The pack got smaller, the MRP didn't. Do Lucknow shoppers notice, read the per-kg price, and switch brands? 400 shoppers, six scales, five tests.
Mapped to your syllabusIGNOU MBA (MMPP-001 project) · MMPP-001 Project Course · Final semesterOver the last few years many everyday packs in Indian kirana stores and supermarkets have quietly become lighter: a ₹10 biscuit pack holds fewer grams, a soap bar is a little thinner, a detergent pouch weighs less, and the printed MRP has not moved. Economists call this shrinkflation. Since the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 were amended to require a unit sale price (price per kg, litre or unit) on most packages, a careful shopper can in principle catch it. Whether ordinary shoppers actually do is an open question, and that is the question this project asks.
This IGNOU MBA project (MMPP-001, marketing specialisation) surveys 400 household grocery shoppers in Lucknow, intercepted outside kirana stores and supermarkets in four parts of the city: Gomti Nagar, Aliganj, Chowk–Aminabad and Alambagh. It measures six constructs on 5-point Likert scales (price consciousness, shrinkflation awareness, unit-price use, perceived deception, brand trust and switching intention), adds a one-line unit-price arithmetic task, and records whether the shopper has actually switched brand. Brands are masked; only product categories are recorded.
Analysis runs in MS Excel and Jamovi: Cronbach's alpha, descriptives, chi-square, Welch's t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation and a multiple regression of switching intention on the other five constructs. The report closes with practical recommendations for FMCG brand managers and retailers on pack-size communication and shelf labelling.
Syllabus alignment
Shoppers in Lucknow, as in most Indian cities, buy a large share of packaged groceries at fixed price points. When a manufacturer trims the net quantity of a pack and keeps the MRP unchanged, the effective price per gram rises, yet the shopper sees the same number on the pack and at the counter. The unit sale price printed on the pack is meant to make such changes visible, but there is little evidence on whether shoppers read it, whether kirana shoppers (who often ask for a product by name and price) behave differently from supermarket shoppers (who can compare packs on the shelf), or whether discovering a smaller pack damages brand trust enough to trigger switching.
Brand managers therefore cannot tell whether a quiet pack reduction is a low-risk pricing move or a slow leak of loyal customers, and retailers cannot tell whether clearer shelf labels would help them win trust.
The problem for this study is: to measure shrinkflation awareness and unit-price use among household grocery shoppers in Lucknow, compare them across outlet types and spending groups, and identify how price consciousness, awareness, unit-price use, perceived deception and brand trust explain shoppers' intention to switch brands.
This study examines whether household grocery shoppers in Lucknow notice pack-size reductions in packaged FMCG products, whether they use the printed unit sale price to compare packs, and how awareness, perceived deception and brand trust shape their intention to switch brands. A structured questionnaire is administered to 400 shoppers through a quota-based store-exit intercept across four areas and two outlet types. Reliability analysis, chi-square, t-test, ANOVA, correlation and multiple regression are run in Excel and Jamovi.
When input costs rise, an FMCG company has three choices: raise the price, cut the margin, or reduce the quantity at the same price. The third option is attractive in India because so much volume is sold at fixed price points (₹5, ₹10, ₹20) that shoppers and shopkeepers remember. A ₹10 pack is still ₹10, so the change is easy to miss. Pricing research has long shown that buyers judge fairness against a reference price, and that a cut they discover later can feel worse than an open increase. The unit sale price declaration on packs gives shoppers a tool for spotting the change, but only if they read it.
Shrinkflation is widely discussed in business newspapers, but most Indian evidence is anecdotal or based on company disclosures. Published consumer studies on Indian grocery buying focus on store choice, private labels or price promotions, and rarely link awareness of quantity cuts to unit-price reading and switching intention in one model. Very few compare kirana and supermarket shoppers, even though shelf labels and the chance to compare packs differ sharply between the two formats. A tier-1 city with both formats, such as Lucknow, is a sensible place to test these links.
