Ranking of Factors Enhancing Consumer Purchase Decision of Pocket-Friendly Sized Beverages Packaging: An AHP Approach

The study investigates how consumers rank the factors that enhance the purchase decision of pocket-friendly sized beverages packaging using Analytic Hierarchy Process. The study adopted a descriptive survey design. Of the total population of 314,797, the selected University students in Southwest, Nigeria, 384 respondents were sampled using Multistage sampling technique using the Krejcie and Morgan, (1970) formula as a guide. Structured questionnaire was administered to the respondents, with a success response rate of 381 (99.22%). Data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Based on the AHP, the result of the data analysis stipulates that size is the highest ranked purchase decision when selecting a beverage in this study, followed by dispensing mode and price. In size sub-criterion, single-serve size was the most preferred pocket-friendly package among the students. In terms of mode of dispensing, it was discovered that students mostly preferred cutting the edge of sachet of the package. Also, price fairness was the most important price criterion. Reliability and family income were the most ranked factors driving the perceived quality and students ’ disposable income of the students respectively. The study concluded that single-serve size was the most preferred pocket-friendly package among the students. In terms of mode of dispensing, it was discovered that students mostly preferred cutting the edge of sachet of the package. Also, in price criterion, price fairness was the most important price criterion, that affects students ’ purchase decisions. Reliability and family income were the main factors driving the perceived quality and disposable income of the students respectively. It is then recommended that it is believed that pocket-friendly sized packaging will enable manufacturers to grow their market share and meet fast changing market demands.


INTRODUCTION:
Consumer behaviour is the actions and decision making processes of individuals who purchase goods and services for own use; it refers to the manner in which choices are made on their personal or household products by using their available resources such as money, time and effort" (Schiffman & Kanuk, 1978;Qazzafi, 2019)."Consumers make decisions on what to buy almost every day and many do not know what drive them to take that decision to buy what they buy".Purchase decision is a conscious and stepwise procedure that all rational customers must pass through before purchases are made.Stankevich, (2017) agrees with Solomon et al. when he described the process of taking decision as "the amount of effort that goes into the conclusion each time it must be made".Kotler and Armstrong, (2014) described purchase decision as "a buyer's decision making phase in which an individual decides to in reality buy the product being thought about".(Similarly et al., 2015) opined that, "the purchase decision making process is the stage where consumers actually buy the product"."The process starts when a buyer has a desire for a specific products or services in order to fulfill his need".Need in the sense that a consumer wants to follow his or her inner passion, to meet expectations, or live up to a standard.Beverage companies regularly, to a large extent influence consumers to buy their brand instead of their competitors' products.In order to carry this out, they need to distinguish themselves and their brand.They should be able to convince the consumers that their product offers a superior worth.A brand refers to an identifiable product improved in such a way that the buyer identifies unique added values which matches their desires strongly; this results in a great achievement of being able to keep up these additional values against competitors (McDonald et al., 2014).
Subsequently, for the beverage companies to attract more patronage of their products, pocket-friendly sized packaging must be considered as this may greatly influence consumers' decision on whether or not to patronise beverages.Therefore, weighing the criteria of pocket-friendly sized packaging such as sizes, dispensing mode, prices, perceived quality and students' disposable income through empirical research work will help in understanding the purchase decision of students, especially for beverages that have substitute and perform similar functions in the study area.In view of this, this study explores pocket-friendly sized packaging and purchase decision of beverages among students of selected universities in southwest, Nigeria.The procedure that will be used to explain this opinion is the Analytical Hierachical process.In using this procedure, five major features of size, dispensing mode, price, perceived quality and students' disposable income were looked at.For the realization of the goals of factors of pocket-friendly, it is done by engaging in a pair wise comparison of the factors and alternatives, as they impact on consumer's purchases, especially as it relates to the beverage industry.In addition, the five factors are based on how customers-based purchase decision works (Thu Ha & Ayda, 2014;Kotler, 2017)."The AHP has demonstrated to be a generally accepted multi-criteria decision method" (Hossain, 2020;Sardar et al., 2020;Adekoya & Oyatoye, 2011).
"It enables decision-makers to structure, analyse, evaluate and prioritises any compound problem, such as beverage products that are of different brands."It gives in a hierarchical structure, an idea about the relationships between goal, criteria and sub-criteria"."The position this study anticipates to ascertain conforms to this hierarchical structure"."The AHP is applied in this study to evaluate the criteria and the subcriteria in the hierarchical structure, in order to decide which of the pocket-friendly criteria are the most important to consumers' decision to purchase".

