then later a string of investments
took the company's valuation to over a $1 billion.

In April 2020, Swiggy received around $43 million funding which valued the company at $3.6
billion.

Swiggy acquired Bangalore-based Asian food start-up 48East in 2017. Swiggy later acquired
Mumbai-based Scootsy Logistics, a struggling food and fashion delivery service. It also went
on to acquire a milk delivery start-up in Mumbai called SuprDaily in an all cash deal. In 2019,
the company invested Rs 31 crore in Mumbai-based ready-to-eat food brand Fingerlix. Swiggy
plans to transition Scootsy’s partners, fleet and nudge consumers to its app and shut Scootsy
by June-end 2020.

HISTORY

In 2013 two founders, Sriharsha Majety and Nandan Reddy, designed an e-commerce website
called "Bundl" to facilitate courier service and ship goods within India. Bundl was quickly
paused, and they moved into the food delivery market. At the time, the food delivery sector
was in turmoil as several notable start-ups, such as Food Panda (later acquired by Ola Cabs),
TinyOwl (later acquired by Zomato) and Ola Cafe (later closed) were struggling. Majety and
Reddy approached Rahul Jaimini, formerly with Myntra, and founded Swiggy and parent
holding company Bundl Technologies in 2014. The company built out a dedicated delivery
network and grew rapidly, primarily driven by the focus on logistics and locking in key
resources. In May 2020, Swiggy laid off 1100 employees during the Covid-19 pandemic.

In August 2020 the company launched their groceries delivery platform called InstaMart.

Swiggy was founded by Nandan Reddy, Rahul Jaimini and Sriharsha Majesty in August 2014.
Three of them were from different field. Nandan and Sriharsha were both alumni of Birla
Institute of Technology and Science in Pilani, and in 2013 they had a logistic company named
Bundl Technologies that used to connect small and medium companies. After about a year and
half years they thought of building an online food delivering logistic company with the concept
of “hyperlocal food delivery” and entered the restaurant industry. They asked one of their
friends, Rahul Jaimini, who was an IIT Kharagpur alumnus and was working as a software
 18

engineer for online fashion store Myntra to join and when he agreed, they created and began
the food chain delivery service called “Swiggy”.

KEY PEOPLE

Name: Sriharsha Majety

Designation: CEO

LinkedIn Profile:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/sriharsha-
m-563aa217/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/harshamjty

Name: Rahul Bothra

Designation: CFO

LinkedIn Profile:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rahul-
bothra-0231608/
 19

Name: Vivek Sunder

Designation: COO

LinkedIn Profile:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/viveksunder/

Name: Vishal Bhatia

Designation: CEO-New Supply Business

LinkedIn Profile:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/vishalbhatiamktg/

Name: Srivats TS

Designation: Vice President-Marketing

LinkedIn Profile:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/srivats-ts/
 20

SWOT ANALYSIS

# Strengths:

1. Swiggy delivers food to its customers with a neat pack. The hygiene part is also well-
maintained.
2. The front and the back-end teams are well-trained and get the service delivered for the
customers.
3. For customers to view comfortably, Swiggy has maintained an excellent interface to
take their orders.
4. Swiggy is famous for its quick delivery service.

# Weakness:

1. Orders are from restaurants within the particular area.

2. People in few cities are not aware about the brand.

# Opportunities:

1. Leader in online food delivery business.

2. Growing market for potential customers.
3. Need to increase and concentrate on their zonal restaurant base.

#Threats:

1. Increase in number of new competitors.

2. Neglecting the potential competitors.
3. The customer base of Swiggy is decreasing.
 21

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
 22

Serhat Murat Alagoz & Haluk Hekimoglu (2012) determined a noticeable growth in
ecommerce with a substantial speed worldwide, similarly food industry has been noticed to
grow by the time. Researchers have used Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) model to
study the online food ordering system. Ease and usefulness of the online ordering and delivery
services has been emphasized as a major factor towards the acceptance and growth of these
services.

