Market Reseach by Cuong Nguyen

Research Study Beer; Palate, personality and country of origin.

For: Moulik Zaveri Market Research MKTG1254 RMIT University Saigon South Campus

By: Nicholas Trembath Nguyen Quoc Cuong Nguyen Nhu Tri Nguyen Le Nhu Quynh Nguyen Dai Thang

s3231539 s3210232 s3209666 s3210039 s3221670

Executive Summary Through the collection and analysis of primary research, this study attempts to understand how Vietnamese Generation Y (Gen Y) consumers evaluate Tiger, Heineken and Foster’s beers in terms of brand personality (Aaker, 1997). In addition the following pages try to identify beer taste preferences amongst Gen Y Vietnamese and gain an insight into the way these consumers view country of origin (COO) and the effect this may have on purchase intent. A background is provided that shows that, despite the concept of brand personality being well developed there has been no peer reviewed literature in a Vietnamese context. Conversely, COO is well explored in Vietnam and Vietnamese consumers see this as a primary criteria for purchasing decisions. To facilitate the exploration of these three concepts in detail the following hypothesis are posed: H1:

Male Vietnamese Gen Y beer drinkers differ from females in there assessment of brand personality.

H2:

Higher levels of beer consumption will lead to more extreme assessment of personality facets.

H3:

CO will factor in the purchase preference of beer, within the studied target population.

H4:

The majority of participants will have a strong knowledge of the region that a beer is from but will be unclear as to the specific country.

H5:

A higher consumption frequency will lead to stronger knowledge of both region of origin and country of origin.

H6:

There will be no correlation between those who indicate that COO is important in decision making and knowledge of COO.

H6:

Vietnamese Gen Y beer drinkers prefer a beer that is considered “just right” on the criteria of “lightness” and “sweetness”.

H7:

There will be no discernible correlation between the beer chosen as a favorite based on brand, compared to that rated as a favorite based on taste.

These hypothesis are answer through the application of both qualitative and quantitive research methods. It was uncovered that the concept of brand personality was difficult for respondents to understand and it was seen more as a a bad to good rating as opposed to a neutral assessment of a brand attribute. Reasons for this are theorised in section 8.1.2. COO was ratified as an important criteria for the studied demographic however this did not translate to actually knowing where the product was from. Finally, the analysis of taste concluded that attribution of a favorite beer was based primarily on brand affinity as opposed to an positive assessment of taste. While the limitations of this study are significant (section 9.0), the findings show interesting trends in an under explored but significant target market. Further research into this field is warranted and recommended.

Table of Contents

1.0 Background

2.0 Marketing Problems & Purpose

2.1 Marketing Problems! 2.2 Purpose!

3.0 Research Questions & Hypotheses 3.1 Brand Personality! 3.2 Country of Origin! 3.3 Taste!

4.0 Methodology 4.1 Qualitative Research! 4.2 Quantitative research!

5.0 Sampling 5.1 Forecast Sampling! 5.1.1 Target population! 5.1.2 Sample Frame! 5.1.3 Qualitative Research: Sample Method & Size! 5.1.4 Quantitive Research: Sample Method & Size!

5.2 Actual Sampling! 5.2.1 Qualitative! 5.2.2 Quantitive!

6 6

7 7 8 9

9 9 11

12 12 12 12 12 13

13 13 13

6.0 Research Timeline

7.0 Respondent Profile

8.0 Data Analysis

8.1 Brand Personality! 8.1.1 Findings! 8.1.2 Discussion!

16 16 18 3

8.2 Country of Origin! 8.2.1 Findings! Result: Accepted! 8.2.2 Discussion!

8.3 Taste! Result: Accepted! 8.3.2 Discussion!

9.0 Limitations 9.1 Survey Design & Methodology! 9.2 Sample Size! 9.3 Data Analysis!

19 19 22 22

23 23 24

24 24 25 25

10.0 Conclusion & Recommendation

11.0 References

12.0 Appendix

1.0 Background According to the Vietnamese General Office for population and family planning, in 2009, Generation Y (Gen Y) in Vietnam accounted for nearly one third of Vietnamese population. TNS (2008) indicates that this demographic has a greater level of liquidity than their predecessors and are not afraid to use it. This requires a pointed response from brands attempting to capture this market because ‘as they start to become conscious of their purchasing power, they are demanding more innovative and higher quality goods and services’ TNS 2008, p. 46). Branding has played an essential role in marketing and it is also a focus of academics and practitioner in the modern economy (Aaker 1997, Keller 1993). However, in many developing countries, especially countries that have recently transformed from centrally planned economies to market oriented economies as has Vietnam, branding has received less attention due to lack of awareness of its importance. While a rising tide of advertising is engulfing the Vietnamese market, little formal academic research has been conducted to ascertain the impact that branding has on Vietnamese consumers. This study will utilise the work of Aaker (1997) to gain an understanding of the way that Vietnamese Gen Y consumers view the brand personality of Tiger, Heineken and Foster’s beer. In conjunction with the above concerns, this paper will address issues to do with country of origin (COO). This concept has been applied to the Vietnamese market in various ways. Speece and Nguyen (2005) assert that Vietnamese middle class consumers are highly sensitive to COO and consider it as a primary purchasing criteria. They go on to empirically prove that purchase preference can not be swayed by price cuts, eluding to the salience of the COO factor. This perspective is further ratified by the 1994 Shultz article ‘Considerations for market entry in Vietnam’

2.0 Marketing Problems & Purpose 2.1 Marketing Problems As seen above, Gen Y plays a substantial role in revenue generation; however little is known about the perceptions that these consumers have towards beer brands, the influence of COO on purchasing behaviour or what tastes are preferred. To define the issue at hand, the following marketing problems are posed: 1. How Vietnamese, Generation Y beer drinkers perceive the personalities of three major beer brands (Heineken, Tiger and Foster’s) is unknown. Furthermore the effect that this has on actual purchase intent is indeterminate. 2. While previous studies have indicated that COO is an element that is considered by Vietnamese consumers (Shultz 1994, Speece & Nguyen 2005), it is unknown if this behaviour translates to the purchase of beer, given the relatively small number of alternative brands. 3. The perception of beer taste, its relationship to brand personality and taste preference is not known in the Vietnamese Gen Y target market. In addition, the actual extent that Vietnamese Gen Y consumers can differentiate on the grounds of taste is unexplored.