METHODOLOGY:
The study adopted descriptive survey design.From the total population of 314,797 from the selected University students in Southwest, Nigeria, 384 respondents were sampled using Multistage sampling technique using the Krejcie and Morgan, (1970) formula as a guide.Structured questionnaire was administered to the respondents, with a success response rate of 381 (99.22%).Data collected were analysed using descripttive statistics and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique

RESULTS:
Investigate how consumers rank the factors that enhance the purchase decision of pocket-friendly sized beverages packaging.The horizontal bar chart in Fig. 1 represent the pictorial diagram of decision criteria where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, size has the longest bar with priority 0.4382, followed by dispense mode with priority 0.2365, price with priority 0.1349, perceived quality with priority 0.1342, while the students' disposable income has the shortest bar with priority 0.0562.Table 2 reveals the consumers perception with regards to the decision criteria of size using the composite priorities.This criterion has only three sub-criteria in this study.
Undergraduate students who are consumers of pocketfriendly sized beverage packaging mostly ranked single serving size with priority 0.5771, next is large size with priority 0.2590, and the least importance is small size with priority of 0.1639.

Fig. 2:
Bar chart showing decision sub-criteria with their corresponding priority.
The horizontal bar chart in Fig. 2 represent the pictorial diagram of decision sub-criteria where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, single serving size has the longest bar with priority 0.5771, followed by large size with priority 0.2590, while the small size has the shortest bar with priority 0.1639.

Dispense Mode Criterion Weight
The horizontal bar chart in Fig. 3 represent the pictorial diagram of decision sub-criteria where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, cutting the edge has the longest bar with priority 0.5194, followed by press to open with priority 0.3206, while the remove cover has the shortest bar with priority 0.1600.The horizontal bar chart in Fig. 4 represent the pictorial diagram of decision sub-criteria where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, sperceived price has the longest bar with priority 0.5349, followed by price fairness with priority 0.3331, while the price comparison has the shortest bar with priority 0.1320.Table 5 reveals the consumers perception with regards to the decision criteria of perceived quality using the composite priorities.This criterion has only three subcriteria in this study.Undergraduate students who are consumers of pocket-friendly sized beverage packaging mostly ranked reality with priority 0.5409, next is safety with priority 0.3323, and the least importance is assurance with priority of 0.1268.The horizontal bar chart in Fig. 5 represent the pictorial diagram of decision sub-criteria where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, reliability has the longest bar with priority 0.5409, followed by safety with priority 0.3323, while the assurance has the shortest bar with priority 0.1268.

Price Criterion Weight
Table 6 reveals the consumers perception with regards to the decision criteria of students' disposable income using the composite priorities.This criterion has only three sub-criteria in this study.Undergraduate students who are consumers of pocket-friendly sized beverage packaging mostly ranked family income with priority 0.6333, next is income expectation with priority 0.2430 and the least importance is saving with priority of 0.1237.The horizontal bar chart in Fig. 6 represent the pictorial diagram of decision sub-criteria where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, family income has the longest bar with priority 0.6333, followed by income expectation with priority 0.2430, while the saving has the shortest bar with priority 0.1237.The horizontal bar chart in Fig. 7 represent the pictorial diagram of decision alternatives of single serving size where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, Nestle brand has the longest bar with priority 0.3251, followed by Wringing with priority 0.2570, Cadbury with priority 0.2258, Promasido with priority 0.1188, while the Friesland campina brand has the shortest bar with priority 0.0733.The horizontal bar chart in Fig. 9 represent the pictorial diagram of decision alternatives of small size where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, Wringing brand has the longest bar with priority 0.3190, followed by Promasido with priority 0.3014, Friesland campina with priority 0.2315, Nestle with priority 0.1026, while the Cadbury brand has the shortest bar with priority 0.0455.

