Executive summary
Global marketing of automobiles is a crucial practice that requires well informed decision making (Keegan & Green, 2005). Through effective collection of data from the field this paper presents descriptive and inferential analysis of data from the field, regarding global marketing of automobiles. The data was collected from 1,000 households comprising of vehicle owners and non-owners. The data shows that the 1-seat-all-electric model is the least desirable model by the respondents. There was no single model that was highly desirable. The respondents gave pop and chart television show as their favorite show. Use of social media is of less importance according to the survey. The respondents preferred using traditional media. The paper also tests the hypotheses put forward by the Global Motors principals and found out that American public is neutral in desirability of the 4-seat-gasoline-hybrid.
Table of contents
Title page…………………………………………………………………………………………1
Executive summary………………………………………………………………………………2
Table of contents…………………………………………………………………………………3
Demographic composition of the sample…………………………………………………………4
Size of home town or city…………………………………………………………………….4
Gender…………………………………………………………………………………………5
Number of people in a family…………………………………………………………………5
Age category…………………………………………………………………………………..6
Education category…………………………………………………………………………….7
Income category……………………………………………………………………………….7
Dwelling type…………………………………………………………………………………9
Global warming………………………………………………………………………………10
How respondents feel about global warming and gasoline emissions…………………………..11
Gasoline emissions…………………………………………………………………………..11
Types of automobile models; the most and the least desirable………………………………….12
The most desirable automobile model………………………………………………………12
The least desirable automobile model……………………………………………………….13
The “traditional” media usage of the respondents in the sample………………………………..14
The social media usage of the respondent in the sample…………………………………………18
Hypothesis tests………………………………………………………………………………….19
The beliefs of the Global Motors principals on the desirability of automobile models…………19
1-seat-all-electric…………………………………………………………………………..19
4-seat-all-electric…………………………………………………………………………..20
4-seat-gasoline-hybrid……………………………………………………………………..21
5-seat-diesel-hybrid………………………………………………………………………..22
References……………………………………………………………………………………….24
Demographic composition of the sample
The collected data contained some demographic information. This section provides an analysis of demographic variables. The demographic variables in this research include the size of home town or city, gender, marital status, number of people in the family, age category, dwelling type, education and income category. Below is the analysis of each of the above demographic information.
- Size of home town or city
The size of home town or city was measured using an ordinal scale that was coded such that the value 1 represented a size of town or city with a population of below 10,000 people. I used bar charts to present the percentage of respondents under each size of home town or city as shown in the chart below.
Chart 1: Size of home town or city
Majority (39.6%) of the respondents had come from cities or towns with populations ranging from 500,000 to one million people. Only 4% of the respondents had come from small cities or towns with less than 10,000 people. The largest cities with one million and more people were represented by 12.8% of the respondents only.
- Gender
The variable gender was measured using a nominal scale of measurement. The coding of the variable is in such way that the value “1” represented a female respondent whereas the value “0” represented a male respondent. For the analysis used a pie chart to illustrate the percentage of each gender the responded to the survey.
Chart 2: Gender
Among the 1,000 respondents, 56% were male while 44% were female.
- Number of people in a family
The number of people in the family is a discrete figure by the respondents and, therefore, was measured using a scale level of measurement. I used the measures of central tendency and dispersion to describe the data. I also used percentages to analyze the data.
Table 1 (a): Statistics
Statistics
Number of people in household
N Valid 1000
Missing 0
Mean 2.61
Median 3.00
Mode 3
Std. Deviation .958
Variance .918
Minimum 1
Maximum 6
Table 1 (b): Number of people in household
Number of people in household
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 107 10.7 10.7 10.7
2 365 36.5 36.5 47.2
3 386 38.6 38.6 85.8
4 106 10.6 10.6 96.4
5 30 3.0 3.0 99.4
6 6 .6 .6 100.0
Total 1000 100.0 100.0
According to the above table, the average number of people in the household was approximately 3 with a standard deviation of one person. The least number of people in the household was one while the maximum number was six. Majority of the households (38.6%) had three people. Only 0.6% of the households had 6 people. The above table shows clearly that households with two and three people had the largest representation with a total of 75.1% respondents.
- Age category
This variable was measured using ordinal level of measurement as the respondents were supposed to choose the age category in which their age falls. The respondents were required to choose from a scale of 1-5 where “1” represents the ages of “18 to 24” years, “2” represents “25 to 34” years, “3” represents “35 to 49”, “4” represents “50 to 64” years and “5” represents those with 65 years and older. To analyze the age category, I used the below bar graph to present the percentages of respondents along with the age categories.