Geographical scope: four areas of Lucknow chosen to cover different income profiles and retail formats: Gomti Nagar, Aliganj, Chowk–Aminabad and Alambagh.
Population: adults (18+) who make or share the household's packaged-grocery purchase decisions and who shop at a kirana store or supermarket in these areas.
Content scope: five everyday packaged categories (biscuits, namkeen and chips, bathing soap, detergent, chocolate and confectionery). Fresh produce, loose staples and medicines are excluded. No brand names are recorded or reported.
Period: three weeks of fieldwork after the proposal is approved; "noticed" and "switched" refer to the six months before the interview.
Limitations: quota-based intercept sampling is non-probability, so results describe these shoppers rather than all of Lucknow; attitudes are self-reported; the cross-sectional design shows association, not cause; actual pack weights are not verified.
Descriptive and explanatory (correlational) cross-sectional survey using primary data, supported by secondary material: the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules and their amendments, Department of Consumer Affairs notices, and published work on price perception, fairness and brand trust.
| Section | Content | Items | Scale |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Area, outlet type, gender, age, household size, monthly grocery spend, shopping pattern, quick-commerce use | 8 | Nominal / ordinal |
| B | Noticed a smaller pack (Y/N), category, switched because of it (Y/N), unit-price task | 4 | Nominal |
| C | Price consciousness (PC) | 4 | 5-point Likert |
| D | Shrinkflation awareness (SA) | 4 | 5-point Likert |
| E | Unit-price use (UP) | 4 | 5-point Likert |
| F | Perceived deception (PD) | 4 | 5-point Likert |
| G | Brand trust (BT), BT3 reverse-worded | 4 | 5-point Likert |
| H | Switching intention (SI) | 4 | 5-point Likert |
PC items are adapted from the price-consciousness scale of Lichtenstein, Ridgway and Netemeyer (1993) and BT items from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001); SA, UP, PD and SI items are written for this study. Content validity: reviewed by the guide and two retail practitioners. The schedule is bilingual (Hindi and English), translated and back-translated. Pilot: 30 shoppers outside the main sample; each scale must reach Cronbach's alpha ≥ 0.70.
| # | Null hypothesis (H0) | Test |
|---|---|---|
| H1 | Noticing a pack-size reduction is independent of main outlet type | Chi-square test of independence |
| H2 | Mean unit-price use is equal for kirana and supermarket shoppers | Independent-samples (Welch's) t-test |
| H3 | Mean switching intention is equal across the three monthly-spend groups | One-way ANOVA + Tukey post-hoc |
| H4 | There is no correlation between shrinkflation awareness and perceived deception | Pearson correlation |
| H5 | PC, SA, UP, PD and BT do not jointly explain switching intention | Multiple linear regression (F, R², β, VIF) |
Verbal consent read out at the start; adults only; no names, phone numbers or addresses; respondents may stop at any time; store owners informed; brands masked in all tables.
| Weeks | Activity |
|---|---|
| 1–3 | Topic, guide, synopsis and proposal proforma submitted to the Regional Centre |
| 4–11 | Awaiting the PP number: literature review, construct definitions, draft schedule (no fieldwork yet) |
| 12–13 | Pilot (n = 30), reliability check, final schedule |
| 14–16 | Fieldwork: 400 intercepts across 8 outlets |
| 17–18 | Data entry, cleaning and analysis |
| 19–20 | Write-up, originality certificate, scan and upload |
The research design moves from an observed market practice (quiet pack-size cuts) to theory (reference prices and perceived fairness), then to a validated six-scale instrument, a quota-based intercept sample and a staged analysis that ends in a regression model of switching intention.