2.2 Purpose The initial purpose is to ascertain how Generation Y consumers perceive Heineken, Tiger and Foster’s beers within the framework of the “Big 5” brand personality traits, as outlined by Aaker (1997) and diagrammatically represented in figure 2a. The application of these personality traits to inanimate objects is posited to be innate to the human condition (Aaker 1997, Franzen & Moriarty, 2009) and as such is an integral aspect to the understanding of buyer behaviour. In addition, Biel posits that the application of a brand personality stimulates an affective response (1993), that may lead to a high level of trust in the product and brand loyalty (Fournier, 1994). Figure 2a (Adapted from: Aaker 1997, p.252)

Brand Personality

Sincerity

Down-to-earth •Honest •Wholesome •Cheerful •

Excitement

Competence

Daring •Spirited

•

Imaginative

•

Up-to-date

•

Reliable •Intelligent •Successful

Sophistication

Upper Class •Charming •

Ruggedness

Outdoorsy

•

Tough

•

However Yongjun & Tinkhams’ 2005 study shows that the perception of brand personalities have the propensity to vary dramatically across cultural divides, rendering work done outside of Vietnam inapplicable. Vietnamese consumers place a strong emphasis on COO in the decision making process as COO ‘ plays an important role in the perceptions of quality, and therefore, influences consumer choice of products’ (Speece & Nguyen 2005, p. 39). Despite this, the COO effect has not been analyzed in light of brand personality, in the Vietnamese context. The third aspect of taste preference will provide a further frame of reference in which to look at the effects that may come from COO or perceptions of brand personality. Study of these three interconnected elements within the target population of Generation Y, will provide a clearer understanding of the buyer behavior of this particular group. This insight may prove helpful in the marketing and advertising of beer brands to this increasingly affluent and commercially engaged subset.

3.0 Research Questions & Hypotheses 3.1 Brand Personality Marketing Problem: “How Vietnamese, Generation Y beer drinkers perceive the personalities of three major beer brands (Heineken, Tiger and Foster’s) is unknown. Furthermore the effect that this has on actual purchases is indeterminate.”

Research Questions • What personality do Vietnamese Gen Y beer drinkers attribute to “Heineken” brand beer? • What personality do Vietnamese Gen Y beer drinkers attribute to “Tiger” brand beer? • What personality do Vietnamese Gen Y beer drinkers attribute to “Foster’s” brand beer? • Is there a relationship between gender and perceived brand personality? • Is there a relationship between consumption frequency and rating of brand personality, ie. will an individual high consumption level be more inclined to strongly agree with any given personality facet?

Hypotheses H1:

Male Vietnamese Gen Y beer drinkers differ from females in there assessment of brand personality.

H2:

Higher levels of beer consumption will lead to more extreme assessment of personality facets.

3.2 Country of Origin Marketing Problem: “While previous studies have indicated that COO is an element that is considered by Vietnamese consumers, it is unknown if this behaviour translates to the purchase of beer, given the relatively small number of alternative brands.”

Research Questions • Is COO a factor in the decision making process for the purchase of beer, within the Vietnamese Gen Y target population? • Are the participants aware of the COO of the three case study beers? • Does COO have an impact on the perception of brand personality? • Will a certain COO actively discourage the purchase of a particular brand of beer?

Hypotheses H3:

CO will factor in the purchase preference of beer, within the studied target population.

H4:

The majority of participants will have a strong knowledge of the region that a beer is from but will be unclear as to the specific country.

H5:

A higher consumption frequency will lead to stronger knowledge of both region of origin and country of origin.

H6:

There will be no correlation between those who indicate that COO is important in decision making and knowledge of COO.

3.3 Taste Marketing Problem: “The perception of beer taste, its relationship to brand personality and taste preference is not known in the Vietnamese Gen Y target market. In addition, the actual extent that Vietnamese Gen Y consumers can differentiate on the grounds of taste is unexplored.”

Research Questions • On the Allison and Uhl scale (1964) how do participants rate the 3 different test beers? • What product attributes are highly prized by the stipulated target population? • Is there a correlation between a perception of taste and perceived brand personality?

Hypotheses H6:

Vietnamese Gen Y beer drinkers prefer a beer that is considered “just right” on the criteria of “lightness” and “sweetness”.

H7:

There will be no discernible correlation between the beer chosen as a favorite based on brand, compared to that rated as a favorite based on taste.

4.0 Methodology 4.1 Qualitative Research According to Wilson (2003), qualitative research is conducted by using an unstructured approach with a small number of selected participants to produce basic insights into the behaviour, motivations and attitudes of consumers. While Zikmund et al (2007) indicate that qualitative research can take a number of forms, the most appropriate methodology for this research is the focus group. The focus group is assessed to be most appropriate as it is by far the most time efficient process. A range of views can be canvased in a relatively short time allowing a range of views to be brought forth expediently. In addition, this method has a reputation ‘in some circles as a “quick and cheap” technique’ (Morgan 1997, p. 33), allowing us to conserve our limited resources.

A further motivation for use of the focus group is its strengths in achieving our ultimate purpose. In this case, as opposed to the traditional exploratory use of a focus group, we will utilise this tool to ratify or dispel the findings of our qualitative research (detailed in section 4.2). This is a methodology supported by Morgan (1993, p. 120) who says that conducting focus groups in this way is a valid method ‘to corroborate findings or explore [concepts] in greater depth’. We will conduct this qualitative research parallel to the collection of the quantitive data. By doing this we will avoid contaminating the qualitative results through unintentionally guiding respondents to corroborate existing findings. It is hoped that the focus group will expand upon the findings yielded from the survey and provide greater depth and alternative perspectives that fall outside the bounds of the narrow but precise scales used to construct the “Beer Brand Questionnaire”. Figure 4a In addition to these objectives, the qualitative research focus group will be the vehicle for the quantitive research into beer taste preference. Taste preference will be gauged by using an adaptation of the influential Allison and Uhl article “Influence of beer brand identification on taste perception” (1964). In this study, Allison and Uhl conducted blind taste tests, using the criteria seen in figure 4a. These attributes were measured on the original 3 point nominal

Taste Criteria as determined by Allison and Uhl (1964) After Taste Aroma Bitterness

Poor” (a methodology consistent with the original study). In

Body Carbonation Foam Lightness Strength

the original study this process was repeated with branded

Sweetness

scale of “too much” “just enough” and “not enough”. Participants were then asked to rate the beer on a seven point semantic differential scale from “Excellent” to “Very

beer, however given time constraints our study excludes this step. In its place we asked participants to choose their preferred beer from the three test beers (Heineken, Fosters and Tiger). This second phase was administered after the taste test and on a separate sheet of paper. This was done to avoid the natural tendency of participants to try and rate their “preferred beer” higher on the blind taste test in order to justify their choice of “preferred beer”, as may have been the case if participants had chosen their “preferred beer” first.

