Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION
1

1.1 Introduction to the social media

Social media
Social media has been around since humans began to communicate. One of the
first signs of human social media was cave wall paintings. Some of the
earliest forms of social media were not digital. According to the MerriamWebster dictionary, the word social is "of or relating to human society,
the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human
beings as members of society. The word media means a medium of cultivation,
conveyance, or expression. Media is also a plural form of medium and a
medium is a particular form or system of communication." Some of the
earliest forms of social media were primitive and did not involve a
computer, but did involve some type of technology to convey the message.
Cave paintings were created using pigments, "Ancient peoples decorated
walls of protected caves with paint made from dirt or charcoal mixed with
spit or animal fat. In cave paintings, the pigments stuck to the wall
partially because the pigment became trapped in the porous wall, and
partially because the binding media (the spit or fat) dried and adhered the
pigment to the wall (Ages)." All living things communicate to each other in
some way or another, but humans leave lasting impressions intentionally. A
fossil leaves an impression, but it doesn't do it on purpose or do it by
using technology. Communication and networking (network in the sense of the
word to purposefully interact with others) are vital to our survival and
our history. The cave paintings of Lascaux are estimated to be up to 20,000
years old. As mentioned on the MET website, "most of the paintings are
located at a distance from the cave's entrance, and many of the chambers
are not easily accessible. This placement, together with the enormous size
and compelling grandeur of the paintings, suggests that the remote chambers
may have served as sacred or ceremonial meeting places (Tedesco)."
Social media refers to interaction among people in which they create,
share, and/or exchange information and ideas in virtual communities and
networks.
Andreas Kaplan and Michael Haenlein define social media as "a group of
Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological
foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of usergenerated content." Furthermore, social media depend on mobile and webbased technologies to create highly interactive platforms through which
individuals and communities share, co-create, discuss, and modify usergenerated content. They introduce substantial and pervasive changes to
communication between organizations, communities, and individuals.

Social media differ from traditional/industrial media in many ways,

including quality, reach, frequency, usability, immediacy, and permanence.
There are many effects that stem from internet usage. According to Nielsen,
internet users continue to spend more time with social media sites than any
other type of site. At the same time, the total time spent on social media
in the U.S. across PC and mobile devices increased by 37 percent to 121
billion minutes in July 2012 compared to 88 billion minutes in July 2011.
For content contributors, the benefits of participating in social media
have gone beyond simply social sharing to building reputation and bringing
in career opportunities and monetary income, as discussed in Tang, Gu, and
Whinston (2012).
Geocities, created in 1994, was one of the first social media sites. The
concept was for users to create their own websites, characterized by one of
six "cities" that were known for certain characteristics.

1.2 Classification of social media

Social media technologies take on many different forms including magazines,
Internet forums, weblogs, social blogs, microblogging, wikis, social
networks, podcasts, photographs or pictures, video, rating and social
bookmarking. Technologies include blogging, picture-sharing, blogs, wallposting, music-sharing, crowdsourcing and voice over IP, to name a few.
Social network aggregation can integrate many of the platforms in use.
By applying a set of theories in the field of media research (social
presence, media richness) and social processes (self-presentation, selfdisclosure), Kaplan and Haenlein created a classification scheme in their
Business Horizons (2010) article, with seven different types of social
media:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

collaborative projects (e.g., Wikipedia)

blogs and microblogs (e.g., Twitter)
Social news networking sites (e.g., Digg and Leakernet)
content communities (e.g., YouTube and DailyMotion)
social networking sites (e.g., Facebook)
virtual game-worlds (e.g., World of Warcraft)
virtual social worlds (e.g., Second Life)

However, the boundaries between the different types have become

increasingly blurred. For example, Shi, Rui and Whinston (2013) argue that
Twitter, as a combination of broadcasting service and social network,
classes as a "social broadcasting technology".

Mobile social media

Mobile social media refers to the combination of mobile devices and social
media. This is a group of mobile marketing applications that allow the
creation and exchange of user generated content. Due to the fact that
mobile social media run on mobile devices, they differ from traditional
social media by incorporating new factors such as the current location of
the user (location-sensitivity) or the time delay between sending and
receiving messages(time-sensitivity). According to Andreas Kaplan, mobile
social media applications can be differentiated among four types:
1. Space-timers (location and time sensitive): Exchange of messages with
relevance for one specific location at one specific point in time
(e.g., Facebook Places; Foursquare)
2. Space-locators (only location sensitive): Exchange of messages, with
relevance for one specific location, which are tagged to a certain
place and read later by others (e.g., Yelp; Qype)
3. Quick-timers (only time sensitive): Transfer of traditional social
media applications to mobile devices to increase immediacy (e.g.,
posting Twitter messages or Facebook status updates)
4. Slow-timers (neither location, nor time sensitive): Transfer of
traditional social media applications to mobile devices (e.g.,
watching a YouTube video or reading a Wikipedia entry)

