The economic conditions in the
global market are very tough to deal with. Started with sub-prime crisis and
the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008, each time it appears that the global
economy is about to recover and will accelerate soon, something happens to
create a hurdle into the path of growth (Estrada, 2011). Sometimes it may be
the economic crisis in Euro zone, or sometime it may be Iraq crisis which leads
to destabilization of the world economy. In the past few years, we have seen
the decline in the speed of economic growth of United States, China, Japan,
India and Brazil (IMF, 2013). These countries count for the major chunk in the
world economic pie and the decline in the speed of growth rate is a cause of
concern for every industry at global level and retail is not an exception.
In recent times, the retail sector
has undergone significant changes. Due to deregulation of foreign investment
policies, monopoly / competition policies, and change in land usage policies,
alongside broader new economic reforms in various countries affecting consumer
markets and trade, large retailers have managed to strengthen their power and
have expanded globally. While small retailers still dominate in various parts
of the world (Wrigley, 2010), international corporations are grabbing larger
shares of the market. As large companies seek to maximize their profits, they
have managed to reduce the risks of investment by various alternative channels
like franchising and subcontracting. These trends have not only impacted smaller
firms, but consumers, suppliers and employees also. These changes in the retail
industry have developed larger labour market trends, where employers are trying
to shift the risks and cost of employment by adopting “flexible” work practices
(Luce, 2013). This includes decreasing the number of full-time jobs, and
increasing part-time, temporary, and on-call workers. More retail workers have
become workers with little job security, low wages and less hours of work. This
step was also backed by broader labour laws and eliminatation of employee
unions in many countries.
Retail is one of the largest
sectors in many national economies. Countries differ in how they define the
industry, but according to the International Labour Organization, “Retail is
universally understood as the final step in the distribution process, in which
retailers are organized to sell merchandise in small quantities to the public.”
This differs from wholesale trade, where firms sell to another firms. The
retail industry counts for more than US $15 trillion in global revenue and is
expected to maintain strong growth in the coming years (Ramaswami et al, 2010).
The retail industry is very diverse, with small retailers still in majority in
developing countries, but increasingly, large firms are dominating.
Retail in India has seen a lot of
phases from barter system to online shopping and has evolved to support the unique needs of
our country. Melas (village fairs), haats (weekly markets in villages) and
mandis (local markets) have always been a part of the Indian retail landscape.
These are still prevailing in the most parts of the country and form a very
important part of life and trade in various areas.
In the past decade, the Indian
marketplace has transformed dramatically. However, from the 1950’s to the
1980’s investments in various industries was limited due to the low purchasing
power in the hands of the consumer and the government’s policies favoring the
small scale sector. Initial steps towards liberalization were taken in the
period of 1985-90. It was at this time that many restrictions on private
companies were lifted, and in the 1990’s, the Indian economy slowly progressed
from being state led to becoming ‘market friendly’(Kumar et al., 1993).
Indian
retail sector looks very promising on ground of recent economic developments
like increase in per capita income, young work force, flourishing consumerism,
change in life style of people, nuclarization of families, urbanization,
growing preferences for branded products, mall culture and above all the higher
aspirations of the Indian consumers. Today, Indian retail sector is one of the
fastest growing sector in the economy with a CAGR of 15 % per annum (including
both organized and unorganized sectors) and it is likely to reach at Rs. 47 lac
crores by FY 2016 – 17 from a level of Rs. 23 lac crores in FY 2011-12 as per a
study conducted by ASSOCHAM and Yes Bank.
The
major characteristic of Indian retail is that it is largely dominated by
unorganized sector (which largely consist of small kirana shops, vegetable shops, dairy shops etc.) and it counts for
around 94% of total market share (Singh and Tripathi, 2012). The main reason
behind the growth of these traditional outlets is proximity to customers,
ability to manage old and personal relationships with the customers, flexible
working hours, bargaining habits of Indian customers, home delivery, selling of
loose items (customized products) and credit facilities extended without any
collateral security (Kumar, 2005). The unorganized retail sector is second
largest employers in Indian economy after agriculture and it counts for around
10% of total employment in the country.
With the dawn of the 21st
century, India has seen entry of the mall culture especially in Metro and big
cities. By the end of last decade this mall culture has entered in Tier 2 and
Tier 3 cities too and it has also changed the way for shopping in our country.