4.2 Quantitative research While qualitative research explores attitudes, behavior and experiences to get an in-depth perspective from participants, quantitative research generates statistics through the use of large-scale survey research using questionnaires or structured interviews (Andrew 2006). Quantitive research will form the backbone of our inquiries into brand personality and COO. Assessment of brand personality will be conducted using the pre-existing brand personality dimensions as established in Aaker’s landmark 1997 study, “Dimensions of brand personality’. In this work, Aaker posits that the traditional “Big 5” personality traits, used extensively in psychology, can be constructively applied to the assessment of brands. To establish how a brand is perceived within the personality construct, Aaker goes on to identify 15 facets that can be used to asses where a brand fits within the big 5 factors. Our survey applies a 7 point - strongly disagree to strongly agree - Likert scale to these 15 facets to determine how consumers view each of the three test beers. Application of this scale should ensure that the measure has both content and criterion validity. To avoid survey fatigue, three different surveys have been developed; each focusing on a single test beer. For example, all respondents will address questions on age, consumption frequency, gender and COO; however each sample unit will only answer brand personality questions related to one of the test beers. An equal quantity of each questionnaire will be distributed to ensure comparability. In addition to easing survey fatigue, this measure is designed to glean an absolute perspective, as opposed to participants judging the brand personality of one beer compared to the other beers. The measurement of country of origin also uses a pre-existing scale as a reliable base to work from. In this case, the work of Eroglu and Machleit (1987) was used. In this study the authors use a variety of questions, using a four and a six point scale, to determine the relationship between COO and quality. Their questions also included a number of red herring questions to disguise the purpose of the study. For our study, the questions relating to “predictive value” were extracted and utilised. In addition, congruent with our hypotheses, additional questions concerned participants’ knowledge of the region and the specific country from which the test beers originated were posed. For assessing region, a 7 option nominal scale was used, as the definition of a “region” is malleable. For assessing the knowledge of specific country of origin, an open ended question was posed. However for the purposes of our study the results of both measures will be treated as either correct or incorrect. While the inclusion of these self-formulated questions make the survey susceptible to systematic error, they are essential for the accurate assessment of the stipulated hypothesis.

5.0 Sampling 5.1 Forecast Sampling 5.1.1 Target population As this study is interested in the brand perception and opinions of the Generation Y consumer, this demographic segregation is the primary criteria for our target population. This is narrowed down further as our concern is only with those considered to be “beer drinkers”, defined as people who have consumed beer at least once in the past month. Time and budgetary constraints limit this further to only those that consume beer in the urban environment of Ho Chi Minh City. These parameters indicate that the target population is made up of individual people as opposed to a homogenous larger grouping such as households. A further argument for defining the target population in this way is that, ultimately, it is the individual that makes beer consumption decisions. While peers and others may influence the individual’s decisions, the choice of which frosty brew to order is not a collaborative process as such.

5.1.2 Sample Frame Burns and Burns (2008, p. 196) stipulate that ‘a perfect sampling frame is identical to the target population, that is, the sample frame contains every population element once and once only’. Given the nature of the target population, it is evident that our sample frame is highly imperfect as there is no available list of sample units.

5.1.3 Qualitative Research: Sample Method & Size Selection of sample units for the qualitative research will be based around convenience sampling. Specifically, participants in the focus group and blind taste test will be drawn from the available RMIT Saigon South student population. Screening questions will ensure that these participants are included in the target population. While we are aware that this is ‘an extremely risky sampling method’ as it ‘does not permit any control over the representativeness of the sample’ (Babbie 2008, p. 203-204), the time and budget restraints make this the most feasible method. Zikmund et al (2007) recommend that six to ten people of similar background is the ideal size and make up for a focus group. By using convenience sampling in the RMIT context, it is likely that the participants will share a number of commonalities. To ensure the sample size met the above criteria, seventeen invitations were issued and 12 attendees were 12

accepted. While this exceeds the ideal number as stated above, we anticipated a high probability of non-attendance on the day.

5.1.4 Quantitive Research: Sample Method & Size When administering the survey, a combination of both convenience and judgment sampling will be applied. The data will be gathered in situ at locations in District 1 of Ho Chi Minh City. In essence this is an adaption of the popular â&#x20AC;&#x153;mall interceptâ&#x20AC;?. To minimise systematic error, five researchers will sample at five different locations throughout District 1. The only criteria for venue selection is that the establishment being used is aware that the survey is being administered and that they serve at least two of the three test beers. Judgment sampling will be employed to increase the likelihood that the selected participant fell within the target population. A visual assessment will be conducted to guesstimate age and generation while only those consuming beer at time (or sitting with those drinking beer) will be approached. This method is used to generate a high number of responses from the target population and exclude responses from those outside the scope of this study. One hundred and twenty questionnaires were to be administered. Given the methodology outlined in section 3.2.3, if all were completed by members of the target population, we would have 40 responses regarding the brand personality of each beer and 120 for all other questions. Again, the determinate factor for this sample size was time and budget.

5.2 Actual Sampling 5.2.1 Qualitative The process was consistent with the above plan and a sample size of eight eventuated.

5.2.2 Quantitive Actual sampling differed significantly from the proposal above. While the method was followed as is stipulated, the actual samples achieved numbered 69 as opposed to 120. When it came to the brand personality variants, twenty respondents completed the Tiger beer survey, 24 did the Fosters and 25 completed the Heineken questionnaire.

6.0 Research Timeline Phase

Steps

Week 5

Discuss alternative research directions Determine research topic Evaluate existing scales Preparation Determine Target population and research methodology Prepare research proposal Adjust proposal Brainstorm focus group questions Send out focus group invitations Write survey and translate Administer test survey Execution

Adjust survey Collect Data Conduct focus group Compile focus group results Analyse Data

Report Preparation

Author report Consult with supervisor Submit report

7.0 Respondent Profile (All raw data used is available in appendix C, 1)

Figure 8a

Age Range of Respondents

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Under 16

16-18

19-21

22-24

25-27

28-30

31-33

33+

Figure 8b Gender Breakdown Figures 8a to c illustrate the descriptive statistics of our respondents. The age spread shows that the majority of respondents were within the Gen Y age bracket, with only 8.7 % being over 33 or

36%

under 16. The gender split was almost 60 % male. The nominal scale regarding frequency revealed that the vast majority of respondents consumed

64%

beer between one and two times per month (36.2%) while 20.3 % were considered light beer drinkers, consuming beer less that once a month.

