Panel of Examiners Approval Sheet

PANEL OF EXAMINERS APPROVAL SHEET

The Panel of Examiners stated that the skripsi entitled “THE IMPACT OF BRAND IMAGE, PRICE AND PERCEIVED QUALITY ON PURCHASE DECISION (A STUDY CASE OF HEINEKEN BEER IN JAKARTA)” that was submitted by Friska Arini Rumopa majoring in International Business from the Faculty of Business was assessed and approved to have passed the Oral Examinations on April 4th 2016.

Miftah Zikri, M.Sc

Chair – Panel of Examiners

Filda Rahmiati, M.B.A

Examiner I

Jhanghiz Syahrivar, B.Sc.,M.M.

Examiner II

SKRIPSI ADVISER RECOMMENDATION LETTER

This skripsi entitled “THE IMPACT OF BRAND IMAGE, PRICE AND PERCEIVED QUALITY ON PURCHASE DECISION (A STUDY CASE OF HEINEKEN BEER IN JAKARTA)” prepared and submitted by Friska Arini Rumopa in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor in Faculty of Business has been reviewed and found to have satisfied the requirements for a skripsi fit to be examined. I therefore recommend this skripsi for Oral Defense.

Cikarang, Indonesia, January 28th 2016

Acknowledged by, Recommended and Acknowledged by,

V, Jajat Kristanto SE.,MM.,MBA. Jhanghiz Syahrivar, B.Sc., M.M. Head of Management Skripsi Adviser

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

I declare that this skripsi entitled “THE IMPACT OF BRAND IMAGE, PRICE AND PERCEIVED QUALITY ON PURCHASE DECISION (A STUDY CASE OF HEINEKEN BEER IN JAKARTA)” is, to be the best of my knowledge and belief, an original piece of work that has not been submitted, either in whole or in part, to another university to obtain a degree.

Cikarang, Indonesia, January 28th 2016

Friska Arini Rumopa

iii

ABSTRACT

This research is based on the competitive conditions of beer industries in Indonesia, where Heineken beer’s market share is always going down each year. Variable used in this research are Brand Image (X1), Price (X2) and Perceived Quality (X3) on Purchasing Decision (Y). The data are collected by distributing questionnaire to 137 respondents. The researcher used quantitative analysis includes validity and reliability test, correlation, multicollinearity and binomial logistic regression. The hypothesis testing results that Brand Images is 0.000 below 0.05, shows that Brand Image has partial significant influence towards Purchasing Decision, Price is 0.849 above 0.05, shows that Price has not partial significant influence towards Purchasing Decision and Perceived Quality is 0.013 below 0.05, shows that Perceived Quality has partial significant influence towards Purchasing Decision. This research also shows that there is no multicollinearity between all the independent variables toward the dependent variable.

Keywords: brand image, price, perceived quality, purchasing decision

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future – Jeremiah 29:11.

In the name of Jesus Christ,

In this final subject of my study at President University. I would like express my deepest gratitude to my Saviour and Almighty God, Jesus Christ who has blessed and led me throughout every single precious moment for three and half years at President University.

Throughout this opportunity I would like to show my gratitude for:

1. My deepest gratitude goes to my family, first, Papa Mikael J. Rumopa and Mama Ari Sudaryanti. All greatest gratitude kisses for you who always love me. You always support me in financial, hard time, easy time, and in everything, and always remind me to finish my skripsi soon. My sisters: Fidia Devani Rumopa and Fensha Sastya Ariani Rumopa and my brothers: Farel Fernando Rumopa and Fegar Giovano Rumopa who always motivate to contributed tremendously to finish my skripsi. Thank you for letting me know how wonderful family is and also my lovely grandmother, and my crazy uncle Pipa. I love you all. 2. My skripsi advisor, Mr. Jhanghiz Syahrivar who always guides me and supervised me during my skripsi writing. Thank you for your guidance, constructive criticism and moral support to finish my skripsi. 3. My love goes to RAFY: Kresma Putrangga H, M. Dimas Andromeda and Ki Agus M. Yusuf G., thank you for always being there when I need a support. 4. My sister from another mom and dad, Suzanna Audina, thank you for always being there when I need you and vice versa. 5. Cyber Crime geng: Meilinda C. Pungus, Ayu Teresia, Ivony Lestari and Lois Claudia, thank you for filled my college life with lots of fun, weird, adventure, stupid, laugh, cry, sad, love and together moments. My precious roommate, Ivony Lestari and Lois Claudia thank you for being my roommate who fullest my life with bad, precious, and good moments, v

thanks for always listening my story and remind me to finish my skripsi. I hope our friendship will be lasts forever guys! 6. My friend in crime, Alfonsus Jordy Jericho, Kristy Emilia, Juan Jeremy Langoy, Sari Wulan Ningrum, Gandhi Surya thanks for always being there and always reminds me to done this skripsi. 7. My companion Felda Prescilla, thanks for filled my university life with laugh and crazy moments. 8. My lovely group project in the entire semester in President University, Idris Nugraha and Mahrayuni, thank you for always being my partner in every subject through hard and easy conditions; those are moments can not be forgotten. 9. My partner weekend thesis, bang Ican, thanks for letting me to find the numbers of colleration and help me to use SPSS, thank you for helping me in anything. 10. Batch 2012, especially IB 2012 who were given unforgettable moment we share during the college life, for help me during my skripsi process. 11. Warmindo Pak Budi, thanks for always being there when I am hungry in the middle of night. 12. Finally, I would like to thank everyone who has taken part in my life. Thanks for everything and I apologize if I could not mention all names one by one.

TABLE OF CONTENT

PANEL OF EXAMINERS….……………………………………………….…..i

SKRIPSI ADVISOR RECOMMENDATION…………………………………ii . DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY……………………………...………....iii . ABSTRACT………………………………………………………...…………....iv . ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.…………………………………………………..….v

TABLE OF CONTENT………………………………………………..……….vii

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………....xi

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………….....xii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Background of the Study ...... 1

1.2 Problem Identification ...... 6

1.3 Statement of the Problem ...... 6

1.4 Research Objective ...... 7

1.5 Significance of Study ...... 8

1.6 Scope and Limitation ...... 8

1.7 Defenition of Term ...... 8

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 10 2.1 Theoretical Background ...... 10

2.1.1 Purchasing Decision ...... 10

2.1.1.1 Purchase Decision Making ...... 10

2.1.2 Brand Image ...... 12

2.1.4 Relationship between Brand Image and Purchasing Decision. ... 13

2.1.5 Price ...... 13

2.1.6 Relationship between Price and Purchasing Decision ...... 14

2.1.7 Perceived Quality ...... 14

2.1.8 Relationship between Perceived Quality and Purchasing Decision ...... 15

2.2 Previous Research ...... 16

2.3 Theoretical Framework ...... 18 vii

2.4 Operational Definition...... 19

2.5 Hypothesis ...... 23

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 24

3.1 Research Methodology ...... 24

3.1.1 Quantitative Method ...... 24

3.1.2 Deductive Approach ...... 24

3.2 Research Design ...... 25 3.3 Research Instrument ...... 26

3.3.1 Primary Data ...... 26

3.3.2 Secondary Data ...... 26

3.3.3 Data Analysis ...... 29

3.4 Sampling Design ...... 29

3.4.1 Population ...... 30

3.4.2 Sample ...... 31

3.5 Validity, Reliability, Colerration and Multicollinearity ...... 31

3.5.1 Validity ...... 31

3.5.2 Reliability ...... 32 3.3.3 Colerration ...... 33 3.5.4 Multicollinearity ...... 34 3.6 Data Collection ...... 34 3.7 Testing The Hypothesis ...... 35 3.7.1 Binomial Logistic Regression ...... 35 3.7.1.1 Classification Table ...... 36

3.7.1.2 Model Summary ...... 36

3.7.1.3 Omnibus Test ...... 36 3.7.1.4 Partial Test ...... 36

viii

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ...... 37

4.1 Company Profile ...... 37

4.1.1.PT. Multi Bintang Indonesia Tbk ...... 37

4.1.2 History ...... 38

4.1.3 Mission and Values ...... 38 4.1.4 Product ...... 39

4.2 Data Result Analysis ...... 39

4.2.1 Pilot Test ...... 39 4.2.2 Validity Test ...... 39 4.2.3 Reliability Test ...... 41 4.3 Descriptive Analysis ...... 41

4.3.1 Respondent Profile ...... 41

4.3.1.1 Gender ...... 42

4.3.1.2 Age ...... 42

4.3.1.3 Frequently Drink a Beer ...... 43

4.3.1.4Type of Drinker ...... 44

4.3.1.5 Occupation ...... 44 4.3.1.6 Education ...... 45 4.4 Result of Respondent Respond ...... 45

4.5 Correlation and Multicollinerarity Analysis ...... 52

4.5.1 Correlation ...... 52

4.5.2 Multicollinearity ...... 53

4.6 Binomial Logistic Regression ...... 54

4.6.1 Output Overall Percentage...... 54

4.6.2 Pseudo R Square ...... 56

4.6.3 Omnibus Test ...... 56

4.6.4 Output (Brand Image, Price and Perceived Quality) ...... 57

4.7 Interpretation Result ...... 58

4.7.1 Brand Image towards Purchasing Decision of Heineken beer in Jakarta ...... 58

4.7.2 Price towards Purchasing Decision of Heineken beer in Jakarta ...... 58

4.7.3 Perceived Quality towards Purchasing Decision of Heineken beer in Jakarta ...... 58

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 60

5.1 Conclusion ...... 60

5.2 Recommendation ...... 60

5.2.1 For Company ...... 60

5.2.2 For Future Researcher ...... 61

REFERENCES ...... 62

APPENDIX A ...... 65

APPENDIX B ...... 68

APPENDIX C ...... 77

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Previous Research ...... 16

Table 2.2 Operational Definition of Variable ...... 19

Table 3.1 Advantages of Different Questionnaire ...... 27

Table 3.2 Likert Scale ...... 29

Table 3.3 Level of Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability ...... 33

Table 4.1 Validity Test ...... 40 Table 4.2 Reliability Test ...... 41 Table 4.3 Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation ...... 52 Table 4.4 Classification Table Steps 0 ...... 54 Table 4.5 Classification Table Adding 1 Independent Variable ...... 55 Table 4.6 Classification Table Adding all Independent Variable ...... 55 Table 4.7 Psudo R Square ...... 56 Table 4.8 Omnibus Test ...... 56 Table 4.9 Variable in the Equation...... 57

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Beer in Indonesia ...... 4 Figure 2.1 Purchase Decision Making Model ...... 12 Figure 2.2 Theoretical Framework ...... 18 Figure 3.1 Deductive Research ...... 25 Figure 3.2 Research Framework ...... 34 Figure 4.1 Respondent Profile :Gender ...... 42 Figure 4.2 Respondent Profile : Age ...... 42 Figure 4.3 Respondent Profile : Frequently Drink a Beer ...... 43 Figure 4.4 Respondent Profile : Type of Drinker ...... 44 Figure 4.5 Respondent Profile : Occupation ...... 44 Figure 4.6 Respondent Profile : Education ...... 45 Figure 4.7 Brand Image Statement...... 46 Figure 4.8 Price Statement ...... 47 Figure 4.9 Perceived Quality Statement...... 48 Figure 4.10 Purchasing Decision Statement ...... 50

xii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study Based on Asian Pacific Brewery (2015), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) protects their domestic beer producers with high tariff. However, the Southeast Asian beer markets truly competitive. Regional leader is San Miguel, the largest manufacturing companies in the Philippines. San Miguel controls 90% of sales in Philppines, 60% in Hong Kong, and is a foreign beer producers are in China: Asian Pacific Brewery (APB) Singapore is a great company next to the brewery in Singapore and Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Vietnam and Chinese state. 42% of the APB is owned by Heineken Netherlands. APB brands (Tiger, Heineken and Anchor) is a market leader that is unmatched in the Singapore and Malaysia. Because hindered factor tariffs, San Miguel had only a small market share in the two countries. To meet the challenge of the expansion proposed by San Miguel's, APB plans to build a brewery in Vietnam.

Indonesia consumes 100 million liters of water each year, nearly 0.5 liters of beer per person per year. That is not much if compared to 7 liters for Malaysia. Beer consumers China jumped from 0.5 liters per capital per year in 1979 to 7.3 liters in 1991, reflecting the Chinese living standards increase. The Philippines is part of southeast drink liquor beer most of the above, where they consume 1.5 billion liters per year, about 25 liters per capital. However, 40 to 50 million Indonesia is a beer drinker that exceeds the entire population of Adults Philippines. They will probably drink more, because beer makes their incomes rise. Analysis showed that beer consumption in Indonesia increased by around 3-4% every year.

PT. Multi Bintang Indonesia is the dominant supplier of beer in Indonesia. Bir Bintang count on over 55% of the market. Ruler of its market exceeds

70% in Indonesia, East and North Sumatra. Heineken has more than 75% exchange MBI Company uses Heineken Technical And managers. MBI operates with APB, Heineken's Allies in Singapore. In addition to the Star, MBI make Greend Sand, Tiger Beer (allowed from APB), and dark beer Guinness (Guinness Cooking beer allowed on the Irish). MBI also has Coca Cola and Coca Cola, Fanta, and Angel monopolizing market in province North Sumatra and Aceh without alcohol.The next market share is Anker Beer, who entered the beer by PT Delta Djakarta, a company that has been registered. Very dominant for West Java and Jakarta area, Delta Djakarta also produces Carlsberg (under License Danes), Anker Bir black, and Shanta Super Shand. Due to good control of the company, then in 1990 the Delta Djakarta has the highest income per share (567 Indonesian currency) on any stock exchange and is listed on the Jakarta Stock Exchange. In 1993, San Miguel gave a 49% share of the Group mentrust Delta Djakarta, one Indonesian conglomerate. San Migual, beer was produced under license Indonesian foreign beer manufacturers who have little mastery in the Indonesian market.

