Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
INTRODUCTION
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
In a study titled "Mastering the Art of Social Media," the researcher found
that online communication has become a central part in the communication of
political actors. In the study, Klinger focuses on Switzerland, where
broadband, internet use, and media literacy are among the highest in the
world, and how all major political parties in Switzerland run their own
websites and social media sites.
Secondary objective:
To know what age group use social media more.
To know whether people buy products based on the reviews from social
media.
To know how much time people spend on social media every day.
To find whether social media helps people to find their desired
products.
To find whether online shopping has surpassed offline shopping.
CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
8
PRIMARY DATA:
The data collected is the first hand data i.e. it is collected from
the customers directly using Questionnaire method.
SECONDARY DATA:
The data collected is the second hand data i.e. it is not collected
from the customers directly but they collect from internet.
10
Systematic Sampling:
Systematic sampling relies on arranging the target population according to
some ordering scheme and then selecting elements at regular intervals through
that ordered list. Systematic sampling involves a random start and then
precedes with the selection of every kith elements from the telephone
directory [an every 10th sample also referred to as sampling with a skip
of 10].
Stratified sampling:
Where the population embraces a number of distinct categories, the frames
can be organized by these categories in to separate strata Each stratum
is then sampled as an independent sub-population, out of which individual
elements can be randomly selected.
Cluster sampling:
Sometimes it is more cost-effective to select respondents in groups sampling
is often clustered by geography, or by time periods.
Sample used:
The sampling size we have used here is simple random sampling.
Sample size is 60.
11
REPORT WRITING:
Report writing is the end product of the research activity.
In the report, the evidence and findings are presented in such a way that it
is really understood, assessed by the reader and enables him to validity of
the conclusion.
REPORT PRESENTATION:
After the analysis of the data using statistical techniques, the finding and
suggestions are presented in the form of report.
CHART:
To represent the collected data in the pictorial form the charts which are
used in this study are:
Pie- diagram
PIE DIAGRAM:
A pie-diagram is a pictorial representation data with several divisions in
a circular form.
It consists of circles sub-divided into several sectors by radius.
12
CHAPTER 3
RESPONDENTS PROFILE
13
Male
Female
Total
Frequency Percent
42
70.0
18
30.0
60
100.0
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
70.0
70.0
30.0
100.0
100.0
Figure: 3.1.1.1
GENDER
Female
30%
Male
70%
Inference:
The chart represents that out of 60 respondents 70% of them
are male
30% of them are female
14
18-24
25-30
31 &
above
Total
Frequency
46
10
Percent
76.7
16.7
Valid
Percent
76.7
16.7
6.7
6.7
60
100.0
100.0
Cumulative Percent
76.7
93.3
100.0
Age
7%
17%
76%
18-24
25-30
31 & above
Inference:
76% of the respondents are from the age between 18-24
17% of the respondents are from the age between 25-30
7% of the respondents are from the age of 31 & above
15
UG
PG
Total
Valid
Percent
70.0
30.0
100.0
Frequency Percent
42
70.0
18
30.0
60
100.0
Cumulative Percent
70.0
100.0
Education
30%
70%
UG
PG
Inference:
70% of the respondents are completed or undergoing their under
graduate courses
30% of the respondents are completed or undergoing their post
graduate courses
16
student
employee
business
Frequency
35
21
4
Percent
58.3
35.0
6.7
Valid
Percent
58.3
35.0
6.7
Total
60
100.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
58.3
93.3
100.0
Occupation
70
60
58.3
50
Occupatio
n
40
35
30
20
10
6.7
0
Student
Employee
Business
Inference:
58% of the respondents are students
35% of the respondents are working & 7% are doing business