Ansar Z. & Jain S. (2016) specified the growth in the ecommerce industry as prime factor for
the success of online food ordering and delivery services. Research has mentioned that more
than 400 food delivery apps are nurturing in India with a funding of about $120 million from
venture capital firms and other such investors. Considering the fact that a minimum 3 meals
are consumed by each individual in a day the food industry is called as a repetitive business
industry which attracts the interest of investors and entrepreneurs towards this growing
business segment.

H.S. Sethu & Bhavya Saini (2016) have wonderfully investigated the perception, behaviour
and satisfaction of students towards online food ordering and delivery services. The study
emphasized the online food ordering and delivery services helping students in time
management and having their favourite food at any time of the day. Researchers have also
revealed that easy access to internet as one of the supporting factors to the use of such services
by the students.

Jyotishman Das (2018) in his study titled “consumer perception towards ‘online food ordering
and delivery services’: an empirical study” aims to discuss the consumer’s perception towards
the online food ordering and delivery services in Pune. The survey was conducted around 153
respondents who are already using the online food delivery services. The purpose was to know
the influencing factors, buyer’s perceptions, needs, positioning of various attributes of different
online portals in their mind and overall satisfaction towards online food delivery services. The
factors that encourages consumers to use online food ordering is doorstep delivery followed by
ease and convenience. Consumers are mostly influenced when they receive any cashbacks and
rewards. Their most preferred online food delivery service provider is Zomato followed by
Swiggy. The factors that prevent consumers to use the online food delivery services are bad
past experience followed by influence from friends/family.

Mr. Vashu Panwar & Ms. Madhu Singh (2019) have investigated that mostly students those
who are on the verge of completing their studies using online food delivery services. The
 23

consumers are satisfied with the services of both online food provider. The perception of the
consumer varies according to various similarities & difference based on their personal
opinions. In their study, it reveals that the price of the products, discounts and special offers
have the most influencing factor on online food delivery system.

Nitiwanakul W (2014) this study was to examine the relationship between customers’
perceived value and its drivers which influence fine dining restaurant selection. The results
indicated that perceived value and monetary cost were the key factors that influence
consumers’ intention to select a fine dining restaurant. Food quality, service quality, monetary
cost and non-monetary cost were found to be the essential factors which directly affect the
overall customer perceived value of fine dining restaurants, in a positive way for quality and a
negative way for cost.

Jabir Tribhuvan (2015) The study resulted in that the majority of the respondents reported
eating out once in a month. They primarily dined out with friends or family members on
holidays or special occasions. By using chi- square analysis the difference in consumers
preferences for eating out has been analysed for family and fast-food style restaurants. The
study also identified that the preference for eating out was significantly more prominent among
those who were younger (<30 years), more educated (preferably graduate in any discipline),
employed, and having more than one income earners in their family and belonging to higher
income groups of households (>`. 15,000 per month).

Krishna Kumari (2019) invested that on-line ordering system was a simple and convenient way
for customers to purchase food online, without wasting the time in restaurant. This method was

convenient, safe, reliable and it is revolutionizing the present restaurant industry. Structured

questionnaire was employed to identify the factors influencing the buying behaviour and
relationship between the on-line food service and the facilities provided. The study concludes
that the social

media helps the on-line service provider of food, by advertising in their media and websites.

