{"id":23758,"date":"2026-01-07T21:12:46","date_gmt":"2026-01-07T15:42:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=23758"},"modified":"2026-01-07T21:12:46","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T15:42:46","slug":"a-study-on-consumer-satisfaction-towards-popular-packaged-chips-brands-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=23758","title":{"rendered":"A Study on Consumer Satisfaction Towards Popular Packaged Chips Brands"},"content":{"rendered":"

1.<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 Title<\/strong>: A Study on Consumer Satisfaction Towards Popular Packaged Chips Brands<\/strong><\/p>\n

2. \u00a0 \u00a0Author<\/strong>: Aryan Sawwalakhe (021331025078)<\/p>\n

3. \u00a0 \u00a0Introduction<\/strong>
The packaged snacks industry plays a significant role in India\u2019s fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector. Chips are among the most widely consumed snacks due to their affordability, easy availability, variety of flavours, and strong brand presence. Consumers today have multiple options when choosing packaged chips, with brands competing on taste, quality, price, packaging, and brand reputation.
Leading brands such as Lay\u2019s, Uncle Chips, Balaji Wafers, and Haldiram\u2019s have established strong consumer bases across India. Understanding consumer satisfaction among these brands helps marketers improve product quality, positioning, and customer loyalty.
This study applies Single-Factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to examine whether consumer satisfaction ratings differ significantly among major packaged chips brands.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0 \u00a0 Objectives of the Study<\/strong>
The objectives of this research are:
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 To analyse consumer satisfaction ratings for Lay\u2019s, Uncle Chips, Balaji Wafers, and Haldiram\u2019s
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 To compare the mean satisfaction ratings of these four packaged chips brands
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 To determine whether differences in consumer ratings are statistically significant using single-factor ANOVA<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0 \u00a0 Literature Review<\/strong>
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 Consumer Behaviour in the Snack Food Market
Previous studies on the snack food industry suggest that consumer purchase decisions are influenced by taste, freshness, price, packaging, availability, and brand familiarity. Younger consumers tend to experiment with flavours, while family buyers prefer trusted and hygienic brands.
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 Brand Image and Customer Satisfaction
Research indicates that a strong brand image and consistent product quality significantly influence customer satisfaction in the FMCG sector. Brands that maintain taste consistency and reliable distribution enjoy higher repeat purchases and brand loyalty.<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0 \u00a0 Data Collection<\/strong>
The study is based on primary data collected through a structured online questionnaire.
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 Respondents rated their overall satisfaction with each chips brand
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 Rating scale used: 1 to 10
o\u00a0 \u00a0 1 = Very Poor
o\u00a0 \u00a0 10 = Excellent
Sample Details
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 Each brand received 45 responses
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 Total sample size: 180 observations (4 brands \u00d7 45 ratings)<\/p>\n

Variables Studied
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 Independent Variable: Chips Brand
(Lay\u2019s, Uncle Chips, Balaji Wafers, Haldiram\u2019s)
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 Dependent Variable: Consumer satisfaction rating score<\/p>\n

Statistical Tool Used
Single-Factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test whether the mean satisfaction ratings of the four chips brands differ significantly. ANOVA compares variation between brand means with variation within individual ratings to identify statistically meaningful differences.<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0 \u00a0 Hypotheses<\/strong>
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 Null Hypothesis (H\u2080)
There is no significant difference in the mean consumer satisfaction ratings of Lay\u2019s, Uncle Chips, Balaji Wafers, and Haldiram\u2019s.
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 Alternative Hypothesis (H\u2081)
There is a significant difference in the mean consumer satisfaction ratings of at least one chips brand.<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0 \u00a0 ANOVA: Single Factor \u2013 Summary Table<\/strong>
<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Normal
\n 0<\/p>\n

false
\n false
\n false<\/p>\n

EN-IN
\n X-NONE
\n HI<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\/* Style Definitions *\/
\n table.MsoNormalTable
\n\t{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;
\n\tmso-style-priority:99;
\n\tmso-style-parent:””;
\n\tmso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
\n\tmso-para-margin-top:0cm;
\n\tmso-para-margin-right:0cm;
\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
\n\tmso-para-margin-left:0cm;
\n\tline-height:115%;
\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;
\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;
\n\tmso-bidi-font-size:10.5pt;
\n\tfont-family:”Aptos”,sans-serif;
\n\tmso-ascii-font-family:Aptos;
\n\tmso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
\n\tmso-hansi-font-family:Aptos;
\n\tmso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
\n\tmso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
\n\tmso-ligatures:standardcontextual;
\n\tmso-fareast-language:EN-US;}<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

SUMMARY<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Groups<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Count<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sum<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Average<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Variance<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Lays<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

365<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.11<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.56<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Uncle Chips<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

341<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.58<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.25<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Balaji Wafers<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

362<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.04<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.13<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Haldiram<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

45<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

370<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.22<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.31<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

ANOVA<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Source of Variation<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SS<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

df<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MS<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

P-value<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F crit<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Between Groups<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10.87<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.00<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.62<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.89<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.45<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.66<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Within Groups<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

715.11<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

176.00<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.06<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

725.98<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

179.00<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Decision Rule
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 If P-value \u2264 0.05, reject H\u2080 \u2192 significant difference exists
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 If P-value > 0.05, fail to reject H\u2080 \u2192 no significant difference<\/p>\n

Hypothesis Testing Result
\u201cSince the calculated P-value (0.447) is greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no statistically significant difference in consumer satisfaction ratings among Lay\u2019s, Uncle Chips, Balaji Wafers, and Haldiram\u2019s.\u201d<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0 \u00a0 Conclusion<\/strong>
The study reveals that although Lay\u2019s, Uncle Chips, Balaji Wafers, and Haldiram\u2019s follow different pricing strategies, flavour profiles, and brand positioning, their overall consumer satisfaction levels do not differ significantly. This indicates that consumers perceive these brands as competitive and reliable in terms of taste, quality, and value for money.
The findings suggest that competition in the packaged chips market is intense, with all major brands meeting consumer expectations at a similar level. To gain a competitive edge, brands may focus on innovation in flavours, healthier options, improved packaging, and stronger promotional strategies.<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0 \u00a0 References\u00a0<\/strong>
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (2018). Consumer Behavior (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 Hawkins, D. I., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Kleiser, S. B. (2020). Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy (14th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
\u2022\u00a0 \u00a0 Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity (4th ed.). Pearson Education.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1.\u00a0 \u00a0 Title: A Study on Consumer Satisfaction Towards Popular Packaged Chips Brands 2. \u00a0 \u00a0Author: Aryan Sawwalakhe (021331025078) 3. \u00a0 \u00a0IntroductionThe packaged snacks industry plays a significant role in India\u2019s fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector. Chips are among the most widely consumed snacks due to their affordability, easy availability, variety of flavours, and strong… Continue reading A Study on Consumer Satisfaction Towards Popular Packaged Chips Brands<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":139902,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23758","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23758","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/139902"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=23758"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23758\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23759,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23758\/revisions\/23759"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=23758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=23758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=23758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}