17
CHAPTER 4
18
Yes
No
Total
Frequency
51
9
60
Percent
85.0
15.0
100.0
Valid
Percent
85.0
15.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
85.0
100.0
Yes
No
Inference:
19
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percent
43
71.7
17
28.3
60
100.0
Valid
Percent
71.7
28.3
100.0
Cumulative Percent
71.7
100.0
Yes
Inference:
72% of the respondents says that social media helps them to find
their desired product
28% of the respondents says that social media does not help them to
find their desired product
20
Yes
no
Frequency
47
12
Percent
80.0
20.0
Valid
Percent
78.3
20.0
Total
60
100.0
100.0
Cumulative Percent
78.3
98.3
Yes
80%
Yes
No
Inference:
80% of the
particular
20% of the
particular
21
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
6.7
6.7
6.7
10.0
10.0
16.7
19
27
31.7
45.0
31.7
45.0
48.3
93.3
6.7
6.7
100.0
60
100.0
100.0
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
strongly
agree
Total
Cumulative Percent
7%
10%
45%
31%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Inference:
45% of the respondents agree that follow brand news and posts from
social media
32% of the respondents are neutral & 10% disagree that they dont
follow brand news and posts from social media
7% of them strongly agree and disagree that they follow & dont
follow brand news and posts from social media
22
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
8.3
8.3
8.3
15.0
15.0
23.3
19
18
31.7
30.0
31.7
30.0
55.0
85.0
15.0
15.0
100.0
60
100.0
100.0
strongly
disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly
agree
Total
Cumulative Percent
Purchase intention
15%
8%
15%
30%
32%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Inference:
32% of the respondents say that they are neutral on saying that the
comments on social media application would affect your purchase
intention
23
30% of them agree that the comments on social media application would
affect your purchase intention
15% of them disagree and strongly agree that the comments on social
media application would affect your purchase intention
8% of them strongly disagree that the comments on social media
application would affect your purchase intention
24
Frequency Percent
strongly
disagree
disagree
neutral
intention
Valid
Percent
Cumulative Percent
10.0
10.0
10.0
5
16
8.3
26.7
8.3
26.7
18.3
45.0
agree
strongly
agree
26
43.3
43.3
88.3
11.7
11.7
100.0
Total
60
100.0
100.0
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Agree
Neutral
Inference:
43% of the respondents agree that positive opinion will increase the
purchase intention
27% respondents are neutral
25
26
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
3.3
3.3
3.3
5
14
8.3
23.3
8.3
23.3
11.7
35.0
agree
strongly
agree
31
51.7
51.7
86.7
13.3
13.3
100.0
Total
60
100.0
100.0
strongly
disagree
disagree
neutral
Cumulative Percent
13%
3%
8%
Strongly disagree
24%
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Storngly agree
52%
Inference:
52% of the respondents agree that the review about a product
motivates their purchase intention
24% respondents are neutral about the review about a product
motivates their purchase intention
13% respondents strongly agree that the review about a product
motivates their purchase intention
27
28
strongly
disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly
agree
Total
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
5.0
5.0
5.0
9
11
15.0
18.3
15.0
18.3
20.0
38.3
20
33.3
33.3
71.7
17
28.4
28.4
100.0
60
100.0
100.0
Cumulative Percent
Decision making
5%
15%
29%
18%
33%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Storngly agree
Inference:
33% of the respondents agree that they will seek information before
decision making
29% of them strongly that they will seek information before decision
making
29
30
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
8.4
8.4
8.4
11
17
18.3
28.3
18.3
28.3
26.7
55.0
20
33.3
33.3
88.3
11.7
11.7
100.0
60
100.0
100.0
strongly
disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly
agree
Total
Cumulative
Percent
Sales
12%
9%
18%
33%
28%
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Storngly agree
31
Inference:
