Hypothesis 3:
There is a significant difference in the perceptions of BOP consumers varying in biographical profiles (age, highest educational qualification, monthly income and number of people living in a household, gender and race) regarding each evaluative criterion (price/affordability, quality, appearance/acceptability, packaging/quantity, accessibility/
availability, brand preference, adaptability of existing products, functionality/performance and advertising/awareness), respectively (Tables 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, 6.24, 6.25, and 6.26).
Table 6.21
Kruskal-Wallis One-way ANOVA: Evaluative Criteria and Age Evaluative Criteria Chi-Square p
Price/affordability 33.042 0.000*
Quality 11.276 0.024**
Appearance/acceptability 6.854 0.144
Packaging/quantity 20.708 0.000*
Accessibility/availability 20.589 0.000*
Brand preference 1.206 0.877
Adaptability of existing products 6.842 0.144
Functionality/performance 2.474 0.649
Advertising/awareness 5.145 0.273
*p<0.01 **p<0.05
Table 6.21 indicates that there is a significant difference in the perceptions of BOP consumers varying in age regarding price/affordability, packaging/quantity and accessibility/
availability at the 1% level of significance, and quality at the 5% level of significance, respectively. Table 6.21 also indicates that no other significant differences exist.
172 Table 6.22
Kruskal-Wallis One-way ANOVA: Evaluative Criteria and Highest Educational Qualification
Evaluative Criteria Chi-Square p
Price/affordability 33.392 0.000*
Quality 26.565 0.000*
Appearance/acceptability 8.095 0.088
Packaging/quantity 16.816 0.002*
Accessibility/availability 14.511 0.006*
Brand preference 22.611 0.000*
Adaptability of existing products 10.284 0.036**
Functionality/performance 9.986 0.041**
Advertising/awareness 5.038 0.283
*p<0.01 **p<0.05
Table 6.22 indicates that there is a significant difference in the perceptions of BOP consumers varying in highest educational qualification regarding price/affordability, quality, packaging/quantity, accessibility/availability and brand preference at the 1% level of significance, and adaptability of existing products and functionality/performance at the 5%
level of significance, respectively. Table 6.22 also reflects that no other significant differences exist.
Table 6.23
Kruskal-Wallis One-way ANOVA: Evaluative Criteria and Monthly Income Evaluative Criteria Chi-Square p
Price/affordability 19.178 0.002*
Quality 43.307 0.000*
Appearance/acceptability 12.891 0.024**
Packaging/quantity 31.130 0.000*
Accessibility/availability 47.662 0.000*
Brand preference 20.256 0.001*
Adaptability of existing products 6.058 0.301
Functionality/performance 46.276 0.000*
Advertising/awareness 5.038 0.411
*p<0.01 **p<0.05
173
Table 6.23 indicates that there is a significant difference in the perceptions of BOP consumers varying in monthly income regarding price/affordability, quality, packaging/quantity, accessibility/availability, brand preference and functionality/
performance at the 1% level of significance, and appearance/acceptability at the 5% level of significance, respectively. It is also evident from Table 6.23 that no other significant differences exist.
Table 6.24
Kruskal-Wallis One-way ANOVA: Evaluative Criteria and Number of People Living in a Household
Evaluative Criteria Chi-Square p
Price/affordability 24.933 0.000*
Quality 15.764 0.001*
Appearance/acceptability 11.620 0.009*
Packaging/quantity 6.783 0.079
Accessibility/availability 6.995 0.072
Brand preference 26.297 0.000*
Adaptability of existing products 3.942 0.268
Functionality/performance 9.398 0.024**
Advertising/awareness 5.007 0.171
*p<0.01 **p<0.05
Table 6.24 indicates that there is a significant difference in the perceptions of BOP consumers varying in the number of people living in a household regarding price/
affordability, quality, appearance/acceptability and brand preference at the 1% level of significance, and functionality/performance at the 5% level of significance, respectively. In addition, Table 6.24 reflects that no other significant differences exist.
t-Tests were conducted in order to ascertain whether or not there is a significant difference in the perceptions of BOP consumers varying in gender and age regarding the evaluative criteria for purchase decisions (Tables 6.25 and 6.26).
174 Table 6.25
Mann-Whitney U-Test: Evaluative Criteria and Gender
Evaluative Criteria
Mann-
Whitney U Z p
Price/affordability 42194.000 -2.729 0.006*
Quality 47381.500 -0.425 0.671
Appearance/acceptability 44319.000 -1.790 0.073
Packaging/quantity 42253.000 -2.702 0.007*
Accessibility/availability 38940.000 -4.219 0.000*
Brand preference 43632.500 -2.089 0.037**
Adaptability of existing products 46053.000 -1.041 0.298
Functionality/performance 41329.500 -3.144 0.002*
Advertising/awareness 48271.500 -0.030 0.976
*p<0.01 **p<0.05
Table 6.25 indicates that there is a significant difference in the perceptions of male and female BOP consumers regarding price/affordability, packaging/quantity, accessibility/
availability and functionality/performance, respectively, at the 1% level of significance.
Furthermore, male and female BOP consumers differ in their perceptions of brand preference at the 5% level of significance. It is also evident from Table 6.25 that no other significant differences exist.