Internet usage effects

An increasing number of scholars have sought to study and measure the
impact of social media. A 2010 study by the University of Maryland
suggested that social media services may be addictive, and that using
social media services may lead to a "fear of missing out," also known as
the phrase "FOMO" by many students. It has been observed that Facebook is
now the primary method for communication by college students in the U.S.
According to Nielsen, global consumers spend more than six hours on social
networking sites. "Social Media Revolution" produced by Socialnomics author
Erik Qualman contains numerous statistics on social media including the
fact that 93% of businesses use it for marketing and that if Facebook were
a country it would be the third largest. Several colleges and universities
such as Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Columbia and Stanford among others have
even introduced classes on best social media practices, preparing students
for potential careers as digital strategists.
There are various statistics that account for social media usage and
effectiveness for individuals worldwide. Some of the most recent statistics
are as follows:
4

o
o
o

o
o
o

o
o

o
o

Consumers continue to spend more time on social networks than on any

other category of sitesroughly 20 percent of their total time
online via personal computer (PC), and 30 percent of total time
online via mobile.
Total time spent on social media in the U.S. across PCs and mobile
devices increased 37 percent to 121 billion minutes in July 2012,
compared to 88 billion in July 2011.
Facebook remains the most-visited social network in the U.S. via PC
(152.2 million visitors), mobile apps (78.4 million users) and mobile
web (74.3 million visitors), and is multiple times the size of the
next largest social site across each platform.
51% of people aged 2534 used social networking in the office, more
than any other age group.
On average, 47% of social media users engage in social care.
While the computer is still the primary device used to access social
media despite dropping 4% in usage in 2012, the last year saw a
significant increase in usage, most notably through tablets from 3%
to 16%, internet enabled TVs from 2% to 4%.
As of 2012, Facebook has 152,226,000 unique PC visitors and
78,388,000 unique mobile app visitors. Twitter reported 37,033,000
unique PC visitors and 22,620,000 unique mobile app visitors.
Pinterest reported 27,223,000 unique PC visitors and 14,316,000
unique mobile web visitors. Google+ reported 26,201,000 unique PC
visitors and 9,718,000 unique mobile app visitors.
A total of 234 million people age 13 and older in the U.S. used
mobile devices in December 2009.
Twitter processed more than one billion tweets in December 2009 and
averages almost 40 million tweets per day.
Over 25% of U.S. Internet page views occurred at one of the top
social networking sites in December 2009, up from 13.8% a year
before.
Australia has some of the highest social media usage in the world. In
usage of Facebook, Australia ranks highest, with over nine million
users spending almost nine hours per month on the site.
Twitter has risen as the go to site for customer support in 2013,
while Email's usage has decreased by 7%.
The number of social media users age 65 and older grew 100 percent
throughout 2010, so that one in four people in that age group are now
part of a social networking site.
As of May 2012 Facebook has 901 million users.
Social media has overtaken pornography as the No. 1 activity on the
web.

o
o
o
o
o
o
o

In June 2011, it was reported that iPhone applications hit one

billion in nine months, and Facebook added 100 million users in less
than nine months.
In June 2011, it was also reported that U.S. Department of Education
study revealed that online students out-performed those receiving
face-to-face instruction.
YouTube is the second largest search engine in the world.
In four minutes and 26 seconds 100+ hours of video will be uploaded
to YouTube.
One out of eight couples married in the U.S. last year met via social
media according to statistics released June 2011.
One in six higher education students are enrolled in an online
curriculum.
In November 2011, it was reported Indians spend more time on social
media than on any other activity on the Internet.
1 in 5 divorces have been blamed on Facebook.
In a study conducted by the Masdar Institute of Science and
Technology in Abu Dhabi, it was found that on average, any individual
is just 12 hours of separation from another around the world, using
social networking sites.

In a study titled "Mastering the Art of Social Media," the researcher found
that online communication has become a central part in the communication of
political actors. In the study, Klinger focuses on Switzerland, where
broadband, internet use, and media literacy are among the highest in the
world, and how all major political parties in Switzerland run their own
websites and social media sites.

1.3 Purchase intention

Purchase intention is defined as an intent to procure a specific
merchandise or service in the future. It involves financial and
quantitative planning which purpose is to save considerable cost for the
company.

1.4 Objectives of the study

Primary objective:
To analyse the customers purchase intention.

Secondary objective:
To know what age group use social media more.
To know whether people buy products based on the reviews from social
media.
To know how much time people spend on social media every day.
To find whether social media helps people to find their desired
products.
To find whether online shopping has surpassed offline shopping.

1.5 Scope of the study

The study is mainly to find out the purchase intention of customers
due to the effect of social media.