Based on Marketing Director of PT. Multi Bintang Indonesia (2015), Toni Darusma, Indonesia is the country that consumes 100 million litters beer per year, the number is still not much if we compared to European countries. The most consumption of beer is in Bali island rather than other big cities in Indonesia, because Bali is the largest tourist areas in indonesia. But nowadays, beer industry in Indonesia is facing the problem about beer sale. According to BBC Indonesia, Ministry of Trade prohibits beer sales in minimarket. Through the Minister of Trade (second change regulation ) No.06/M-DAG/PER/1/2015 on the control and supervision of procurement, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages that was signed January 16, beverages with alcohol content below 5 % will be banned from sale in minimarket or store retailers. Sales only allowed in supermarkets and hypermarkets.

Based on CNN Indonesia (2015), Ministry of Trade said it will still allow the sale of liquor in group A with maximum alcohol content of 5 percent in all tourist areas of Indonesia. That provision is an exception from the Minister of Trade No. 06/M-DAG/PER/1/2015 on the control and supervision of the procurement, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages specified in the technical instructions rules. Director General of Domestic Trade Ministry of Trade Srie Agustina, thus not only retailers in tourist areas of Bali are still allowed to sell drinks the beer types. Provided that the attraction is having the Regional Regulation (Perda) which designates it as a tourist area, the Ministry of Trade justify the sale of beer there. However, Srie insists with this relaxatation about the rules does not mean that alcoholic beverages can be sold back of class A in the minimarket, due to the prohibition of beer sales are still regulated in Decree No. 06/2015 on the second amendment of the Regulation No. 20/M-DAG/PER/4/2014 on control and supervision of procurement, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages.

Two global beer company, Heineken and Diageo must be prepared to experience a decline in sales of beer in Indonesia when the government banned the harsh verdict mini market selling alcoholic drinks had levels below five per cent as the beer came into force 16 April 2015. Faced with this policy, Heineken mentions the ban as extreme measures will not solve the press thoroughfare alcoholic beverages for underage citizens as government objectives. The Indonesian government says the move is aimed at reducing the number of underage drinkers and a bad attitude around mini market. But such a move is also seen as one sign of the growing influence of Islamic groups in Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Heineken has recorded a 70 percent market share of beer sales in Indonesia through a majority stake in Multi Bintang, producers of local beer, Bintang. According to the company headquartered in Amsterdam, the Indonesian government's decision will not resolve any problems alcohol drinkersunderage. Based on Financial Times, Monday (13/04/2015), the

Government’s decision is predicted to have an impact on 55 thousand small retail outlet which sells about half of Heineken beer in Indonesia.

Based on Sanjeet Aujla (2015), Credit Suisse, due to the ban on the sale of beer in the minimarket, lacing sales for Heineken and Diageo in Indonesia appear to be significant, but small when talking in the context of the sale of the group, Indonesia is predicted to contribute less than 2 percent of the total sales of the two companies but in Indonesia, the domestic beer market continues to grow 5-6 percent a year.

Based on Kompas.com 2015/05/07, the company's net profit of beer which is PT Multi Bintang Indonesia Tbk is decreased due to the impact of stock reductions carried out by the market,along with the implementation of the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No. 06/2015 which prohibits minimarket and other retailers sell or distribute alcoholic beverages. The management of PT. Multi Bintang Indonesia Tbk said that sales of beer is not to be taken in place should only be carried out by a network of supermarkets and hypermarkets. Thus, the situation greatly affects the availability of beer products for consumers with a legal age to consume alcoholic beverages (over 21 years) in Indonesia.

Based on Reza Priyambada, Woori Korindo Securities analyst, during the sales of beer in Indonesia, many beer producers manufacture their product through pub, night club and bar. The enthusiasts alcoholic drinks prefer to enjoy the beer in cafes or nightclubs. So, manufacturers of alcoholic beverages would be threatened if there are local regulations that cover the entertainment venues at night. In fact, various cafes and nightspots are still interested in a lot of visitors. The visitors is increasingly every day. However, the government's efforts to improve young people to stay away from alcoholic beverages can be a tough challenge for producers.

Brand 2013 2014 2015

Bir Bintang 60.6% 61.6% 64.1%

Anker Beer 24.9% 24.8% 19.4%

Guinness 5.7% 5.7% 10%

Heineken 4.1% 3.4% 2.4%

Figure 1.1 Beer in Indonesia

Source from http://topbrand-award.com

Based on data above, the sales of Heineken are always going down each year, in 2013 the sales is 4.1%, in 2014 the sales is 3.4%, in 2015 the sales is 2.4%. Beer consumption in Indonesia is expected to decline from 2010 due to a significant increase in tax rates since April 2010. According to the survey, as the cheapest type of alcoholic beverage, affordability becomes a key issue to keep consumption in the country that the majority of the population and low-income consumer segments. Strict regulations in each province on the restriction of the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages can inhibit the promotion of beer. On the other hand, the brewers expect the tourism sector can be increased in order to provide a positive impact for beer sales in Indonesia.

In order to increase the brand of sales Heineken, the company needs to leads competition between brands, that is competition to capture consumer through a brand. Brand can play a number of important roles to improve the lives of consumers and the financial value of the company.According to Maholtra (2010) Brand image is also referred to as the customer's perception of either the reason or rational basis or through more emotions towards a specific brand.

To reach the profit goal, then every company should strive to produce and deliver goods and services that consumers want at a reasonable price.

According to Philip Kotler (2013) price is charged for products and services is set artificially low in order to gain market share. Once this is achieved, the price is increased. The price of Heineken in the market is for middle to upper. However, in the end the consumer will always choose a product according to the criteria expected by the consumer. Consumers are always looking for products that approximately reliable, or in this case we called it quality. According to Alfred, 2013, perceived quality is the buyer's subjective judgment of the product. Perceived quality can be explained through the consumer's evaluation on degree of excellence of a product. Perceived quality is the extent to which a brand is brilliant and considered to provide good quality of product and service in comparing with the rivalry product, perceived quality is at the heart of what consumers purchase and in order to generate high quality, an understanding of what quality means to various costumer segments is required. Creating a quality product or service in only a partial victory; perception must be created as well (Aaker, 2010).

Based on data and some explanation on the background of the study, this research takes the title: The Impact of Brand Image, Price And Perceived Quality On Purchasing Decision (A Study Case of Heineken beer In Jakarta)

1.2 Problem Identification From the data above, the figure 1.1 showed that , the sales of Heineken are always going down each year, in 2013 the sales is 4.1%, in 2014 the sales is 3.4%, in 2015 the sales is 2.4%. Since the strict regulations in each province on the restriction of the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages can inhibit the promotion of beer. On the other hand, the brewers expect the tourism sector can be increased in order to provide a positive impact for beer sales in Indonesia and also competition among companies is getting tougher in beer industry. The company have to try to attract the consumers in events and etc, to buy their product. This research is based on the consideration of who are beer consumers in Jakarta. Heineken beer brand

image always becomes the logo in every club/bar in Jakarta. Heineken beer has already attached its product to specify upper middle – upper class of consumers. The price of Heineken beer compare to other beer in the market is not suitable for lower middle class of consumers. The perceived quality of Heineken beer brand becomes the considerations for consumers to buy the products; specifically in Jakarta.

1.3 Statement of Problem This research aims to answer the following question:

a) Does Brand Image has a partial significant influence toward purchasing decision of Heineken beer? b) Does Price has a partial significant influence toward purchasing decision of Heineken beer? c) Does Perceived Quality has a partial significant influence toward purchasing decision of Heineken beer? d) Does Brand Image, Price and Perceived Quality has a simultaneous significant influence toward purchasing decision of Heineken beer?

1.4 Research Objectives Based on the proceeding research questions, the reserch objectives of the study can be translated as follows: a) To find out if Brand Image has partial significant influence toward purchasing decision of Heineken beer. b) To find out if Price has partial significant influence toward purchasing decision of Heineken beer. c) To find out if Perceived Quality has partial significant influence toward purchasing decision of Heineken beer. d) To find out if Brand Image, Price, and Perceived Quality have simultaneous significant influence toward purchasing decision of Heineken beer.

1.5 Significance of the Study Through this research hopefully could expand knowledge, information, and suggestion for:

1. For Heineken the output of research would become the reference for Heineken beer for manage the brand image, price and perceived quality Heineken beer; especially in Jakarta. 2. For Resercher: This skripsi is a prerequisite and must be fulfilled as a part of achieving Bachelor Degree of Management. 3. For President University Student: This skripsi can be a journal for reference and additional literature for the next research.

1.6 Scope And Limitation Scope

The study is conducted to “The Impact of Brand Image, Price and Perceived Quality towards Purchasing Decision. (A study case of Heineken Beer in Jakarta)

Limitation

This study is focused on Jakarta. Questionnaires are distributed to beer consumers in Jakarta. The study will limit on Heineken beer and this study only analysed influence Brand Image, Price and Perceived Quality towards Purchasing Decision of Heineken beer in Jakarta.

1.7 Definition of terms a) Brand Image: The impression in the consumer’s mind of a brand’s total personality. b) Price: A value that will purchase a finite quantity, weight, or other measure of a good or services. c) Perceived: to come to an opinion about something, or have a belief about something. d) Perceived Quality: the extent to which a brand is considered to provide good quality product.

8 e) Purchase: to obtain in exchange for money or its equivalent; buy. f) Purchase Decision: a series of choices made by a consumer prior to making a purchase that begins once the consumer has established a willingness to buy.

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoritical Review 2.1.1 Purchasing Decision Purchasing decision is an action taken by the consumer relate to their buying behavior (Pride & Ferell, 2012). Purchaisng decision defines as the process when customer purchases goods or services for their personal needs (Menthula, 2013). Purchasing decision as the choice being made by the consumer following a careful assessment of the available options which were made apparent by the information collected from many sides after having a clear goal in mind. (Roong, 1999; Yin Lin & Yu Shih, 2012).

2.1.1.1 Purchase Decision Making Consumer decision making process comprises five stages: need recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase, and post-purchase behavior

1. Need Recognition Need recognition is the first stage of consumer decision making process and it can be explained as “result of an imbalance between actual and desire needs” (Lamb et al, 2011). 2. Information Research The second stage of consumer decision making process relates to information research. Once a need is recognised by a perspective costumer, he would seek for information about the available ways to satisfy the need. It is important to stress that “the extent to which the consumer needs to search for information depends on his current information levels and the perceived value of the additional information” (Pradhan, 2009).

Costumer are greatly influenced by marketing strategies of retailers during this stage of the decision making process as well. Namely, retailers communicate information about the brand through various communication channels that might include any combination of advertising, direct marketing, public relations and publicity, personal selling, events and experiences and sales promotion (Kotler and Keller, 2009). 3. Evaluation of Alternatives During the third stage of consumer decision making process perspective consumers are engaged in evaluation of alternatives. In other words, during this stage “consumer considers the relative importance of each attribute of the product service mix” (Reid and Bojanic, 2009). Influencing costumer behaviour at this stage of decision making process is critical for retailers in terms of improving their levels of costumer attraction and retention. Accordingly, retailers attempt to attract customers with their competitive edges that are usually based in one or more elements of marketing mix. It worth to be noted that “the marketing mix principles are controllable variables which have to be carefully managed, and must meet the need s of the defined target group” (Kumar, 2010) 4. Purchase Decision Making Making the purchase correspondents to the fourth group stage of costumer decision making process. Factors playing significant role on the choice of retailer to make a purchase from at this stage include the level of satisfaction from past shopping experiences, product return policy, store atmosphere and the intensity of time pressure associated with the purchase. Moreover, it has to be stated that “if the need is not great and the solutions the consumer finds are not desirable enough to motivate a purchase, the consumer may postpone the purchase until a satisfactory opportunity presents itself” (Lake, 2009). 5. Post-Purchase Behaviour The last stage of customer decision making process involves post purchase behaviour of consumers. It goes without saying that “the post purchase

phase of the decision making process is essential for marketers to ensure that consumers are satisfied after the purchase” (Ramesh, 2008). The level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction associated with specific shopping experience consumer’s value brand perceptions and the nature of their repeat purchase behaviour.

Need Recognition

Information Search

Evaluation of Alternatives

Purchase Decision

Post-Purchase Behavior

Figure 2.1 Purchase Decision Making Model Adapted from Kotler et al (2008)

2.1.2 Brand Image According to Maholtra (2010) Brand image is also referred to as the customer's perception of either the reason or rational basis or through more emotions towards a specific brand.

A positive brand image will enable marketing program can be liked and be able to produce unique associations to the brand that always exist in customer retention Schiffman & Kanuk (2010).

Pujadi (2010) defined brand image is often referenced in the psychological aspects of the image or impression that is built into the subconscious of consumers through the expectations and experience of taking the brand over a product or service, thus forming a positive brand image is becoming increasingly important to be owned by the company. According Tan et. Al., (2012) Good perception of product and service quality would drive the costumer to form a positive brand image. Brand image has a direct impact on the purchase behavior of the consumer based on Asim Nasar et al., (2012).