S. Manju (2019), in her study on Customer Preference and Impact of Online Food Service

Apps tells about the impact of various food ordering apps in our day to day life and what factors
have contributed to this great deal of food service app usage.
 24

Mrs. A. Mohanapriya, Mrs. P. Geetha & Mr. A. Prasathkumar(2020) The consumer behaviour
has become an emerging area of research within the business discipline here various factors
has an influence on consumer behaviour. The research investigates the consumer’s preference
on dining in a restaurant and ordering food online. Even online food delivery service is an
emerging market in India the consumer prefers the traditional way of dining in the restaurant.
Restaurants is the place where people can sit and relax and spend their time with their family
by having their favourite food. Most of the people prefers the restaurant with good ambience
and provide hygiene food. Most of the consumers have online food delivery apps in their
mobiles but they place orders only once in a while. From this research paper we had identified
that the main problem for the consumers not preferring online food delivery service is lack of
trust. Consumers afraid of the quality of the packed food, so the online food aggregators should
gain the trust of the consumers to improve their business.
 25

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOGY
 26

3.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

• To analyse the Technological competitive edge between Zomato & Swiggy.

• To study the Challenges faced by Zomato & Swiggy.
• To understand the customer preference towards online food delivery service
providers.
• To analyse the Service competitive edge between Zomato & Swiggy.
• To understand the market and analyse the marketing strategies adopted by
Zomato & Swiggy.

3.2 NEED OF STUDY

• It is important to understand the customer behaviour towards Food Delivery
Service Provider.
• To understand the mindset of customers and provide satisfactory customer
service.
• To understand the customer need and wants.

3.3 SCOPE OF STUDY

The study aims to gauze the customer reviews and satisfaction towards the
available online food ordering and delivery services in Ferozepur (Punjab). The
study further compares various aspects of the two available food delivery service
providers in the area. Based on these factors the findings of the study can help
service providers meet customer expectations in a better way. On the other hand,
new customers of the online food ordering and delivery services can choose best
out of all available options in their residential location. Therefore, findings from
the study can be helpful for residents as well as service providers in Ferozepur
(Punjab).

3.4 RESEARCH DESIGN

Descriptive Statistics: Descriptive statistics are used to describe the basic

features of the data in a study. They provide simple summaries about the
sample and the measures. Together with simple graphics analysis, they form
 27

the basis of virtually every quantitative analysis of data. Descriptive statistics

help us to simplify large amounts of data in a sensible way. Each descriptive
statistic reduces lots of data into a simpler summary. With descriptive
statistics you are simply describing what is or what the data shows.
# Since my study is Descriptive type, so Research Design will also be
Descriptive.

3.5 SAMPLING METHOD

Considering homogeneity and the small size of population, all subsets of the
frame are given an equal probability and non-probability sampling
(convivence sampling) method was adopted in respondent selection and data
collection. Target population was a mix of students, business men, government
employees with different age groups and educational qualifications.
Sample Size(n)=50

3.6 RESEARCH METHOD

A questionnaire was circulated online with the help of Google Forms to collect
data from individuals. It is a set of questions which consisted of close ended and
open-ended questions devised for the purposes of survey on which the study is
conducted. Most of the questions were closed-ended questions and multiple-
choice questions. All of the respondents are from Firozpur. There were 21
questions in the questionnaire which included both general questions and
questions specific to the topic. The questionnaire was distributed to 50 people and
it took a 3-4 days to receive all the replies after which analysis was made based
on the data collected from the respondents.

3.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

❖ Results are just an indication of the Present scenario & may be not applicable
in future.
❖ As the study was conducted in Ferozepur (Punjab), so it can be said that
the study was conducted on regional basis.
 28

❖ Since, sampling was done under convenience sampling method, where easily
approachable respondents were picked up, so it will not justify the whole
universe.
❖ Lack of time on the part of respondents for filling up the questionnaire.
❖ Respondents may fill partially correct information in the questionnaire.
❖ The sampling size was so small for conducting the study.
❖ A sample size of 50 respondents is enough to gauze the reviews and satisfaction
of customers living in Ferozepur.
❖ Keeping in view social and cultural variations amongst the population, the results
of the study cannot be generalized to each and every past of Ferozepur or its
adjacent locations.
❖ As the situation of Pandemic arises, actual Summer Training is not conducted,
which effects the result of study.
 29

