SPSS Analysis for Customer Relationship Management - Statistics Project Example

Results Demographic characteristics i) Age For analysis purposes the ages of the participants were grouped into three different categories. That is,the young, the mature and the old respondents. The young respondents were regarded as those aged below 18 years of age, the adult respondents were those aged between 19 to 50 years old while the old were those aged above 50 years of age. This was important since it is essential to understand the purchasing power of the customers based on their ages since different age groups have different preference of products. Table 1 below represents the age of the respondents. It can clearly be seen that majority (91.1%) of the respondents interviewed were adult people. Based on this grouping there was no young respondent included in the sample. The old were represented by 8.9% Table 1: Age group Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Adult 184 91.1 91.1 91.1 Old 18 8.9 8.9 100.0 Total 202 100.0 100.0 ii) Income Income of the customer is also another important aspect that affects the manner in which customers do their purchase. Customers may be forced to purchase goods and services depending on how much they earn. This study grouped the respondents based on their earnings (low, medium and high income earners). The low income earners were considered as those who earn less than $40,000, medium earners were those with an income of between $40,000-$79,000 and the high earners were those who pocketed more than $80,000. From table 2 below, we observe that majority (71.3%) of the respondents were medium income earners, the low and high income earners tied at 14.4% Table 2: Income Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Low 29 14.4 14.4 14.4 Medium 144 71.3 71.3 85.6 High 29 14.4 14.4 100.0 Total 202 100.0 100.0 iii) Gender Male respondents dominated in this study. 60.4% of those interviewed were male participants while female participants were represented by 39.6% Table 3: Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Male 122 60.4 60.4 60.4 Female 80 39.6 39.6 100.0 Total 202 100.0 100.0 iv) Profession Those in managerial positions formed the larger group of respondents in terms of job categories of the respondents. 24.3% of the respondents in managerial positions, they were closely followed by those holding executive positions at 16.8%, administrative workers came third at 14.4%. Bottom on the list were those held secretarial positions at only 0.5% Table 4: Job Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid professional 18 8.9 8.9 8.9 executive 34 16.8 16.8 25.7 managerial 49 24.3 24.3 50.0 administrative 29 14.4 14.4 64.4 technical 9 4.5 4.5 68.8 student 14 6.9 6.9 75.7 sales 15 7.4 7.4 83.2 labor 12 5.9 5.9 89.1 secretarial 1 .5 .5 89.6 other 21 10.4 10.4 100.0 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Profiling Loyal Customers: i) Value of purchase Majority (93.6%) of the respondents interviewed made spending less than 250, 2.5% of the respondents spent more than 500 while 4% spend between 251 and 500. Table 5: Average Spending (value of purchase) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Less than 250 189 93.6 93.6 93.6 Between 251 and 500 8 4.0 4.0 97.5 More than 500 5 2.5 2.5 100.0 Total 202 100.0 100.0 ii) Frequency of purchase 54.5% of the respondents made medium purchases while 35.6% of the respondents made low purchases. Only 9.9% of the respondents made high purchases. Level of Frequency purchase Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Low 72 35.6 35.6 35.6 Medium 110 54.5 54.5 90.1 High 20 9.9 9.9 100.0 Total 202 100.0 100.0 iii) Share-of-wallet In terms of share of wallet, majority (59.4%) shared between 51%-75% of their share of wallet, 27.7% spent over 75% of their share of wallet while only 12.9% of the respondents spent less than 50% of their share of wallet. Share of Wallet LEVEL Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Low (< 50%) 26 12.9 12.9 12.9 Medium (51-75%) 120 59.4 59.4 72.3 High (>75%) 56 27.7 27.7 100.0 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Classification of customers based on Behavioural and attitude Based on behavioural loyalty of customers, majority (43.1%) were promoters (with scores of between 5-7), the least were passive (with score of 4) at 27.2% while detractors (with score of 1-3) were represented by 29.7% Behavioural Level Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Detractors (1-3) 60 29.7 29.7 29.7 Passives (4) 55 27.2 27.2 56.9 Promoters (5-7) 87 43.1 43.1 100.0 