2.1.2.1 Brand Image and Purchase Decision Relationship Brand image can provide a suistanable competitive advantage that can moderate the impact of price and other product attribute on consumer’s purchase decisions. Yasin et al (2007) noted that brand image is important for product development in that it can be instilled in costumer’s minds and hence it could have a beneficial or detrimental effect on costumer buying decision.

2.1.3 Price According to Friedrich (2004) price indicates some amount of money that needs to be paid to achieve something.Price refers to the amount of money charged for good and/or service in return with the advantage of the product based on Kotler, et al (2006). Kotler and Amstrong (2006) defined Price is the amount of money charged for a product or service, the sum of the values thet customers exchange for the benefit of having or using the product or service.

Price is only one of the several costs faced by consumers. Other purchase realated costs include the timespent, displacement cost and emotional costs. However, price is the cost that consumers best determine and thus plays on important role in their decision. Some products or services are purchased based on custoner’s perception of price instead of the actual money (E.S. Asamoah, 2011).Price, as a heuristic cue, is more readily

observable than quality from Yoon, Oh, Song, Kim, & Kim (2014).Price is charged for products and services is set artificially low in order to gain market share. Once this is achieved, the price is increased (Philip Kotler, 2013)

2.1.3.1 Price with Purchase Decision Relationship Some earlier studies have shown price still as an important factor in purchase decision, especially for frequently purchase products, affecting choices for store, product and brand (Rondan, 2004). Price is not equally important in all sectors and markets, although it is highly relevant in the retail of frequently purchased products. This is corroborated by frequent mention of price in the adverising of this sector (Barreiro and Ruzo, 2000). Research of price has frequently included the importance of price on purchase decision; the present study, however, differs from them with regard its focus. The potentual influence of price importance on the degre of price awarness among consumers was analyzed and a significant percentage of those lacjing price awarness affirmed they consider price as irrelvant (Rosa, 2004).

2.1.4 Perceived Quality According to Danang (2012) perceived quality is the consumer's perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product or services with respesct to its intended purpose. Perceived quality is the buyer's subjective judgment of the product. Perceived quality can be explained through the consumer's evaluation on degree of excellence of a product. (Alfred, 2013). Perceived quality is attached to consumers a percepation that describes the total quality of product. (Hajipour, Bavarsad, & Zarei, 2013). Somma (2014) defined perceived quality is the customer's view of the quality of the product or service, both in terms of what they expect and also the comparison with how they perceive the quality of the competing offerings. Perceived quality is an intangible and overall feeliing about the brand and can't essentially be objectively determined, partly because it is a perception and also because judgments about what is important to

customers differ sharply in their personalities, needs, and preferences. (Roumeliotis, 2012).

2.1.4.1 Perceived Quality with Purchase Decision Relationship Perceived quality of the brand described overall customer response to the quality and benefits offered by the brand (Lee&Leh, 2011). Perceived quality is a factor that is the reasin why is the brand is being considered and purchased (Khasanah, 2013) This perception of quality affects what brand will be selected by the costumer to the next can take the decision to make a purchase on a brand (Yaseen et al., 2011). Hajipour, et al. (2013) also added that high quality will directly affect to purchase decision, supporting the price and also the loyalty. Perception of quality is the reason to buy a product (Moradi & Zarei, 2011). Perceived quality towards the purchasing decision of consumers according to the study conducted by (Choy, et al., 2011). Jalilvand, Samiei, Mahdavinia (2011) added that perceived qualitry influence the consumer purchasing decision through the reason to buy and differentiating the brand from competing brand.

2.2 Previous Research To support this research researcher refer to several previous research that will show in the table below.

Table 2.1 List of Previous Research

No Title Author Related Result

1. Factors Azhar From the findings, customers have more Influencing Ahmad, positive perceptions towards the price of Consumers’ Sallehud Tesco store brand products, while their Purchase din perceptions are negative on brand image Decision of Mohd and perceived quality of these products. Private Label Noor, The results show there is significant Brand Products Che relationship between the price and the Aniza purchase decision of Tesco store brand Che Wel products. (2012)

2. The correlation Nurul The sample of the reseacrh included 110 between Istiqoma people in Nologaten, Catur Tunggal, perceived h (2014) Depok Sleman, Yogyakarta. The analysis quality and results showed that were was positive purchasing correlation between consumer decisions on purchasing decisions and perceived consumers quality. It means consumers often judge product jamu of a product on the basis of variety “X” in infomational cues that associate with the Nologaten. product. Perceived quality has direct impact on consumer purchase decision

3. The Influence of Oghojaf This study investigates the influence of Product or Ben product attributes on consumer purchase Attributes on Akpoyo decision in Nigerian food beverages Consumer mare, industry: A study of Lagos Metropolis. Purchase Ladipo The result of the analysis reveals a Decision in the Patrick positive correlation between product Nigerian Food Kunle attribute and consumer purchase and Beverages Adeosun decision. Indeed, consumer evaluate Industry: A case and alternative products on the strenth of study of Lagos Rahim various attributes and on the basis of Metropolis Ajao whichs marketers differentiate and set Ganiyu their brand apart from competition. (2012)

No Title Author Related Result

4. The effect of Cecep The population of this research are product quality, Prabudi consumers Bakpia Willis. Sample are price and brand (2014) taken 100 respondents by using image on accidental sampling technique. The data purchase were collected by survey method through decision of questionnaires filled by consumers of Bakpia Willis Bakpia Willis. Then the data were product in analyzed using regression analysis. This Magelang, analysis includes the Validity Test, Semarang and Reliablity Test, Classic Assumption Test, Jogjakarta. Linear Regression Analysis, Hypothesis Test through Determination Analysis, Test F and Test T. The variable which has the greatest influence is brand image, followed by product quality variable while the price indicates negative effect. Hypothesis testing using T test showed that the product quality variable and brand image variable shown to significantly affect the dependant variable purchase decision, while the price variable not.

5. Analysis of Ria The researcher uses the analysis with Brand Image on Fitriani statistical method with the Spearman Ultramilk (2008) Rank Correlation, Coefficient of towards Determination r, and t test statistics. The consumer analysis results showed a good brand purchase image has a significant influence on decision consumer purchasing decision on Ultramilk product.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

BrandBrand Image (X1) X1 H1

Purchasing Price PricePrice Decision (X2) H2 X2X2 (Y)

PerceivedPerceivedPerceived Quality QualityQuality H3 X3(X3)X3

Figure 2.2: Theoretical Framework

Source: Azhar Ahmad, Sallehuddin Mohd Noor, Che Aniza Che Wel (2012)

The figure ilustrates the process of Brand Image, Price and Perceived Quality on Purchasing Decision for Heineken Beer in Jakarta. The researcher use 4 variables which consists of independent and dependent variables. Brand Image, Price, and Perceived Quality act as independent variable influences the purchase decision as dependent variable.

2.4 Operational Definition Table 2.2 Operational Definition of Variable

Variable Definition Indicator Question Brand image is also referred to as the 1. Heineken performs Functional customer's perception of either the reason as it promises. or rational basis or through more 2. Heineken enhances emotions towards a specific brand the perceptions that I Symbolic (Malhotra, 2010) have a desirable lifestyle. Social 3. Heineken improve the way I am perceived by others. Experiential 4. Heineken makes me feel delighted. Appereance 5. Usage of Heineken is enhances effective to my needs than other brands. (Stephen L. (Stephen L. Sondoh Jr, Sondoh Jr, Maznah Wan Omar, Maznah Wan Nabsiah Abdul Wahid, Omar, Ishak Ismail and Nabsiah Amran Harun, 2009) Abdul Wahid, Ishak Brand image is negatively influenced by Ismail and Brand the brand extensions (Arslan and Altuna Amran Image 2010). Harun, 2009) Brand image is often referenced in the psychological aspects of the image or impression that is built into the subconscious of consumers through the expectations and experience of taking the brand over a product or service, thus forming a positive brand image is becoming increasingly important to be owned by the company (Pujadi, 2010). Brand image is also regarded as opinion and consumer confidence in the quality of products produced by organizations and organizational honesty in the products offered to consumers (Aaker, 1997; Cannon, Perreault, & McCarthy, 2009) Brand image has a direct impact on the purchase behavior of the consumer (Asim Nasar et al. 2012) Brand image is the current view from costumer about the brand. It comes from impression customer's mind.

Variable Definition Indicator Question Price indicates some amount of money Reasonable 1. Heineken beer that needs to br paid to achieve Price prices are reasonable. something (Friedrich, 2004) 2. The price of Good Value Heineken beer equal for Money to the quality that I receive. 3. The price of Good Credit Heineken beer equal Terms to the benefit that I get. 4. Heineken offers Competitive competitive prices in Price comparison with other competitor beer. 5. Heineken beer Good offered seasonal and Discount flexible prices Price strategy. Price refers to the amount of money Rao (2009), (Al-Debi & Mustadfa, charged for good and/or service in Needham, et 2014) Price return with the advanatge of the product al (2009), (Kotler, et al, 2006) Kotler et al (2006), Chaudari & Gokhale (2009) Price is the amount of money charged for a product or service, the sum of the values thet customers exchange for the benefit of having or using the product or service (Kotler & Amstrong, 2012) Price, as a heuristic cue, is more readily observable than quality (Yoon, Oh, Song, Kim, & Kim, 2014) Price is charged for products and services is set artificially low in order to gain market share. Once this is achieved, the price is increased. (Philip Kotler, 2013) Price is the value in product/service to buy something that costumer needs.

Variable Definition Indicator Question Perceived quality is the consumer's perception of Product 1. Functional features the overall quality or superiority of a product or Performance of Heineken beer are services with respesct to its intended purpose. extremely good & have (Danang, 2012) a positive impact towards to purchase the brand. 2. Value added features of Heineken beer give a positive impact towards Value added to purchase the brand. features 3. The sales promotion of Heineken beer is appreciable. Service 4. Quality perception quality towards Heineken beer is important factor for me to purchase beer. 5. Innovation of Quality Heineken beer is perception compelling me to purchase the brand. Perceived Perceived quality is the buyer's subjective Innovation (Nisal Rachana, 2015) Quality judgment of the product. Perceived quality can be explained through the consumer's evaluation on degree of excellence of a product. (Alfred, 2013) Perceived quality is attached to consumers a (Nisal percepation that describes the total quality of Rachana, product. (Hajipour, Bavarsad, & Zarei, 2013) 2015) Perceived quality is the customer's view of the quality of the product or service, both in terms of what they expect and also the comparison with how they perceive the quality of the competing offerings. (Somma, 2014) Perceived quality is an intangible and overall feeliing about the brand and can't essentially be objectively determined, partly because it is a perception and also because judgments about what is important to customers differ sharply in their personalities, needs, and preferences. (Roumeliotis, 2012) Perceived quality is consumer opinion about the product/brand and costumer willing to pay or buy it

Variable Definition Indicator Question Purchasing decision is the buyer’s Problem 1. Before I buy the beer I decision about which brand to Recognition ; Need always consider whether I purchase. ( Kotler & Amstrong, Recognition need it. (Verplanken, B., & 2012, p.154) Herabadi, A. 2001) 2. When seeking information I tend to use personal sources. (Levy & Mannel 2012) Information Search ; 3. I frequently gather Sources of public information from friends and family about Heineken beer before I buy. (Levy & Mannel 2012) Alternative 4. I like to compare Evaluation : Benefit different brand before I buy Heineken beer. (Verplanken, B., & Herabadi, A. 2001) Purchase Decision : 5. I am sure Heineken beer Brand was the right thing to buy this product. (Smith, 2002) Purchase decision is the way Post-Purchase 6. I am pretty satisfied Purchasing through which a best alternatives Behavior: with Heineken beer I Decision is selected among several for need Satisfied/dissatisfied choose (Smith, 2002) satisfaction. (Neha & Manoj, 2013) Purchasing decision as the coice (Kotler & being made by the consumer Armstrong, 2012) following a careful assessment of the available options, which were made apparent by the information collected from many sides after having a clear goal in mind. (Roong, 1999; Yin Lin & Yu Shih, 2012) Purchasing decision is an action taken by the consumer relate to their buying behavior. (Pride & Ferell, 2012) Purchaisng decision defines as the process when customer purchases goods or services for their personal needs. (Menthula, 2013) Purchasing decision is the process of costumer before they buy the product/brand.

2.5 Hypothesis Ho1 There is no partial significant influence between Brand Image on Purchasing Decision.

Ha1 There is partial significant influence between Brand Image on Purchasing Decision.

Ho2 There is no partial significant influence between Price on Purchasing Decision.

Ha2 There is partial significant influence between Price on Purchasing Decision.

Ho3 There is no partial significant influence between Perceived Quality on Purchasing Decision.

Ha3 There is partial significant influence between Perceived Quality on Purchasing Decision.

Ho4 There is no simultaneous significant influence between Brand Image, Price, and Perceived Quality on Purchasing Decision.

Ha4 There is simultaneous significant influence between Brand Image, Price, and Perceived Quality on Purchasing Decision.