Though organized retail has entered and expanded in all cities of India, yet
the share of organized store is around 7% only. But the organized retail is
growing much faster as compared to the unorganized sector (ICRIER, 2008) and it
is estimated to grow at a CAGR of 24% per annum and will probably acquire 10.2%
share of total retail sector by 2016-17. The major business houses have entered
into the business of organized retailing in India such as: Tata, Reliance,
Future group, Landmark group, Vishal Mega mart, etc.
Point-of-purchase
Display
Today,
retail stores have everything from shoes, clothes, toys to electronics. It is
therefore important for store owners to have the necessary tools for
merchandising a wide variety of items in the most efficient manner within their
stores to help promote merchandise. As the retail stores develops visual
retailing and displaying of products is becoming a source of concern for
business owners. Retailers must be in tune with all the different types of
store displays and fixtures available for store displays that are available for
their stores’ merchandise.
Point-of-purchase
is the place where a customer is about to buy a product. Point-of-purchase
display refers to how a retailer should display various brands so that they are
most likely to be noticed and purchased by the customers. It is a well-recognized fact that many of
Indian customers make their final decision with respect to purchase of a
product/brand at the last minute. The point-of-purchase display derives its
power out of this phenomenon. The point-of-purchase display not only presents
the last minute reminder but also invites the customers to buy it. Effective
display backed by recommendation of the retailer can do wonders to a brand. The
underlying assumption is “jo dikhta hai vo bikta hai”.
Review
of Literature
The environment, the manner in
which the brands are displayed at the counter and the ambience surrounding the
brand are as important as the product itself. (Ramasyamy & Namakumari,
2007)
The appeal of point of purchase
advertising lies in the fact that in many product categories consumers make the
bulk of their final brand decisions in the store. In store advertising is
designed to increase the number of spontaneous buying decisions. (Kotler &
Keller, 2007).
Marketing materials or advertising
placed next to the merchandise it is promoting. These items are generally
located at the checkout area or other location where the purchase decision is
made. (Waters, 2013).
Point of Purchase areas are places
in the store where customers can purchase merchandise. Because many customers
go to these areas and may wait in line to make a purchase, they are often used
to display impulse items. (Levy, Weitz & Pandit, 2008). Each Point of
Purchase display provides shoppers with information, adds to store atmosphere,
and serves a substantial promotional role. (Berman & Evans, 2008).
Point of sale displays that grab
prospective customer attention as they are contemplating making a purchase
might be the key to increasing your sales. You cannot be there to make the
sale, but your point of sales display can be. (www.gaebler.com).
A point-of-sale display (POS) is a
specialized form of sales promotion that is found near, on, or next to a
checkout counter (the "point of sale"). They are intended to draw the
customers' attention to products, which may be new products, or on special
offer, and are also used to promote special events, e.g. seasonal or
holiday-time sales. (en.wikipedia.com).
Eye catching retail displays will
grab your customers’ attention in reception areas, retail shops, airports and
many other applications. Effective point of sale display promotion will draw
your customers attention to new products and special offers.( www.redcliffe.co.uk)
Efficient shelf space allocation leads to a better
display of the product and make the store environment more pleasant. This is
one of key determinants to gain an edge in the highly competitive retail
industry. Several models are developed for allocation of shelf space to a large
number of products to optimize retailer’s objective under certain operating
conditions within a store. Growing number of products has posed a challenge to
the retailers in allocating available shelf space to them efficiently. If
retailers can manage space allocation in an efficient manner it can be helpful
in increasing their bottom line (Gajjar
and Adil, 2011).
Research
Methodology:
The present research is exploratory
cum descriptive in nature and depends largely upon the primary source of
information. Data has been collected from 100 respondents who visited the
shopping malls in Haryana with the help of a structured questionnaire.
Interview technique has been used when and where necessary, in order to gather
information about the present retail scenario. Data has been analyzed with the
help of SPSS using ‘t’ test and One way ANOVA. The objectives of the study are:
i.
To study the impact of point of purchase display on store
atmospheric.
ii.
To study whether significant difference occurs among the
opinions of people across different demographic profile with respect to point
of purchase display.
Part
A – Data Analysis (Demographic)
Table
1 – distribution of respondents –gender wise
|
GENDER
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Male
|
57
|
57
|
57
|
|
Female
|
43
|
43
|
100
|
|
Total
|
100
|
100
|
|
(Source – Primary data)
Male and female both are equally
engaged in shopping activities. The above table depicts that a mixture of both
genders has been taken in order to gain maximum insight.