1.6 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

Due to lack of time, the survey is taken only from 60 peoples only.
The study is based on the prevailing customers satisfaction. But
the customers satisfaction may change according to time, fashion,
technology development and trend etc.,
The data collected depends up to the consumer.
Only Chennai city is consider as research area.

CHAPTER 2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
8

2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN:

Research design to framework or plan for a study that guides the collection
and analysis of data. A typical research design of a company basically
tries to resolve the following issues:
Determining Data sources
Determining Primary Data Collection Methods
Developing Questionnaire
Determining Sampling Plan

2.1 DATA COLLECTION:

The data are collected from two different methods namely:
Primary data
Secondary data

PRIMARY DATA:
The data collected is the first hand data i.e. it is collected from
the customers directly using Questionnaire method.

SECONDARY DATA:
The data collected is the second hand data i.e. it is not collected
from the customers directly but they collect from internet.

2.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS:

Visited the people directly & gathered information required for the
questionnaire.

2.3 PERIOD OF THE STUDY:

The study was conducted during the academic year 2013-2014.

2.4 SAMPLING PROCEDURE:

It was proposed to contact 60 samples residing in and around Chennai.

2.5 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT:

Questionnaire is the research instrument used for the study. A questionnaire
consists of a set of questions which gives the respondents more flexibility
in terms of data and get an idea of important unknown data that can be
collected through their behaviour.

2.6 TYPE OF QUESTIONNAIRE:

CLOSED-ENDED QUESTIONS

CLOSED ENDED QUESTIONS:

Questions can be multiple-choice or scaling questions.
A closed ended questions has the respondents pick and answer from a given
no. of options.
The response options for a closed ended questions should be exhaustive and
mutually exclusive.

2.7 TYPES OF SAMPLING

Simple random sampling

Systematic sampling
Stratified sampling
Cluster sampling

Simple random sampling:

In a simple random sample of a given size, all such subsets of the frame are
given an equal probability. Each elements of the frame thus has an equal
probability of selection: the frame is not subdivided or partitioned.
Furthermore, any given pair of elements has the same chances of selection as
any other such pair [and similarly for triples, and so on]. This minimizes
bias and simplifies analysis of results. In particular the variable between
individual results within the sample is a good indicator of variance in the

10

overall population, which makes it relatively easy to estimate the accuracy

of results.

Systematic Sampling:
Systematic sampling relies on arranging the target population according to
some ordering scheme and then selecting elements at regular intervals through
that ordered list. Systematic sampling involves a random start and then
precedes with the selection of every kith elements from the telephone
directory [an every 10th sample also referred to as sampling with a skip
of 10].

Stratified sampling:
Where the population embraces a number of distinct categories, the frames
can be organized by these categories in to separate strata Each stratum
is then sampled as an independent sub-population, out of which individual
elements can be randomly selected.

Cluster sampling:
Sometimes it is more cost-effective to select respondents in groups sampling
is often clustered by geography, or by time periods.

Sample used:
The sampling size we have used here is simple random sampling.
Sample size is 60.

2.8 Statistical analysis:

Statistical tools are used for analysing and for interpreting the data with
the help of pictorial representation.
1. Post hoc analysis
2. Anova
3. Chi-square test
4. T-test

11

REPORT WRITING:
Report writing is the end product of the research activity.
In the report, the evidence and findings are presented in such a way that it
is really understood, assessed by the reader and enables him to validity of
the conclusion.

REPORT PRESENTATION:
After the analysis of the data using statistical techniques, the finding and
suggestions are presented in the form of report.

CHART:
To represent the collected data in the pictorial form the charts which are
used in this study are:
Pie- diagram

PIE DIAGRAM:
A pie-diagram is a pictorial representation data with several divisions in
a circular form.
It consists of circles sub-divided into several sectors by radius.

12

CHAPTER 3

RESPONDENTS PROFILE

13

3.1 Gender of the respondents:

Gender:
Table No: 3.1.1

Male
Female
Total

Frequency Percent
42
70.0
18
30.0
60
100.0

Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
70.0
70.0
30.0
100.0
100.0

Figure: 3.1.1.1

GENDER

Female
30%

Male
70%

Inference:
The chart represents that out of 60 respondents 70% of them
are male
30% of them are female

14

3.2 Age of the respondents:

AGE:
Table no: 3.2.1

18-24
25-30
31 &
above
Total

Frequency
46
10

Percent
76.7
16.7

Valid
Percent
76.7
16.7

6.7

6.7

60

100.0

100.0

Cumulative Percent
76.7
93.3
100.0

Figure no: 3.2.1.1

Age
7%
17%

76%

18-24

25-30

31 & above

Inference:
76% of the respondents are from the age between 18-24
17% of the respondents are from the age between 25-30
7% of the respondents are from the age of 31 & above