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Methodology 3.1.1 Quantitative Method Quantitative research approaches have several important strengths that make them ideal for addressing the types of research questions that are posed in social science research. Specifically, quantitative methods provide us with an objective framework for testing and validating theories and hypothesis about world around us. Predicted on having interesting and creative research question, we can use quantitative research methodologies to objectively describe and predict behaviors and, in the case of experimental research, to look at cause and effect relationship. (Dwyer &Bernaeur 2013)

Based on the results of quantitative research the necessary production, profitability price, product parameters, and more can be found. The main merit of quantitative research is that, it reduces the risk of making wrong decisions and choices (Jhonson, B., & Christensen, L.,2008)

Quantitative method is used for this research with using questionnaire as the research instrument. By using quantitative method for this research, the researcher can collect all information needed through questionnaires from large number of respondents selected judgingly in Jakarta area and the result of the data will be analyzed and measured using statistical method. Independent variable is presumed cause of any change in dependent variable (Hair et al, 2010)

3.1.2 Deductive Approach In this research, the researcher is used deductive as the research approach, deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Deduction is the process of research from the general facts of phenomena

to knowledge of the particular problem. In deduction, general knowledge is the starting point of the argument.

Main feature of deduction as a method of research is that the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Therefore, the deduction has tremendous power of persuasion and is widely used not only to prove theorems in mathematics, but everywhere including marketing and economics.

Figure 3.1 Deductive Research

Theory Hypothesis Observation Confirmation

Source: Kristina Sova, Electronic Money Trends – User’s Perspective (2013)

3.2 Research Design In this research, the researcher uses conclusive research as the research design. Conclusive research is more likely to use statistical tests, advanced analytical techniques, and larger sample sizes. Compared with exploratory studies, conclusive study is more likely to use quantitative, rather than qualitative techniques. (Nargundkar, 2008)

Based on Uma Sekaran& Roger Bougie (2013), conclusive research design divides into two categories, descriptive and causal research. The researcher uses causal study in this research. Causal studies are at the heart of the scientific approach to research. Such studies test whether or not one variable causes another to change. In causal study, the researcher is interested in delineating one or more factors that are causing the problem. In other words, the intention of the researcher conducting a causal study is to be able to state that variable X causes variable Y. So, when variable X is removed or altered in some way, problem Y is solved (note that quite often, however it is not just one variable that causes a problem in organizations).

3.3 Research Instrument

3.3.1 Primary Data Primary sources of data have been described as those items that are original to the problem under study and may be thought of as being in two categories. First are the remains of a given period. Second is had direct physical relationship with the events (Cohen et al, 2007). The researcher uses primary data for this research of the study from the questionnaire distribution in the survey.

3.3.2 Secondary Data Boslaugh, cited in Konziol & Arthur (2011) define secondary data as analysis of data collected by someone else. Supporting Boslaugh, Ahmad (2014) stated that secondary data is data collected from a source that has already been published in any form such as books, journals, articles, and periodicals. Other researcher, Vartanian (2011) also stated that secondary data can be including any data that are investigated to answer a research question for which the data were collected. In other words, secondary data are those which have already been collected by someone else and have gone through the statistical machines. Thus, secondary data is used in order to complete the data that the primary data did not provide from existed information. The researcher uses secondary data for this research of the study directly from the internet, which are websites, e-journals, etc.

Research Instrument is the tool that used to answer the research questions that stated in the previous chapter. The Researcher intention is to gather the information from as much various sources. Data can be obtained from primary or secondary data, Primary data refers to information obtained first-hand by the researcher on the variables of interest for specific purpose of the study and secondary data refer to information gathered from sources that already exist (Sekaran, Bougie, 2010). In order to fulfill the validity of this research, the researcher use both primary and secondary data.

The researcher used questionnaire as the procedures and tools to collect data and analyze data. The advantages of questionnaire are:

Table 3.1 Advantages of Different Questionnaires

Source:Uma Sekaran, Roger Bougie, Research Methods for Business, p.147 - 148 (2013)

Questionnaire is a widely used and useful instrument for collecting survey information, providing structured, often numerical data, being able to be administered without the presence of the researcher, and often being comparatively straight forward to analyze (Cohen et al, 2007).

According to Cohen et al, 2007, p.318, there are staged sequences for planning a questionnaire, as follows:

1. Decide the objectives of the questionnaire. 2. Decide the population and the sample. 3. Generate the topics/construct/concepts/issues to be addressed and data required in order to meet the objectives of the research. 4. Decide the kinds of measures/scales/questions/responses required. 5. Write the questionnaire items.

6. Check that each issue from (3) has been addressed, using several items for each issue. 7. Pilot the questionnaire and refine items as a consequence. 8. Administer the final questionnaire.

Using questionnaire as the tool to collect and analyze data can choose several types of questionnaire items. According to Cohen et al, 2007. The researcher is using Closed-ended questions in this research which conducted through Likert scale.

1. Closed-ended questions Closed-ended question prescribe the range of response from which the respondent may choose. A closed-ended question limits respondents with a list of answer choices from which they must choose to answer the question. Closed-ended questions can be in the form of multiple choice, scale format, rank ordering, and rating scales.

According to Cohen at al, 2007, if a closed and structured questionnaire is used, enabling patterns to be observed and comparisons to be made, then the questionnaire will need to be piloted and refined so that the final version contains as full a range of possible responses as can be reasonably foreseen.

Likert scale is designed to examine how strongly subjects agree or disagree with statements on a five-point scale. The researcher chooses Likert-type scale for this research since the data is ordered categorical response (Elosua, 2011). The purpose of this questionnaire is to analyze the level of agreement of each respondent with each item of statement. The measurement is based on these five-point scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Rensis Likert). By using five points Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" . The table and regulations are shown below.

No. Statement 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree

Table 3.2 Likert Scale Source: (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2007)

From the table 3.2 above, every single number (from 1 to 5) can be converted to the form of percentage. It helps the respondent to have same perception of the level agreement range in every particular statement on the questionnaire. The researcher categorize the percentage range for level of agreement number 1 is 0% - 24%, level of agreement number 2 is 25% - 49%, level of agreement number 3 is 50%, level of agreement number 4 is 51% - 75% and level of agreement number 5 is 76% - 100%. 3.3.3 Data Analysis In analyzing and observing the data obtained, the researcher uses two major programs that are have statistic relation. The first program that the researcher uses is Microsoft Excel. The function of Microsoft Excel program is intended to tabulate the data obtained from questionnaire distributions. It simplifies the researcher to analyze and observe the data.

The second program is Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 16 version. SPSS is used by the researcher to quantitatively examine the data obtained from questionnaires distribution. SPSS has been recognized to be helpful and support the statistical data investigation. In this research, SPSS was used to analyze reliability, validity, correlation, and binary logistic regression analysis.

3.4 Sampling Design Sampling Design is part of statistical methodology that related in taking a portion of the population. If a sampling is done correctly, statistical analyze can be used to generalize a whole population. There are two major types of

sampling design: probability and non-probability sampling. In non- probability sampling, the elements do not have a known or predetermined chance of being selected as subjects (Uma Sekaran, Rouger Bougie, et al, 2013).

To determine the sample size, the researcher refers to theory of (Malhotra, 2010) stated that for unknown population the sample size at least 4 times or 5 times of total questions of variables or item to be used in research. Thus, the researcher decides to choose 200 respondents are chosen as the sample of this research. In this research, the researcher are using unknown population and using 26 statement in the questionnaire, 21 statement x 5 times = 105 sample sizes. Then, at least the researcher has to spead the questionnaire to 105 respondents. Thus, the researcher decides to choose 200 respondents are chosen as the sample of this research.

According to Roscoe (cited in Sekaran & Bougie, 2010), convenience sampling is one of elements of non-probablity where the respondent can be obtained quickly and efficiently. It involves collecting questionnaires from respondents who are conveniently available to provide it. In the convenience sampling, the selection of the respondents happens because they are in the right place at the right time. Thus, the convenience sampling is used on this research, the respondent of this research is only those who ever bought Pantene shampoo.

3.4.1 Population Population refers to the entire group of people, events, or things of interest that the researcher wishes to investigate. It is the group of people, events, or things of interest for which the researcher wants to make inferences or based on sample statistics (Uma Sekaran, Roger Bougie, et al, 2013).

In this research of study, the research population is focused on people in Jakarta who are ever purchased Heineken beer.

The target population for this research is consumers who ever purchased Heineken beer in Jakarta. The respondents are both male and female who already purchased Heineken beer.

3.4.2 Sample Sample is a subset of the population. It comprises some members selected from it (Uma Sekaran, Roger Bougie, et al, 2013).

In determining the sample size, the researcher refers to the theory of (Maholtra, 2011) which says, for unknown population the sample size must be at least 4 or 5 times of the total questions used in the research. Whereas, Sekaran & Bougie (2010) suggest that sample size which are larger than 30 and less than 500 normally applicable for most research. Sampling design is part of statistical methodology that related in taking a portion of the population. If a sampling is done correctly, statistical analysis can be used to generalize the whole population. There are two major type of sampling design: probability and non-probability sampling. In this research, the researcher has chosen 200 respondents as the sample.

3.5 Validity, Reliability, Correlation, and Multicollinearity

3.5.1 Validity According to (McBurney & White, 2009), Validity is an indication of accuracy in terms of the extent to which a research conclusion correspond whit reality.

According to Hair et al, 2010, validity is the extent which a scale or set of measures accurately represents the concept of interest. According to Cohen et al, 2007, p.133, quantitative research possesses a measure of standard error which is inbuilt and which has to be acknowledged. In quantitative data, validity might be improved through careful sampling, appropriate statistical treatments of data. According to Cohen, et al, 2007, p.164, each question of the questionnaire can be said valid if the significance level is ≤ α (0.05).

df= n – Independent Variable

Where,

Df = degrees of freedom

N= number of pretest respondents

3.5.2 Reliability According to (Hair et al, 2010), reliability is an assessment of the degree of consistency between multiple measurements of a variable. Reliability is the ability of a measurement instrument by testing for consistency and stability. Cronbach's Alpha is used as the formula to determine how the items in a set are positively correlated to one another. To measure the reliability in this research, researcher use SPSS software. According to Sardjono (2013), a questionnaire can be said reliable if the 0.6 Cronbach‟s Alpha value is greater than 0.6. Reliability test is used to determine the stability and consistency with which the research instrument measures the construct (Maholtra, 2010 ). Sekaran & Bougie, Research Method for Business, 2013) mentioned that the closer Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient is to 1, the higher is the internal consistency reliability . Consistency indicates how well the items measuring a concept hang together as asset.

Where :

α= instrument reliability’s coefficient

r = mean correlation coefficient between variables N = number of questions

Table 3.3 following showed the value of Cronbach’s Alpha proposed by Doughlas, William & Robert, 2002

Cronbach’s Internal Alpha Consistency ɑ≥0.9 Excellent 0≤.ɑ8< 0.9 Good 0≤.ɑ7< 0.8 Acceptable 0≤.ɑ6< 0.7 Questionable 0≤.ɑ5< 0.6 Poor ɑ< 0.5 Unacceptable Tabel 3.3 Level of Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability

Source: Doughlas, William & Robert, 2002.

3.5.3 Correlation This research, the research uses Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient because the nature of the data is ordered categorical data. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient is used to measure the strength of the association between two variables that are nonparametric (Ordinal data) (Hauke, 2011).

ퟔ ∑ 풅ퟐ 풓풔 = ퟏ − 풏(풏ퟐ − ퟏ)

Equation 3.3 Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient

Where, rs= Spearman correlation value

N= number of paired ranks

d= difference between the paired rank

The interpretation of correlation strength for spearman are “0.00-0.19” is very weak, “0.20-0.39” is weak, “0.4-0.59” is moderate, “0.60-0.79” is strong and “0.80-1.00” is very strong.

3.5.4 Multicollinearity Multicollinearity defines as existence of nearly linear dependency among columns of the design matrix X in linear prediction model (Yakubu, 2010). Dekker cited in Perwirana (2014) the multicollinearity can be check through correlation from the correlation table. If the data greater than 0.8 it means that it has multicollinearity, if the data is smaller than 0.8, the data does not have multicollinearity and it’s fine to be further used in this research.

3.6 Data Collection The researcher collected the primary data from distributing questionnaires to 200 respondents. For the secondary data, the researcher collected it from journals, books, websites, and other sources. The researcher used two methods which are data that the researcher collected (Primary data) or data that is gathered and maintained.

Problem Identification and Problem Statement

Literature Review

Construct Questionnaire

Pre-Test Questionnaire: Validity and Reliability Test

Data Collection

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Conclusion and Recommendation Figure 3.2 Research Framework

Source: Adapted by Researcher (2016), based on Uma Sekaran, Roger Bougie, Research Methods for Business (2013)

Figure 3.2 shows a research framework that will be used by the researcher. Each level of activity in this framework will be done by the researcher carefully and correctly.

3.7 Testing The Hypothesis

3.7.1 Binomial Logistic Regression Spicer, cited in Stombergsson (2009) described binary logistic regression is the method of choice used when the dependent variable is binary and the researcher would like to explore the relative influence of continues and/or categoricalindependent variables on the dependent variable, and to access interaction effects between the independent variables.

According to Wuensch (2010) binary logistic regression usually used when the data with liker-type scale response with “completely disagree” to “completely agree”. However, according to Grimbeek et al (2005) likert scale response categories not only provide a positive opportunity for a smoother distribution of responses (i.e., a normal spread of choices across categories) but also allow "negative" opportunities for participants to misjudge the intensity of what is inherently a qualitative response. That is, the range of available response 45 categories can obscure rather than clarify the intent of the respondent. A strategy for minimizing respondent ambiguity is to collapse across response categories. The effect of this strategy on, for example, an acceptance scale, might be to reduce the 5-point response categories of Strongly disagree, Disagree, Undecided/neutral, Agree, and Strongly agree to dichotomous categories representing the participant's choice between Disagreement (Collapsing across Strongly disagree, Disagree, Undecided) or Agreement (collapsing across Agree, Strongly agree). In this research, the researcher treated the likert scale as ordinal categorical data by collapsing or recoding each variable value into same variable from 1-3 into “0” or “Disagree”, and 3.01-5 into “1” or “Agree”.