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION

 30

# Data Analysis:

Table showing the age of respondents

Tab 4.1

Options No. of Respondents Percentage

15-20 7 14%
20-25 30 60%
25-30 11 22%
30-40 0 0
More than 40 2 4%
Total 50

Diagram shows number of male and female

Fig.4.1

Age of the respondent

2 7
11

15-20
20-25
25-30

30 More than 40

#Data Interpretation:

Above pie chart shows that most of the people who order online food is from 20-25 age group.
That means young people prefer online food delivery system.
 31

# Data Analysis:

Table showing the occupation of the respondents

Tab.4.2

Options No. of respondents Percentage

Student 33 66%
Employee 9 18%
Businessman 6 12%
Professional Person 2 4%
Others 0 0
Total 50

Diagram shows the occupation of respondents

Fig.4.2

OCCUPATION

35

30

25

20
33
15

10
9
5 6
2
0
Businessman Employee Professional Person Student

# Data Interpretation:

This bar graph shows that maximum students prefer online food delivery. Their percentage
is 66% which is the highest percentage.
 32

# Data Analysis:

Table showing the number of respondents who prefer online food

Tab.4.3

Options No. of respondents Percentage

Yes 42 84%
No 8 16%
Total 50

Diagram shows the preference of respondents

Fig.4.3

Do you order food online?

8, 16%

No
Yes

42, 84%

# Data Interpretation:

This pie chart shows that 84% respondents prefer online food which says most of the people
does opt for online food delivery but 16% of respondents did not prefer online food delivery.
 33

# Data Analysis:

Table shows preferences of respondents towards Zomato & Swiggy

Tab.4.4

Options No. of respondents Percentage

Zomato 27 64%
Swiggy 15 36%
Total 42

Diagram shows the preference of respondents towards Zomato & Swiggy

Fig.4.4

Most active service provider

swiggy, 15, 36%

zomato, 27, 64% zomato

swiggy

# Data Interpretation:

This pie chart shows the preferences of consumer towards online food delivery service
provider, where in 64% prefer Zomato & 36% prefer Swiggy. This shows Zomato has more
preference than Swiggy.
 34

# Data Analysis:

Table shows how often respondents order food online

Tab.4.5

Options No. of respondents Percentage

Daily 0 0
Weekly 5 10%
Monthly 42 84%
Weekly, Monthly 3 6%
Total 50

Diagram shows intervals in which they order food online

Fig.4.5

How often do you order food online?

45 42
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
5 3

0
Monthly Weekly Weekly, Monthly

# Data Interpretation:

This bar graph gives clear view of how often they order food online. It shows that most of
them order food online i.e.84% of respondents. & rest of them seen ordering weekly (10%).
 35

# Data Analysis:

Table shows preferred meal respondents wish to order

Tab.4.6

Options No. of respondents Percentage

Breakfast 0 0
Lunch 1 2%
Snacks 28 56%
Dinner 9 18%
Snacks, Dinner 8 16%
Lunch, Snacks, Dinner 2 4%
Lunch, snacks 2 4%
Total 50

Diagram shows preferred meal of respondents

Fig.4.6

WHICH MEAL DO YOU TYPICALLY

ORDER ONLINE?
Snacks, Dinner 8

Snacks 28

Lunch, Snacks, Dinner 2

Lunch, Snacks 2
Lunch 1
Dinner 9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

# Data Interpretation:

As the above bar graph shows most of the respondents prefer to buy snacks whose
percentage is 56% & 18% opted for order dinner online.
 36

# Data Analysis:

Table shows reason for ordering food online

Tab.4.7

Options No. of respondents Percentage

Discounts 17 34%
Better selection 4 8%
Convenience 17 34%
Convenience, Better 1 2%
selection
Discounts, Convenience 10 20%
Discounts, Convenience, 1 2%
Better selection
Total 50

Diagram shows reasons for ordering food online

Fig.4.7

Primary reason for ordering food online?

