{"id":25334,"date":"2026-03-29T00:38:03","date_gmt":"2026-03-28T19:08:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=25334"},"modified":"2026-03-29T00:38:03","modified_gmt":"2026-03-28T19:08:03","slug":"consumer-analysis-of-sportswear-brands","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=25334","title":{"rendered":"Consumer Analysis of Sportswear Brands"},"content":{"rendered":"

Title:\u00a0<\/span>Consumer Analysis<\/span>\u00a0of Sportswear Brands<\/span><\/p>\n

Author<\/span><\/span>:\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Aditya\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Kapse<\/span><\/span>– 17<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Introduction:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This study aims to analyze consumer preferences and perceptions of leading sportswear brands such as Nike, Adidas, Puma, and New Balance. These brands are globally recognized for their product quality, innovation, and brand image in the athletic market. The research focuses on comparing their ratings based on a numerical scale from 1 to 10. The objective is to identify whether there are significant differences in consumer ratings among these brands. To achieve this, statistical analysis using ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) is applied. The findings will help understand brand positioning and customer perception in a competitive market.<\/span><\/p>\n

Objective<\/span><\/span>:\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

To measure and compare the ratings of these brands using a standardized scale of 1 to 10.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Literature review:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Previous studies on consumer\u00a0<\/span>behavior<\/span>\u00a0highlight that brand perception plays a crucial role in influencing purchase decisions, especially in the sportswear industry. According to research on global brands like Nike and Adidas, factors such as product quality, brand image, and marketing strategies significantly affect customer preferences and loyalty. These brands have consistently maintained strong market positions due to innovation and effective branding.<\/span><\/p>\n

Research focusing on Puma suggests that collaborations, lifestyle positioning, and pricing strategies contribute to its appeal among younger consumers. Similarly, studies on New Balance emphasize comfort, performance, and niche marketing as key drivers of customer satisfaction. These differences indicate that each brand targets slightly different consumer segments.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

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

Data collection:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The data for this study was collected using a structured questionnaire created through Google Forms. Respondents were asked to rate each brand\u2014Nike, Adidas, Puma, and New Balance\u2014on a scale of 1 to 10 based on their perception and experience. A total of 33 responses were<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>gathered from participants. The sampling method used was convenience sampling, as the form was distributed online. The collected data was then organized and prepared for statistical analysis using ANOVA. This dataset serves as the basis for comparing the mean ratings of the selected brands.<\/span><\/p>\n

Data Analysis:<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n

Anova<\/span>: Single Factor<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

Variance<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

10<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

32<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

269<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

8.40625<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

2.2489919<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

10<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

32<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

255<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

7.96875<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

2.4828629<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

10<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

32<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

259<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

8.09375<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

3.4425403<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

10<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

32<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

236<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

7.375<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

8.1129032<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

F\u00a0<\/span>crit<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

17.898438<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

3<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

5.9661458<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

1.4652266<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

0.2273108<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

2.677699<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

504.90625<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

124<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

4.0718246<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

522.80469<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

127<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n
\n

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

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

The One-Way ANOVA test was conducted to determine whether there are significant differences in the mean ratings of the selected brands\u2014Nike, Adidas, Puma, and New Balance. The average ratings of the four brands were found to be 8.41, 7.97, 8.09, and 7.38 respectively, indicating slight variations in consumer preference.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, the ANOVA results show that the calculated F-value (1.465) is less than the critical F-value (2.678), and the p-value (0.227) is greater than the standard significance level of 0.05. This indicates that the differences in mean ratings among the brands are not statistically significant. In other words, any variation observed in the ratings is likely due to random chance rather than a true difference in consumer perception.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, the null hypothesis (that there is no significant difference between the brand ratings) is accepted. This suggests that consumers perceive all four brands relatively similarly in terms of overall rating, despite minor differences in their average scores.<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Based on the ANOVA analysis, it can be concluded that there is no statistically significant difference in the ratings of Nike, Adidas, Puma, and New Balance. Although Nike received the highest average rating and New Balance the lowest, these differences are not large enough to be considered meaningful from a statistical\u00a0<\/span>perspective.\u00a0<\/span>The results indicate that consumers generally perceive all four brands similarly in terms of quality and overall preference. This suggests strong competition among these brands, with no single brand having a clear advantage based on the collected data.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, the study supports the conclusion that brand ratings are relatively uniform, and any observed differences are likely due to random variation rather than actual differences in consumer opinion.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Reference:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Selvi<\/span>, P. (2023).\u00a0<\/span>A Study on Consumer Preference Towards Different Branded Sports Shoes<\/span>. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research.<\/span><\/p>\n

David, A., Kumar, B.,\u00a0<\/span>Choudhary<\/span>, N., &\u00a0<\/span>Garwal<\/span>, Y. S. (2020).\u00a0<\/span>Customers Buying Behavior and Preference Towards International Branded Sports Shoes<\/span>. Psychology and Education Journal.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Title:\u00a0Consumer Analysis\u00a0of Sportswear Brands Author:\u00a0Aditya\u00a0Kapse– 17 \u00a0 Introduction: This study aims to analyze consumer preferences and perceptions of leading sportswear brands such as Nike, Adidas, Puma, and New Balance. These brands are globally recognized for their product quality, innovation, and brand image in the athletic market. The research focuses on comparing their ratings based on… Continue reading Consumer Analysis of Sportswear Brands<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":140125,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25334","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\/25334","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\/140125"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=25334"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25334\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25335,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25334\/revisions\/25335"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=25334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=25334"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=25334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}