flowchart TD
A["Market practice: pack size cut, MRP unchanged"] --> B["Theory: reference price, fairness, brand trust"]
B --> C["Six constructs + unit-price task + switching behaviour"]
C --> D["Bilingual schedule, content validity by guide"]
D --> E["Pilot n = 30, Cronbach alpha >= 0.70"]
E --> F["Quota intercept: 4 areas x 2 outlet types, every 4th shopper"]
F --> G["400 schedules entered in Excel"]
G --> H["Cleaning, reverse coding, construct means"]
H --> I["Descriptives and unit-price task accuracy"]
H --> J["H1 chi-square, H2 Welch t, H3 ANOVA, H4 correlation"]
H --> K["H5 multiple regression on switching intention"]
I --> L["Findings by objective"]
J --> L
K --> L
L --> M["Recommendations for brands and retailers"]Independent variables: price consciousness (PC), shrinkflation awareness (SA), unit-price use (UP), perceived deception (PD) and brand trust (BT). Dependent variable: switching intention (SI). Grouping variables: outlet type, monthly grocery spend, area, age and gender.
Expected directions: PD and SA should raise switching intention; BT should lower it; PC and UP should raise it, because shoppers who compare prices are the ones who can actually see the cut. The model is:
SI = β0 + β1·PC + β2·SA + β3·UP + β4·PD + β5·BT + ε
A significant positive β4 together with a negative β5 would suggest that the damage from shrinkflation runs through a feeling of being misled, not through the price change alone. That distinction is what the recommendations chapter builds on.
What you actually hand in, in the shape your department marks it.
01 · Research proposal / synopsis · Synopsis 1,200–1,800 words (about 6–8 pages) plus proforma and bio-data
IGNOU evaluates the synopsis before any project work starts. Approval comes with a Project Proposal (PP) number, and the approved proforma, synopsis and guide bio-data are later bound into the final report. MMPP-001 carries 8 credits and the guidelines publish no separate marks for the proposal, but a rejected proposal costs two to three months, so it is the most important gate in the course.
02 · Chapter scheme · About 14,000–18,000 words; 50–60 double-spaced pages excluding annexures
The School evaluates the report against the chapter order in the MMPP-001 guidelines, and the evaluator decides whether a viva is needed. A report that skips the approved proposal, mixes results with recommendations, or runs far past 60 pages reads as careless before a word of analysis is read. IGNOU publishes no mark split for the chapters, so the rubric below is a self-review scale for you and your guide, not the official weighting.
| Self-check: problem, objectives and hypotheses are consistent | 15 |
|---|---|
| Self-check: literature review ends in a clear gap | 15 |
| Self-check: method matches what was actually done | 20 |
| Self-check: every table interpreted and linked to a hypothesis | 25 |
| Self-check: recommendations traced to findings | 15 |
| Self-check: format, APA 7 and front-matter order | 10 |
03 · Questionnaire · 36 items plus consent and investigator note; 8–10 minutes per interview
The questionnaire is the annexure examiners turn to first: they check that every objective and hypothesis has items behind it, that scales are borrowed or justified, and that nothing identifies the respondent. It goes in the annexures of the final report, and its construct map belongs in Chapter 2.
04 · Sample dataset
A clean, well-coded sheet is what lets you answer viva questions about your own numbers. Examiners also check that the data file matches the questionnaire item for item and that the reported N matches the rows. The codebook goes in the annexures; the sheet stays on your laptop for the viva.
05 · Analysis walkthrough · Chapter 3: about 5,000–5,500 words with 10–14 tables
Chapter 3 is where the evaluator decides whether you understood your own data. This walkthrough takes the coding sheet through every test in the plan, in the order the chapter presents them, and shows how to read and report each output in APA 7 style. The viva, if called, will ask you to interpret these numbers without notes.
06 · Certificates & declaration (blank)
The MMPP-001 guidelines require a certificate of originality signed and dated by both learner and guide, bound in after the approved proposal. Reports without it, or without the approved proforma and guide bio-data, are returned for compliance. This blank format and checklist keep the single-PDF upload complete.
