Dataset Travel

Question 1. Run a crosstabs using the variables BRAND and loyalty. What do the results tell you?

Null hypothesis: Ho: Customers are not loyal to the brand
Alternative hypothesis: H1: Customers are loyal to the brand

brand * loyalbin Crosstabulation

loyalbin
Total 0 1
brand 348 Count 234 79 313
Expected Count 264.0 49.0 313.0
% within loyalbin 18.5% 33.6% 20.9%
349 Count 220 81 301
Expected Count 253.8 47.2 301.0
% within loyalbin 17.4% 34.5% 20.1%
350 Count 262 38 300
Expected Count 253.0 47.0 300.0
% within loyalbin 20.7% 16.2% 20.0%
351 Count 286 21 307
Expected Count 258.9 48.1 307.0
% within loyalbin 22.6% 8.9% 20.5%
352 Count 263 16 279
Expected Count 235.3 43.7 279.0
% within loyalbin 20.8% 6.8% 18.6%
Total Count 1265 235 1500
Expected Count 1265.0 235.0 1500.0
% within loyalbin 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%




Chi-Square Tests

Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 91.486
a
4 .000
Likelihood Ratio 94.331 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 79.052 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 1500

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 43.71.




Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi .247 .000
Cramer's V .247 .000
N of Valid Cases 1500





Expected Count is different from observed count for all the brands. Also, the Chi square value is less
than alpha value. Hence, there is a relationship between brand and loyalty. P value is significant at
the confidence interal of 95%(=.05) . Hence we accept the alternative hypothesis.

Question 2. Delete the brands associated with UK and AirUSA. Rerun the crosstabs. What do the
results tell you?
Assuming brand 349 to be UK and brand 350 to be AirUSA-
Null hypothesis-Ho: Customers are not loyal towards the brand
Alternative hypothesis- H1: Customers are loyal towards the brands.

brand * loyalbin Crosstabulation

loyalbin
Total 0 1
brand 348 Count 234 79 313
Expected Count 272.6 40.4 313.0
% within loyalbin 29.9% 68.1% 34.8%
351 Count 286 21 307
Expected Count 267.4 39.6 307.0
% within loyalbin 36.5% 18.1% 34.1%
352 Count 263 16 279
Expected Count 243.0 36.0 279.0
% within loyalbin 33.6% 13.8% 31.0%
Total Count 783 116 899
Expected Count 783.0 116.0 899.0
% within loyalbin 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 65.184
a
2 .000
Likelihood Ratio 62.020 2 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 62.803 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 899

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 36.00.


Symmetric Measures

Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi .269 .000
Cramer's V .269 .000
N of Valid Cases 899






Analysis:
Expected Count is different from observed count. P value is significant at the confidence interval of
95%(=.05) . Hence we accept the alternative hypothesis.



DataSet: FAST

Question 1: What statistical analysis is suitable to measure brand equity with the collected data?
Why?






Question 2




Question 3 Analyse a Fast Food Brand to determine relationship between Loyalty and Respondents
profile (eg. Age, Region, Income).
Brand 263
Independent variable- Region, Age , Income
Dependent variable- Loyalty
Null Hypothesis: There is no relation between independent and dependent variable
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a relation between independent and dependent variable
For Region and Income We use CrossTabs. For Age we will use Discriminant Analysis
Region:




If there is NO relationship between the variables, the observed and expected frequencies will be the same.
For our example, this is clearly not the case. And hence, there is a relationship between loyalty and
relationship.

Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 75.067
a
27 .000
Likelihood Ratio 80.092 27 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association
7.890 1 .005
N of Valid Cases 283

a. 15 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .82.


Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi .515 .000
Cramer's V .297 .000
N of Valid Cases 283



Pearsons Chi square value is less than the alpha value . there is a relationship between the variables
based on the level of confidence. We accept alternative hyphothesis.

Income:




Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 16.586
a
27 .941
Likelihood Ratio 17.626 27 .915
Linear-by-Linear
Association
.468 1 .494
N of Valid Cases 283

a. 11 cells (27.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 2.37.


Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi .242 .941
Cramer's V .140 .941
N of Valid Cases 283


Here, though the observed and expected counts are different but the Chi square value is greater
than our alpha value. Thus the difference is due to sampling error.
Null hypothesis is accepted. Income and loyalty are not related.

Age:










Question 4 Ariel created binary variables for familiarity, uniqueness, relevance, loyalty and
popularity by splitting responses into high and low. Why would they would choose to do (or not
do) this? In other words, what information is gained and what information is lost?
Ariel research created binary variables by splitting responses into high and low. They have
considered various factors while calculating brand equity .if they would have chosen exact
numbers(like 1 to 7) or (8,9,10),then it was even more difficult to analyse the data. In fact the data
consists of 125000 records. By creating binary variables, they became somewhat comfortable in
analysing data.
By creating binary variables for responses, exact information for a brand got lost. If we are
measuring a data on a scale of 1 to 7(i.e. for low) there can be a huge difference between 1 and 7
but in this data sheet they are clubbed into same category as low. Now this creates confusion while
analysing data.1 and 7 can be extreme values but they have been grouped into one category.

Question 5 Do You agree Ariel's Measure of BRAND EQUITY?
Brand Equity is the The value premium that a company realizes from a product with a recognizable
name as compared to its generic equivalent. The variables that Ariel has used can fairly capture the
associations that he customers have with the brands and whether they think that the brand is
reliable, unique and worthy of a premium price and hence can measure brand equity .