Table 6.26
Mann-Whitney U-Test/Kruskal-Wallis t-Test: Evaluative Criteria and Race
Evaluative Criteria
Mann- Whitney
U Z
Kruskal – Wallis T-Test
Chi-Square p
Price/affordability 8970.000 -0.046 0.963
Quality 7958.000 -1.086 0.277
Appearance/acceptability 7241.000 -1.829 0.067
Packaging/quantity 8555.500 -0.472 0.637
Accessibility/availability 8262.500 -0.782 0.434
Brand preference 6833.500 -2.243 0.025**
Adaptability of existing products 10.570 0.001*
Functionality/performance 4.776 0.029**
Advertising/awareness 16.145 0.000*
*p<0.01
**p<0.05
175
Table 6.26 indicates that there is a significant difference in the perceptions of African and Coloured BOP consumers regarding adaptability of existing products and advertising/
awareness, respectively, at the 1% level of significance. In addition, African and Coloured BOP consumers differ in their perceptions of brand preference and functionality/
performance, respectively, at the 5% level of significance. Furthermore, Table 6.26 reflects that no other significant differences exist.
From the results reflected in Tables 6.21 to 6.26, it is evident that Hypothesis 3 may be partially accepted.
Hypothesis 4:
There is a significant relationship between the evaluative criteria and each of the biographical variables (age, highest educational qualification, monthly income and number of people living in a household, gender and race), respectively (Table 6.27).
176 Table 6.27
Spearman Rank-order Correlation: Evaluative Criteria and Biographical Variables
Evaluative Criteria
Gender
Age
Race
Highest Educational Qualification
Income
Number of people living in a
household
rho p rho p rho p rho p rho p rho p
The price of product 0.049 0.233 -0.037 0.361 0.156 0.000* 0.043 0.296 -0.018 0.659 -0.137 0.001*
The quality of product -0.055 0.212 -0.109 0.013** 0.042 0.340 0.201 0.000* 0.160 0.000* -0.021 0.635 The product brands -0.074 0.212 0.000 0.995 -0.123 0.037** -0.125 0.035** -0.091 0.125 0.135 0.022**
The performance of the product
0.035
0.512
-0.019
0.724
0.035
0.505
0.022
0.684
-0.135
0.011**
0.025
0.632 The packaging sizes of
the product
0.077
0.214
0.133 0.031**
0.049
0.428
-0.066
0.286
0.057
0.357
0.151
0.014**
The appearance of the product
-0.009
0.905
0.059
0.435
-0.044
0.557
-0.058
0.441
0.049
0.514
0.004
0.954 The multi-purpose
design of products
-0.080
0.307
0.038
0.621
-
-
-0.182
0.019**
-0.031
0.693
0.050
0.522
The convenience of buying the product
0.072
0.443
-0.034
0.717
-0.021
0.825
-0.059
0.529
-0.156
0.093
0.313
0.001*
The products that were recently advertised
-0.034
0.841
0.004
0.982
-
-
0.126
0.452
0.092
0.584
-0.328
0.044**
*p<0.01
**p<0.05
177
Table 6.27 indicates that there is a significant relationship between age and the packaging sizes of the product and, a significant but inverse relationship between age and the quality of the product at the 5% level of significance, respectively. The implication is that, as BOP consumers grow older, the less conscious they are of the quality of products when making purchasing decisions.
As evident from Table 6.27, there is a significant relationship between race and the price of the product at the 1% level of significance and, a significant but inverse relationship between race and the product brands at the 5% level of significance, respectively. The inference of the significant but inverse relationship is that Coloured BOP consumers place less emphasis on brands than African BOP consumers when engaging in decision-making.
Table 6.27 indicates that there is a significant relationship between highest educational qualification and the quality of the product at the 1% level of significance. Furthermore, Table 6.27 reflects that there is a significant but inverse relationship between highest educational qualification and the product brands and the multi-purpose design of products at the 5% level of significance, respectively. The implication is that BOP consumers, who have lower levels of educational qualifications, place greater importance on product brands and the multi-purpose design of products when making purchase decisions.
As evident from Table 6.27, there is a significant relationship between monthly income and the quality of the product at the 1% level of significance, and a significant but inverse relationship between monthly income and the performance of the product at the 5% level of significance, respectively. The implication of the significant but inverse relationship is that, as the income of the BOP consumers increases, the less important the performance and functionality of the product becomes when engaging in decision-making.
Table 6.27 indicates that there is a significant relationship between the number of people living in a household and the convenience of buying the product, and a significant but inverse relationship between the number of people living in a household and the price of the product at the 1% level of significance, respectively. The inference of the significant, inverse relationship is that, as the number of people living in a household increases, the less important price becomes to the BOP consumers when engaging in decision-making.
178
Furthermore, Table 6.27 reflects that there is a significant relationship between the number of people living in a household and the product brands and the packaging sizes of the product, and a significant but inverse relationship between the number of people living in a household and the products that were recently advertised at the 5% level of significance, respectively. The implication of the significant but inverse relationship is that, as the number of people living in a household increases, the less important recently advertised products become to the BOP consumers when making purchase decisions.
There are no other significant relationships between evaluative criteria and biographical variables. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 may be partially accepted.