Chart 3: Age category
The above chart shows that a majority of the respondents (44%) were in the age category of between 35 years and 49 years. Those in the age category of 25 to 34 years were also represented by a significantly large percentage (32%). Respondents within the age category of 18 to 24 years had the least representation of 2%. The old people were only 7.5%.
- Education category
This variable was categorical in nature since the respondents were supposed to choose a category under which their levels of education fall. The variable was then coded in a scale of 1-5 with “1” representing the respondents with the level of education that was “less than high school” and “5” representing the respondents with postgraduate degrees. I used a pie chart below to show the percentages of respondents per education category.
Chart 4: Level of education
From the above pie chart, the college degree holders were the majority respondents with 54.8% representation. Those with some college level of education had a relatively big percentage (27.5%). Respondents with post graduate degrees and those with high school diplomas were 8.50% and 7.40% respectively. The least number of respondents contained the ones with less than high school qualifications (1.8%).
- Income category
This variable was also categorical. It was coded in such a way that the value “1” represented the respondents with income of less than $25,000. Value “2” was for respondents earning between $25,000 and $49,000, “3” was for respondents earning from $50,000 to $74,000, “4” was for the respondents earning from $75,000 to $125,000 and “5” was for those with income levels that were greater than $125,000.
Chart 5: Income category
The above chart shows that a majority of the respondents (39.30%) were earning $50,000 to $74,000. Those with income levels between $75,000 and $125,000 were also well represented in the sample (33.20%). The respondents with income levels of lower than $25,000 were only 2.10%.
- Dwelling type
The variable dwelling type was also categorical, and I used pie charts to show the percentage of respondents per dwelling type. There were four categories of dwelling types namely single family, multiple families, condominium/townhouse and mobile home. They were coded on a scale of 1-4 respectively.
Chart 6: Dwelling type
From the above chart majority of the respondents came from multiple family dwelling types (37.70%) followed by those who came from single family (31.90%). Only 8.50% of the respondents came from mobile homes.
How respondents feel about global warming and gasoline emissions
The respondents were asked about how they feel about global warming and gasoline emissions.
- Global warming
For global warming, a 7 point Likert-scale was used in data collection. The Likert-Scale applies for questions regarding opinions of people (Doole & Lowe, 2008). The chart below presents the analysis of the variable “I am worried about global warming”.
Chart 7: I am worried about global warming
As depicted by the chart above, majority of the respondents (43.5%) agreed that they are worried about global warming. Those who strongly agreed that they are worried were 25%. Only 12.8 percent of the respondents were neutral about global warming. The cumulative percentage of those who were not worried about global warming was 12.6% while that one for the respondents who were worried about global warming was more than 74%. Therefore, the respondents were worried about global warming.
- Gasoline emissions
The respondents were also asked on their views to whether gasoline emissions contribute to global warming. The responses were on a 7 point Likert-scale with “1” representing “very strongly disagree” response and “7” was for “very strongly agree” response. The scale was applicable for the ordinal level of measurement applied (Zikmund & Babin, 2007).
Chart 8: Gasoline emissions contribute to global warming
The above chart shows that 33.9% of the respondents agreed that the gasoline emissions contribute to global warming. 25% and 9.2% of the respondents strongly agreed and very strongly agreed that the gasoline emissions contribute to global warming. Only 6% were undecided about the phenomenon. Cumulatively, more than 68% were for the opinion that gasoline emissions contributed to global warming while 26% were not for the opinion. Therefore, gasoline emissions contribute to global warming according to the sample.
Types of automobile models; the most and the least desirable
- The most desirable automobile model
According to the data collected, there is no model that is most desirable. The only model that had a high cumulative score on being desirable was the 4 seat gasoline hybrid model with 39% respondents. However, its cumulative score on undesirability was 43.1%. The table below shows the 4 seat gasoline hybrid model frequencies.