33% of the respondents agree that they are dissatisfied with social
media
28% respondents are neutral on dissatisfaction with social media
18% disagree with the dissatisfaction with social media
12% strongly agree that they are dissatisfied with social media
9% strongly disagree that they are dissatisfied with social media
32
Business
Gift
Purchase for
yourself
Total
Frequency
7
20
Percent
11.7
33.3
Valid
Percent
11.7
33.3
32
55
55
60
100.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
11.7
45.0
99
Sales
12%
55%
Business
33%
Gift
Inference:
55% of the respondents say that they purchase products only for
themselves
33% of the respondents say that they purchase as gift
12% say that they purchase for business purposes
33
mobiles
blogs
videos
IM's
Frequency
30
10
10
2
Percent
50.0
16.7
16.7
3.3
Valid
Percent
50.0
16.7
16.7
3.3
others
Total
8
60
13.3
100.0
13.3
100.0
Cumulative Percent
50.0
66.7
83.3
86.7
100.0
SALES
Others
13%
IM's
3%
Videos
17%
Mobiles
50%
Blogs
17%
Inference:
50% of them say mobiles is the necessary tool to live their social
life online
17% of them say that videos and blogs are the tools that necessary to
live their social life online
13% of them have chosen others option
3% of them say IM is the tool necessary to live their social life
online
34
Building awareness
Motivation
Helping people take
action
Frequency
21
22
Percent
35.0
36.7
Valid
Percent
35.0
36.7
8.3
8.3
80.0
13.3
13.3
93.3
4
60
6.7
100.0
6.7
100.0
100.0
Customizing
messages
None of these
Total
Cumulative
Percent
35.0
71.7
MEDIA INFLUENCE
None of these
Customizing
messages
Building
awareness
Helping people
take action
Motivation
Inference:
37% of the respondents say that social media lead to a change in
motivation
35% of them say its building awareness among people
13% of them say it is customizing messages
8% of them say it help people to take action
7% of them chosen none of these
35
4.13 Networker:
Table no: 4.13.1
what kind of networker are you
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
15.0
15.0
15.0
32
8
53.3
13.3
53.3
13.3
68.3
81.7
13.3
13.3
95.0
5.0
5.0
100.0
60
100.0
100.0
Essentiali
st
Consumer
Commenter
Promoter
Early
adapter
Total
Cumulative
Percent
Sales
6%
9%
14%
Essentialist
14%
Consumer
Commenter
57%
Promoter
Early adapter
Inference:
57% of the respondents are consumer
14% are commenter & promoter
9% of them are essentialist & 6% are early adapter
36
4.14 Shopping:
Table no: 4.14.1
Has your online shopping surpassed your offline shopping
Yes
No
Total
Frequency
29
31
60
Percent
48.3
51.7
100.0
Valid
Percent
48.3
51.7
100.0
Cumulative Percent
48.3
100.0
Sales
No
52%
Yes
48%
Yes
No
Inference:
48% of the respondents say that online shopping has surpassed offline
shopping & 53% say no
37
Frequency
28
16
16
60
Percent
46.7
26.7
26.7
100.0
Valid
Percent
46.7
26.7
26.7
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
46.7
73.3
100.0
Time spent
27%
46%
27%
Inference:
46% of the respondents spends less than time on networking sites
27% of them spends 1HR to 2HR and more than 2HR on networking sites
38
Frequency Percent
16
26.7
not spent
more than 1000 or
less than 2000
more than 2000
Total
Valid
Percent
26.7
Cumulative Percent
26.7
27
45.0
45.0
71.7
17
28.3
28.3
100.0
60
100.0
100.0
Sales
28.3
45
26.7
Not spent
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Sales
Inference:
45% of
online
28% of
27% of
the respondents had spent more than 1000 or less than 2000 in
shopping
the respondents had spent more than 2000 in online shopping
the respondents have not bought anything in online shopping
39
Yes
No
Frequency
31
29
Percent
53.3
46.7
Valid
Percent
53.3
46.7
Total
60
100.0
100.0
Cumulative Percent
53.3
100.0
46.7
NO
53.3
YES
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
Inference:
53% of the respondents say that they will buy the products solely by
viewing the ad online and 47% of the respondents say no
40
1
2
3
4
Frequency
39
8
5
5
Percent
65.0
13.3
8.3
8.3
Valid
Percent
65.0
13.3
8.3
8.3
5
Total
3
60
5.0
100.0
5.0
100.0
Ranking
Cumulative
Percent
65.0
78.3
86.7
95.0
100.0
Frequency
8
Percent
13.3
Valid
Percent
13.3
2
3
4
5
Total
24
9
8
11
60
40.0
15.0
13.3
18.3
100.0
40.0
15.0
13.3
18.3