Figure 8c Beer Consumption Fequency 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% < Once a month

Once a month

2-3 times a month

Once a week

2-3 times > 3 times a week a week

Unanswered 15

8.0 Data Analysis 8.1 Brand Personality 8.1.1 Findings (All raw data used is available in appendix C, 2)

• What personality do Vietnamese Gen Y beer drinkers attribute to “Heineken” brand beer? • What personality do Vietnamese Gen Y beer drinkers attribute to “Tiger” brand beer? Foster’s • What personality do Vietnamese Gen Y beer drinkers attribute to “Foster’s” brand beer?

Figure 8a

Brand Personality Means Comparison

6.000 5.125 4.250 3.375

Sincerity

Excitement

Heineken

2.500 Competence

Sophistication

Tiger

Ruggedness

Foster's

Figure 8a shows the brand personality means comparison for the three test beers. These were derived by converting the ordinal Likert scale to a seven point interval scale for the 15 brand facets. The mean was then taken of the facets that corresponded to the big 5 personalities, as per figure 9a. The full data set can be seen in appendix C1. Here we see that both Tiger and Heineken are described by respondents as being “sophisticated” with a mean of 5.36 and 5.66 respectively. Fosters on the other hand was labeled as “rugged”, having a mean for this criteria of 4.77. It is worth noting that the fluctuation in means across the categories was minimal. Tiger showed the largest fluctuation of 1.26 while Foster showed a variation of 0.35 and Heineken showed 0.26. This is reinforced by the standard variation at 1.54. 16

H1:

Male Vietnamese Gen Y beer drinkers differ from females in their assessment of brand personality.

Result: Rejected

Figure 8b Brand Personality by Gender

Figure 8b shows that there is no statistically relevant difference in

6.00

the assessment of brand

4.50

personality between genders. The largest variance occurred

3.00

on the personality of

1.50

â&#x20AC;&#x153;excitementâ&#x20AC;?, registering a difference in means of 0.8.

Sincerity

Excitement

0 Competence

Male

H2:

Sophistication

Ruggedness

Female

Higher levels of beer consumption will lead to a more extreme assessment of personality facets.

Result: Accepted

&"##$

Figure 8c

!"#$%&#'$%()&'

%"%#$ %"##$ :;+-<=+$-<5)=$

!"%#$ !"##$ '$()*+$,+-$1)*+$,+-$ 234$5.+6$ 1)*+$,+-$ 234$5.+6$ 9$4$5.+6$ .()/0$ .()/0$ ,+-$ 7++8$ ,+-$7++8$ ,+-$7++8$ .()/0$

To test this hypothesis, a t test based on the mean calculation was conducted. Represented in figure 8c, a clear relationship exists between frequency of consumption and average mean for each brand personality facet. This relationship is positive, meaning that the more often a person drinks, the more strongly they are likely to agree with all of the facets across all of the beer varieties.

8.1.2 Discussion It would appear from the above analysis that the the determination of the brand personalities for the three test beers was inconclusive. Gender did not seem to affect the assessment of brand personality; however there is a clear tendency to feel more strongly in agreeance with any given facet based on the amount of beer consumed. Anecdotal evidence from the people administering the survey as well as discussion in the focus group would suggest that the concept of brand personality is difficult for the target population to grasp. As an example, one survey respondent ticked “strongly agree” for all of the personality facets and qualified this by stating that “I am a Heineken fan, I always drink it”. This would tend to indicate that, despite clear instructions and an in situ explanation of the concept of brand personality, respondents saw the brand personalities as a criteria of product performance as opposed to a neutral descriptor. Indeed, this idea is reinforced by the data on assessment of brand personality in relation to consumption. It is theorised that higher levels of consumption are likely to lead to a greater rapport with the product class as a whole. This would lead to respondents giving what they perceive to be a higher rating to all beers across all facets. Looking at the focus group results (appendix B), a better understanding of brand personality was evident. When guided, respondents freely described the brands in terms of “modern”, “gorgeous”, “strong”, “intelligent” and “independent”. This would indicate that qualitative methods are more suitable for extracting brand personality perceptions. It is worth noting that as these participants were drawn from the RMIT Saigon South population, they are likely to have a formal knowledge of brand personality through their academic endeavors. It is possible that these spurious correlations may stem from the maturity of the market as a whole. Vietnamese people ‘struggle to make sense of the multitude of products and brands that have flooded their markets, the obtrusiveness of advertising, retail proliferation and the confusion of consumer choice’ ( Shultz 1994, p. 43). Spree and Nair postulate that the main criteria for Vietnamese middle class consumers is a price/ quality dualism, to the exclusion of brand based affinities. Application of this study’s findings to these existing perspectives leads one to conclude that the concept of a brand having a personality is somewhat alien to the Vietnamese market and brands are not evaluated in framework of personality. 18

8.2 Country of Origin 8.2.1 Findings (All raw data used is available in appendix C, 3)

H3:

COO will factor in the purchase preference of beer, within the studied target population.

Figure 8d Country of Origin Means 6.0 4.5 3.0 1.5 0

The country that a beer comes from accurately indicates quality The country that a beer comes from is an important indicator of quality I always buy beer from a certain country. I never buy beer from a certain country

Result: Accepted Figure 8d shows the mean results for the COO related questions in the quantitive research. Here we can see that the questions relating to purchase preference (in green and orange) generated a significant level of agreement. The statement “I always buy beer from a certain country” averaged 4.93 from a maximum of 7 while “I never buy beer from a certain country” showed a mean of 4.42. This shows that the respondents actively consider COO when purchasing beer.

H4:

The majority of participants will have a strong knowledge of the region that a beer is from but will be unclear as to the specific country.

Result: Rejected Figure 8f Correct Region of Origin

Figure 8e Correct Country of Origin

Tiger

Heineken

Forster’s

80%

60%

40%

20%

Figure 8g Region of Origin for Tiger

Heineken

0% Forster’s

There were significantly mixed results across the three beers in regard to country and region knowledge. As seen in figure 9f, consumers

8% 43%

Tiger

were well aware of the region of origin for Heineken - 76.8 %; and Foster’s - 58 %;

48%

however results were much lower for Tiger with only 43 % of respondents correctly identifying the correct region of origin. Interestingly, in the

Asia

Europe

Other

case of Tiger, respondents were almost evenly split in their judgement between Europe and the correct response of Asia (figure 8f).