3.7.1.1 Classification Table The predictive success of the logistic regression can be assessed by looking at the classification table, showing correct and incorrect classification of the dichotomous, ordinal, or polytomous dependent. The overall percentage describes the precision of the model.

3.7.1.2 Model Summary Model Summary in logistic regression is indicating the ability of independent variable in explaining the dependent variable or measuring the strength of association. Cox & Snell R Square show the minimum value of strength whereas Nagelkerke R Square shows the maximum value of overall strength association. (David Garson 2011)

3.7.1.3 Omnibus Test The omnibus test may be interpreted as a test of the capability of all predictors in the model jointly to predict the response (dependent) variable. A finding of significance when the value is below than 0.05, meaning all independent variable has simultaneous significant to the dependent variable (David Garson 2011)

3.7.1.4 Partial Test This test aims to find out if there is partial significant impact of each independent variable on dependent variable. A finding of significance if the value of sig. below than 0.05, and Exp(B) shows the nature of impact whether positive or negative (David Garson 2011).

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Company Profile

4.1.1 PT. Multi Bintang Indonesia Tbk First established a Nederlandsh-Indische Bierbrouwerijen in Medan in 1929, the Company was operating a brewery in Surabaya before it built a second brewery in Tangerang in 1972.

Over time, the Company grew in strength to become a reputable and responsible Indonesian Beverage Company with portfolio of leading beer and soft drinks brands. In line with its growth and development, the Company was renamed PT Multi Bintang Indonesia Tbk. when it went public in 1981. Listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange (IDX), Multi Bintang became a subsidiary of Asia Pacific Breweries Limited (APB) from Singapore when APB acquired a majority stake in Multi Bintang in 2010.

In September 2013, HEINEKEN International B.V. from the Netherlands returned as the majority shareholder of the Company when it acquired the shares held by APB.

Multi Bintang is synonymous with Bintang beer, the iconic and most favorite beer brand of Indonesia. Offering a portfolio of beer and soft drinks brands, Multi Bintang also produces and markets the world’s most valuable international premium beer brand, Heineken; alcohol-free beer, Bintang Zero and carbonated soft drink, Green Sands in Indonesia.

While the breweries of Multi Bintang are situated in Sampang Agung and Tangerang, Multi Bintang through its subsidiary, PT Multi Bintang Indonesia Niaga has established an extensive sales and marketing footprint across all major Indonesian cities, spanning from Medan in North Sumatra to Jayapura in Papua.

4.1.2 History Heineken International (pronounced [ˈɦɛinəkə(n)]) is a Dutch brewing company, founded in 1864 by Gerard Adriaan Heineken in Amsterdam. As of 2012, Heineken owns over 190 breweries in more than 70 countries and employees approximately 85,000 people. It brews and sells more than 170 international premium, regional, local and specialty beers, including Cruzcampo, Tiger Beer, Żywiec, Starobrno, Zagorka, Birra Moretti, Ochota, Murphy‟s, Star and Heineken Pilsener. With an annual beer production of 139.2 million hectoliters, Heineken ranks as the third largest brewer in the world after Anheuser-Busch InBev and SABMiller, based on volume. Heineken's Dutch breweries are located in Zoeterwoude, 's-Hertogenbosch and Wijlre. The original brewery in Amsterdam, closed in 1988, is preserved as a museum called Heineken Experience. Earlier today, Heineken reported a lift in full-year profits despite flat sales in the 12 months of 2014.

4.1.3 Mission and Values

These are explanation related to Heineken mission and values as cited from their official website.

Mission

We delight consumers, day in day out, with perfect cider and beer brand experiences!

Values

1. Enjoyment of life is what we’re about. 2. We have respect for individuals, society and the environment. 3. Our passion for quality is at the heart of everything we do. 4. Code of Business Conduct 5. ‘Enjoy Responsibly’

4.1.4 Product

4.2 Data Result Analysis

4.2.1 Pilot Test Before the questionnaire is distributed to the respondent, researcher conducts pilot test to 30 respondents which the results of this test will be used for validity and reliability test.

4.2.2 Validity Test The researcher compares the results Corrected item total Correlation with the r table value in the validity test. From 30 questionnaires, the value of r table is calculated by using spearman’s r table with degree of freedom 27 from the difference of total pilot test and independent variable. Therefore, the value of r table is 0.382.

df = n – independent variable

df = 30 – 3 = 27

Table 4.1 Validity Test

No. Statement Corrected Item R- Table Validity Total Value 1 Brand Image 1 0.731 0.382 Valid 2 Brand Image 2 0.710 0.382 Valid 3 Brand Image 3 0.672 0.382 Valid 4 Brand Image 4 0.701 0.382 Valid 5 Brand Image 5 0.561 0.382 Valid 6 Price 1 0.800 0.382 Valid 7 Price 2 0.826 0.382 Valid 8 Price 3 0.656 0.382 Valid 9 Price 4 0.668 0.382 Valid 10 Price 5 0.786 0.382 Valid 11 Perceived Quality 1 0.681 0.382 Valid 12 Perceived Quality 2 0.801 0.382 Valid 13 Perceived Quality 3 0.744 0.382 Valid 14 Perceived Quality 4 0.692 0.382 Valid 15 Perceived Quality 5 0.665 0.382 Valid 16 Purchasing Decision 1 0.593 0.382 Valid 17. Purchasing Decision 2 0.543 0.382 Valid 18. Purchasing Decision 3 0.566 0.382 Valid 19. Purchasing Decision 4 0.439 0.382 Valid 20. Purchasing Decision 5 0.634 0.382 Valid 21. Purchasing Decision 6 0.532 0.382 Valid Source: Constructed by researcher, Primary Data – SPSS V.16 (2016)

4.2.3 Reliability Test Reliability is the ability of a measurement instrument by testing for consistency and stability. Cornbach’s Alpha is used as the formula to determine how the items in a set are positively correlated to one another. The value which is close to 1 then the reliability is higher than consistency reliability (Sekaran Bougie). According to Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson (2010), suggested values above 0.6 for a questionnaire to be reliable.

Table 4.2 Reliability Test

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

,885 21

Source: Constructed by researcher, Primary Data – SPSS V.16 (2016)

4.3 Descriptive Analysis The researcher spread 200 questionnaires and determines all the result of questionnaire and classifies the questionnaire whether qualified or not qualified. The researcher found outliers such as the profile and the questionnaire is filled incomplete. 137 questionnaires are used and 63 questionnaires are not qualified.

4.3.1 Respondent Profile The respondent profile data are used to gain the characteristic of demographic respondents through the questionnaire. The respondent profile are consist of age, gender, frequently drink, type of drinker, occupation, and education. The result as follow;

4.3.1.1 Gender Gender

Male Female

Figure 4.1 Respondent Profiles: Gender

Source: Primary Data, Constructed by Researcher (2016)

As shown in figure 4.1about the respondent gender of this researcher 94 respondents were male and 43 respondents were female. Therefore the majority gender of this research is male.

4.3.1.2 Age Age

17 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 46 - 55

6 5 18

108

Figure 4.2 Respondent Profiles: Age Source: Primary Data, Constructed by Researcher (2016)

As shown in figure 4.2 about the respondent age of this researcher 5 respondents were 46 – 55 years old, 6 respondents were between 36 - 45 years old, 18 respondents were between 26 - 35 years old, 108 respondents were between 17 - 25. The group age of 17 -25 years old dominates the respondent profile in this research.

4.3.1.3 Frequently Drink a Beer Frequently Drink a Beer

Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly

18 25

Figure 4.3 Respondent Profiles: Frequently Drink a Beer

Source: Primary Data, Constructed by Researcher (2016)

As shown in figure 4.3 about the respondent frequently drink a beer of this researcher18 respondents wereconsumed as yearly, 20 respondents were consumed as monthly, 25respondents were consumed as daily and 74 respondents were consumed as weekly. Therefore, the majority of frequently drink a beer in this research is weekly consume.

4.3.1.4 Type of Drinker Type of Drinker

Party Drinker Medium Drinker Heavy Drinker Others

9 15

25 88

Figure 4.4 Respondent Profiles: Type of Drinker

Source: Primary Data, Constructed by Researcher (2016)

As shown in figure 4.4 about the respondent type of drinker of this researcher 9 respondents were others drinker, 15 respondents were heavy drinker, 25 respondents were medium drinker and 88 respondents were party drinker. Therefore the majority type of drinker in this research is party drinker.

4.3.1.5 Occupation Occupation

Student Civil Cervant Private Employees Entrepeneur Others

7 23 48

31 28

Figure 4.5 Respondent Profiles: Occupation

Source: Primary Data, Constructed by Researcher (2016)

As shown in figure 4.5 about the respondent occupation of this researcher 7 respondents choose other, 23 respondents were civil servant, 28 respondents were entrepreneur, 31 respondents were private employee and 48 respondents werestudent. Therefore the majority occupation of this research is student.

4.3.1.6 Education Education

Senior High School Diploma Bachelor Degree Master Degree Other

4 13 32

Figure 4.6 Respondent Profiles: Occupation

Source: Primary Data, Constructed by Researcher (2016)

As shown in figure 4.5 about the respondent education of this researcher 4 respondents were choose, 13 respondents were master degree, 32 respondents were senior high school, 42 respondents were bachelor degree and 14 respondents were diploma. Therefore the majority education of this research is diploma.

4.4 Result of Respondent Response Based on questionnaires, the respondent’s assessments refer to the brand image, price, perceived quality and purchasing decision. The respondents fill the questionnaire based on their liking scale from statement:

Strongly Disagree 40 Disagree Neutral 30 Agree Strongly Agree 20

0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

Figure 4.7 Brand Image Statements

Based on table in the figure 4.7:

1. In the question Heineken performs as it promises, 3 respondents are strongly disagree, 34 respondents are disagree, 57 respondents are neutral, 32 respondents are agree and 12 respondents are strongly disagree. 2. In the questionHeineken enhances the perceptions that I have a desirable lifestyle, 3 respondents are strongly disagree, 18 respondents are disagree, 38 respondents are neutral, 59 respondents are agree and 19 respondents are strongly agree. 3. In the Heineken improve the way I am perceived by others, 5 respondents are strongly disagree, 21 respondents are disagree, 30 respondents are neutral, 54 respondents are agree and 27 respondents are strongly agree. 4. In the Heineken makes me feel delighted, 7 respondents are strongly disagree, 13 respondents are disagree, 30 respondents are

neutral, 55 respondents are agree and 32 respondents are strongly agree. 5. In the Usage of Heineken is effective to my needs than other brands, 4 respondents are strongly disagree, 6 respondents are disagree, 29 respondents are neutral, 62 respondents are agree and 36 respondents are strongly agree.

Strongly Disagree 40 Disagree Neutral 30 Agree Strongly Agree 20

0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

Figure 4.8 Price Statements

Based on table in the figure 4.8:

1. In the question Heineken beer prices are reasonable, 4 respondents are strongly disagree, 23 respondents are disagree, 52 respondents are neutral, 43 respondents are agree and 15 respondents are strongly disagree. 2. In the question The price of Heineken beer equal to the quality that I receive, 2 respondents are strongly disagree, 25 respondents are

disagree, 41 respondents are neutral, 56 respondents are agree and 13 respondents are strongly agree. 3. In the question The price of Heineken beer equal to the benefit that I get, 6 respondents are strongly disagree, 21 respondents are disagree, 34 respondents are neutral, 57 respondents are agree and 19 respondents are strongly agree. 4. In the question The price offers competitive prices in comparison with other competitor beer, 2 respondents are strongly disagree, 13 respondents are disagree, 26 respondents are neutral, 59 respondents are agree and 37 respondents are strongly agree. 5. In the question Heineken beer offered seasonal and flexible prices strategy, 4 respondents are strongly disagree, 13 respondents are disagree, 23 respondents are neutral, 50 respondents are agree and 47 respondents are strongly agree.

40 Strongly Disagree Disagree 30 Neutral Agree 20 Strongly Agree

0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

Figure 4.9 Perceived Quality Statements

Based on table in the figure 4.9:

1. In the question Functional features of Heineken beer are extremely good & have a positive impact towards to purchase the brand, 5 respondents are strongly disagree, 20 respondents are disagree, 50 respondents are neutral, 47 respondents are agree and 15 respondents are strongly disagree. 2. In the question Value added features of Heineken beer give a positive impact towards to purchase the brand, 4 respondents are strongly disagree, 21 respondents are disagree, 45 respondents are neutral, 52 respondents are agree and 16 respondents are strongly agree. 3. In the The sales promotion of Heineken beer is appreciable, 6 respondents are strongly disagree, 17 respondents are disagree, 34 respondents are neutral, 49 respondents are agree and 31 respondents are strongly agree. 4. In the question Quality perception towards Heineken beer is important factor for me to purchase beer, 4 respondents are strongly disagree, 9 respondents are disagree, 33 respondents are neutral, 50 respondents are agree and 41 respondents are strongly agree. 5. In the question Innovation of Heineken beer is compelling me to purchase the brand, 1 respondents are strongly disagree, 16 respondents are disagree, 19 respondents are neutral, 57 respondents are agree and 44 respondents are strongly agree.

