1. Motivational Factors of Gender, Age, Income, Education, and Family Size on Preference of Milk Packaging Designs in Kenya Dr. Raymond Musyoka Dr. Hannah Wanjiku Wambugu

2.  Consumer Preference= It is an outcome of consumer behavior, which is concerned with an individual’s attitude towards a set of objects as reflected in a decision making process (Lichtenstein & Slovic, 2006).  Other psychologists have interpreted the term to mean evaluative judgments in the sense of liking or disliking an object (Scherer, 2005).  It permits the consumer to rank these bundles of goods according to the levels of utility they give to the consumer. 

3.  Packaging design relates to both technical and visual features of the package (Odoch, 1984). Technical features of the package include materials, dimensions, measurements and construction while visual design refers to the promotional features of the package, such as printing and decorations, layout, shape and illustrations.  According to Lynsey et al, (2013), the aspects of packaging design include: form, function and appearance.

4.  Consumer buying process has inputs which are internal and others external to the consumer. Both work together on the psyche of the consumer to result in purchase decision outcomes, including what products/brands are selected, dealer choice, package choice, frequent of use and in what amount, (Paul & James, 2007).

5.  External influences- Kibera & Waruingi, (2007) role influences, cultural influences, role influences, reference groups. (Paul & James 2007) included situational influences and marketing influences as external influences.  Internal influences- personality, needs and motives, perception and learning= (Kibera and Waruingi), other researchers Kotler et al (2009) have included customers individual characteristic-income, education, family size, gender and age as part of internal factors influencing consumer behaviour.

6. Several studies on the influence of shoppers’ individual characteristics on outcome of behavior for milk consumers has been limited to perceived importance of milk packaging. (Agnieska & Miroslaw, 2008; Rita et al, 2009). Knowledge on whether there is any difference in frequency of choice of milk packaging design among consumers with different individual characteristics is still lacking. *Knowledge on preference of milk packaging designs could assists marketers to predict how consumers will respond.

8.  The purpose of this study is to establish whether there is any significance difference in consumers’ frequency of shoppers’ choice for milk packaging design given their different individual characteristics in terms of gender, age income, education, and family size.

9.  1.That there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different gender  2. That there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different age  3. That there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers with different income levels  4. That there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers with different levels of education  5. That there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among families of different sizes

10.  Based on Chi-square tests, the study employed a survey design and primary data set of 1000 consumers of fresh processed milk. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with shoppers in seven supermarkets in Kiambu, Ruiru and Ongata Rongai.

11. N =1000 genderFrequencyPercent (%) Male35035 Female65065 Age Over 50 years24024 41-50 years26026 32-40 years29029 21-30 years16016 Below 21 years505 Income Ksh 40,000 & above19019 Ksh 30,000-39,00037037 Ksh 20,000-29,00021021 Ksh 10-19,00015015 Below 10,000808 Family size 1-3 members23023 4-6 members43043 Above 6 members34034 education Above secondary49049 Secondary level38038 Primary level606 Below primary707

12. Type of packagingFrequencyPercent Tetra pak classic20520.5% Plastic Bottle design14014% Foil paper pak (fino)757.5% Aseptic tetra pak20020% Nylon pouch380 38%

13. Hypothesis 1: (Chi2 (4) = 20.283, Pr = 0.00) Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different gender is rejected. Alternative hypothesis that there is a difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different gender is accepted.

14. Age Tetra pak Classic Tetra pak AsepticNylon PouchPlastic Bottle Foil Pouch (Fino) Total Below 21 years210305350 4%20%60%10%6%100% 21-30 years3035602015160 18.8%21.8%37.5%12.5%9.4%100% 31-40 years26501504024290 9%17.2%51.7%13.8%8.3%100% 41-50 years10055652515260 38.5%21.1%25%9.6%5.8%100% Over 50 years4750755018240 19.6%20.8%31.3%20.8%7.5%100% Total205200380140751,000 20.5%20%38%14%7.5%100% Pearsonchi2(16)=117.923Pr=0.000

15.  (Chi2 (16) = 117.923, Pr = 0.000), Thus, null hypothesis that there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different levels of income is rejected. Alternative hypothesis that there is a difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among shoppers of different levels of income is accepted