Table
2 distribution of respondents – age wise
|
AGE
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Less than 20
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
|
21 - 40
|
48
|
48
|
52
|
|
41-60
|
27
|
27
|
79
|
|
61 & above
|
21
|
21
|
100
|
|
Total
|
100
|
100
|
|
(Source – Primary data)
The data has been collected from
the various shoppers and the table indicates that maximum respondent belongs to
21 – 40 age group followed by 41 – 60 age groups. The reason observed behind
this is that most of the shoppers today are young customers and same is being
reflected in this table too.
Table
3 – distribution of respondents – education wise
|
EDUCATION
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Up to 10th
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
|
Up to graduation
|
41
|
41
|
49
|
|
pg & above
|
51
|
51
|
100
|
|
Total
|
100
|
100
|
|
(Source – Primary Data)
The above table indicates that most
of the respondents belong to either 2nd group or 3rd
group. Only 8% respondents belong to 1st group i.e. upto matric.
This trend shows most of the customer visiting shopping malls in haryana are
highly educated.
Table
4 – distribution of respondents – occupation wise
|
OCCUPATION
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
Business
|
17
|
17
|
17
|
|
Service
|
36
|
36
|
53
|
|
Others
|
47
|
47
|
100
|
|
Total
|
100
|
100
|
|
(Source – Primary Data)
The above table indicates the
occupation of the respondents. For this three categories viz. business, service
and others had been taken. Other included students, house wives and retired
persons (who do not have a direct source of income). The data indicates that
around 53% respondents belong to first two categories and rest belongs to 3rd
category.
Part
B – Data Analysis using Anova
The statements used in
questionnaire are:
|
Store
atmospheric
|
|
|
S1
|
The items displayed
in outer display tell about the standard of the store
|
|
S2
|
The items in point of
purchase display are well arranged as compared to other parts of store
|
|
S3
|
Display along with
other amenities such as lightening, music, scent, signage, texture and color
makes the ambiance of retail store very much pleasant
|
|
S4
|
A good display leads
to spend the quality time within the store
|
|
S5
|
A store with good
display is like a community park, where we can go and pass our leisure time
in a pleasant environment
|
|
S6
|
If the products are
displayed in sequence it makes shopping experience much better
|
|
S7
|
Display is the most
prominent factor which differentiates the modern & traditional retailing
|
|
S8
|
I feel that
unorganized retailers also have understood the importance of a good display
and many of them have converted the look of shop for the same
|
The above statements have been
analyzed using anova. The analysis of each statement with various demographic
factors can be explained as:
Table 1- Analysis of data using Anova across age
|
|
Age
|
N
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
F
|
Sig.
|
|
S1
|
<20
|
4
|
3.14
|
1.18
|
2.93
|
0.03
|
|
|
21-40
|
48
|
3.58
|
1.21
|
||
|
|
41-60
|
27
|
3.40
|
1.34
|
||
|
|
61 & Above
|
21
|
3.76
|
1.11
|
||
|
|
TOTAL
|
100
|
3.54
|
1.22
|
||
|
S2
|
<20
|
4
|
3.40
|
1.06
|
6.38
|
0.00
|
|
|
21-40
|
48
|
4.01
|
0.82
|
||
|
|
41-60
|
27
|
3.67
|
1.09
|
||
|
|
61 & Above
|
21
|
3.91
|
0.98
|
||
|
|
TOTAL
|
100
|
3.86
|
0.96
|
||
|
S3
|
<20
|
4
|
3.10
|
1.21
|
3.49
|
0.02
|
|
|
21-40
|
48
|
3.53
|
1.13
|
||
|
|
41-60
|
27
|
3.30
|
1.20
|
||
|
|
61 & Above
|
21
|
3.71
|
1.14
|
||
|
|
TOTAL
|
100
|
3.48
|
1.16
|
||
|
S4
|
<20
|
4
|
3.50
|
1.15
|
4.36
|
0.00
|
|
|
21-40
|
48
|
3.88
|
1.12
|
||
|
|
41-60
|
27
|
3.58
|
1.06
|
||
|
|
61 & Above
|
21
|
4.06
|
0.98
|
||