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Based on attitude, 78.2% (majority) were promoters with a score of between 5-7. Passive and detractors were represented by 15.8% and 5.9% respectively. Attitudinal Level Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Detractors (1-3) 12 5.9 5.9 5.9 Passives(4) 32 15.8 15.8 21.8 Promoters (5-7) 158 78.2 78.2 100.0 Total 202 100.0 100.0 Cross tabulations Average spending level (value of purchase) i) Gender versus average spending level (value of purchase) We check for the association between gender and average spending level. The p-value is given as 0.558 (a value greater than 5% significance level) we thus fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no association between gender and average spending level. Crosstab Count Gender Total Male Female Ave_SpendGroup1 Less than 250 114 75 189 Between 251 and 500 4 4 8 More than 500 4 1 5 Total 122 80 202 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.165a 2 .558 Likelihood Ratio 1.236 2 .539 Linear-by-Linear Association .201 1 .654 N of Valid Cases 202 a. 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.98. ii) Income versus average spending level (value of purchase) Next, we check for the association between income and average spending level. The p-value is given as 0.645 (a value greater than 5% significance level) we thus fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no association between income and average spending level. Crosstab Count Group income Total Low Medium High Ave_SpendGroup1 Less than 250 29 133 27 189 Between 251 and 500 0 7 1 8 More than 500 0 4 1 5 Total 29 144 29 202 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.496a 4 .645 Likelihood Ratio 4.326 4 .364 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.182 1 .277 N of Valid Cases 202 a. 5 cells (55.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .72. iii) Age versus average spending level (value of purchase) We now check for the association between age and average spending level. The p-value is given as 0.507 (a value greater than 5% significance level) we thus fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no association between age and average spending level. Crosstab Count Ave_SpendGroup1 Total Less than 250 Between 251 and 500 More than 500 Age group Adult 171 8 5 184 Old 18 0 0 18 Total 189 8 5 202 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.359a 2 .507 Likelihood Ratio 2.512 2 .285 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.195 1 .274 N of Valid Cases 202 a. 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .45. iv) Profession versus average spending level (value of purchase) We check for the association between profession and average spending level. The p-value is given as 0.015 (a value less than 5% significance level) we thus fail reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is an association between professio and average spending level. Crosstab Count Ave_SpendGroup1 Total Less than 250 Between 251 and 500 More than 500 Job professional 16 1 1 18 executive 33 1 0 34 managerial 47 1 1 49 administrative 27 2 0 29 technical 9 0 0 9 student 13 0 1 14 sales 14 0 1 15 labor 11 1 0 12 secretarial 0 1 0 1 other 19 1 1 21 Total 189 8 5 202 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 33.390a 18 .015 Likelihood Ratio 17.983 18 .457 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.141 1 .285 N of Valid Cases 202 a. 21 cells (70.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .02. Frequency of purchase i) Gender versus frequency of purchase Next we now focus on association between frequency of purchase and gender. The p-value is given as 0.271 (a value greater than 5% significance level) we thus fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no association between gender and frequency of purchase. Crosstab Count LevelofFrequency Total Low Medium High Gender Male 47 61 14 122 Female 25 49 6 80 Total 72 110 20 202 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.612a 2 .271 Likelihood Ratio 2.637 2 .268 Linear-by-Linear Association .134 1 .714 N of Valid Cases 202 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.92. ii) Income versus frequency of purchase In terms of income, we look at the association between frequency of purchase and income. The p-value is given as 0.004 (a value less than 5% significance level) we thus reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is an association between income and frequency of purchase. High income earners purchase more often than low income earners. Crosstab Count LevelofFrequency Total Low Medium High Group income Low 15 8 6 29 Medium 52 82 10 144 High 5 20 4 29 Total 72 110 20 202 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 15.122a 4 .004 Likelihood Ratio 15.563 4 .004 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.821 1 .093 N of Valid Cases 202 a. 2 cells (22.