Looking to figure 8e, it is apparent that the hypothesis held true for Tiger and Heineken, as less than 24 % and 14 % (respectively) of respondents could identify the correct COO. However 58 % of participants were aware of Foster’s country of origin. As > 50 % of respondents correctly identified the COO of Fosters and < 50% knew what region Tiger was from, this hypothesis is rejected. In the focus group the majority of the participants expressed sentiments consistent with these findings. Most could identify the region but struggled with the country.

H5:

A higher consumption frequency will lead to stronger knowledge of both region of origin and country of origin.

Result: Rejected Figure 8h % of Correct Region of Origin by Consumption Frequency

100% 75% 50% 25% 0% < Once a month

Once a month

2-3 times a month

Once a week

2-3 times a > 3 times a week week

Figure 8h % of Correct COO by Consumption Frequency

100% 75% 50% 25% 0% < Once a month

Once a month

Tiger

2-3 times a month

Once a week

Heineken

2-3 times a > 3 times a week week

Fosterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

The above graphs illustrate that there is no linear connection between consumption frequency and correct identification of COO or region of origin. Figure 8h shows a very different relationship for each beer. Heineken showed a high level of region of origin knowledge with 100 % of participants who drank either more than 3 times a week, 2-3 times a month or once a month getting it right. Tiger showed a trend where knowledge increased with consumption frequency before taking an 8 % dive for drinkers averaging 2-3 beer-drinking experiences per month. Fosterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s showed a decreasing trend with 66 % of drinkers consuming beer less than once a month identifying the region of origin as compared to the low of 18 % for those drinking 2-3 times per week. This uneven and disparate association is also seen in the COO statistics seen in figure 8h. This shows that there is no identifiable connection between the amount drunk and COO related product knowledge. 21

H6:

There will be no correlation between those who indicate that COO is important in decision making and knowledge of COO.

Result: Accepted Figure 8j Mean response to the statement “I always buy beer from a certain country” based on correct or incorrect identification of COO

certain country” has no discernible correlation to the correct identification of COO. For Heineken beer we can see that respondents

5.03

who correctly identified the COO agreed more

4.68 Heineken'

to the statement “I always buy beer from a

5.20

4.85

Tiger

Here we see that the mean level of agreeance

4.50 Foster

strongly to the statement “I always buy beer from a certain country”. This trend is reversed with Tiger and Foster’s, indicating that there is no clear relationship (across these three beers). This leads one to conclude that even though the majority of respondents agreed

Correct

Incorrect

that COO was an important factor (mean of 4.93), they were unclear as to where these three popular beers originated.

8.2.2 Discussion As a number of studies have indicated and this study’s results have ratified, COO is an important criteria on which Vietnamese consumers base their purchasing decisions. However this study indicates that neither frequency of product consumption or degree of importance associated to COO have an impact on actual knowledge of where these three beers come from (within this group of respondents). To take this concept further, it would seem that gaining knowledge of where a product comes from is a passive activity as opposed to consumers actively hunting down information. In addition, while H4 was rejected, it appears that knowledge across the board was higher when it came to region of origin as opposed to COO. Respondents did also feel that “we should compare the country of origins instead of region of origins because beer from the same region like Carlsberg and Heineken are also very different” indicating the possibility for differentiation between countries.

8.3 Taste H6:

Vietnamese Gen Y Beer prefer a beer that is considered “just right” on the criteria of “lightness” and “sweetness”.

Result: Rejected H7:

There will be no desirable correlation between the beer chosen as a favorite based on brand compared to that rated as a favorite based on taste.

Result: Accepted

Figure 8k Overall Beer preference 60 45 30 15 0

A (Tiger) C (Foster’s)

B (Heineken)

Figure 8l Blind taste test -‐ specific characteris5cs Significant A B C different among Characteris5cs brand 38 38 38 No A"er-‐taste 50 25 63 C Aroma 38 38 50 C Bi5erness 63 50 50 A Body 38 75 38 B Carbona:on 63 75 50 B Foam 75 63 38 A Lightness 25 13 63 C Strength 63 25 75 C Sweetness

The data generated by the taste test shows that the beer drinkers could distinguish the taste and quality differences among three brands on overall rating. Brand A (Tiger) got the highest score of 56 while C (Foster’s) and B (Heineken) achieved ratings of 45 and 41 respectively (as seen in figure 8k). However despite Heineken being scored the lowest on over all preference, all focus group participants unanimously selected it as their favorite beer, rendering H7 as accepted. Beer drinkers were asked to rate the nine characteristics listed in table 2 as “not enough”, “just enough” or “too much”. To analyse this data, “just enough” was set as zero and the “too much” and “not enough” were treated as +1 and -1 respectively. Based on the overall taste test and the specified characteristics test, the conclusion was that the beer drinkers could distinguish very clear differences in taste among the three brands presented in A, B and C glasses. However the beer rated as most preferred (A, Tiger) was considered to be most appealing on the criteria of “Body” and “Lightness” (figure 8l), causing the rejection of H6.

8.3.2 Discussion Based on the above tests it can be seen that the respondents’ favoured brand of beer is not primary linked to their overall taste preference for beer. This has a number of implications for the production and marketing of beer for Gen Y in the Vietnamese market. It is likely that building a positive brand perception is a far more valuable endeavor than tailoring the actual taste of the product for the Vietnamese market. The attributes of lightness and body were attributed to the preferred brand of beer. These attributes were also singled out in the focus group with one respondent commenting “I’m a woman so I love something [with] not too much bitterness, and also light” and another stating “I love the Body factor, it’s mean that the feeling you have in your throat when you swallow the beer [sic] ”.

9.0 Limitations 9.1 Survey Design & Methodology Hindsight highlights a number of limitations in the distributed survey design. The first issue came in translation. In order to accurately survey Gen Y in the Vietnamese urban context the questionnaire had to be administered in Vietnamese. If this was not the case, our results would suffer from bias resulting from the English speaking requirement for participation. Complications arose due to the use of pre-existing scales that use English based semantics. Translating the brand personality scale was particularly prone to error as a comparable Vietnamese alternative was not immediately apparent. Compounding this issue is the fact that the survey was only translated one way (English to Vietnamese). Cross translation (English to Vietnamese to English) would have provided a higher degree of accuracy, however time constraints precluded this option. Administering this survey threw up an unanticipated lack of understanding of brand personality. This was exacerbated by the brevity of the explanation of how to answer the questions. While the explanation was kept to a minimum to avoid overwhelming participants, more accurate results may have been yielded through the use of a comprehensive set of instructions and examples. The final methodology limitation resides in the in situ administration. It was perceived that doing the survey in this environment would produce an accurate response as the consumers were interacting with the product. In reality consumers were often in conversation or eating and gaining their full attention proved to be difficult. 24

9.2 Sample Size As mentioned in section 6.1.4, 120 was deemed an appropriate number of respondents for the quantitive data collection. The issues discussed in the above section meant that this number was reduced to 69. It is unlikely that, with this small sample size combined with the non-probability methods used to get the sample, that the above results are in any way generalisable. In addition, the sample sizes for the three variations of the survey were uneven (Tiger: 20; Fosterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s: 24; Heineken: 25). This may have resulted in a skewed result in the criteria of brand personality.