|
|
TOTAL
|
100
|
3.81
|
1.09
|
||
|
S5
|
<20
|
4
|
3.14
|
0.98
|
0.42
|
0.74
|
|
|
21-40
|
48
|
3.09
|
1.23
|
||
|
|
41-60
|
27
|
3.03
|
1.20
|
||
|
|
61 & Above
|
21
|
2.94
|
1.20
|
||
|
|
TOTAL
|
100
|
3.06
|
1.19
|
||
|
S6
|
<20
|
4
|
2.83
|
1.48
|
5.39
|
0.00
|
|
|
21-40
|
48
|
3.21
|
1.21
|
||
|
|
41-60
|
27
|
2.71
|
1.29
|
||
|
|
61 & Above
|
21
|
3.35
|
1.17
|
||
|
|
TOTAL
|
100
|
3.09
|
1.27
|
||
|
S7
|
<20
|
4
|
3.43
|
1.29
|
2.26
|
0.08
|
|
|
21-40
|
48
|
3.54
|
1.17
|
||
|
|
41-60
|
27
|
3.27
|
1.26
|
||
|
|
61 & Above
|
21
|
3.72
|
1.03
|
||
|
|
TOTAL
|
100
|
3.51
|
1.18
|
||
|
S8
|
<20
|
4
|
2.90
|
1.38
|
5.81
|
0.00
|
|
|
21-40
|
48
|
3.64
|
1.14
|
||
|
|
41-60
|
27
|
3.46
|
1.29
|
||
|
|
61 & Above
|
21
|
3.75
|
0.95
|
||
|
|
TOTAL
|
100
|
3.55
|
1.18
|
(Source
– Primary Data)
1- Analysis of data using Anova across age
H01: There
is no significant difference in the opinions of the respondents across the
different age groups regarding impact of point-of-purchase display on store
atmospheric.
Table
1 depicts the result of anova which was applied with an intention to know the
opinion of respondents across different age groups with regard to impact of
point-of-purchase display on store atmospheric. The analysis of the table shows
that for statements variables S1, S2, S3, S4, S6 and S8 the significance level
is less than 0.05, which indicates that the opinion of the respondents across
different age groups significantly differs and rejects the null hypothesis for
these statements. For rest of the statements i.e. S5 and S7 the significance
level is more than 0.05 and thus the opinion of respondents across different
age groups does not significantly differ for these two statements
Table 2
- Analysis of data using Anova across education
|
|
Education
|
N
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
F
|
Sig.
|
|
S1
|
Upto Matric
|
8
|
2.97
|
1.35
|
21.00
|
0.00
|
|
|
Upto Graduation
|
41
|
3.32
|
1.29
|
||
|
|
PG & Above
|
51
|
3.92
|
0.97
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
3.55
|
1.21
|
||
|
S2
|
Upto Matric
|
8
|
3.28
|
1.27
|
10.16
|
0.00
|
|
|
Upto Graduation
|
41
|
2.88
|
1.11
|
||
|
|
PG & Above
|
51
|
3.37
|
0.96
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
3.17
|
1.09
|
||
|
S3
|
Upto Matric
|
8
|
2.79
|
1.25
|
3.99
|
0.02
|
|
|
Upto Graduation
|
41
|
2.98
|
1.35
|
||
|
|
PG & Above
|
51
|
3.26
|
1.28
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
3.09
|
1.31
|
||
|
S4
|
Upto Matric
|
8
|
3.19
|
1.29
|
1.78
|
0.17
|
|
|
Upto Graduation
|
41
|
3.52
|
1.13
|
||
|
|
PG & Above
|
51
|
3.48
|
1.18
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
3.46
|
1.18
|
||
|
S5
|
Upto Matric
|
8
|
2.26
|
1.29
|
12.97
|
0.00
|
|
|
Upto Graduation
|
41
|
2.75
|
1.05
|
||
|
|
PG & Above
|
51
|
3.06
|
1.07
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
2.83
|
1.13
|
||
|
S6
|
Upto Matric
|
8
|
3.48
|
1.45
|
7.32
|
0.00
|
|
|
Upto Graduation
|
41
|
3.09
|
1.31
|
||
|
|
PG & Above
|
51
|
3.57
|
1.12
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
3.37
|
1.27
|
||
|
S7
|
Upto Matric
|
8
|
3.78
|
1.31
|
1.86
|
0.16
|
|
|
Upto Graduation
|
41
|
3.87
|
1.12
|
||
|
|
PG & Above
|
51
|
4.03
|
0.92
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
3.94
|
1.06
|
||
|
S8
|
Upto Matric
|
8
|
3.66
|
0.93
|
1.65
|
0.19
|
|
|
Upto Graduation
|
41
|
3.38
|
1.07
|
||
|
|
PG & Above
|
51
|
3.46
|
0.95
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
3.45
|
1.00
|
(Source
– Primary Data)
2 - Analysis of data using Anova across education
H02: There
is no significant difference in the opinions of the respondents across the
different educational groups regarding impact of point-of-purchase display on
store atmospheric.