Table 2 (a): Desirability: 4 Seat Gasoline Hybrid
Desirability: 4 Seat Gasoline Hybrid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Very undesirable 117 11.7 11.7 11.7
Undesirable 152 15.2 15.2 26.9
Somewhat undesirable 162 16.2 16.2 43.1
Neutral 179 17.9 17.9 61.0
Somewhat desirable 129 12.9 12.9 73.9
Desirable 130 13.0 13.0 86.9
Very desirable 131 13.1 13.1 100.0
Total 1000 100.0 100.0
- The least desirable automobile model
The least desirable automobile model is the 1 seat-all-electric model. More than 70% admitted that the model is very undesirable, undesirable and somewhat undesirable cumulatively. A cumulative 2% said that it was very desirable, desirable and somewhat desirable. The second least desirable model is a standard size gasoline model with a cumulative percentage of 64% of the respondents saying that it is very undesirable, undesirable and somewhat undesirable. The third least desirable model is the 5 seat diesel with a cumulative percentage of 52.9% of the respondents saying that it is very undesirable, undesirable and somewhat undesirable.
Table 2 (b): Desirability: 1 Seat All Electric
Desirability: 1 Seat All Electric
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Very undesirable 233 23.3 23.3 23.3
Undesirable 232 23.2 23.2 46.5
Somewhat undesirable 236 23.6 23.6 70.1
Neutral 279 27.9 27.9 98.0
Somewhat desirable 6 .6 .6 98.6
Desirable 7 .7 .7 99.3
Very desirable 7 .7 .7 100.0
Total 1000 100.0 100.0
Table 2 (c): Desirability: Standard Size Gasoline
Desirability: Standard Size Gasoline
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Very undesirable 104 10.4 10.4 10.4
Undesirable 248 24.8 24.8 35.2
Somewhat undesirable 288 28.8 28.8 64.0
Neutral 141 14.1 14.1 78.1
Somewhat desirable 150 15.0 15.0 93.1
Desirable 51 5.1 5.1 98.2
Very desirable 18 1.8 1.8 100.0
Total 1000 100.0 100.0
Table 2 (d): Desirability: 5 Seat Diesel Hybrid
Desirability: 5 Seat Diesel Hybrid
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Very undesirable 149 14.9 14.9 14.9
Undesirable 190 19.0 19.0 33.9
Somewhat undesirable 190 19.0 19.0 52.9
Neutral 231 23.1 23.1 76.0
Somewhat desirable 80 8.0 8.0 84.0
Desirable 80 8.0 8.0 92.0
Very desirable 80 8.0 8.0 100.0
Total 1000 100.0 100.0
The “traditional” media usage of the respondents in the sample
The traditional media usage of the respondents in the sample is described in terms of favorite television show type, favorite radio genre, favorite magazine type and the favorite local newspaper section.
The respondents’ favorite television show type is “documentary” with 25.4% of the respondents. Movies/miniseries are the second favorite television shows with 19.5% of the respondents. Comedy, reality and science fiction shows are not favorite television shows since only 7%, 7.6% and 7.1% of the respondents had rated them as their favorite respectively.
Chart 9: Favorite television show type
The favorite radio genre is pop and chart according to the respondents in the sample with 40% of the respondents followed by jazz and blues (15.9%). The least favorite is an easy listening radio genre with 8.2% of the respondents.
Chart 10: Favorite Radio Genre
Majority of the respondents (25.4%) rated family and parenting magazines as their favorite magazine types. News, politics and current events magazines were also favorite magazine types (25.3% of respondents). The least magazine types were the trucks, cars and motorcycles magazines (4.1% of respondents).
Chart 11: Favorite Magazine type
The favorite local newspaper section is the local news section (31.7%). Sports and business sections are also favorite with 23.6% and 20.4% of the respondents. The least favourite local newspapers sections are the national news sections (4.1%). 4.9% of the respondents do not read the newspapers. International business requires people to be well informed on global issues rather than the local ones (Cavisgil, 2009).
Chart 12: Favorite local newspaper section
The social media usage of the respondent in the sample
Table 3(a): Use of online blogs
Use of online blogs
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Never 580 58.0 58.0 58.0
2 264 26.4 26.4 84.4
3 144 14.4 14.4 98.8
Four+ times a day 12 1.2 1.2 100.0
Total 1000 100.0 100.0
Table 3(b): Use of content communities
Use of content communities
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Never 339 33.9 33.9 33.9
2 334 33.4 33.4 67.3
3 258 25.8 25.8 93.1
Four+ times a day 69 6.9 6.9 100.0
Total 1000 100.0 100.0
Table 3(c): Use of social network sites
Use of social network sites
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Never 345 34.5 34.5 34.5
2 257 25.7 25.7 60.2
3 302 30.2 30.2 90.4
Four+ times a day 96 9.6 9.6 100.0
Total 1000 100.0 100.0
Table 3(d): Use of online games
Use of online games
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Never 320 32.0 32.0 32.0
2 325 32.5 32.5 64.5
3 311 31.1 31.1 95.6
Four+ times a day 44 4.4 4.4 100.0
Total 1000 100.0 100.0
Table 3(e): Use of virtual worlds
Use of virtual worlds
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Never 465 46.5 46.5 46.5
2 326 32.6 32.6 79.1
3 190 19.0 19.0 98.1
Four+ times a day 19 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 1000 100.0 100.0
The above tables present the analysis results on the usage of social media by the respondents in the sample. Majority of the respondents do not use the social media. 58% of the respondents said that they never use online blogs and another 33.9% do not use content communities. Majority of the respondents (34.5%) do not use social network sites. Also, majority of the respondents (46.5%) do not use virtual worlds. Less than 10% admitted to using the social media more than four times a day in each category.