9.3 Data Analysis A further limitation resides in the data analysis. The analysis seen in section 8 is generated purely through the use of descriptive statistics. This means that deeper statistical tests were not performed, or results proved not to be statistically significant. This resulted from three primary factors. Firstly the design of the survey prevented a number of standard tests as the sample sizes for brand personality were not the same as that for the COO or the taste-related tests. Also, the eventual sample size of 69 caused many of the tests that were run to proved to be statistically insignificant. Finally, the studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s authors lack sophisticated SPSS skills, hindering the depth of results generated by the software.

10.0 Conclusion & Recommendation The findings of this research have thrown in to sharp relief a numbers factors surrounding beer consumption amongst the Gen Y research participants. It seems that the respondents to this survey struggled with the concept of brand personality and found it difficult to apply to the test beers. However research into taste indicated the the choice of favorite beer was informed more by brand perception than actual preference for taste. COO was confirmed as being primary factor for decision making in the minds of Vietnamese Gen Y beer drinkers, despite this the consumers who identified as using COO as a criteria for purchase had a limited knowledge of both country and region of origin. Further study into into the the concept of brand awareness and COO is warranted and recommended. Gen Y will soon be the largest contributor to GDP in Vietnam and understanding these consumers is vital for success in this market. 25

11.0 References 1. Aaker, J.L 1997, ‘Dimensions of brand personality’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol 34, no 3, pp. 347-357. 2. Andrew, S 2006, ‘The difference between qualitative and quantitative research’, earticles.info, viewed 27 December 2010, <http://e-articles.info/e/a/title/THE3. DIFFERENCE-BETWEEN-QUALITATIVE-AND-QUANTITATIVE-RESEARCH/>. 4. Allison, R.I & Uhl, K.P 1964, ‘Influence of beer brand identification on taste perception’ Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 36-39. 5. Babbie, E.R 2008, ‘The basics of social research’, Thomson Wadsworth, U.S.A. 6. Biel, A.L 1993, ‘Converting Image into Equity’, in Aaker, D.A & Biel, A.L (ed.), Brand equity & advertising: advertising's role in building strong brands, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, U.S.A., pp. 51-66. 7. Burns, R.B & Burns, R.A 2008, ‘Business research methods and statistics using SPSS’, SAGE Publications Ltd, U.S.A. 8. Eroglu, S.A & Machleit, K.A 1988, ‘Effects of individual and product-specific variables on utilising country of origin as a product quality cue’, International Marketing Review, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 27-41. 9. Franzen & Moriarty, 2009, ‘The science and art of branding”, M.E.Sharpe Inc, U.S.A. 10. Fournier, S 1994, ‘A consumer-brand relationship framework for strategy brand management’, PhD thesis, University of Florida, U.S.A. 11. Morgan, D.L 1993, ‘Successful focus groups: advancing the state of the art’, SAGE Publishing, U.S.A. 12. Morgan, D.L 1997, ‘Focus groups as qualitative research’, 2nd edn, SAGE Publishing, U.S.A.

13. Shultz, C.J 1994, ‘Considerations for market entry in Vietnam’, The Columbia Journal of World Business, vol. winter, pp. 42-52. 14. Speece, M & Nguyen, D.P 2005, ‘Countering negative country-of-origin with low prices: a conjoint study in Vietnam’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol 14, no 1, pp. 39-49. 15. Wilson, A 2003, ‘Marketing research An integrated approach’, Pearson Education, Essex.

12.0 Appendix Appendix A Survey Example See over page.

Bảng khảo sát về các nhãn hiệu bia Thông tin cá nhân - Xin vui lòng chọn thông tin phù hợp 1. Giới tính: Nam

Nữ"

2. Độ tuổi: Under16

16-18

19-21

3. Bạn là người Việt Nam?: Đúng 4. Bạn có uống bia không?: Đúng

22-24

25-27

28-30

31-33

33+

Không Không

5. Bạn có thường uống bia không? Dưới một lần Một lần một trong một tháng tháng)

2-3 lần một tháng

Một lần một tuần

2-3 lần một Trên 3 lần một tuần tuần

Mục 1 - Xin vui lòng chọn thông tin phù hợp Bạn cảm nhận như thế nào về Bia Heineken?? Cột bên tay trái thể hiện một số đặc điểm cá nhân của các loại bia. Bạn nghĩ đặc điểm của Bia Heineken như thế nào?

Phần A Hoàn toàn không đồng ý

Không đồng ý

Không đồng ý một phần

Bình Thường

Đồng ý một phần

Đồng ý

Hoàn toàn đồng ý

Thẳng Thắn

Trung thực

Lành mạnh

Hoan Hỉ

Thân thiết

Hăng say-Nhiệt huyết

Sáng tạo

Phần B Cột bên tay trái thể hiện một số đặc điểm cá nhân của các loại bia. Bạn nghĩ đặc điểm của Bia Heineken như thế nào? Hoàn toàn không đồng ý

Không đồng ý

Không đồng ý một phần

Bình Thường

Đồng ý một phần

Đồng ý

Hoàn toàn đồng ý

Hiện Đại

Đáng tin cậy

Thông Thái

Thành đạt

Đẳng cấp

Sang trọng-Quýên rũ

Hướng Ngoại

Mạnh mẽ

Nam Mỹ

Trung Đông

Châu Á

Mục 21. Bạn nghĩ các loại bia sau đây đến từ đâu? Châu Phi Châu Úc Châu Âu Bắc Mỹ

A. Tiger O

B. Heineken

C. Fosters

2. Bạn nghĩ các loại bias au đây đến từ quốc gia nào

A. ______________________________________

B. ________________________________________

C. ________________________________________

3. Xin vui lòng cho biết mức độ đồng ý hay không đồng ý của bạn về các phát biểu sau đây bằng cách đánh dấu chọn vào ô thích hợp. Hoàn toàn không đồng ý

Không đồng ý

Không Bình Đồng ý một đồng ý một Thường phần phần

Chất lượng bia được khẳng định bởi nguồn gốc xuất xứ của chúng

Nguồn gốc xuất xứ của các loại bia là một phần quan trong trong việc khẳng định chất lượng

Tôi luôn chọn mua bia dựa trên xuất xứ của chúng

Tôi không bao giờ chọn mua bia dựa trên xuất xứ của chúng

Đồng ý

Hoàn toàn đồng ý

Cảm ơn bạn đã dành thời gian để thực hiện cuộc khảo sát – Chúc bạn một ngày vui vẻ!