100.0
Ranking
Cumulative
Percent
13.3
53.3
68.3
81.7
100.0
41
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Frequency
1
12
18
16
13
Percent
1.7
20.0
30.0
26.7
21.7
Valid
Percent
1.7
20.0
30.0
26.7
21.7
60
100.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
1.7
21.7
51.7
78.3
100.0
1
2
3
Frequency
6
6
17
Percent
10.0
10.0
28.3
Valid
Percent
10.0
10.0
28.3
4
5
Total
14
17
60
23.3
28.3
100.0
23.3
28.3
100.0
Ranking
Cumulative
Percent
10.0
20.0
48.3
71.7
100.0
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Frequency
6
Percent
10.0
Valid
Percent
10.0
11
10
17
16
60
18.3
16.7
28.3
26.7
100.0
18.3
16.7
28.3
26.7
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
10.0
28.3
45.0
73.3
100.0
42
Inference:
Out of 60 respondents 39 of them ranked Facebook 1st
8 of them ranked twitter 1st
Only one respondent ranked Flickr 1st
6 of them ranked LinkedIn 1st
6 of them ranked OLX 1st
43
CHAPTER 5
44
Oneway Anova:
Table no: 4.19
Table showing the differences between the ages of the respondents and their
positive opinion to increase their purchase intention.
ANOVA
Age of the respondents:
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
1.349
df
4
Mean
Square
.337
19.251
55
.350
20.600
59
F
.963
Sig.
.435
AGE:
Subset for
alpha =
0.05
1
neutral
16
1.1250
strongly disagree
6
1.1667
disagree
5
1.2000
agree
26
1.3846
strongly agree
7
1.5714
Sig.
.181
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 8.190.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the
group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not
guaranteed.
Null hypothesis:
There is no significant difference between ages of the respondents
and positive opinion to increase their purchase intention.
45
Alternate hypothesis:
There is a significant difference between respondents ages of the
respondents and positive opinion to increase their purchase intention
Calculated value = 0.435
LOS = 0.05
Conclusion:
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value reject
null hypothesis. So we conclude that there is a significant difference
between ages of the respondents and positive opinion to increase their
purchase intention
Graph: 4.19.1
Showing relationship between ages of the respondents and positive opinion
to increase their purchase intention.
46
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares
1.708
df
4
Mean
Square
.427
21.275
55
.387
22.983
59
F
1.104
Sig.
.364
Occupation
Subset for
What tool is
alpha =
necessary to live
0.05
you social life
online?
N
1
blogs
10
1.3000
mobiles
30
1.4000
im's
2
1.5000
others
8
1.6250
videos
10
1.8000
Sig.
.230
Means for groups in homogeneous
subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =
5.825.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The
harmonic mean of the group sizes is
used. Type I error levels are not
guaranteed.
47
Null hypothesis:
There is no significant difference between ages of the respondents
and positive opinion to increase their purchase intention.
Alternate hypothesis:
There is a significant difference between Occupation and necessary
tools for their social life.
Calculated value = 0.364
LOS = 0.05
Conclusion:
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value reject
null hypothesis. So we conclude that there is a significant difference
between Occupation and necessary tools for their social life.
48
Graph: 4.20.1
Showing relationship between Occupation and necessary tools for their
social life.
49
Chi-square test:
Table showing the differences between age and dissatisfaction with any of
social media.
Valid
N
Percent
Cases
Missing
N
Percent
Total
N
Percent
60
60
100.0%
.0%
100.0%
AGE: * Are you dissatisfied with any of the social media site?
Are you dissatisfied with any of the social media
site?
strongly disagre
strongly
disagree
e
neutral agree
agree
AGE:
18-24
25-30
31 &
above
Total
Total
4
1
0
9
1
1
14
1
2
15
5
0
4
2
1
46
10
4
11
17
20
60
Chi-Square Tests
Value
6.535a
8.200
.632
df
8
8
1
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.588
.414
.427
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
60
a. 11 cells (73.3%) have expected count less
than 5. The minimum expected count is .33.
