Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

IMPACT OF CRM PROGRAMS

ON CUSTOMER LOYALTY
INDEX

Project Guide: Mr. Gautam


Trehan

Submitted by: Viraj Shah


DEFINING LOYALTY

towards a particular retailer and leads to a higher than normal propor


CUSTOMER LOYALTY PROGRAM
Success of CLPs depends on two

factors:
• A differentiating concept behind
the program, reflecting corporate
aspirations about customer
relationship.
• A CLP solution capable of addressing
technology challenges that truly
reflect concerns in realization of
such aspirations.
BASIC FUNCTIONS OF CRM PROGRAMS
DESIGN & IMPLEMENTATION OF
LOYALTY PROGRAMS
MULTIPLEX INDUSTRY
• Multiplex industry in India is growing at 10%
per annum driven by multiplexes.
• Indian film industry with over 3 billion
admissions per year is the largest in the
world in terms of number of films
produced per year.
• In India, 12 screens per million population.
• Ticket : 69%.
• Food and Beverages: 19%.
• Advertisements : 12%
• PVR is the market leader in India.
• Major players: Adlabs, Inox Leisure,
Cinemax, Fame.
CRM Programs
• Factors constitute CRM practices :
Service, Quality,
Delivery, Responsiveness,
Reliability, Accessibility &
Empathy

• Adlabs has tied with ABN Amro bank to


supply pre-paid cards for loyal visitors.
• Inox theatres have tied up with providers
of food and beverage services eg. Spoon
FoodCourt.
Research Methodology
“Objective: To identify and analyse the impact of

various touch points affecting the customer loyalty


index in the multiplex industry”.
• Exploratory Research.
• Scaling Techniques: Nominal, Ordinal, Likert.
• Personal Interview
• Target: 2 Demographs
– Occupation.
– Sex.
– Age.
• Sampling Frame: Inox @ Milan Mall, Santacruz & Fame
Adlabs @ InOrbit Mall, Malad.
• Sampling Technique: Probability Random Sampling.
• Sample Size: 100
• The data was tabulated and analyzed using SPSS 11.
• Factor analysis and Z test were applied for data analysis
Hypothesis
• H01 – There is no significant
difference in the ambience
provided by Adlabs and Inox multi-
screen theaters.
• H02 – There is no significant
difference in the amenities
provided by Adlabs and Inox multi-
screen theaters.
• H03 – There is no significant
difference in the speedy services
provided by Adlabs and Inox multi-
Research Findings
Observed Calculation-
vTotal Load Factor: 3.5
vVariance: 9.66%

AMENITIE
S
Observed Calculation-
vTotal Load Factor:
2.8
vVariance: 9.37%
vMultiplexes have now
tied-up with other
service providers for
more amenities
alculation-
Factor: 2.62.
.33%.
plex better than single-screen theaters is the quick response.
consider the behaviour of single-screen theater staff as uncooperative
riendly.
ith other factors the building , entrance , emergency exit , interior
ties etc . also influence the viewers.
RESULTS
S.No Factor Variance
.1 Ambience 9.66
2 Amenities 7.54
3 Speedy Services 7.33
4 Staff’s Cooperativeness 6.49
5 Infrastructure 4.25
6 Online Services 6.41

Note:
From the above table we can infer that in Z
-test if variance more than 8 ; as a result null
hypothesis is unacceptable .
 Here, only 1st hypothesis is unacceptable.
CONCLUSION
Application of Z-test:

• Null hypotheses H02, H03, were accepted.


• Hypothesis H01 was found to be rejected.
• Level of significance = 0.05.
• It can be concluded that there is no significant
difference in amenities, speedy services,
staff's cooperativeness, online services and
infrastructure facilities provided by Adlabs
and Inox.
• Differences were observed in AMBIENCE.
• Viewers perceived Inox Multiplex as Superior in
terms of Ambience as compared with Adlabs,
though the difference between them was not
wide.