Appendix B Focus Group Summary How o"en do you drink beer? -‐Everyday, a"er dinner I usually have one beer -‐ Not very o"en, I’m not a regular drinker, just go out and drink with my friends for once or twice a month -‐ Whenever I have invita:on to go and I have free :me to go -‐ About once a week, usually at the weekend 1) Why do you like to drink beer (instead of wine)? -‐Beer make me feel be5er, it’s cold and you feel refresh when drink them -‐I agree, beer’s cold and make you feel be5er when drink it -‐Wine usually makes me feel very hot and beer can make the party last for longer 2) Which brand do you o"en order? (Ignore money factors) -‐Heineken -‐Heineken -‐Budweiser -‐Heineken -‐Whatever my friends come up with -‐Heineken 3) Why do you choose that brand? -‐For me, Heineken’s light and has very tasty smell -‐It’s the most popular beer brand in VN, everyone love it, so do I -‐Well, when I hold the bo5le in my hand, I feel very confident, I don’t know why but it’s true. -‐Even though Budweiser is new to VN market but a"er a few :mes try it, personally I think its taste is be5er than Heineken and the others 4) Is the brand reflec:ng your personali:es? -‐Yes for sure, as I have men:oned before, the feeling of holding a Heineken bo5le is very cool, I feel like something very modern, strong and a bit gorgeous -‐Yes, it’s not because Heineken is the most expensive beer in the market and show your status, your social class, but I’m pre5y sure that it’s not for people who have low income. As you working very hard, got your status and money, so you want something that suite to you and it’s Heineken -‐I’m agree, the image of Heineken is intelligent, successful and very independence, confident 5) Is the place (even) effect on your decision? (party, ea:ng and drinking, picnic, bar-‐pub, wedding) -‐Yes, it’s part of my decision when I buy beer. For eg, whenever my friends and I get a change to go picnic or somewhere outside, Bia Hoi will be my first choice because its style is cheap, very wild and a li5le bit crazy. If we go to the food shop (not very expensive) we definitely will go for Tiger or 333. -‐I agree with that idea, if you go to a bar and call some of the cheap beer like 333 or Zorok, it’s totally ridiculous, and I don’t believe that the bar will have that kind of beer. Expensive beer will always go along with expensive places -‐Whenever, Wherever with whomever, my first choice always is Heineken. -‐I’ll go for Budweiser and if the place that doesn’t have it, I’ll take Tiger because Heineken is not strong enough for me. 6) What do you think about Vietnamese beer? -‐Well, VN beer’s image is something very close, very friendly and they’re common beer. -‐Very cheap, very funny and close to VN people -‐Vn beer is not a bad choice especially Bia Hoi, if we compare the taste I think that it’s would score 7/10 to compare with foreign beer. And if we compare price, it’s perfect -‐Yes, we can get drunk and never have to worry about our pocket. -‐Beers from are not always share the same commons. For eg, 333 is very strong and I would say that it follow behind the image and taste of Tiger, while SaiGon beer or Zorok is quite light, and I would compare them with the taste of Heineken

31 28

10)

11)

12)

-‐I also agree with the idea above is that I think VN beer is trying to following a par:cular image of foreign beer. But I’d like to add one more point is that we also have very special beers, I believe that people in the North drinks Halida beer most o"en and Southern people usually drink 333 or Sai Gon beer. What do you think about a foreign beer? -‐It’s more expensive than VN beer and so does the quality. It’s taste very special. -‐I would agree with the point that they are different in prices but about quality I don’t think that there are a big gap between domes:cs and foreign beer. -‐I agree with that idea, it’s not about the quality but the taste, everyone have different scene, so strong beer would suit with that man very well but other man love light beer and I believe that the personality of people who love Heineken and Tiger is very different 8a) What do you mean by saying that Heineken and Tiger drinkers are different? -‐Well, Tiger differen:ate itself from Heineken very well, we can see from their adver:sings, Heineken usually go with place like in the restaurants, bars, with high class people for example they sponsor for 007 movies and we can see it in that movie. While Tiger sponsor for a Football League (English Premier League) and I see it more ac:ve, friendlier and close to people that Heineken. Where do you think Heineken come from? -‐Germany -‐America -‐Holland -‐England -‐I don’t know specific but I think it’s from Euro -‐Holland -‐Holland What do you think about beer from that region (EU-‐AUS-‐AMERICA)? -‐Well, beer from German I think it’s stronger, crazier in term of personali:es and I think taste will be different also -‐We shouldn’t compare big region like EU or AUS…because I think that even in Vietnam, beer from the North has some points very different from the South. Also we can compare beer form Holland such as Heineken; people say that Heineken is not very strong; it’s light and a bit sweet. Just like the image of Holland, when you talk about Holland you usually think about beau:ful ladies and flowers and so does its beers, mean while I will think about war, craziness and Hooligan when people men:on about German -‐Yes. I agree, we should compare the country of origins instead of region of origins because beer from the same region like Casberg and Heineken are also very different. 10a)Could you tell us more about that differences? Well, I actually haven’t tried a lot of beers yet, but from my opinion the beer from the par:cular country will bring the spirit of the country along, for eg, whenever we talk about Fosters beer, I think everybody will say “drink beers like Australian style” What do you think about FOSTERS? -‐A li5le bit unusually, but I don’t have many chances to try it -‐Never try it before -‐Also never try it before so I could not talk any think about the taste but in general Foster is different. -‐Very crazy, informal and outdoorsy and tough Do you think all of the beers from AUS have the same characteris:cs? -‐Very crazy and wild, I also watch an adv on Youtube about a beer call “It’s a big ad”, only one word “Crazy” -‐Never try any beer from AUS so could not tell much about it Tell us about the taste of Tiger beer to compare with Heineken? -‐Tiger is heavier and a bit bi5er more -‐It’s easier to get drunk when we drink Tiger than Heineken and I think there is something a li5le bit too much in Tiger to compare with Heineken especially A"er-‐taste -‐Heineken is easier to drinker to drink but I think it’s too light, when you drink it with ice, you cannon taste the beer at all. I would prefer something in between Tiger and Heineken 29 32

14) Which characteris:cs of the taste of beer that you like the most? -‐I love the Body factor, it’s mean that the feeling you have in your throat when you swallow the beer. -‐I’m woman so I love something not too much bi5erness, and also light and sweet, Heineken and Zorok are my ﬁrst choices -‐I love beer with a strong bi5erness, it’s make you feel not very good at the ﬁrst glass but later it will then turn to sweet and it’s so cool.