50
Null hypothesis:
There is no significant difference between age and dissatisfaction
with any of social media.
Alternate hypothesis:
There is a significant difference between age and dissatisfaction
with any of social media.
Chi-square test:
There is a significant difference between Occupation and necessary
tools for their social life.
Calculated value = 0.58
LOS = 0.05
Conclusion:
Since the calculated value is greater than table value so reject the
null hypothesis. So we conclude that there is a significant difference
between age and dissatisfaction with any of social media.
51
Correlations:
Table showing the differences between educational qualification and social
media which would lead to change in a person.
Educational
qualification
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
How can social
Pearson
media or lead to a
Correlation
change in you?
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Educational
qualificati
on
1
How can
social
media or
lead to a
change in
you?
-.165
60
-.165
.208
60
1
.208
60
60
Null hypothesis:
There is no significant difference between educational qualification
and social media which would lead to change in a person.
Alternate hypothesis:
There is a significant difference between educational qualification
and social media which would lead to change in a person.
Calculated value = 0.208
LOS = 0.05
Conclusion:
From the above calculation value is greater than the table value reject
the null hypothesis. So we conclude that there is a significant difference
between educational qualification and social media which would lead to
change in a person.
52
T-Test:
Showing relationship between the times spent on networking sites and gender
of the respondents.
Gender
Mean
Std.
Deviati
on
Std.
Error
Mean
28
1.3214
.47559
.08988
16
1.3750
.50000
.12500
Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variances
Gender
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
F
Sig.
t
.446 .508 -.353
df
42
-.348 30.056
Sig.(2Mean
Std. Error
tailed) Difference Difference
.726
-.05357
.15182
.730
-.05357
.15396
Lower
-.35996
Upper
.25282
-.36797
.26083
53
Null hypothesis:
There is no significant difference between the times spent on
networking sites and gender of the respondents.
Alternate hypothesis:
There is a significant difference between the times spent on
networking sites and gender of the respondents.
T-test:
Calculated value = 0.726
LOS = 0.05
Conclusion:
Since the calculated value is greater than table value reject the
null hypothesis. So we conclude that there is a significant difference
between the times spent on networking sites and gender of the respondents.
54
CHAPTER 6
5.2 Conclusion
From the analysis it is concluded that social media has its effects on
purchase intention has most of the respondents also buy the products from
the reviews of the products and also makes decision making through social
media.
56
Annexure 1
Questionnaire for effects of social media on purchase
intention
AGE: a. 18-24 b. 25-30 c. 31 & above
GENDER:
M/F
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION: a. UG b. PG
OCCUPTION: a. Student b. Employee c. Business
1) Do you visit social media site?
a) YES
b) NO
2) Does the social media help you to find the desired product?
a) YES
b) NO
b) NO
4) Will you follow and read the brand news and posts from the
social media site page?
a) Strongly disagree
e) Strongly agree
b) Disagree
c) Neutral d) Agree
57
b) Disagree c) Neutral
d) Agree
b) Disagree c) Neutral
d) Agree
b) Disagree c) Neutral
d) Agree
b) Disagree c) Neutral
d) Agree
58
b) NO
Facebook
Twitter
Flickr
LinkedIn
OLX
1
b) NO
59
Annexure 2
Bibliography:
http://www.slideshare.net/AnupNair1/social-medias-influence-in-purchasedecisions
http://www.slideshare.net/hasan_99/social-medias-influence-in-purchasedecision
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_purchase_intention?#slide=4
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=effects+of+social+media+on+purchase+inte
ntion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefoxa&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=1DYMU5nQLuJ8Qegi4Ao&gws_rd=cr#channel=fflb&q=effects+of+social+media+on+purchase+in
tention+slideshare&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&spell=1
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1250742?uid=3738256&uid=2129&uid=2&u
id=70&uid=4&sid=21103578676563
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_behaviour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media
60