PERCEPTION OF CARD USERS TOWARDS PLASTIC MONEY This chapter analyses the perception of card holders towards plastic money in India. The emphasis has been laid on the adoption, usage, value attributes, bottlenecks and factors influencing plastic money adoption. The previous chapter surveyed the current scenario on legal and regulatory frame work in India and it was found that though more reforms have to be initiated. The current system is able to support the smooth adoption and monitoring payments through plastic money. Also, it has been indicated by the recent research that plastic money adoption is on the rise as there is an increasing number of merchant establishments in India accepting majority of cards. The current analysis has been divided into seven sections which include perceptional analysis age-wise, occupation-wise, gender-wise, education wise, income-wise, analysis of antecedents and spending pattern, and lastly analysis of perceived risk and utility. 5. Usage of Plastic Money The objective of this question was to observe the type of plastic money used by various respondents, so that the importance of a particular type of plastic money could be judged. Whether the plastic money used has any relation with age, gender, income, occupation, and educational level or not, the following analysis was done: 5.. Usage of Plastic Money (Age wise) Age-wise, the card users have been considered vital in evaluating perception of people at their different ages in relation to adoption of plastic money. Many researches show that age is significantly related to the adoption of plastic money. This research has sought to find out whether age-wise analysis brings out different perspectives from other dimensions like gender wise, income wise, occupation-wise and education-wise. Card users were asked to indicate the type of card they have used. Since the other types of cards were not so popular during pilot study, only credit and debit cards represent plastic money. Table 5.. indicates the result of plastic money usage (Agewise) in India.
Table 5..: Usage of Plastic Money (Age wise) Variable 8-30 years 3-45 years 46 years and above Total Debit card 37 (50) Credit card 7 (33) Total 09 (37.3) 7 (33) 08 (49.5) 4 (48.3) χ =0.09, df=, t- value at 5% = 5.99 4 (5.4) 38 (7.4) 4 (4.4) 74 (5.34) 8 (74.65) The table above shows that majority of users have credit cards (8 respondents) while 74 respondents reported that they possess debit cards. The age-wise analysis indicates that out of the total respondents with credit cards majority (49.5%) were young middle aged (3-45 years) followed by younger users with less than 30 years. The aged respondents (7.4%) indicated that they are using credit cards. This may be perhaps due to lack of proper awareness or customer ignorance about change in technology or may be they are cash conservatives. Further, the result shows that majority (50%) of debit cards holders were less than 30 years of age, followed by the young middle aged (44.6%), only 5% of aged people adopted debit card. The chi-square value of responses from the age perspective on the usage of plastic money is significant at 5 % level of significance. Hence, there is a strong association between the age and utility derived from plastic money usage. Thus, age is the important variable to enhance the usage of plastic money. 5.. Usage of Plastic Money (Gender-wise) Gender wise opinions reveal what exactly is existing between male and female card users and what they perceive about plastic money. This section will try to analyse the card users perception gender wise. The result indicated that the majority of respondents (77.4%) were male and female respondents comprised only.6 %. 98
Table 5.. Usage of Plastic Money (Gender -wise) Variable Male Female Total Debit card 5 (68.9) 4 (3.) 74 (5.34) Credit card 75 (80.3) 43 (9.7) 8 (74.65) Total 6 (77.4) 66 (.6) χ =4.07, df=, t-value at 5% = 5.99 Table 5.. indicates that out of the respondents who indicated to have adopted credit cards, 80.3% were male and only 9.7% were female. Also, 68.9% of debit card adopters were male and 3.% of the debit card adopters were females. This indicates that male respondents use and adopt more plastic cards than their counterparts. Chi-square value of responses from the gender perspective on the usage of plastic money is insignificant at 5% level of significance. Hence, given the weak association between gender and utility derived from plastic money usage, this variable is independent in nature. 5..3 Usage of Plastic Money (Income wise) From the income perspective, interesting result was also noticed. Table 5..3 revealed that out of all users surveyed, majority (54.5%) belong to the class of people who earn a monthly income of Rs. 0,00-60,000, followed by the income class of upto Rs. 0,000. Those who belong to a higher income class were only.7%. This can be interpreted that the higher income class do not use plastic cards or did not reveal their true range of monthly income. Further, the result shows that out of those who use debit card, 44.6% belong to income of Rs. 0,00-60,000 while the minority were high class earners above Rs. 00,000 per month. Also, 43.% of the respondents who use debit cards earns upto Rs. 0,000. Table 5..3 Usage of plastic money (Income wise) Variable Up to Rs.0000 Debit card 3 (43.) Credit card 43 (9.7) Total 75 (5.70) 000-60000 6000-00000 33 8 (44.6) (0.8) 6 4 (57.8) (9.3) 59 50 (54.50) (7.0) χ =6.67, df= 3, t-value at 5% = 7.8 Above Rs.00000 (.40) 7 (3.) 8 (.70) Total 74 (5.34) 8 (74.65) 99
