CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR IN THE STREET FOOD INDUSTRY

LITERATURE REVIEW
Fast Food In India By Datamonitor: Market value, volume and segmentation. Major chains in fast food and their detail analysis. Outlook for Fast Food in India by Professor Philip M. Parker: consumption pattern in various states of India.

LITERATURE REVIEW
A Study On Factors Governing Consumers Choice Of Fast Food A Multivariate Approach by Rahela Tabassum:
Consumer behavior patterns help in decision-making on different aspects of fast food retail outlets.

A study of determinants impacting consumers food choice with reference to the fast food consumption in India by Ritu Anand:
Explore and study the determinants (demographics and psychographics) impacting consumers food choice towards fast food in India

GAPS
Regulations of food in terms of adulteration Choice of consumers Consumption pattern: food preference Impact of hygiene & nutrition value Gap in India: link between the health problem and fast food consumption

RESEARCH PROCESS
Problem Statement: To find the consumption pattern of fast food (street vendors) in Mumbai city

OBJECTIVE
To find the main factors influencing consumption decision. To study the implications of consumer food choice for street food on health. To find out the correlation between various factors that is responsible for the cost decision. To understand which is the most important factor in consumption decision.

HYPOTHESIS
Correlation exists between location and cost Fast food menus have got healthier at present Speed of service is the most important factor in consumption decision People are usually willing to spend between Rs.31-50 per visit

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data Collection Method Secondary Data

Primary Data

Internet

Euromonitor

E-Mail (to follow up)

Proquest

Ebsco

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Sampling technique:
Simple Random Sampling

Sample Size:
80

QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
Word document

3.8%

8.8%

8.8%

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION

Word doc link

28.8% 50%

15%

20%

65%

2.5%
10% 27.5% 33.8% 1.3%

26.3%

6.3%

32.5%

60%

CHI-SQUARE
Word doc link

CHI-SQUARE
Cross tabulation of Location and Cost Actual value= 21.026, df= 12, alpha=0.05 Calculated value is 8.33 As 8.33<21.026 Therefore do not reject the hypothesis. Hence, there is no association. Cramers and Phi value also suggest that the degree of association is less it is not closer to 1.

One sample T-test

COST

One sample T-test

Actual Value= 1.66, df=79, CI=0.05. Calculated Value: Cost: 4.72. Mean= 3 Therefore, reject the hypothesis.

One sample T-test

SPEED

One sample T-test

Actual Value= 1.66, df=79, CI=0.05. Calculated Value: Speed= -0.754. Mean= 2. Therefore, do not reject.

One sample T-test

LOCATION

One sample T-test

Actual Value= 1.66, df=79, CI=0.05. Calculated Value: Location= 0.152. Mean= 3 Therefore, do not reject.

One sample T-test

HEALTHIER OPTIONS

One sample T-test

HEALTHIER OPTIONS

Actual Value= 1.66, df=79, CI=0.05. Calculated Value: Healthier Options= -1.82. Mean=3 Therefore, reject.

One sample T-test

UNHEALTHY INGREDIENTS

One sample T-test

UNHEALTHY INGREDIENTS
Actual Value= 1.66, df=79, CI=0.05. Calculated Value: Unhealthy Ingredients= 2.24, Mean=2. Therefore reject.

CORRELATION ANALYSIS
Word doc link

ASSOCIATION DOES NOT EXIST THERE IS NO CORRELATION

CORRELATION ANALYSIS
Word doc link NullHypothesis: Correlation exists between location and cost

PEARSON test: This test gives the value of r. If the value of r >0.5 then, association exists.
Calculated PEARSON value= 0.42<0.5
ASSOCIATION DOES NOT EXIST Therefore, No THERE association IS NO CORRELATION

CORRELATION ANALYSIS
Word doc link NullHypothesis: Correlation exists between location and cost

SIGNIFICANCE test: For correlation to exist, significance level should be Less than 0.05
Calculated PEARSON value= 0.715>0.05
ASSOCIATION DOES NOT EXIST Therefore, No THERE correlation IS NO CORRELATION

REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Word doc link

 Word doc link

Dependent variable: y= cost Independent variable: X1= speed X2= location X3= healthier options X4= unhealthy ingredients X5= advertisements y= a+bx1+cx2+dx3+ex4+fx5 By analysing the coefficients table, we get the values of the coefficients of the independent variables. Hence, the equation is: y=2.448+0.067*x1+0.007*x2+0.116*x3+0.238*x4-0.011*x5 By looking at their significance values, 0.99 is the highest. Hence, this will get eliminated. Similarly, the highest significance level at each step gets eliminated. So final expression will be: Cost= 3.125+0.228*x4

FACTOR ANALYSIS

 Word doc link

FACTOR ANALYSIS
Calculated KMO= 0.461 Also, significance value= 0.023 which is less than 0.05. Hence, the factors are correlated. Looking at the communalities table, 38.4% of data is useful for preference variable. 63.9% for cost variable, 75% for speed of service, 68.3% for location, 72.6% for healthier options, 50.7% for unhealthy ingredients and 25.9% for influence by advertisement variable. Total variance table: As the eigenvalue for components 1, 2, 3 are 1.643,1.188 and 1.116 which is greater than 1 hence, they are important and can be combined.

CONCLUSION
Correlation does not exist between location and cost Consumers believe that fast food menus have got healthier at present Speed of service is not the most important factor in consumption decision but unhealthy ingredients are People are usually willing to spend between Rs.31-50 per visit

THANK YOU
Name
Rishu Agarwal Rucha Asolkar Rhea Punjabi Nirali Shah

Roll No
02 08 35 41