15

3.3 Educational qualification of the respondents:

Educational qualification:
Table no: 3.3.1

UG
PG
Total

Valid
Percent
70.0
30.0
100.0

Frequency Percent
42
70.0
18
30.0
60
100.0

Cumulative Percent
70.0
100.0

Figure no: 3.3.1.1

Education

30%

70%

UG

PG

Inference:
70% of the respondents are completed or undergoing their under
graduate courses
30% of the respondents are completed or undergoing their post
graduate courses

16

3.4 Occupation of the respondents:

Occupation:
Table no: 3.4.1

student
employee
business

Frequency
35
21
4

Percent
58.3
35.0
6.7

Valid
Percent
58.3
35.0
6.7

Total

60

100.0

100.0

Cumulative
Percent
58.3
93.3
100.0

Figure no: 3.4.1.1

Occupation
70
60
58.3
50

Occupatio
n

40
35

30
20
10

6.7
0
Student

Employee

Business

Inference:
58% of the respondents are students
35% of the respondents are working & 7% are doing business

17

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY - 1

18

4.1 Visiting social media sites:

Table no: 4.1.1

Do you visit social media site

Yes
No
Total

Frequency
51
9
60

Percent
85.0
15.0
100.0

Valid
Percent
85.0
15.0
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
85.0
100.0

Figure no: 4.1.1.1

Visiting social media sites

Yes

No

Inference:

85% of the respondents visit social media site

15% of the respondents will not visit social media site

19

4.2 social helps you to find your desired product:

Table no: 4.2.1
Does the social media help you to find the desired product

Yes
No
Total

Frequency Percent
43
71.7
17
28.3
60
100.0

Valid
Percent
71.7
28.3
100.0

Cumulative Percent
71.7
100.0

Figure no: 4.2.1.1

SOCIAL MEDIA HELP TO FIND YOUR DESIRED

PRODUCT
No

Yes

Inference:
72% of the respondents says that social media helps them to find
their desired product
28% of the respondents says that social media does not help them to
find their desired product

20

4.3 Influencing to use a particular site:

Table no: 4.3.1
Will you influence your friend to use a particular site

Yes
no

Frequency
47
12

Percent
80.0
20.0

Valid
Percent
78.3
20.0

Total

60

100.0

100.0

Cumulative Percent
78.3
98.3

Figure no: 4.3.1.1

Infuencing your friend

No
20%

Yes
80%

Yes

No

Inference:
80% of the
particular
20% of the
particular

respondents will influence their friends to use a

site
respondents will not influence their friends to use a
site

21

4.4 Following brand news & posts:

Table no: 4.4.1
will you follow and read the brand news and posts from the social
media site page

Frequency

Percent

Valid
Percent

6.7

6.7

6.7

10.0

10.0

16.7

19
27

31.7
45.0

31.7
45.0

48.3
93.3

6.7

6.7

100.0

60

100.0

100.0

Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
strongly
agree
Total

Cumulative Percent

Following brand news & posts

7%

7%
10%

45%
31%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

Figure no: 4.4.1.1

Inference:
45% of the respondents agree that follow brand news and posts from
social media
32% of the respondents are neutral & 10% disagree that they dont
follow brand news and posts from social media
7% of them strongly agree and disagree that they follow & dont
follow brand news and posts from social media
22

4.5 Purchase intention:

Table no: 4.5.1
The comments on social media application would affect your purchase
intention

Frequency

Percent

Valid
Percent

8.3

8.3

8.3

15.0

15.0

23.3

19
18

31.7
30.0

31.7
30.0

55.0
85.0

15.0

15.0

100.0

60

100.0

100.0

strongly
disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly
agree
Total

Cumulative Percent

Purchase intention
15%

8%

15%

30%

32%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

Figure no: 4.5.1.1

Inference:
32% of the respondents say that they are neutral on saying that the
comments on social media application would affect your purchase
intention
23

 30% of them agree that the comments on social media application would
affect your purchase intention
15% of them disagree and strongly agree that the comments on social
media application would affect your purchase intention
8% of them strongly disagree that the comments on social media
application would affect your purchase intention

24

4.6 Positive opinion:

Table no: 4.6.1
will positive opinion increase your purchase

Frequency Percent
strongly
disagree
disagree
neutral

intention

Valid
Percent

Cumulative Percent

10.0

10.0

10.0

5
16

8.3
26.7

8.3
26.7

18.3
45.0

agree
strongly
agree

26

43.3

43.3

88.3

11.7

11.7

100.0

Total

60

100.0

100.0

Figure no: 4.6.1.1

POSITIVE OPINION TO INCREASE PURCHASE INTENTION

Strongly agree

Strongly
disagree
Disagree

Agree

Neutral

Inference:
43% of the respondents agree that positive opinion will increase the
purchase intention
27% respondents are neutral