30 Strongly Disagree 25 Disagree 20 Neutral 15 Agree 10 Strongly Agree

0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

Figure 4.10 Purchasing Decision Statements

Based on table in the figure 4.10:

1. In the question Before I buy the beer I always consider whether I need it, 5 respondents are strongly disagree, 28 respondents are disagree, 27 respondents are neutral, 22 respondents are agree and 18 respondents are strongly disagree.

2. In the question When seeking information I tend to use personal sources, 9 respondents are strongly disagree, 35 respondents are disagree, 30 respondents are neutral, 21 respondents are agree and 5 respondents are strongly agree.

3. In the question I frequently gather information from friends and family about Heineken beer before I buy, 8 respondents are strongly disagree, 10 respondents are disagree, 23 respondents are neutral, 31 respondents are agree and 28 respondents are strongly agree.

4. In the question I like to compare different brand before I buy Heineken beer, 3 respondents are strongly disagree, 11 respondents

are disagree, 24 respondents are neutral, 32 respondents are agree and 30 respondents are strongly agree.

5. In the question I am sure Heineken beer was the right thing to buy this product, 2 respondents are strongly disagree, 13 respondents are disagree, 22 respondents are neutral, 36 respondents are agree and 27 respondents are strongly agree.

6. In the question I am pretty satisfied with Heineken beer I choose, 5 respondents are strongly disagree, 9 respondents are disagree, 25 respondents are neutral, 38 respondents are agree and 23 respondents are strongly agree.

4.5 Correlation and Multicolinearity Analysis

4.5.1 Correlation

Table 4.3 Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation

Correlations

BIV PRIV PQV PDV

Spearman's BIV Correlation 1.000 .536** .651** .758** rho Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .000 .000

N 137 137 137 137

PRIV Correlation .536** 1.000 .564** .596** Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000

N 137 137 137 137

PQV Correlation .651** .564** 1.000 .726** Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 . .000

N 137 137 137 137

PDV Correlation .758** .596** .726** 1.000 Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .

N 137 137 137 137

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2- tailed).

Source: Primary data - SPSS V.16 (2016)

Table 4.3 above shows the correlation between each variable:

1. The correlation between brand image and purchasing decision is significant: the correlation is 0.758 indicates as moderate. The nature of correlation is positive, which means when the brand image increase,

purchasing decision variable will also increase. Otherwise. When the brand image decrease, purchasing decision variable will also decrease. 2. The correlation between price and purchasing decision is significant; the correlation is 0.596 indicates as moderate. The nature of correlation is positive, which means when the price increase, purchasing decision variable will also increase. Otherwise. When the price decrease, purchasing decision variable will also decrease.

3. The correlation between perceived quality and purchasing decision is significant; the correlation is 0.726 indicates as strong. The nature of correlation is positive, which means when the perceived quality increase, purchasing decision variable will also increase. Otherwise. When the perceived quality decrease, purchasing decision variable will also decrease.

4.5.2 Multicollinearity According to (Ahmet, 2010) if colleration coeficient data is less than 0.8 it means that the data does not have multicollinearity, it means fine to be further used in this research. Based on table 4.3, there are no data shows the power of correlation coefficient more than 0.8, so the data in this research does not have multicolllinearity. The variable that has strongest correlations towards purchasing decision is brand image with 0.758 strength.

4.6 Binomial Logistic Regression

4.6.1 Output Overall Percentage

Table 4.4Classification Table Steps 0

Classification Tablea,b

Predicted

PDV Percentage Observed 0 1 Correct

Step 0 PDV 0 0 28 .0

1 0 109 100.0

Overall Percentage 79.6

a. Constant is included in the model.

b. The cut value is .500

Source: Primary data - SPSS V.16 (2016)

The table 4.4 shows the empirical dependent variable data where the amount of sample “disagree” 28 people and “agree” 109 people. The amount of sample is 137 people. Therefore the overall percentage before independent variable is included into the model is 109/137 = 79.6% meaning the precision of model before adding independent variable is 79.6%

Table 4.5 Classification Table Adding 1 Independent Variable

Classification Tablea

Predicted

PDV Percentage Observed 0 1 Correct

Step 1 PDV 0 14 14 50.0

1 8 101 92.7

Overall Percentage 83.9

a. The cut value is .500

Source: Primary data - SPSS V.16 (2016)

The table 4.5 shows the empirical dependent variable after adding 1 independent variable which is perceived quality. The amount of sample is 137, therefore the overall percentage after adding 1 variable perceived quality into the model 14+101/137 = 83.9% it means the model improve 4.3%

Table 4.6 Classification Table Adding All Independent Variables

Classification Tablea

Predicted

PDV

Observed 0 1 Percentage Correct

Step 1 PDV 0 14 14 50.0

1 4 105 96.3

Overall Percentage 86.9

a. The cut value is .500

Source: Primary data - SPSS V.16 (2016)

The table 4.6 shows the overall percentage after adding all independent variable (14+105)/137=86.9%. It increased 7.3% from before adding

independent variable. Therefore the precision of the model is 86.9%. The higher percentage the higher the precision of the model will be.

4.6.2 Psudo R Square Table 4.7 Pesudo R Square

Model Summary Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R Step -2 Log likelihood Square Square a 1 97.322 .261 .410 a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 5 because parameter estimates changed by less than .001.

Source: Primary data - SPSS V.16 (2016)

In table 4.7 Cox & Snell R Square shows 0.261 Nagelkerke R Square shows 0.410 which indicates the ability of independent variable in explaining the dependent variable is suggesting between 26.1 % and 41.0% and there is 100% - 41.0% = 59% other factors exclude in this model which could explain the dependent variable.

4.6.3 Omnibus Test Table 4.8 Omnibus Test

Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Chi-square df Sig.

Step 1 Step 41.435 3 .000

Block 41.435 3 .000

Model 41.435 3 .000

Source: Primary data - SPSS V.16 (2016)

In Ominbus table 4.8, the Chi-square shows 41,435 on 3 degree of freedom. This Chi-square, 41.435 > Chi-square distribution table on 3 degree of

freedom (7.815) or with a significance of 0.00 (< 0.05) to reject H04. It indicates that the addition of independent variable could impact significantly to dependent variable. Therefore there is simultaneous significant impact of brand image, price and perceived quality toward purchasing decision.

4.6.4 Output (Brand Image, Price and Perceived Quality) Table 4.9 Variables In The Equation

Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Step 1a BIV 2.685 .690 15.158 1 .000 14.663

PRIV .146 .767 .036 1 .849 1.157

PQV 1.729 .696 6.173 1 .013 5.636

Constant -2.248 .856 6.893 1 .009 .106 a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: BIV, PRIV, PQV.

Source: Primary data - SPSS V.16 (2016)

The table above shows that the Independent variables have partial impact towards dependent variable:

1. Since the significant value of brand image is 0.000 below 0.05, shows that brand image has partial significant impact toward purchasing decision. 2. Since the significant value of price is 0.849 above 0.05, shows that price has not partial significant impact toward purchasing decision. 3. Since the significant value of perceived quality is 0.013 below 0.05, shows that perceived quality has partial significant impact toward purchasing decision.

From table above result analysis can be conclude that:

1. The Exp (B) of brand image is 14.663 which is >1. It means brand image has positive impact toward dependent variable, purchasing

decision. Therefore in every agreement from respondent in brand image will increase the probability of the respondent to purchase by approximately 14 times. 2. The Exp (B) of price is 1.157 which is >1. It means price has positive impact toward dependent variable, purchasing decision. Therefore in every agreement from respondent in price will decrease the probability of the respondent to purchase by approximately 1 time. 3. The Exp (B) of perceived quality is 5.636 which is >1. It means perceived quality has positive impact toward dependent variable, purchasing decision. Therefore in every agreement from respondent in perceived quality will increase the probability those of the respondent to purchase by approximately 6 times.

4.7 Interpretation Result 4.7.1 Brand Image towards Purchasing Decision of Heineken beer in Jakarta Based on findings in the table 4.9 brand image has a significant impact toward impulse purchasing decision which is 0.000. Every agreement of respondent in brand image will increase the probability of the respondent to be impulsive in purchasing by approximately 14 times. This is in harmony with research of Prof. Dr. Muhammad Ehsan Malik, Muhammad Mudasar Ghafoor, Hafiz Kashif Iqbal (2012) which found that brand image did affect purchasing decision.

4.7.2 Price towards Purchasing Decision of Heineken beer in Jakarta Based on findings in the table 4.9 price does not has a significant impact toward impulse purchasing decision which is 0.849. This is in harmony with research of Cecep Prabudi (2014) which found that price did not affect purchasing decision.

4.7.3 Perceived Quality towards Purchasing Decision of Heineken beer in Jakarta Based on findings in the table 4.9 perceived quality has a significant impact toward impulse purchasing decision which is 0.013. Every agreement of respondent in perceived quality will increase the probability

58 of the respondent to be impulsive in purchasing by approximately 6 times. This is in harmony with research of Prof. Dr. Muhammad Ehsan Malik, Muhammad Mudasar Ghafoor, Hafiz Kashif Iqbal (2012) which found that perceived quality did affect purchasing decision.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

In this final chapter of the research, the researcher draws the conclusion and recommendations developed by the study integrated quantitative analysis which binomial logistic regression about The Impact of Brand Image Price and Perceived Quality on Purchasing Decision: Study Case of Heineken Beer in Jakarta. The analysis is conducted in order to investigate whether those independent variables Brand Image, Price and Perceived Quality have significant influence towards dependant variable which is Purchasing Decision. In addition, the researcher wants to know which factor from independent variables that highest influence towards Purchasing Decision.

5.1 Conclusion Based on result analysis researcher can conclude that:

1. Price has positive partial but does not have significant impact on Purchasing Decision. 2. Brand Image and Perceived Quality have positive partial and significant impact on Purchasing Decision. 3. Brand Image, Price and Perceived Quality have positive simultaneous and significant impact on Purchasing Decision. 4. The independent variable which has the biggest impact on Purchasing Decision is Brand Image, followed by Perceived Quality and Price.

5.2 Recommendations Based on the conclusions obtained in this study, the recommendations proposed as a complement to the results of the study as follows:

5.2.1 For Company 1. The unique design, taste and attractive can form an image or image of company. When the company has a bad image, the customer will give a negative assessment so that consumers will switch to other products.

It should be considered by Heineken to create new innovation and make a good image in the eye of consumers. 2. Heineken beer market segment; that most young people should be the primary consideration in determining the price of the company. It is become the majority of the young people mostly do not have the income yet. Company should consider affordable prices to consumers.

5.2.2 For Future Research 1. For future research, it is needed doing a further research in other factors besides Brand Image, Price and Perceived Quality on Purchasing Decision of Heineken Beer. It is because the three variables in this study were able to explain 73.6% of the Heineken beer purchase decision while the remaining 26.4% is explained by other variables not included in this study.

2. For future studies are advised to examine the other brand with take another example of the impact of Brand Image, Price and Perceived Quality in the Purchasing Decision also different, so the variables that influence purchase decision also different. It can be used as a comparison and complements in this research.

3. For future studies it is advisable to look for another different populations and the wide population this study. The sample used should also be much more than the sample in this study, thus for further research can further provide a more specific on the effect of Brand Image, Price and Perceived Quality on Purchase Decision.

REFERENCES Books/E-books Ferdinand, Augusty. (2006). Metode Penelitan Manajemen:Pedoman Penelitian Penulisan Skripsi, Tesis dan Disertai Ilmu Manajemen. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro. Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th edition. Upper saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education International. Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic Brand Management: Building Measuring, and Imagine Brand Equity. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River Tjiptono, Fandi. (2005). Brands Management dan Strategy. Yogyakarta: Andi.

Journals Alfred, Owusu (2013). Influences of Price and Quality on Consumer Purchase of Mobile Phone in the Kumasi Metropolis in Ghana A Comparative Study. European Journal of Business and Management. Vol. 5, No.1 Anholt, S. (2006). The Anholt – GMI City Brands Index How the world sees the world’s cities. Place branding and Public Diplomacy Azhar Ahmad, Sallehuddin Mohd Noor, Che Aniza Che Wel (2014). International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2014, Special issue on Marketing and Business Development, e-ISSN 2247–7225

Boradbent, K., K & Cooper, P. (1987). Research is Good For You. Journal of Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 5, Issue 1, 3-9. Brodie, R. J. (2009). From Goods to Service Branding: An Integrative Perspective. Marketing Theory, Vol. 9 Issue 1, 103-107 Choy, Ng, Ch’ng. (2011). Consumers Perceived Quality, Perceived Value and Perceived Risk Towards Purchase Decision on Automobile. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration Vol. 3 Issue 1, 47-57 Elosua, P. (2011). Assessing Measurement Equivalence in Ordered-Categorical Data. Psicológica Journal. No.32, pp.403-421 Erenkol, A. D., & Duygun, A. (2010). Consumers Perceived Brand Equity and A Research on the Consumers of Bellona Which is a Turkish Furniture Brand. The journal of American Academy Business, Vol. 16 Issue 1. Faela Sufa & Bambang Munas. (2012). Analisis Pengaruh Daya Tarik Iklan, Kualitas Pesan Iklan, Frekuensi Penayangan Iklan terhadap Efektivitas Iklan Televisi Mie Sedap. Diponegoro Journal of Management, Vol 1, No.1 226 - 233

Jalilvand, Samiei, Mahdavina (2011). The effect of Brand Equity Components on Purchase Intention: An Application of Aaker’s Model in the Automobile Industry. International Journal of Business and Management. Vol.2, No.2, 149-158. Khasanah Imroatul. (2013). Analisis Pengaruh Ekuitas Merek Terhadap Keputusan Pembelian Mie Instan Sedap di Semarang. Jurnal Dinamika Manajemen. JDM Vol.4, No.1 93-102. Nurul Istiqomah. (2014). The Correlation Between Perceived Quality and Purchasing Decision on Consumers Product Jamu “X” In Nologaten. Sondoh, S.L., Omar, M.W., Wahid, N.A., Ismail, I., & Haru, A. (2007). The effect of Brand Image on Overall Satisfaction and Loyalty Intention in the Context of Color Cosmetic. Journal Asian Academy of Management, Vol. 12 Issue 1, 83-107 Yakubu, A., Idahor,K. O., Haruna, H. S., Wheto, M., & Amusan, S. (2010). Multivariate Analysis of Phenotypic Differentiation in Bunaji and Sokoto Gudali Cattle. Acta argiculturae Slovenica, 96/2, pp.75–80 Yaseen, Tahira, Gulzar, Anwar. (2011). Impact of Brand Awarness, Perceived Quality and Costumer Loyalty on Brand Profitability and Purchase Intention: A Reseller’s View. Interdiscplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business. Vol 3, No 8.