Analysis
of table 2 depicts the result of anova across different educational groups
which indicate the response of various respondents over the impact of
point-of-purchase display on store atmospherics. The table further reveals that
statements S1, S2, S3, S5 and S6 have got significance level of less than 0.05
and rejects the null hypothesis which means that the opinion of different
respondents significantly differs for these statements while for rest
statements i.e. S4, S7 and S8 the level of significance is more than 0.05 and
thus the opinion of various respondents across different educational group does
not significantly differ and null hypothesis cannot be rejected for these
statements. Overall we can conclude that there is a mix response of the
respondents.
Table 3 - Analysis of data using Anova across
occupation
|
|
Occupation
|
N
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
F
|
Sig.
|
|
S1
|
Business
|
17
|
3.46
|
0.98
|
3.57
|
0.03
|
|
|
Service
|
36
|
3.78
|
1.02
|
||
|
|
Others
|
47
|
3.51
|
1.14
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
3.61
|
1.08
|
||
|
S2
|
Business
|
17
|
3.27
|
1.33
|
3.22
|
0.04
|
|
|
Service
|
36
|
3.62
|
1.10
|
||
|
|
Others
|
47
|
3.37
|
1.03
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
3.46
|
1.10
|
||
|
S3
|
Business
|
17
|
2.60
|
1.09
|
2.58
|
0.08
|
|
|
Service
|
36
|
2.93
|
1.09
|
||
|
|
Others
|
47
|
2.97
|
1.05
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
2.91
|
1.07
|
||
|
S4
|
Business
|
17
|
3.12
|
1.35
|
7.82
|
0.00
|
|
|
Service
|
36
|
3.41
|
1.04
|
||
|
|
Others
|
47
|
2.94
|
1.19
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
3.15
|
1.17
|
||
|
S5
|
Business
|
17
|
3.35
|
1.40
|
10.74
|
0.00
|
|
|
Service
|
36
|
3.76
|
1.16
|
||
|
|
Others
|
47
|
3.16
|
1.33
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
3.43
|
1.30
|
||
|
S6
|
Business
|
17
|
3.23
|
1.15
|
4.69
|
0.01
|
|
|
Service
|
36
|
3.68
|
0.97
|
||
|
|
Others
|
47
|
3.38
|
1.28
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
3.48
|
1.15
|
||
|
S7
|
Business
|
17
|
3.08
|
1.17
|
11.48
|
0.00
|
|
|
Service
|
36
|
3.74
|
1.14
|
||
|
|
Others
|
47
|
3.20
|
1.30
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
3.40
|
1.25
|
||
|
S8
|
Business
|
17
|
2.69
|
1.06
|
2.41
|
0.09
|
|
|
Service
|
36
|
3.10
|
1.20
|
||
|
|
Others
|
47
|
2.95
|
1.27
|
||
|
|
Total
|
100
|
2.98
|
1.22
|
(Source
– Primary Data)
3- Analysis of data
using Anova across occupation
H03: There
is no significant difference in the opinions of the respondents across the
different occupational qualifications background regarding impact of
point-of-purchase display on store atmospheric.
The
table 3 depicts the results of anova that was applied to know whether there is
some significant difference in the opinion of the three occupational groups –
business, service and others in respect to the impact of point-of-purchase
display on store atmospheric. The analysis of the table indicates that for statements
S1, S2, S4, S5, S6 and S7 there is a significant difference in the opinion of
various respondents as the significant level is less than 0.05 for these statements
which rejects the null hypothesis. Only for two statements i.e. S3 and S8 level
of significance is more than 0.05 which does not reject the null hypothesis
Findings
& Conclusion
After analyzing the data it was
found that for most of the statements the opinion of various groups of
respondents significantly differs. For statements like the items displayed in
outer display tell about the standard of the store and the items in point of
purchase display are well arranged as compared to other parts of store and if
the products are displayed in sequence it makes shopping experience much better
the opinion of the respondents over various demographic groups was found
significantly differ in all the cases. It was found that point of purchase
display have an impact on the store atmospheric. It was also found that display
is helpful in making store environment pleasant. To conclude we can say that point of purchase
display has an impact on the overall atmosphere of the retail store. The
customers visit more those stores which have wide range of displayed products.
No comments:
Post a Comment