Better Selection

10 1 4
Convenience
17
Convenience, Better Selection
17
Discounts

1 Discounts, Convenience

# Data Interpretation:

This pie chart shows people prefer food online because of discounts offered (34%) as well as
it is most convenient method (34%). Better selection is the reason for very few people.
 37

# Data Analysis:

Table shows amount of money spend by respondents

Tab.4.8

Options No. of respondents Percentage

≤150 1 2%
150-250 23 46%
250-500 19 38%
≥500 7 14%
Total 50

Diagram shows amount of money spend by respondents

Fig.4.8

Approximate money you spend on ordering

food online

23
19

7
1
150-250 250-500 LESS THAN 150 MORE THAN 500

# Data Interpretation:

This bar graph gives clear idea that 46% of the people likes to spend amount of money
between 150 to 250 & 38% of them spend around 250-500.And also for more than 500 amount
there is only 14% people.
 38

# Data Analysis:

Table shows responses of service provider gives more offers & discounts

Tab.4.9

Options No. of respondents Percentage

Zomato 27 54%
Swiggy 23 46%
Total 50

Diagram shows which service provider gives more offers & discounts

Fig.4.9

WHICH SERVICE PROVIDER GIVES MORE OFFERS

AND DISCOUNTS?

Swiggy, 23, 46%

Zomato, 27, 54%

# Data Interpretation:

This pie chart shows that Zomato gives more offers and discounts (54%) rather than Swiggy
which gives comparatively low offers and discounts (46%).
 39

# Data Analysis:

Table shows who provide better customer service

Tab.4.10

Options No. of respondents Percentage

Zomato 30 60%
Swiggy 20 40%
Total 50

Diagram shows who provide better customer service

Fig.4.10

WHICH AMONG PROVIDE BETTER

CUSTOMER SERVICE?
35
30
30

25
20
20

15

10

0
Swiggy Zomato

# Data Interpretation:

This bar graph shows that Zomato gives better customer service (60%) rather than Swiggy
who gives 40% customer service. The best consumer service provider will always lead the
market.
 40

# Data Analysis:

Table shows who have more tie ups with restaurants

Tab.4.11

Options No. of respondents Percentage

Zomato 31 62%
Swiggy 19 38%
Total 50

Diagram shows who has more tie ups with restaurants

Fig.4.11

WHICH SERVICE PROVIDER HAS MORE

TIE UPS WITH RESTAURANTS

19
Swiggy
Zomato
31

# Data Interpretation:

The most important is on having a lot of tie ups with restaurants which will attract more
customers. This pie chart shows that Zomato has more tie ups with restaurants i.e.62%
whereas Swiggy has lie tie ups which is 38%.
 41

# Data Analysis:

Table shows time takes for delivering of order

Tab.4.12

Options No. of respondents Percentage

15-25 Min 11 22%
25-35 Min 16 32%
35-45 Min 23 46%
More than 45 Min 0 0
Total 50

Diagram shows time takes for delivering of order

Fig.4.12

TIME USUALLY TAKE FOR ORDER TO BE

DELIVERED
25
23
20

15 16
11
10

15-25 MINUTES
25-35 MINUTES
35-45 MINUTES

# Data Interpretation:

As per the collected data, majority of the respondents says that it takes 35-45 minutes for
an order to be delivered (46%). Also, some customers also say that it takes 25-35 minutes
for delivery of their order (32%).
 42

# Data Analysis:

Table shows in the time of pandemic how often they order online food

Tab.4.13

Options No. of respondents Percentage

3-4 days 8 16%
7-10 days 7 14%
10-14 days 8 16%
More than 15 days 27 54%
Total 50

Diagram shows in the time of pandemic how often they order online food

Fig.4.13

In the time of pandemic, how often do you

order food online
MORE THAN 15 DAYS 27

7-10 DAYS 7

3-4 DAYS 8

10-14 DAYS 8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

# Data Interpretation:

Because of Covid19 situation Online food delivery service sector reaches at its peak. This will
be proved by this bar graph, shows that at the time of pandemic, people order online food in
more than 15 days.
 43

# Data Analysis:

Table shows how well the packaging of food delivered (Zomato)

Tab.4.14(a)

Options No. of respondents Percentage

Very well packed 18 36%
Satisfactory 30 60%
Unsatisfactory 2 4%
Total 50

Diagram shows how well the packaging of food delivered (Zomato)

Fig.4.14(a)

How well the packaging of food delivered?