25

 12% respondents strongly agree that positive opinion will increase

the purchase intention
10% respondents strongly disagree that positive opinion will increase
the purchase intention
8% respondents disagree that positive opinion will increase the
purchase intention

26

4.7 Review about purchase intention:

Table no: 4.7.1
Did the review or information motivates you to make purchase intention

Frequency

Percent

Valid
Percent

3.3

3.3

3.3

5
14

8.3
23.3

8.3
23.3

11.7
35.0

agree
strongly
agree

31

51.7

51.7

86.7

13.3

13.3

100.0

Total

60

100.0

100.0

strongly
disagree
disagree
neutral

Cumulative Percent

Figure no: 4.7.1.1

Review about purchase intention

13%

3%

8%
Strongly disagree

24%

Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Storngly agree

52%

Inference:
52% of the respondents agree that the review about a product
motivates their purchase intention
24% respondents are neutral about the review about a product
motivates their purchase intention
13% respondents strongly agree that the review about a product
motivates their purchase intention
27

 8% of the respondents disagree that the review about a product

motivates their purchase intention
3% of the respondents strongly disagree that the review about a
product motivates their purchase intention

28

4.8 Decision making:

Table no: 4.8.1
Do you seek information or opinion to assist you in making decision

strongly
disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly
agree
Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid
Percent

5.0

5.0

5.0

9
11

15.0
18.3

15.0
18.3

20.0
38.3

20

33.3

33.3

71.7

17

28.4

28.4

100.0

60

100.0

100.0

Cumulative Percent

Figure no: 4.8.1.1

Decision making
5%
15%

29%

18%

33%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Storngly agree

Inference:
33% of the respondents agree that they will seek information before
decision making
29% of them strongly that they will seek information before decision
making
29

 18% of them are neutral in seeking information before decision making

15% of them disagree that they seek information before decision
making
5% of them strongly disagree that they seek information before
decision making

30

4.9 Dissatisfaction with social media:

Table no: 4.9.1
Are you dissatisfied with any of the social media site

Frequency

Percent

Valid
Percent

8.4

8.4

8.4

11
17

18.3
28.3

18.3
28.3

26.7
55.0

20

33.3

33.3

88.3

11.7

11.7

100.0

60

100.0

100.0

strongly
disagree
disagree
neutral
agree
strongly
agree
Total

Cumulative
Percent

Figure no: 4.9.1.1

Sales
12%

9%
18%

33%

28%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Storngly agree

31

Inference:
33% of the respondents agree that they are dissatisfied with social
media
28% respondents are neutral on dissatisfaction with social media
18% disagree with the dissatisfaction with social media
12% strongly agree that they are dissatisfied with social media
9% strongly disagree that they are dissatisfied with social media

32

4.10 Purchasing product:

Table no: 4.10.1
whom do you purchase product for

Business
Gift
Purchase for
yourself
Total

Frequency
7
20

Percent
11.7
33.3

Valid
Percent
11.7
33.3

32

55

55

60

100.0

100.0

Cumulative
Percent
11.7
45.0
99

Figure no: 4.10.1.1

Sales
12%

55%

Business

33%

Gift

Purchase for yourself

Inference:
55% of the respondents say that they purchase products only for
themselves
33% of the respondents say that they purchase as gift
12% say that they purchase for business purposes

33

4.11 Tools to live your social life online:

Table no: 4.11.1
what tool is necessary to live you social life online

mobiles
blogs
videos
IM's

Frequency
30
10
10
2

Percent
50.0
16.7
16.7
3.3

Valid
Percent
50.0
16.7
16.7
3.3

others
Total

8
60

13.3
100.0

13.3
100.0

Cumulative Percent
50.0
66.7
83.3
86.7
100.0

Figure no: 4.11.1.1

SALES
Others
13%
IM's
3%

Videos
17%

Mobiles
50%

Blogs
17%

Inference:
50% of them say mobiles is the necessary tool to live their social
life online
17% of them say that videos and blogs are the tools that necessary to
live their social life online
13% of them have chosen others option
3% of them say IM is the tool necessary to live their social life
online

34

4.12 Media influence:

Table no: 4.12.1
how social media lead to a change in you

Building awareness
Motivation
Helping people take
action

Frequency
21
22

Percent
35.0
36.7

Valid
Percent
35.0
36.7

8.3

8.3

80.0

13.3

13.3

93.3

4
60

6.7
100.0

6.7
100.0

100.0

Customizing
messages
None of these
Total

Cumulative
Percent
35.0
71.7

Figure no: 4.12.1.1

MEDIA INFLUENCE
None of these
Customizing
messages

Building
awareness

Helping people
take action

Motivation

Inference:
37% of the respondents say that social media lead to a change in
motivation
35% of them say its building awareness among people
13% of them say it is customizing messages
8% of them say it help people to take action
7% of them chosen none of these
35