16. Shoppers’ incomeTetra pak ClassicTetra pak AsepticNylon PouchPlastic BottleFoil Pouch (Fino) Total Ksh 40,000 & above1532507023190 7.9%16.84%26.31%36.84%12.11%100% Ksh 30,000- 39000105751503010370 28.4%20.340.5%8.1%2.7%100% Ksh 20,000-290004535803020210 21.5%16.7%38.1%14.3%9.5%100% Ksh 10,000-1900030396993150 20%26%46%6%2%100% Ksh Below 10,00010193111980 12.5%23.8%38.7%1.2%23.8%100% Total205200380140751,000 20.5%20%38%14%7.5%100% Pearsonchi2(16)=245.6909Pr=0.000

17.  (Chi2 (16) = 245.6909, Pr = 0.000). As result, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different levels of income is rejected. Alternative hypothesis that there is a difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among shoppers of different levels of income is accepted.

18. Gender Tetra pak Classic Tetra pak AsepticNylon PouchPlastic Bottle Foil Pouch (Fino)Total Male70501506020350 20%14.3%42.9%17.1%5.7100% Female1351502308055650 20.8%23%35.4%12.3%8.5%100% Total205200380140751,000 20.5%20%38%14%7.5%100% Pearsonchi2(4)=20.283Pr=0.000

19. Shoppers’ Education Level Tetra pak Classic Tetra pak AsepticNylon PouchPlastic Bottle Foil Pouch (Fino) Total Above Secondary Level130751806837490 26.5%15.3%36.7%13.9%7.6%100% Secondary Level501001307030380 13.2%26.3%34.2%18.4%7.9%100% Primary Level2010251460 33.3%16.6%41.7%1.7%6.7%100% Below Primary Level515451470 7.142% 21.42%64.3%1.428%5.71%100% Total205200380140751,000 20.5%20%38%14%7.5%100% Pearsonchi2(12)=108.323Pr=0.000

20.  (Chi2 (12) = 108.323, Pr = 0.000), the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among consumers of different levels of education is rejected. Alternative hypothesis that there is a difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among shoppers of different levels of education is accepted.

21. Shoppers’ Family Size Tetra pak Classic Tetra pak AsepticNylon PouchPlastic Bottle Foil Pouch (Fino)Total 1-3 members6446703614230 27.8%20%30.4%15.7%6.1%100% 4-6 members90961802440430 20.9%22.3%41.9%5.6%9.3%100% Above 7 members51581308021340 15%17.1%38.2%23.5%6.2%100% Total205200380140751,000 20.5%20%38%14%7.5%100% Pearsonchi2(8)=66.405Pr=0.000

22.  (Chi2 (8) = 66.405, Pr = 0.000), As result, the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among shoppers with families of different sizes is rejected. Alternative hypothesis that there is a difference in the frequency of choice of type of milk packaging design among shoppers with families of different sizes is accepted.

23.  significant difference in frequency of choice of milk packaging designs do exist among shoppers of processed milk of different age, gender, income, education and family size.  Implication: milk processors must focus on the five individual characteristics when designing milk packaging. This is the only way they can ensure that all designs desired by milk consumers are available in the market.  However, nylon pouch milk package design has a higher frequency of choice among all other milk packaging designs available in Kenya. Therefore, milk processors should pack larger amount of their milk in this type of package. This should be marched with education on re-use of this packages since research done has shown that this type of package does not decompose easily.

24. Ways in which the study contributes to the body of knowledge:  i) Theory of influence of socio-economic variables on consumer behavior has been tested in a developing market. This knowledge is important to the researchers who would want to extent the theory of socio-economic variables on consumer behavior.  iii)Despite the concerns of processors on how to increase the sales of fresh processed milk, the author did not find any published study that had investigated the motivational factors of gender, age, income, education, and family size on preference of milk packaging designs in Kenya.  ii)The study addresses methodological short-coming of the previous studies. Previous studies have not investigated whether there any differences in frequency of choice of milk packaging designs among consumers with different socio-economic back ground.

25. THANK YOU