[Zomato]

18, 36%
Satisfactory
30, 60% Unsatisfactory
2, 4%
Very well packed

# Data Interpretation:

This pie chart shows that the packaging of food delivered by Zomato is Satisfactory (60%).
whereas 18% of respondents claims that food delivered is very well packed.
 44

# Data Analysis:

Table shows how well the packaging of food delivered (Swiggy)

Tab.4.14(b)

Options No. of respondents Percentage

Very well packed 17 34%
Satisfactory 29 58%
Unsatisfactory 4 8%
Total 50

Diagram shows well the packaging of food delivered (Swiggy)

Fig.4.14(b)

How well the packaging of food delivered?

[Swiggy]

17, 34%
Satisfactory
29, 58%
Unsatisfactory
4, 8%
Very well packed

# Data Interpretation:

This pie chart shows that the packaging of food delivered by Swiggy is Satisfactory (58%).
whereas 34 % of respondents claims that food delivered is very well packed.
 45

CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS & CONCLUSION
 46

5.1 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

➢ As per my study it clearly states that almost 84% of the respondents choose to
order food online which says that most of the people prefer to order food online
where in only a few respondents did not prefer to order food online.

➢ It clearly shows preference of customer towards online food delivery

aggregators, wherein 64% prefer Zomato, 36% prefers Swiggy. This shows the
preference of customers towards various aggregators available in the market.
This also shows that most of the people prefers Zomato as compare to Swiggy.

➢ It gives us a clear picture that most of them prefer to order snacks which stands
at 56%, and it also shows that 18% prefer ordering dinner and the remaining
have opted for lunch which shows that the demand is more for snacks.

➢ Through this it could analyse how often people order food online and we can
see that most of them order food monthly (84%), and some respondents are seen
ordering weekly (10%), where takers of daily is comparatively few in number.

➢ Zomato provides more offers, discounts and promotions compared to its rival
Swiggy, where in both stand at different levels where is Zomato has 54%,
Swiggy has 46%. Therefore, Zomato is the best in giving offers and promotions.

➢ This gave me an insight on the money spent on ordering food where 46% of the
people likes to spend amount of money between 150 to 250 & 38% of them
spend around 250-500.And also for more than 500 amount there is only 14%
people.

➢ The best customer service provider will always lead the market. The best
customer service provider where in most of the respondents have opted for
Zomato at 60% saying that it provides better customer service compared to
swiggy at 40%.
 47

➢ This study shows which aggregator has the most important no of tie ups and it
is the most important having a lot of tie ups with restaurants which will attract
more customers. It shows Zomato leads the market which stands at 62% as
compare to Swiggy 38%.

➢ This study shows that most of the young people or students whose age group is
20-25 prefers online food delivery system rather than 25-30 age group.

➢ With the help of this, I had come to know the reason behind the online food
delivery preference as compared to walk-in. It shows that Online food delivery
service is more convenient as well as it saves time and money also by various
discounts and offers given by online food delivery aggregators.

➢ Because of Covid19 situation Online food delivery service sector reaches at its
peak. This report gives me insight that at the time of pandemic, people order
online food in more than 15 days which stands at 54% and those who order
online food in between 10-14 days stands at 16%.