4.13 Networker:
Table no: 4.13.1
what kind of networker are you

Frequency

Percent

Valid
Percent

15.0

15.0

15.0

32
8

53.3
13.3

53.3
13.3

68.3
81.7

13.3

13.3

95.0

5.0

5.0

100.0

60

100.0

100.0

Essentiali
st
Consumer
Commenter
Promoter
Early
adapter
Total

Cumulative
Percent

Figure no: 4.13.1.1

Sales

6%

9%

14%
Essentialist

14%

Consumer
Commenter

57%

Promoter
Early adapter

Inference:
57% of the respondents are consumer
14% are commenter & promoter
9% of them are essentialist & 6% are early adapter

36

4.14 Shopping:
Table no: 4.14.1
Has your online shopping surpassed your offline shopping

Yes
No
Total

Frequency
29
31
60

Percent
48.3
51.7
100.0

Valid
Percent
48.3
51.7
100.0

Cumulative Percent
48.3
100.0

Figure no: 4.14.1.1

Sales

No
52%

Yes
48%

Yes
No

Inference:
48% of the respondents say that online shopping has surpassed offline
shopping & 53% say no

37

4.15 Time spent:

Table no: 4.15.1
how much time do you spend on networking sites

Frequency
28
16
16
60

less than 1hr

1hr to 2 hr
more than 2hr
Total

Percent
46.7
26.7
26.7
100.0

Valid
Percent
46.7
26.7
26.7
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
46.7
73.3
100.0

Figure no: 4.15.1.1

Time spent

27%
46%

Less than 1HR

1HR to 2HR

27%

More than 2HR

Inference:
46% of the respondents spends less than time on networking sites
27% of them spends 1HR to 2HR and more than 2HR on networking sites

38

4.16 Money spent:

Table no: 4.16.1
How much have you spent for products after viewing their online

Frequency Percent
16
26.7

not spent
more than 1000 or
less than 2000
more than 2000
Total

Valid
Percent
26.7

Cumulative Percent
26.7

27

45.0

45.0

71.7

17

28.3

28.3

100.0

60

100.0

100.0

Figure no: 4.16.1.1

Sales
28.3

More than 2000

45

more than 1000 or less than 2000

26.7

Not spent

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Sales

Inference:
45% of
online
28% of
27% of

the respondents had spent more than 1000 or less than 2000 in
shopping
the respondents had spent more than 2000 in online shopping
the respondents have not bought anything in online shopping

39

4.17 Buying a product online:

Table no: 4.17.1
Would you buy a product solely because of the ad viewed online

Yes
No

Frequency
31
29

Percent
53.3
46.7

Valid
Percent
53.3
46.7

Total

60

100.0

100.0

Cumulative Percent
53.3
100.0

Figure no: 4.17.1.1

Buying a product online

46.7

NO

Buying a product online

53.3

YES

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

Inference:
53% of the respondents say that they will buy the products solely by
viewing the ad online and 47% of the respondents say no

40

4.18 Ranking of social networking sites:

Table no: 4.18.1
Facebook

1
2
3
4

Frequency
39
8
5
5

Percent
65.0
13.3
8.3
8.3

Valid
Percent
65.0
13.3
8.3
8.3

5
Total

3
60

5.0
100.0

5.0
100.0

Ranking

Cumulative
Percent
65.0
78.3
86.7
95.0
100.0

Table no: 4.18.2

Twitter

Frequency
8

Percent
13.3

Valid
Percent
13.3

2
3
4
5
Total

24
9
8
11
60

40.0
15.0
13.3
18.3
100.0

40.0
15.0
13.3
18.3
100.0

Ranking

Cumulative
Percent
13.3
53.3
68.3
81.7
100.0

41

Table no: 4.18.3

Flickr

Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
Total

Frequency
1
12
18
16
13

Percent
1.7
20.0
30.0
26.7
21.7

Valid
Percent
1.7
20.0
30.0
26.7
21.7

60

100.0

100.0

Cumulative
Percent
1.7
21.7
51.7
78.3
100.0

Table no: 4.18.4

LinkedIn

1
2
3

Frequency
6
6
17

Percent
10.0
10.0
28.3

Valid
Percent
10.0
10.0
28.3

4
5
Total

14
17
60

23.3
28.3
100.0

23.3
28.3
100.0

Ranking

Cumulative
Percent
10.0
20.0
48.3
71.7
100.0

Table no: 4.18.5

OLX

Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
Total

Frequency
6

Percent
10.0

Valid
Percent
10.0

11
10
17
16
60

18.3
16.7
28.3
26.7
100.0

18.3
16.7
28.3
26.7
100.0

Cumulative
Percent
10.0
28.3
45.0
73.3
100.0

42

Inference:
Out of 60 respondents 39 of them ranked Facebook 1st
8 of them ranked twitter 1st
Only one respondent ranked Flickr 1st
6 of them ranked LinkedIn 1st
6 of them ranked OLX 1st