Internet Asian Pacific Brewery From: http://www.apbsingapore.com.sg/

Multi Bintang Indonesia From: https://emperordeva.wordpress.com/about/makalah-pt-bir-bintang/ MBI Kuasai Pasar Minuman di Indonesia From:https://www.ipotnews.com/index.php?jdl=Multi_Bintang_Kuasai_55 _persen_Pasar_Minuman_Bir_di_Indonesia&level2=newsandopinion&leve l3=&level4=stocks&id=981434#.Vqc9I4V95kg

Bisnis bir Indonesia From:http://www.bbc.com/indonesia/majalah/2015/01/150129_bisnis_bir_i ndonesia

Menteri Perdagangan Izinkan Penjualan Bir From: http://www.cnnindonesia.com/ekonomi/20150416164524-92- 47203/kemendag-masih-izinkan-penjualan-bir-di-semua-kawasan-wisata/ Profit Bintang Beer

Penurunan profit Multi Bintang Indonesia From:http://bisniskeuangan.kompas.com/read/2015/05/07/125122626/Lab a.Bir.Bintang.Anjlok.42.Persen.akibat.Kebijakan.Kemendag MBI kuasai 55% Pasar Minuman Di Indonesia From: https://www.ipotnews.com/index.php?jdl=Multi_Bintang_Kuasai_55_pers en_Pasar_Minuman_Bir_di_Indonesia&level2=newsandopinion&level3= &level4=stocks&id=981434#.Vqc9I4V95kg Sales of Alcohol Drink

From: http://datacenterindonesia.co.id/ Heineken tuding larangan penjualan bir teralu ekstrim From: Source from http://bisnis.liputan6.com/read/2212371/heineken- tuding-larangan-penjualan-bir-ri-terlalu-ekstrim

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE

I am asking for your help to fill in this questionnaire regarding Heineken beer. This research aims to complete a thesis as a requirement for bachelor degree with the variables “Brand Image, Price, and Perceived Quality on Purchasing Decision”

Profile

1. Have you ever purchased and consumed Heineken beer? a. Yes (please continue this questionnaire) b. No (You may stop to fill in the questionnaire) 2. Gender a. Male b. Female 3. Age a.17 - 25 c. 36 - 45 b. 26 - 35 d. 46 - 55 4. How frequently do you drink a beer? a. Daily c. Monthly b. Weekly d. Yearly 5. Which type are you when you consume a beer? a. Party drinker c. Heavy drinker b. Medium drinker d. Others 6. Occupation a. Student b. Civil servant c. Private employees’ d. Entrepreneur e. Others 7. Education a. Senior High School b. Diploma b. Bachelor degree d. Master degree e. Others Please fill in the statement below with (√) SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neutral, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree

Brand Image No. Question SD D N A SA 1. Heineken performs as it promises. 2. Heineken enhances the perceptions that I have a desirable lifestyle. 3. Heineken improve the way I am perceived by others. 4. Heineken makes me feel delighted. 5. Usage of Heineken is effective to my needs than other brands.

Price

No. Question SD D N A SA 1. Heineken beer prices are reasonable. 2. The price of Heineken beer equal to the quality that I receive. 3. The price of Heineken beer equal to the benefit that I get. 4. The price offers competitive prices in comparison with other competitor beer. 5. Heineken beer offered seasonal and flexible prices strategy.

Perceived Quality

No. Question SD D N A SA 1. Functional features of Heineken beer are extremely good & have a positive impact towards to purchase the brand. 2. Value added features of Heineken beer give a positive impact towards to purchase the brand. 3. The sales promotion of Heineken beer is appreciable. 4. Quality perception towards Heineken beer is important factor for me to purchase beer. 5. Innovation of Heineken beer is compelling me to purchase the brand.

Purchase Decision

No. Question SD D N A SA 1. Before I buy the beer I always consider whether I need it. 2. When seeking information I tend to use personal sources. 3. I frequently gather information from friends and family about Heineken beer before I buy. 4. I like to compare different brand before I buy Heineken beer. 5. I am sure Heineken beer was the right thing to buy this product. 6. I am pretty satisfied with Heineken beer I choose.

APPENDIX B RAW DATA MATERIAL

Brand Image

Res Question Res Question BI1 BI2 BI3 BI4 BI5 TOTAL BI1 BI2 BI3 BI4 BI5 TOTAL 1 4 3 2 2 4 3 54 5 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 3 3 3 3.4 55 3 4 4 3 3 3.4 3 4 4 3 3 5 3.8 56 4 3 3 4 3 3.4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4.8 57 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 58 3 3 2 4 4 3.2 6 3 2 2 3 3 2.6 59 3 4 4 5 2 3.6 7 3 3 3 3 2 2.8 60 2 2 2 2 4 2.4 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 61 4 4 3 4 3 3.6 9 3 4 1 2 2 2.4 62 4 4 4 4 4 4 10 5 5 4 4 4 4.4 63 4 4 3 4 4 3.8 11 3 3 1 1 1 1.8 64 4 3 4 5 3 3.8 12 1 2 2 2 2 1.8 65 4 4 5 4 4 4.2 13 4 4 4 4 5 4.2 66 4 3 3 5 4 3.8 14 4 4 2 4 2 3.2 67 4 3 4 4 5 4 15 4 4 2 4 2 3.2 68 4 4 4 3 5 4 16 4 4 4 5 4 4.2 69 4 3 4 5 4 4 17 3 2 2 1 4 2.4 70 4 3 4 5 5 4.2 18 3 2 2 3 3 2.6 71 4 4 5 5 4 4.4 19 4 4 4 4 4 4 72 4 5 5 4 5 4.6 20 2 2 2 1 2 1.8 73 3 3 4 3 4 3.4 21 2 1 2 3 4 2.4 74 4 4 3 3 3 3.4 22 4 4 4 4 4 4 75 4 4 3 3 3 3.4 23 2 2 2 1 3 2 76 5 4 3 4 4 4 24 3 3 2 3 2 2.6 77 3 3 4 4 4 3.6 25 3 4 3 4 3 3.4 78 4 4 3 4 3 3.6 26 3 3 3 2 2 2.6 79 4 4 3 3 4 3.6 27 4 4 3 3 4 3.6 80 5 4 4 3 4 4 28 3 4 2 4 4 3.4 81 3 4 4 4 5 4 29 4 4 4 4 4 4 82 4 5 3 4 4 4 30 3 4 1 5 4 3.4 83 5 4 5 5 4 4.6 31 4 4 5 5 5 4.6 84 3 4 3 5 5 4 32 4 4 4 3 4 3.8 85 4 5 4 5 4 4.4 33 4 4 4 4 3 3.8 86 4 3 4 3 4 3.6 34 4 2 2 3 3 2.8 87 5 4 4 4 3 4 35 3 2 2 1 3 2.2 88 5 5 4 4 4 4.4 36 3 3 3 2 2 2.6 89 5 4 5 5 5 4.8 37 5 5 5 5 5 5 90 5 4 4 4 5 4.4 38 3 3 3 3 3 3 91 4 4 5 5 5 4.6 39 3 4 4 3 3 3.4 92 4 3 3 4 4 3.6 40 4 3 3 2 2 2.8 93 4 3 4 3 2 3.2 41 4 5 5 5 4 4.6 94 4 5 4 4 4 4.2 42 5 4 3 5 4 4.2 95 5 4 4 4 4 4.2 43 3 3 3 3 3 3 96 4 3 3 5 4 3.8 44 4 4 2 4 2 3.2 97 4 4 3 5 4 4 45 4 2 2 4 1 2.6 98 4 4 2 3 2 3 46 4 3 2 2 3 2.8 99 4 4 3 4 4 3.8 47 2 4 4 4 4 3.6 100 3 4 4 5 5 4.2 48 4 3 4 3 3 3.4 101 3 3 3 4 4 3.4 49 4 3 3 4 4 3.6 102 4 5 4 5 4 4.4 50 4 4 3 4 3 3.6 103 3 3 4 4 5 3.8 51 3 4 4 3 3 3.4 104 5 4 4 5 5 4.6 52 4 3 4 4 4 3.8 105 4 4 5 4 4 4.2 53 3 4 4 4 3 3.6 106 3 4 5 4 5 4.2

Brand Image (continue)

Res Question BI1 BI2 BI3 BI4 BI5 TOTAL 1 3 4 4 3 3 3.4 2 4 3 3 4 3 3.4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 3.2 5 3 4 4 5 2 3.6 6 2 2 2 2 4 2.4 7 4 4 3 4 3 3.6 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 4 4 3 4 4 3.8 10 4 3 4 5 3 3.8 11 4 4 5 4 4 4.2 12 4 3 3 5 4 3.8 13 4 3 4 4 5 4 14 4 4 4 3 5 4 15 4 3 4 5 4 4 16 4 3 4 5 5 4.2 17 4 4 5 5 4 4.4 18 4 5 5 4 5 4.6 19 3 3 4 3 4 3.4 20 4 4 3 3 3 3.4 21 4 4 3 3 3 3.4 22 5 4 3 4 4 4 23 3 3 4 4 4 3.6 24 4 4 3 4 3 3.6 25 4 4 3 3 4 3.6 26 5 4 4 3 4 4 27 3 4 4 4 5 4 28 4 5 3 4 4 4 29 5 4 5 5 4 4.6 30 3 4 3 5 5 4

Price

Res Question Res Question PRI1 PRI2 PRI3 PRI4 PRI5 TOTAL PRI1 PRI2 PRI3 PRI4 PRI5 TOTAL 1 4 4 4 2 4 3.6 54 3 4 3 3 4 3.4 2 5 5 4 4 5 4.6 55 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3.8 56 3 4 3 4 4 3.6 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 57 5 5 5 5 4 4.8 5 2 3 3 3 3 2.8 58 2 3 3 2 3 2.6 6 3 3 4 4 3 3.4 59 4 3 3 3 4 3.4 7 4 4 4 3 3 3.6 60 4 4 3 2 2 3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 61 4 4 4 4 3 3.8 9 4 4 3 4 3 3.6 62 4 4 4 3 4 3.8 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 63 4 4 4 4 4 4 11 1 1 1 2 2 1.4 64 3 4 4 2 2 3 12 3 2 2 1 2 2 65 4 4 3 5 4 4 13 5 4 5 4 5 4.6 66 4 4 4 4 4 4 14 4 4 2 4 2 3.2 67 4 4 5 4 4 4.2 15 4 4 4 2 2 3.2 68 5 4 4 3 5 4.2 16 4 4 4 5 4 4.2 69 4 4 3 3 4 3.6 17 4 3 4 3 4 3.6 70 5 4 5 3 4 4.2 18 4 4 1 3 4 3.2 71 4 5 4 5 3 4.2 19 4 4 4 4 4 4 72 2 4 5 2 4 3.4 20 2 1 1 2 2 1.6 73 2 3 3 4 4 3.2 21 2 3 1 2 3 2.2 74 4 3 3 4 3 3.4 22 4 4 4 4 4 4 75 4 3 3 4 5 3.8 23 3 3 3 3 3 3 76 4 3 4 5 4 4 24 2 3 2 3 2 2.4 77 4 4 3 3 4 3.6 25 2 3 2 3 2 2.4 78 4 3 4 3 4 3.6 26 3 3 3 3 3 3 79 4 3 4 3 5 3.8 27 4 4 3 3 3 3.4 80 4 3 4 5 4 4 28 4 5 3 5 4 4.2 81 4 5 3 4 5 4.2 29 3 4 4 4 4 3.8 82 5 4 3 4 3 3.8 30 2 3 4 1 2 2.4 83 4 3 4 2 3 3.2 31 5 5 5 5 5 5 84 5 4 5 3 4 4.2 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 85 4 5 4 5 4 4.4 33 4 3 3 3 4 3.4 86 5 4 3 4 4 4 34 3 4 4 3 3 3.4 87 4 5 5 4 4 4.4 35 4 3 3 3 3 3.2 88 4 4 4 5 4 4.2 36 4 4 4 3 4 3.8 89 4 4 5 4 5 4.4 37 5 5 5 5 5 5 90 4 4 5 4 5 4.4 38 2 3 3 2 4 2.8 91 4 5 4 5 5 4.6 39 4 4 5 5 3 4.2 92 4 4 4 4 4 4 40 4 4 3 5 5 4.2 93 3 2 1 2 2 2 41 4 3 5 5 5 4.4 94 5 4 3 4 3 3.8 42 4 5 4 4 3 4 95 3 4 4 4 5 4 43 2 2 2 3 2 2.2 96 3 4 3 4 3 3.4 44 4 4 1 2 5 3.2 97 4 5 3 3 4 3.8 45 4 4 4 4 2 3.6 98 3 4 3 4 4 3.6 46 4 4 2 3 4 3.4 99 4 4 4 4 4 4 47 3 3 4 4 2 3.2 100 5 4 4 5 3 4.2 48 4 4 3 4 4 3.8 101 4 4 4 3 3 3.6 49 4 4 4 4 3 3.8 102 4 3 3 5 4 3.8 50 4 4 4 5 4 4.2 103 3 4 5 5 5 4.4 51 4 4 4 3 4 3.8 104 4 4 5 3 5 4.2 52 2 4 3 3 4 3.2 105 4 4 4 5 5 4.4 53 4 4 3 3 4 3.6 106 4 4 3 2 3 3.2