Package 01
Topic, guide selection and bio-data, synopsis and proposal proforma, submission to the Regional Centre, tracking the PP number and revising the proposal if comments come back.
Package 02
Reading on reference prices, perceived fairness, price consciousness, unit pricing and brand trust; the Legal Metrology unit-sale-price rules; operational definitions of the six constructs and the research gap.
Package 03
Writing and translating the 36-item schedule, content validity with the guide, the unit-price task, pilot with 30 shoppers and the reliability check that decides which items stay.
Package 04
Briefing store owners, running the quota-based intercept at eight outlets with the every-4th-shopper rule, daily tally of quotas and same-day data entry.
Package 05
Cleaning, reverse coding, construct means, reliability, respondent profile, the five hypothesis tests in Jamovi with Excel cross-checks, and APA-style tables.
Package 06
Writing the eight IGNOU chapters, recommendations for brands and retailers, the originality certificate, fee receipt, single-PDF scan and portal upload, and viva preparation.
Slide 1
Shrinkflation, Unit-Price Use and Brand Switching
Slide 2
The market practice
Slide 3
Research gap
Slide 4
Objectives
Slide 5
Conceptual model and hypotheses
Slide 6
Research design and sampling
Slide 7
Instrument and pilot
Slide 8
Respondent profile
Slide 9
Awareness and unit-price use
Slide 10
Hypothesis tests H1–H4
Slide 11
What drives switching intention (H5)
Slide 12
Recommendations
Slide 13
Limitations and further research
Bullets, speaker notes and the .pptx · ₹999
Read each answer, close it, and say it in your own words. Your viva will ask. Now you'll know.
Shrinkflation is reducing the quantity in a pack while keeping the price the same, so the price per gram rises without the printed price changing. Ordinary inflation shows up as a higher MRP. In my study the issue is that shoppers who remember ₹10 or ₹20 price points may not notice the effective increase at all.
The unit sale price is the price per kilogram, litre or unit that the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, as amended, require on most packages alongside the MRP. It is the shopper's tool for comparing packs of different sizes, so my unit-price-use scale and the arithmetic task test whether shoppers actually use it.
Price consciousness is a stable trait, how much a shopper cares about price in general. Perceived deception is a reaction to a specific practice, feeling misled by a hidden quantity cut. Fairness research shows people can accept a price rise they see as justified but resent a hidden one, so I wanted to test which of the two drives switching.
+14 more questions, with answers
Unlocks with the project · ₹999
Unlock for ₹999What to change before it goes anywhere near a submission. Skipping it is how the demo fails live.
Unlocks with the project · ₹999
Unlock for ₹999How to study it, adapt it and walk your examiner through it, step by step.
Unlocks with the project · ₹999
Unlock for ₹999OnlyProjects. (2026). Shrinkflation, Unit-Price Reading and Brand Switching among Lucknow Grocery Shoppers (Excel + Jamovi): MBA Marketing project bundle [Educational resource]. https://onlyprojects.online/projects/mba-marketing-shrinkflation-unit-price-brand-switching-lucknow-grocery-shoppers
Keep browsing
Same degree, same syllabus slot, different idea. Pick the one your guide will actually approve.
Marketing
150 retailers, 8 weeks, one question: why do shopkeepers push a rival's curd when our truck was late?
Marketing
Why do tier-2 buyers test-ride an electric scooter and still buy petrol? An extended UTAUT2 model tested on 220 prospects.
Business Analytics
Twenty-six weeks of orders rank every dish by popularity and contribution margin — and decide the new menu
Business Analytics
A 200-customer survey and twelve weeks of bills decide which medicine shelves can carry a discount and which cannot
Business Analytics
Twenty-four months of billing data turned into weekly SKU-store forecasts, so shelves stay stocked through festival weeks
Banking & Financial Services
Speed, LTV, interest and trust: why borrowers pledge jewellery where they do, with a cost comparison under the new tiered LTV caps.