43

CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY - 2

44

Oneway Anova:
Table no: 4.19
Table showing the differences between the ages of the respondents and their
positive opinion to increase their purchase intention.
ANOVA
Age of the respondents:

Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total

Sum of
Squares
1.349

df
4

Mean
Square
.337

19.251

55

.350

20.600

59

F
.963

Sig.
.435

AGE:

will positive opinion increase your

purchase intention

Subset for
alpha =
0.05
1

neutral
16
1.1250
strongly disagree
6
1.1667
disagree
5
1.2000
agree
26
1.3846
strongly agree
7
1.5714
Sig.
.181
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 8.190.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the
group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not
guaranteed.

Null hypothesis:
There is no significant difference between ages of the respondents
and positive opinion to increase their purchase intention.

45

Alternate hypothesis:
There is a significant difference between respondents ages of the
respondents and positive opinion to increase their purchase intention
Calculated value = 0.435
LOS = 0.05

Conclusion:
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value reject
null hypothesis. So we conclude that there is a significant difference
between ages of the respondents and positive opinion to increase their
purchase intention

Graph: 4.19.1
Showing relationship between ages of the respondents and positive opinion
to increase their purchase intention.

46

Table no: 4.20

Oneway Anova:
Table showing differences between Occupation and necessary tools for their
social life.
ANOVA
Occupation

Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total

Sum of
Squares
1.708

df
4

Mean
Square
.427

21.275

55

.387

22.983

59

F
1.104

Sig.
.364

Occupation
Subset for
What tool is
alpha =
necessary to live
0.05
you social life
online?
N
1
blogs
10
1.3000
mobiles
30
1.4000
im's
2
1.5000
others
8
1.6250
videos
10
1.8000
Sig.
.230
Means for groups in homogeneous
subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =
5.825.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The
harmonic mean of the group sizes is
used. Type I error levels are not
guaranteed.

47

Null hypothesis:
There is no significant difference between ages of the respondents
and positive opinion to increase their purchase intention.

Alternate hypothesis:
There is a significant difference between Occupation and necessary
tools for their social life.
Calculated value = 0.364
LOS = 0.05

Conclusion:
Since the calculated value is greater than the table value reject
null hypothesis. So we conclude that there is a significant difference
between Occupation and necessary tools for their social life.

48

Graph: 4.20.1
Showing relationship between Occupation and necessary tools for their
social life.

49

Chi-square test:
Table showing the differences between age and dissatisfaction with any of
social media.

Table no: 4.21

Case Processing Summary

AGE: * Are you

dissatisfied with
any of the social
media site ?

Valid
N
Percent

Cases
Missing
N
Percent

Total
N
Percent

60

60

100.0%

.0%

100.0%

AGE: * Are you dissatisfied with any of the social media site?
Are you dissatisfied with any of the social media
site?
strongly disagre
strongly
disagree
e
neutral agree
agree
AGE:

18-24
25-30
31 &
above
Total

Total

4
1
0

9
1
1

14
1
2

15
5
0

4
2
1

46
10
4

11

17

20

60

Chi-Square Tests
Value
6.535a
8.200
.632

df
8
8
1

Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.588
.414
.427

Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
60
a. 11 cells (73.3%) have expected count less
than 5. The minimum expected count is .33.

50

Null hypothesis:
There is no significant difference between age and dissatisfaction
with any of social media.

Alternate hypothesis:
There is a significant difference between age and dissatisfaction
with any of social media.

Chi-square test:
There is a significant difference between Occupation and necessary
tools for their social life.
Calculated value = 0.58
LOS = 0.05

Conclusion:
Since the calculated value is greater than table value so reject the
null hypothesis. So we conclude that there is a significant difference
between age and dissatisfaction with any of social media.

51

Correlations:
Table showing the differences between educational qualification and social
media which would lead to change in a person.

Table no: 4.22

Educational
qualification

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
How can social
Pearson
media or lead to a
Correlation
change in you?
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

Educational
qualificati
on
1

How can
social
media or
lead to a
change in
you?
-.165

60
-.165

.208
60
1

.208
60

60

Null hypothesis:
There is no significant difference between educational qualification
and social media which would lead to change in a person.

Alternate hypothesis:
There is a significant difference between educational qualification
and social media which would lead to change in a person.
Calculated value = 0.208
LOS = 0.05

Conclusion:
From the above calculation value is greater than the table value reject
the null hypothesis. So we conclude that there is a significant difference
between educational qualification and social media which would lead to
change in a person.
52

T-Test:
Showing relationship between the times spent on networking sites and gender
of the respondents.