Appendix C 1. Data for “Respondent Profile” Age Percent

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Under 16 16-18 19-21 22-24 25-27 28-30 31-33 33+ Total

0.029 0.14 0.246 0.391 0.174 0.072 0.014 0.058 100.0

2.9 1.4 24.6 39.1 17.4 7.2 1.4 0.058 100.0 Gender Valid Percent

Percent

2.9 1.4 24.6 39.1 17.4 7.2 1.4 5.8 100.0 Frequency

2.9 4.3 29.0 68.1 85.5 92.8 94.2 100.0

Cumulative Percent

Male Female Total

63.8 36.2 100.0

63.8 36.2 100.0 Drink Frequency Valid Percent

Percent

44 25 69 Cumulative

63.8 100.0

Frequency

Percent < once per

0.203

20.3

month Once per

0.043

4.3

24.6

month 2-3 times per

0.362

36.2

60.9

month Once per week 2-3 times per

0.188 0.159

18.8 15.9

79.7 95.7

13 11

week > 3 times per

0.029

2.9

98.6

0.014

1.4 100.0

100.0

1 69

week Unknown Total

0.998

30 33

2. Data for â&#x20AC;&#x153;Brand Personalityâ&#x20AC;? Descriptive Statistics Brand Personality Minimum Maximum

N DownToEarth Honest Wholesome Cheerful Daring Spirited Imaginative UpToDate Reliable Intelligent Successful UpperClass Charming Outdoors Tough

69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69

Figure 9a

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

Std. Deviation

7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

4.51 4.59 4.80 5.03 5.03 5.09 4.87 5.06 4.94 4.74 5.36 5.20 5.22 5.10 5.25

1.410 1.468 1.530 1.382 1.393 1.348 1.662 1.474 1.514 1.668 1.697 1.587 1.705 1.610 1.594

Brand Personality Means Comparison

Sincerity

Excitement

Heineken Tiger Foster's

Mean

5.40 4.10 4.61

Competence Sophistication Ruggedness 5.58 5.61 5.66 5.54 4.68 4.97 5.36 5.26 4.68 4.42 4.60 4.77

Gend

Down Hone Whole Cheer Darin Spirite Imagi UpTo Reliab Intelli Succe Upper Char Outdo Tough

ToEar

some

ful

native Date

gent

ssful

Class

ming

ors

Male Femal

th 4.66 4.24

4.75 4.32

5.05 4.36

5.32 4.52

5.41 4.36

5.34 4.64

5.14 4.40

5.16 4.88

5.05 4.76

4.95 4.36

5.23 5.60

5.14 5.32

5.02 5.56

5.09 5.12

5.30 5.16

e Total

4.51

4.59

4.80

5.03

5.09

4.87

5.06

4.94

4.74

5.36

5.20

5.22

5.10

5.25

Sincerity

Excitement

Competence

Sophistication

Ruggedness

Male

4.95

5.26

5.08

5.20

Female

4.36

4.47

4.91

5.44

5.14

Average ratingDownToEarthHonest Wholesome Cheerful Charmin Outdoors Tough

< once per month Once per month 2-3 times per month Once per week 2-3 times per week > 3 times per week Total < once per month Once per month 2-3 times per month Once per week 2-3 times per week > 3 times per week Total

4.41 4.64 4.85 5.34 5.49 5.90 Daring 4.50

3.57

4.36

4.29

g 4.64

4.50

4.64

4.00

4.67

5.00

6.00

4.33

5.33

4.56

4.84

4.96

5.12

4.96

4.80

5.21

5.50

5.29

5.71

5.93

5.27

4.82

5.55

5.64

5.36

6.00

5.50

6.00

5.50

6.00

4.61

4.80

5.03

5.21

5.11

5.27

Spirited Imaginative UpToDate 4.50 4.71 4.64

Reliable 4.21

3.50 4.33 4.40 5.57 4.55 6.00 4.51

Intelligent Successful UpperClass 4.29 5.14 4.64

4.67

4.33

4.67

5.00

3.33

4.00

5.67

4.33

4.76

5.12

4.84

4.88

4.32

5.20

5.08

5.43

5.29

4.43

5.14

5.43

5.07

5.36

5.57

5.82

5.55

5.64

5.55

5.73

5.55

5.73

5.50

6.00

5.50

7.00

5.50

5.03

5.09

4.84

5.04

4.94

4.73

5.36

5.20

31 34

3. Data for “Country of Origin” I never buy beer from a certain country Mean

I always buy beer The country that a beer from a certain comes from is an country important indicator of quality

The country that a beer comes from accurately indicates quality

4.42

4.93

5.49

5.72

Std. Deviation

1.718

1.397

1.232

1.259

Variance

2.953

1.951

1.518

1.585

WhereTiger Percent

Frequency

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Correct Incorrect Total

30 39 69

43.5 56.5 100.0 WhereHeineken Percent

Frequency

43.5 56.5 100.0 Valid Percent

43.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent

Correct Incorrect Total

53 16 69

76.8 23.2 100.0 WhereFosters Percent

Frequency

76.8 23.2 100.0 Valid Percent

76.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent

Correct Incorrect Unknown Total

40 28 1 69

58.0 40.6 1.4 100.0

58.0 98.6 100.0

% correct region Tiger

0.435

Tiger

Correct % country

Heineken

0.768

Heineken

0.13

Forster’s

0.58

Forster’s

0.58

Tiger Asia Europe Other

0.48 0.43 0.08 < once per

Tiger Heineken Foster

month 5.70% 16.70% 12.20% < once per

Once per 2-3 times per month 1.40% 5.60% 2.40%

month 18.60% 33.30% 36.60%

Once per 2-3 times per

0.232

Once per 2-3 times per > 3 times per week 11.40% 20.40% 24.40%

week 7.10% 20.40% 22.00%

Total

week 1.40% 3.70% 2.40%

45.70% 77.10% 58.60%

Once per 2-3 times per > 3 times per

Total

CountryTiger CountryHeine

month 3% 3%

month 1% 0%

month 4% 3%

week 7% 1%

week 6% 4%

week 1% 1%

23% 13%

ken CountryFoste

10%

23%

13%

10%

60%

32 35