Price (continue)

Res Question PRI1 PRI2 PRI3 PRI4 PRI5 TOTAL 1 4 2 2 4 4 3.2 2 4 3 3 3 5 3.6 3 4 4 3 3 4 3.6 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 4 4 3 4 3 3.6 7 4 3 3 3 4 3.4 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 3 2 1 1 4 2.2 10 4 4 4 5 5 4.4 11 2 1 1 1 2 1.4 12 2 2 2 1 1 1.6 13 4 4 2 2 5 3.4 14 4 4 4 4 5 4.2 15 4 2 2 4 4 3.2 16 4 4 4 5 4 4.2 17 4 3 3 4 4 3.6 18 4 2 2 3 4 3 19 5 4 2 4 4 3.8 20 2 1 1 4 2 2 21 3 5 4 5 4 4.2 22 4 4 4 4 4 4 23 2 3 3 2 3 2.6 24 3 2 2 2 3 2.4 25 3 2 2 2 3 2.4 26 3 2 2 2 3 2.4 27 4 3 3 3 3 3.2 28 3 3 4 3 5 3.6 29 4 4 4 4 4 4 30 3 3 4 3 5 3.6 31 4 5 5 4 5 4.6

Perceived Quality

Res Question Res Question PQ1 PQ2 PQ3 PQ4 PQ5 TOTAL PQ1 PQ2 PQ3 PQ4 PQ5 TOTAL 1 4 2 2 4 4 3.2 54 3 5 4 3 3 3.6 2 4 3 3 3 5 3.6 55 3 3 4 3 3 3.2 3 4 4 3 3 4 3.6 56 4 3 3 3 4 3.4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 57 4 5 4 5 3 4.2 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 58 2 2 2 3 3 2.4 6 4 4 3 4 3 3.6 59 4 3 3 4 5 3.8 7 4 3 3 3 4 3.4 60 3 3 2 4 4 3.2 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 61 4 4 4 3 4 3.8 9 3 2 1 1 4 2.2 62 4 4 3 4 4 3.8 10 4 4 4 5 5 4.4 63 4 3 3 3 4 3.4 11 2 1 1 1 2 1.4 64 5 3 5 5 3 4.2 12 2 2 2 1 1 1.6 65 4 3 4 5 4 4 13 4 4 2 2 5 3.4 66 3 4 2 3 4 3.2 14 4 4 4 4 5 4.2 67 4 4 5 4 3 4 15 4 2 2 4 4 3.2 68 3 4 4 4 5 4 16 4 4 4 5 4 4.2 69 4 5 4 3 2 3.6 17 4 3 3 4 4 3.6 70 4 3 4 5 4 4 18 4 2 2 3 4 3 71 2 4 4 2 3 3 19 5 4 2 4 4 3.8 72 3 3 3 3 3 3 20 2 1 1 4 2 2 73 3 4 3 3 3 3.2 21 3 5 4 5 4 4.2 74 3 4 3 4 3 3.4 22 4 4 4 4 4 4 75 2 3 3 3 4 3 23 2 3 3 2 3 2.6 76 4 4 4 3 5 4 24 3 2 2 2 3 2.4 77 4 3 4 4 5 4 25 3 2 2 2 3 2.4 78 4 3 3 4 3 3.4 26 3 2 2 2 3 2.4 79 3 4 3 5 3 3.6 27 4 3 3 3 3 3.2 80 4 5 4 4 3 4 28 3 3 4 3 5 3.6 81 4 3 5 4 5 4.2 29 4 4 4 4 4 4 82 5 4 3 4 4 4 30 3 3 4 3 5 3.6 83 4 5 5 3 4 4.2 31 4 5 5 4 5 4.6 84 4 3 4 5 4 4 32 3 3 4 4 3 3.4 85 3 4 5 4 5 4.2 33 4 3 3 3 4 3.4 86 3 4 3 3 5 3.6 34 3 2 2 4 4 3 87 5 4 4 4 5 4.4 35 3 1 1 1 2 1.6 88 3 4 4 4 5 4 36 3 2 2 2 2 2.2 89 4 4 5 5 4 4.4 37 5 5 5 5 5 5 90 5 5 4 4 4 4.4 38 3 2 2 2 3 2.4 91 5 4 4 5 4 4.4 39 3 2 3 3 4 3 92 3 4 2 3 4 3.2 40 2 3 3 2 3 2.6 93 4 2 2 1 2 2.2 41 5 5 4 4 5 4.6 94 4 4 3 5 5 4.2 42 4 4 5 4 5 4.4 95 4 5 5 4 4 4.4 43 4 4 4 3 4 3.8 96 5 5 5 4 5 4.8 44 5 2 1 1 5 2.8 97 3 2 2 4 3 2.8 45 2 1 2 4 4 2.6 98 3 3 2 2 4 2.8 46 2 2 2 2 3 2.2 99 4 3 3 3 4 3.4 47 4 2 2 3 5 3.2 100 4 3 4 3 4 3.6 48 3 4 3 2 4 3.2 101 4 3 3 3 4 3.4 49 5 2 2 2 4 3 102 4 4 5 5 4 4.4 50 3 3 4 3 4 3.4 103 3 3 4 4 5 3.8 51 3 3 3 4 5 3.6 104 5 4 4 4 5 4.4 52 4 2 2 2 4 2.8 105 4 4 4 5 5 4.4 53 4 2 2 3 3 2.8 106 1 3 2 5 5 3.2

Perceived Quality (continue)

Res Question PQ1 PQ2 PQ3 PQ4 PQ5 TOTAL 1 4 4 4 2 4 3.6 2 5 5 4 4 5 4.6 3 3 4 4 4 4 3.8 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 3 3 3 3 2.8 6 3 3 4 4 3 3.4 7 4 4 4 3 3 3.6 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 4 4 3 4 3 3.6 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 11 1 1 1 2 2 1.4 12 3 2 2 1 2 2 13 5 4 5 4 5 4.6 14 4 4 2 4 2 3.2 15 4 4 4 2 2 3.2 16 4 4 4 5 4 4.2 17 4 3 4 3 4 3.6 18 4 4 1 3 4 3.2 19 4 4 4 4 4 4 20 2 1 1 2 2 1.6 21 2 3 1 2 3 2.2 22 4 4 4 4 4 4 23 3 3 3 3 3 3 24 2 3 2 3 2 2.4 25 2 3 2 3 2 2.4 26 3 3 3 3 3 3 27 4 4 3 3 3 3.4 28 4 5 3 5 4 4.2 29 3 4 4 4 4 3.8 30 2 3 4 1 2 2.4 31 5 5 5 5 5 5

Purchase Decision

Res Question Res Question PD1 PD2 PD3 PD4 PD5 PD6 TOTAL PD1 PD2 PD3 PD4 PD5 PD6 TOTAL 1 4 4 4 2 5 4 3.8 54 3 3 5 5 5 3 4.0 2 3 5 4 4 3 3 3.7 55 4 3 3 4 4 3 3.5 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3.5 56 5 4 2 2 4 3 3.3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0 57 4 5 4 4 5 5 4.5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.0 58 4 4 2 4 3 3 3.3 6 3 3 4 4 4 4 3.7 59 5 5 5 4 3 4 4.3 7 4 3 3 5 3 3 3.5 60 2 4 4 4 2 4 3.3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.0 61 4 4 2 3 4 3 3.3 9 5 4 3 4 2 1 3.2 62 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0 10 4 5 4 5 4 5 4.5 63 4 4 4 4 3 3 3.7 11 3 3 3 5 1 1 2.7 64 5 5 5 5 4 5 4.8 12 2 2 2 1 2 1 1.7 65 4 4 3 4 4 5 4.0 13 5 5 2 3 5 2 3.7 66 2 3 2 5 5 3 3.3 14 2 2 3 3 3 4 2.8 67 4 5 3 4 3 4 3.8 15 4 4 5 4 4 4 4.2 68 2 4 4 5 3 4 3.7 16 3 4 4 4 4 5 4.0 69 5 4 2 4 4 3 3.7 17 4 4 3 4 3 4 3.7 70 4 4 5 3 4 5 4.2 18 5 4 2 1 3 3 3.0 71 4 4 3 2 3 2 3.0 19 3 3 5 4 4 4 3.8 72 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.0 20 4 5 4 4 2 4 3.8 73 4 4 3 3 4 3 3.5 21 4 5 3 2 4 5 3.8 74 3 4 3 4 3 4 3.5 22 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0 75 3 3 3 4 4 3 3.3 23 2 3 3 2 2 2 2.3 76 4 4 2 4 5 3 3.7 24 2 2 3 4 3 2 2.7 77 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.8 25 2 3 1 2 3 2 2.2 78 4 5 3 4 5 4 4.2 26 4 3 3 3 3 2 3.0 79 3 3 4 4 5 5 4.0 27 4 4 3 4 4 3 3.7 80 4 4 3 5 4 4 4.0 28 5 5 5 5 5 3 4.7 81 4 5 3 4 5 4 4.2 29 4 3 4 4 4 4 3.8 82 4 5 3 4 4 4 4.0 30 4 2 3 4 5 3 3.5 83 4 2 3 2 1 3 2.5 31 5 5 5 4 4 4 4.5 84 4 5 3 4 5 5 4.3 32 4 5 4 5 4 4 4.3 85 4 5 4 5 5 4 4.5 33 4 4 5 2 3 3 3.5 86 4 4 5 3 4 3 3.8 34 5 2 3 2 3 4 3.2 87 5 4 4 4 5 4 4.3 35 3 5 3 3 2 1 2.8 88 4 4 5 4 4 4 4.2 36 2 2 3 2 3 2 2.3 89 4 5 4 4 4 5 4.3 37 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0 90 4 4 5 5 5 4 4.5 38 5 5 1 3 3 2 3.2 91 4 4 5 4 4 5 4.3 39 3 4 5 4 3 3 3.7 92 2 3 1 5 5 3 3.2 40 3 4 4 3 3 2 3.2 93 2 3 2 3 2 1 2.2 41 4 4 3 5 4 4 4.0 94 4 3 4 5 4 5 4.2 42 1 3 4 4 3 4 3.2 95 3 5 4 4 4 4 4.0 43 4 4 4 5 2 3 3.7 96 4 5 2 4 4 4 3.8 44 5 5 1 4 4 1 3.3 97 5 3 3 2 5 4 3.7 45 4 5 1 4 2 4 3.3 98 4 4 3 4 2 2 3.2 46 5 5 3 2 3 2 3.3 99 4 4 4 4 3 3 3.7 47 4 2 1 4 3 3 2.8 100 5 4 2 4 4 3 3.7 48 4 3 3 4 3 2 3.2 101 5 5 5 4 5 3 4.5 49 4 3 2 4 4 2 3.2 102 3 4 5 3 4 5 4.0 50 4 4 3 4 4 3 3.7 103 4 5 4 5 5 4 4.5 51 4 4 3 4 4 4 3.8 104 4 4 5 5 5 4 4.5 52 2 2 2 4 4 2 2.7 105 4 4 3 5 4 5 4.2 53 4 3 2 5 3 3 3.3 106 4 3 4 3 4 4 3.7

Purchase Decision (continue)

Res Question PD1 PD2 PD3 PD4 PD5 PD6 TOTAL 1 5 5 5 5 5 3 4.7 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 3.8 3 4 2 3 4 5 3 3.5 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4.5 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 4.3 6 4 4 5 2 3 3 3.5 7 5 2 3 2 3 4 3.2 8 3 5 3 3 2 1 2.8 9 2 2 3 2 3 2 2.3 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0 11 5 5 1 3 3 2 3.2 12 3 4 5 4 3 3 3.7 13 3 4 4 3 3 2 3.2 14 4 4 3 5 4 4 4.0 15 1 3 4 4 3 4 3.2 16 4 4 4 5 2 3 3.7 17 5 5 1 4 4 1 3.3 18 4 5 1 4 2 4 3.3 19 5 5 3 2 3 2 3.3 20 4 2 1 4 3 3 2.8 21 4 3 3 4 3 2 3.2 22 4 3 2 4 4 2 3.2 23 4 4 3 4 4 3 3.7 24 4 4 3 4 4 4 3.8 25 2 2 2 4 4 2 2.7 26 4 3 2 5 3 3 3.3 27 4 4 3 4 4 3 3.7 28 4 4 3 5 4 4 4.0 29 4 5 3 4 5 4 4.2 30 4 5 3 4 4 4 4.0 31 4 2 3 2 1 3 2.5

APPENDIX C STATISTIC TABLE

Chi Table