Table no: 4.23

Group Statistics
How much time do you
spend on networking
sites?

Less than 1hr

Less than 1hr or 2 hr

Gender

Mean

Std.
Deviati
on

Std.
Error
Mean

28

1.3214

.47559

.08988

16

1.3750

.50000

.12500

Independent Samples Test

Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference

Gender

Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed

F
Sig.
t
.446 .508 -.353

df
42

-.348 30.056

Sig.(2Mean
Std. Error
tailed) Difference Difference
.726
-.05357
.15182

.730

-.05357

.15396

Lower
-.35996

Upper
.25282

-.36797

.26083

53

Null hypothesis:
There is no significant difference between the times spent on
networking sites and gender of the respondents.

Alternate hypothesis:
There is a significant difference between the times spent on
networking sites and gender of the respondents.

T-test:
Calculated value = 0.726
LOS = 0.05

Conclusion:
Since the calculated value is greater than table value reject the
null hypothesis. So we conclude that there is a significant difference
between the times spent on networking sites and gender of the respondents.

54

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

55

5.1 Summary of the findings:

Analysis of the data was made in the previous chapters. This chapters
consolidates the finding of the study. The major findings are as follows:
Most of the respondents are male and majority of them are in the age
group of 1824.
Most of the respondents say online shopping has not surpassed offline
shopping
Most of
desired
Most of
Most of

the respondents say social media helps them to find the

products
the respondents agree that people buy products from review
the respondents use networking for only less than a hour

5.2 Conclusion
From the analysis it is concluded that social media has its effects on
purchase intention has most of the respondents also buy the products from
the reviews of the products and also makes decision making through social
media.

56

Annexure 1
Questionnaire for effects of social media on purchase
intention
AGE: a. 18-24 b. 25-30 c. 31 & above
GENDER:

M/F

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION: a. UG b. PG
OCCUPTION: a. Student b. Employee c. Business
1) Do you visit social media site?
a) YES

b) NO

2) Does the social media help you to find the desired product?
a) YES

b) NO

3) Will you influence your friend to use a particular site?

a) YES

b) NO

4) Will you follow and read the brand news and posts from the
social media site page?
a) Strongly disagree
e) Strongly agree

b) Disagree

c) Neutral d) Agree

5) The comments on social media application would affect your

purchase intention?
a) Strongly disagree
e) Strongly agree

b) Disagree c) Neutral d) Agree

57

6) Will positive opinion increase your purchase intention?

a) Strongly disagree
e) Strongly agree

b) Disagree c) Neutral

d) Agree

7) Did the review/information motivated you to make purchase

intention?
a) Strongly disagree
e) Strongly agree

b) Disagree c) Neutral

d) Agree

8) Do you seek information or opinion to assist you in making

decision?
a) Strongly disagree
e) Strongly agree

b) Disagree c) Neutral

d) Agree

9) Are you dissatisfied with any of the social media site?

a) Strongly disagree
e) Strongly agree

b) Disagree c) Neutral

d) Agree

10) Who do you purchase product for?

a) Business

b) Gift c) Purchase for yourself

11) What tool is necessary to live your (social) life online?

a) Mobiles

b) Blogs c) Videos d) IMs e) Others

12 How can social media influence or lead to a change in you?

a) Building awareness b) Motivation c) Helping people take
action d) Customizing messages e) none of these

58

13) What kind of a networker are you?

a) Essentialist b) Consumer c) Commenter d) Promoter
e) Early adapter
14) Has your online shopping surpassed your offline shopping?
a) YES

b) NO

15) Rank the following according to your perception.

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

Facebook
Twitter
Flickr
LinkedIn
OLX
1

16) How much time do you spend on networking sites?

A) Less than 1hr b) Less than 1hr or than 2hr c) More than 2hr
17) How much have you spent for products after viewing their ASs
online?
a) Not spent b) Less than 1000 or more than 2000 c) More than
2000
18) Would you buy a product solely because of the ad viewed
online?
a) YES

b) NO

59

Annexure 2
Bibliography:
http://www.slideshare.net/AnupNair1/social-medias-influence-in-purchasedecisions
http://www.slideshare.net/hasan_99/social-medias-influence-in-purchasedecision
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_purchase_intention?#slide=4
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=effects+of+social+media+on+purchase+inte
ntion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefoxa&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=1DYMU5nQLuJ8Qegi4Ao&gws_rd=cr#channel=fflb&q=effects+of+social+media+on+purchase+in
tention+slideshare&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&spell=1
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1250742?uid=3738256&uid=2129&uid=2&u
id=70&uid=4&sid=21103578676563
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_behaviour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media

60