Price Comparison Sub-criterion Weight
Table 15 reveals the consumers perception with regards to the decision alternatives of price comparison using the composite priorities.This criterion has only five alternatives in this study.Undergraduate students who are consumers of pocket-friendly sized beverage packaging mostly preferred the brand Promasido with priority 0.4651, next is Nestle with priority 0.2376, followed by Cadbury with priority 0.1434, Wringing with priority 0.0906, and the least importance is Fries-land campina brand with priority of 0.0633.The horizontal bar chart in Fig. 15 represent the pictorial diagram of decision alternatives of price fairness where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, Promasido brand has the longest bar with priority 0.4651, followed by Nestle with priority 0.2376, Cadbury with priority 0.1434, Wringing with priority 0.0906, while the Friesland campina brand has the shortest bar with priority 0.0633.Table 18 reveals the consumers perception with regards to the decision alternatives of assurance using the composite priorities.This criterion has only five alternatives in this study.Undergraduate students who are consumers of pocket-friendly sized beverage packaging mostly preferred the brand Cadbury with priority 0.5048, next is Wringing with priority 0.1848, followed by Nestle with priority 0.1754, Friesland campina with priority 0.0684, and the least importance is Pro-masido brand with priority of 0.0666.The hori-zontal bar chart in Fig. 18 represent the pictorial diagram of decision alternatives of saving where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, Cadbury brand has the longest bar with priority 0.5048, followed by Wringing with priority 0.1848, Nestle with priority 0.1754, Friesland campina with priority 0.0684, while the Promasido brand has the shortest bar with priority 0.0666.Table 19 reveals the consumers perception with regards to the decision alternatives of family income using the composite priorities.This criterion has only five alternatives in this study.Undergraduate students who are consumers of pocket-friendly sized beverage packaging mostly preferred the brand Cadbury with priority 0.4185, next is Nestle with priority 0.2675, followed by Wringing with priority 0.1720, Promasido with priority 0.0967, and the least importance is Friesland campina brand with priority of 0.0464.The horizontal bar chart in Fig. 19 represent the pictorial diagram of decision alternatives of family income where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, Cadbury brand has the longest bar with priority 0.4185, followed by Nestle with priority 0.2675, Wringing with priority 0.1720, Promasido with priority 0.0967, while the Friesland campina brand has the shortest bar with priority 0.0464.