Hypothesis tests
The beliefs of the Global Motors principals on the desirability of automobile models.
- 1-seat-all-electric
Table 4 (a): One-Sample Statistics
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Desirability: 1 Seat All Electric 1000 2.64 1.231 .039
Table 4 (b): One-Sample Test
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Desirability: 1 Seat All Electric -9.197 999 .000 -.358 -.43 -.28
Table 4(a) shows that the average score for desirability of the 1-seat-all-electric is 2.64. The mean difference between this mean and the test value, 3, is -0.358 and is significant (p-value=0.000) as shown in table 4(b). Therefore, I reject the null hypothesis of no difference between the mean value and the test value and conclude that the desirability of the 1-seat-all-electric is not 3 (somewhat undesirable) but less than 3 (undesirable). This decision is in contrast with the Global Motors principals. Lambs & Hair (2009), strong customer acquisition starts with the strongest desire for a product by customers.
- 4-seat-all-electric
Table 5(a): One-Sample Statistics
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Desirability: 4 Seat All Electric 1000 3.92 1.537 .049
Table 5(b): One-Sample Test
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 4
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Desirability: 4 Seat All Electric -1.626 999 .104 -.079 -.17 .02
The principals had further believed that the American public is neutral (desirability = 4) in their desirability of a 4-seat-all-electric automobile model. A one-sample t-test reveals that this belief is true (Pitts, 1998). Table 5(b) above shows a p-value of 0.104 that is greater than 0.05 to mean that there is no significant difference between the test value, 4, and the computed mean (3.92).
iii. 4-seat-gasoline-hybrid
Table 6(a): One-Sample Statistics
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Desirability: 4 Seat Gasoline Hybrid 1000 3.97 1.911 .060
Table 6(b): One-Sample Test
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 4
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Desirability: 4 Seat Gasoline Hybrid -.579 999 .563 -.035 -.15 .08
Table 6(a) shows that the mean desirability for 4-seat-gasoline-hybrid is 3.97. Table 6(b) shows that there is no significant difference between the mean desirability and the test value. Therefore, the Global Motors principal’s belief that the American public is neutral in desirability of the 4-seat-gasoline-hybrid is true with this sample. The proposed desirability must not always be true (Buns & Bush, 2014).
- 5-seat-diesel-hybrid
Table 7(a): One-Sample Statistics
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Desirability: 5 Seat Diesel Hybrid 1000 3.46 1.768 .056
Table 7(b): One-Sample Test
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Desirability: 5 Seat Diesel Hybrid 8.281 999 .000 .463 .35 .57
The above one-sample t-test reveals that there is a significant difference between the test value and the computed mean desirability. The p-value is less than 0.05 (p-value = 0.000) and, therefore, the desirability is greater than 3 (somewhat undesirable). This indicates that the principals’ belief that the desirability of American public on the 5-seat-diesel-hybrid is wrong according to the sample. Canis & Yacobucci (2010) argues that people have not got used to these new models in order for them to make well informed decisions.
- Standard Size Gasoline
Table 8(a): One-Sample Statistics
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Desirability: Standard Size Gasoline 1000 3.21 1.453 .046
Table 8(b): One-Sample Test
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 2
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Desirability: Standard Size Gasoline 26.342 999 .000 1.210 1.12 1.30
The above one-sample t-test shows that the test value, 2 (undesirable) is significantly lower that the computed mean of 3.21 (Table 8(b)). This is because the p-value is less than 0.05 (p-value = 0.000). This result means that the principals’ belief that the American public would rate the 5-seat-diesel-hybrid automobile model as undesirable is wrong.