5.2 SUGGESTIONS

Following Suggestions would be recommended to both Zomato and Swiggy:

➢ These food aggregator services are only popular in few cities, then need to expand into
other markets and explore the unexplored cities.
➢ Come up with ways to retain the existing customers.
➢ Be aware of the competitors.
➢ Attract customers by providing new offers, promos and schemes.
➢ Conduct R&D on regular basis to see which yield benefits
➢ Takeover or acquire other food delivery aggregators who are not doing well in the
market.
➢ Provide proper quality and efficient training to its staff.
 48

➢ Understand the choice, taste and preference of customers.

➢ Understand the needs and wants of customers.
➢ Try different ways of delivery like: Drone delivery, Railway station delivery etc.
➢ Keep an eye out on your product performances and as they change with seasons. Use
this insight to plan out special dishes.
➢ Smaller and functional menu adds great value to customer satisfaction.

5.3 CONCLUSION

The change in the standard of living of the people, increasing disposable income of people and
the busy schedule has changed the life of people and their eating habits, where in people used
to prefer cooking food than going to restaurants or ordering food but now things have changed
where in most of the people have got addicted to online ordering of food and prefer to order
food instead of cooking mostly the young crowd, working professionals and people who don’t
like to cook or don’t know to cook have started taking the at most use of these apps.

Online food delivery services have made the life of individuals much easier and convenient
wherein they can save on a lot of time and energy. With the rise of these services there is no
need to call the restaurants for placing orders, there is no need to wait for a long time, through
this you can order your choice of food from your choice of restaurant anytime, anyplace and
from anywhere.

On the basis of responses from the customers of online food ordering services in this particular
research, it is concluded that Zomato is the most successful food ordering online service in
Ferozepur. Customers have reported Zomato as most active online food delivery service
availing maximum promotional offers in terms of discounts, with courteous and professional
delivery staff as well as supportive customer care. Respondents have also chosen Zomato for
providing best packaging materials and overall customer satisfaction over Swiggy in
Ferozepur.
 49

ANNEXTURE
 50

REFERENCES:

▪ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/img/73045957/Master.jpg
▪ https://www.slideshare.net/VashuPanwar/vashu-panwar-presentation-
of-comparative-study-between-swiggy-and-zomato
▪ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/img/73045957/Master.jpg
▪ https://craft.co/swiggy/executives
▪ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-
biz/startups/newsbuzz/swiggy-expands-services-in-16-new-
cities/articleshow/66460278.cms
▪ https://craft.co/swiggy
▪ https://craft.co/zomato/executives
▪ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zomato
▪ https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/56174-23#overview
▪ https://www.bing.com/search?q=history+of+zomato&form=WNSGPH
&qs=AS&cvid=6e083280a5174ee9be4b6a954c90801f&pq=history+of
+zomato&cc=IN&setlang=en-
US&PC=HCTS&nclid=A0F98EBA5799161A2FC8CC5BBE114043&
ts=1599031383406&wsso=Moderate
▪ https://www.zomato.com/akola?city_id=11434
▪ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341109906_POPULARITY_
OF_ONLINE_FOOD_ORDERING_AND_DELIVERY_SERVICES-
A_COMPARATIVE_STUDY_BETWEEN_ZOMATO_SWIGGY_A
ND_UBER_EATS_IN_LUDHIANA
▪ http://www.nibblematrix.com/online-ordering-system-definition/
▪ https://www.bing.com/search?q=KEY+PEOPLE+OF+SWIGGY&for
m=WNSGPH&qs=SW&cvid=e8d309ecb56d49aa9971723b5e58115b
&pq=KEY+PEOPLE+OF+SWIGGY&cc=IN&setlang=en-
US&PC=HCTS&nclid=A0F98EBA5799161A2FC8CC5BBE114043&
ts=1599493173250&nclidts=1599493173&tsms=250&wsso=Moderate
▪ https://www.marketing91.com/swot-analysis-of-swiggy/
 51

QUESTIONNAIRE:
52
53
54
55