DISCUSSION:
The objective investigates how consumers rank the factors that enhance the purchase decision of pocketfriendly sized beverages packaging.The consumers' perception with regards to the decision criteria of size using the composite priorities revealed that Undergraduate students who are consumers of pocket-friendly sized beverage packaging mostly ranked single serving size as the highest with priority 0.5771, next is large size with priority 0.2590, and the least importance is small size with priority of 0.1639.The students may have preferred the single-serve size (pocketfriendly) beverages because of their reluctances in carrying something heavy and also the size on their income.The lower price of single-serve size beverages can explain why it is most preferred.When products are considerably cheaper than full-size ones, they tend to make up a significant proportion of demand.This is corroborated by Ford, Moodie and Hastings cited in Khuong and Tan, (2018) that found out that a product being of various sizes influences consumer purchase decision more significantly than an item which is of only one size.Another angle to the respondent's preference is the fact that storing an opened sachet of beverages is challenging because of ants and other insects invasion, therefore, they will prefer to go for some-thing that can be used at once and discard the empty package in the dustbin (Herrnddorf, 2020).This result explained and affirmed the fact that students preferred the small size packaged more than the big size package.In the sub-criteria for dispensing mode, the study revealed that the respondents mostly ranked cutting the edge with priority 0.5194, next is press to open with priority 0.3206, and the least importance is remove cover with priority of 0.1600.Respondents' perception with regards to the decision criteria of price using the composite priorities revealed that perceived price is the most ranked with priority 0.5349, next is price fairness with priority 0.3331, and the least important is price comparison with priority of 0.1320.Cutting the edge of sachet allow the students to cover the left over in the package of the product.This often gives them the opportunity of later usage and also reduces the incidence of insect invasion.More so, cutting the edge of sachet is the most common mode of dispensing in the country.Expectedly, remove the cover is not common among the students.In addition, the result of the sub-criteria of price showed that perceived price has the highest weight in influencing the price purchase decision of the students.Phan and Nguyen, (2016) citing Khan found out that consumers will estimate the product or service value as well as make decision for any of their purchase through price.This will determine whether or not to buy the product.Consumers' perception of price is seen as consumers overall assessment of whe-ther the offered price of a product or service of a seller is really reasonable, acceptable and justified.One key reason why pocketfriendly sizes could work is that they are both more affordable (per package) and chea-per (per unit).This is affirmed by Ogundana, (2012) when it was stated that growing demand for quality products, aided by decreasing disposable income, is influencing the demand for pocket-friendly beverage consumption in the society.Price comparison was the least price criteria that the student takes into consider-ation when taking purchase decision.Consumers per-ception with regards to the decision criteria of percei-ved quality using the composite priorities revealed that reliability is the mostly ranked with priority 0.5409, next is safety with priority 0.3323, and the least importance is assurance with priority of 0.1268.Finally, the study revealed that the respondents mostly ranked family income with priority 0.6333, next is income expectation with priority 0.2430 and the least importance is saving with priority of 0.1237.The result of the sub-criteria revealed that reliability reports an influence proportion of 0.5409 on the sub-criterion of perceived quality on purchase decision of the respondents.According to (Halim et al., 2014), a product that is inconsistent in quality was inevitably bound to lose its customers to its competitor.This shows that the students are more after purchasing a reliable product than the unreliable one.Safety is another important factor considered to be a major criterion that often affects the purchase decision of the students.No one wants to consume goods that pose danger to good health.It is necessary to be careful of what to eat.
Assurance is the least factor to the students in determining their purchase decision with respect to the perceived quality.Safety of a beverage is very important, because it is a consumable that marred the healthy lifestyle of human; therefore quality is very paramount to the purchase decision of the students.More so, no matter the condition of the individual, reliable product will be his priority, because it conveys the concept of dependability and satisfaction.The study contradict the earlier submission of Setiowati and Liem, (2018) who opined that perceived quality insignificantly influence purchase intention of consumers.Finally, the subcriteria of students' disposable income revealed that family income is the major source of students' disposable income of the respondents, which arguably affect their purchase decision.This is in line with Ajide, (2015) who found out that the major source of income for students (male and female youths) was pocket money got from relatives and family.Also, income expectation is next in rank while the least is savings.The result revealed that the respondents hardly save as a result of the 46eager stipend they are getting or receiving from their parents which cannot even take care of their basic needs.This was confirmed by (Abolanle et al., 2018) who found that there was a significant relationship between indicators of economic recession and effect of economic recession on lifestyles of undergraduates.Similarly, (Muniady et al., 2014) study noted that the economic situation had a negative relationship with consumer behavior of Malaysian University Students.This is contrary to Sinclair cited in (Ahmad et al., 2012) that believed that the consumer's decision making processes is not rational in the sense that it is objective and consistent; neither does it follow any pre-determined rational, statistical economic patterns.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
From the findings of this study, it was concluded that single-serve size was the most preferred pocketfriendly package among the students.In term of mode of dispensing, it was discovered that students mostly preferred cutting the edge of sachet of the package.Also, in price criterion, price fairness was the most important price criteria, that affect students' purchase decision.Reliability and family income were the main factors driving the perceived quality and disposable income of the students respectively.It is then recommended that it is believed that pocket-friendly sized packaging will enables manufacturers to grow their market share and meet fast changing market demands.
The manufacturer of beverage products should continue to adopt the method of cutting the edge mode of dispensing their product because these unique styles will offer convenience in forms of usageespecially for those students with reasonable disposable income.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I acknowledged the assistance given by my colleagues who help in reviewing this work and giving constructive criticisms to make this research work a success.I also declare that there is no any conflict of interest in the course of this research and also on the final output of the research.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:
The author has no conflict of interest.

Fig. 1 :
Fig. 1: Bar chart showing decision criteria with their corresponding priority.

Fig. 4 :
Fig. 4: Bar chart showing decision sub-criteria with their corresponding priority.

Fig. 5 :
Fig. 5: Bar chart showing decision sub-criteria with their corresponding priority.

Fig. 6 :
Fig. 6: Bar chart showing decision sub-criteria with their corresponding priority.

Fig. 7 :
Fig. 7: Bar chart showing decision alternatives of single serving size.

Fig. 9 :
Fig. 9: Bar chart showing decision alternatives of small size.

Fig. 11 :
Fig. 11: Bar chart showing decision alternatives of press to open.

Fig. 16 :
Fig. 16: Bar chart showing decision alternatives of reliability.Table16reveals the consumers perception with regards to the decision alternatives of reality using the composite priorities.This criterion has only five alternatives in this study.Undergraduate students who are consumers of pocket-friendly sized beverage packaging mostly preferred the brand Nestle with priority 0.4681, next is Cadbury with priority 0.2820, followed by Wringing with priority 0.1234, Promasido with priority 0.0822, and the least importance is Friesland campina brand with priority of 0.0443.The horizontal bar chart in Fig.16represent the pictorial diagram of decision alternatives of reality where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, Nestle brand has the longest bar with priority 0.4681,

Fig. 19 :
Fig. 19: Bar chart showing decision alternatives of family income.