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.87. iii) Age versus frequency of purchase In terms of age, we look at the association between frequency of purchase and age. The p-value is given as 0.532 (a value greater than 5% significance level) we thus fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no association between age and frequency of purchase. Crosstab Count LevelofFrequency Total Low Medium High Age group Adult 67 98 19 184 Old 5 12 1 18 Total 72 110 20 202 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.261a 2 .532 Likelihood Ratio 1.319 2 .517 Linear-by-Linear Association .063 1 .802 N of Valid Cases 202 a. 1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.78. iv) Profession versus frequency of purchase In terms of income, focus on association between frequency of purchase and income. The p-value is given as 0.176 (a value greater than 5% significance level) we thus fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no association between profession and frequency of purchase. Crosstab Count LevelofFrequency Total Low Medium High Job professional 5 12 1 18 executive 9 24 1 34 managerial 19 25 5 49 administrative 10 17 2 29 technical 2 3 4 9 student 5 7 2 14 sales 8 6 1 15 labor 4 7 1 12 secretarial 1 0 0 1 other 9 9 3 21 Total 72 110 20 202 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 23.385a 18 .176 Likelihood Ratio 19.295 18 .374 Linear-by-Linear Association .266 1 .606 N of Valid Cases 202 a. 16 cells (53.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .10. Share-of-wallet i) Gender versus share-of-wallet We now focus on association between share of wallet and gender. The p-value is given as 0.266 (a value greater than 5% significance level) we thus fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no association between gender and share of wallet. Crosstab Count SOW LEVEL Total Low (< 50%) Medium (51-75%) High (>75%) Gender Male 18 67 37 122 Female 8 53 19 80 Total 26 120 56 202 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.647a 2 .266 Likelihood Ratio 2.677 2 .262 Linear-by-Linear Association .042 1 .838 N of Valid Cases 202 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.30. ii) Income versus share-of-wallet We check for the association between share of wallet and income. The p-value is given as 0.021 (a value less than 5% significance level) we thus reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is an association between income and share of wallet. Crosstab Count SOW LEVEL Total Low (< 50%) Medium (51-75%) High (>75%) Group income Low 8 19 2 29 Medium 14 85 45 144 High 4 16 9 29 Total 26 120 56 202 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 11.579a 4 .021 Likelihood Ratio 12.409 4 .015 Linear-by-Linear Association 5.408 1 .020 N of Valid Cases 202 a. 2 cells (22.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.73. iii) Age versus share-of-wallet We now focus on association between share of wallet and age. The p-value is given as 0.067 (a value greater than 5% significance level) we thus fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no association between age and share of wallet. Crosstab Count SOW LEVEL Total Low (< 50%) Medium (51-75%) High (>75%) Age group Adult 22 107 55 184 Old 4 13 1 18 Total 26 120 56 202 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 5.391a 2 .067 Likelihood Ratio 6.709 2 .035 Linear-by-Linear Association 5.088 1 .024 N of Valid Cases 202 a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.32. iv) Profession versus share-of-wallet We now focus on association between share of wallet and profession. The p-value is given as 0.122 (a value greater than 5% significance level) we thus fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no association between profession and share of wallet. Crosstab Count SOW LEVEL Total Low (< 50%) Medium (51-75%) High (>75%) Job professional 3 11 4 18 executive 4 15 15 34 managerial 4 31 14 49 administrative 4 18 7 29 technical 1 5 3 9 student 5 5 4 14 sales 1 13 1 15 labor 3 8 1 12 secretarial 0 0 1 1 other 1 14 6 21 Total 26 120 56 202 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 25.090a 18 .122 Likelihood Ratio 24.739 18 .132 Linear-by-Linear Association .568 1 .451 N of Valid Cases 202 a. 16 cells (53.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .13. Read More