Table 1 :
Composite priorities of the criteria about Goal (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 1
show the priorities of the criteria with respect to the main goal which is to understand factors that enhances purchase decision of pocket-friendly sized beverages packaging of consumers.Based on the per-ception of the undergraduate students who are consumers of pocket-friendly sized beverage pack-aging, size of the product is ranked highest with priority 0.4382, next is dispense mode with priority 0.2365

Table 2 :
Composite priorities of the sub-criteria about criteria (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 3 :
Composite priorities of the sub-criteria about criteria (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 4 :
Composite priorities of the sub-criteria about criteria (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 5 :
Composite priorities of the sub-criteria about criteria (Source: Field Survey, 2021)

Table 6 :
Composite priorities of the sub-criteria about criteria (Source: Field Survey, 2021)

Table 7
reveals the consumers perception with regards to the decision alternatives of single serving size using the composite priorities.This criterion has only five alternatives in this study.Undergraduate students who are consumers of pocketfriendly sized beverage pack-aging mostly preferred the brand Nestle with priority 0.3251, next is Wringing with priority 0.2570, follo-wed by Cadbury with priority 0.2258, Promasido with priority 0.1188, and the least importance is Friesland camping brand with priority of 0.0733.

Table 7 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about single serving size (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 8 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about large size (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 8
reveals the consumers perception with regards to the decision alternatives of large size using the composite priorities.This criterion has only five alter-natives in this study.Undergraduate students who are consumers of pocket-friendly sized beverage packaging mostly preferred the brand Cadbury with priority Fig. 8: Bar chart showing decision alternatives of large size.The horizontal bar chart in Fig.8represent the pictorial diagram of decision alternatives of large size where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, Cadbury brand has the

Table 9 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about small size (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 10 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about cutting the edge (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 10
reveals the consumers perception with regards to the decision alternatives of cutting the edge using the composite priorities.This criterion has only five alternatives in this study.Undergraduate students who are consumers of pocket-friendly sized beverage packaging mostly preferred the brand Wringing with priority 0.4907, next is Nestle with priority 0.2280, followed by Friesland campina with priority 0.1071, Promasido with priority 0.1031, and the least importance is Wringing brand with priority of 0.0711.

Table 11
reveals the consumers perception with regards to the decision alternatives of press to open using the composite priorities.This criterion has only five alternatives in this study.Undergraduate students who are consumers of pocket-friendly sized beverage packaging mostly preferred the brand Wringing with priority 0.4029, next is Nestle with priority 0.2942, followed by Cadbury with priority 0.1823, Promasido with priority 0.0631, and the least importance is Friesland campina brand with priority of 0.0575.The horizontal bar chart in Fig.11represent the pictorial diagram of decision alternatives of press to open where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, Wringing brand has the long-est bar with priority 0.4029, followed by Nestle with priority 0.2942, Cadbury with priority 0.1823, Proma-sido with priority 0.0631, while the Friesland campina brand has the shortest bar with priority 0.0575.

Table 11 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about press to open (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 12 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about remove cover (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 12
reveals the consumers perception with regards to the decision alternatives of remove cover using the composite priorities.This criterion has only five alternatives in this study.Undergraduate students who are consumers of pocket-friendly sized beverage packaging mostly preferred the brand Friesland camp-

Press to open Sub-criterion Weight ina
with priority 0.4062, next is Cadbury with priority 0.2290, followed by Wringing with priority 0.1830, Promasido with priority 0.1321, and the least importance is Nestle brand with priority of 0.0497.Bar chart showing decision alternatives of remove cover.The horizontal bar chart in Fig.12represent the pictorial diagram of decision alternatives of remove cover where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, Friesland campina brand has the longest bar with priority 0.4062, followed by Cadbury with priority 0.2290, Wringing with priority 0.1830, Promasido with priority 0.1321, while the Nestle brand has the shortest bar with priority 0.0497.

Table 13 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about perceived price (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 13
land campina brand with priority of 0.0453.The horizontal bar chart in Fig.13represent the pictorial diagram of decision alternatives of perceived price where the horizontal bar length is the priority of each criterion.From the chart, Cadbury brand has the lon-

Table 14 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about price fairness (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 15 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about price comparison (Source: Field Survey, 2021).
th Fig. 15: Bar chart showing decision alternatives of price comparison.

Table 16 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about reliability (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 17 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about safety (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 18 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about assurance (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 19 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about family income (Source: Field Survey, 2021).

Table 20 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about income expectation (Source: Field Survey, 2021). .

Table 21 :
Composite priorities of the decision alternative about saving (Source: Field Survey, 2021).