The respondents who indicated that they are using credit cards, majority of them earn between Rs. 0,00-60,000 per month, followed by those who earn upto Rs. 0,000 and from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 00,000 per month. Minority were the higher class earners (above Rs. 00,000). This might be because norms for providing credit cards are tough for small income earners. In many institutions, they prefer offering credit cards to heavy pocketed clients than light pocketed clients. This tradition has hindered many clients especially those who belong to small and medium income class. The result indicates that higher class of income gainers prefer credit card to debit card. With the increase in income level, the ratio of credit card to debit card is increasing. The chisquare value of responses income-wise for the usage of plastic money is significant at 5% level of significance. Hence, plastic money is affected by the income level of respondents. 5..4 Usage of Plastic money (Education wise) Education of cards users is vital parameter. This analysis sought to find out if there exists any disparity of card users perception from the perspective of educational qualification of the users. It was evident from the result that majority (50.7%) of the respondents were well learned with post graduate qualification, followed by graduates and others with 3.8% respectively. This indicates that those who have adopted cards are well qualified and the people without good educational qualification seems to be reluctant to use plastic money. Table 5..4 Usage of plastic money (Education -wise) Variable Graduate Post Graduate Any Other Total Debit card 4 (55.4) 9 (39.) 4 (5.4) 74 (5.34) Credit card 9 (4.) 9 (54.6) 7 (3.) 8 (74.65) Total 33 (45.5) 48 (50.7) (3.8) χ =5.4, df=, t- value at 5% = 5.99 Table 5..4 shows that the majority of respondents surveyed use credit cards. Among them, 54.6% are post graduates, 4.% are graduates and 3.% belong to other 00
class. Also, among those who reported that they have adopted debit cards, 55.4% were just graduates and 39.% were post graduates. These results show that only those people with good educational background sought to adopt more credit cards as compared to debit cards. This may be easy for the highly qualified people to manage their funds more wisely as compared to other groups. The chi-square value of responses from the education perspective is insignificant at 5% level of significance. It can be concluded that usage of plastic money is not affected by the educational qualification of the respondents rather it is dependent upon some other variable. 5..5 Usage of Plastic money (Occupation- wise) This section analyses the perceptions of plastic card users on the basis of their occupation. This perspective reveals that majority of respondents, (6.3%) were services class people, 3.6% were professionals and 5% were business people. This indicates that mostly the service class people prefer using cards than business class people. Table 5..5 Usage of plastic money (occupation -wise) Variable Business Service class Professional Total Debit card 3 (4.) 5 (70.3) Credit card 4 7 (8.8) (58.3) Total 44 79 (5.) (6.3) χ =9.46, df=, t- value at 5% =5.99 9 (5.7) 50 (.9) 69 (3.6) 74 (5.34) 8 (74.65) Table 5..5 indicates that majority (74.65%) of the respondents have credit cards. Out of them, 58.3% were service people,.9% were professional and 8.8% were business people. Among those who were debit card holders, 70.3% were servicemen, 5.7% professional and 4.% business people. This shows that service class people are in majority of card users, followed by professionals. Businessmen don t prefer using cards in payments. Chi-square value of responses for the usage of plastic money from the occupation perspective is significant at 5% level of significance. This 0
shows that the occupation affects the usage pattern of respondent as different occupational groups use the plastic money in their own way. From the above analysis, it can be concluded that plastic money usage is affected by age, occupation and income level which indicates that these variables are not independent but dependent whereas gender and educational qualification has no relation with the usage of plastic money as these variables are independent. 5. Number of Cards Held by Users Plastic card users have the tendency of using more than one card. This behaviour comes about due to the demand for service satisfaction from card providers, and the dissimilar services provided. The card users were asked to indicate the number of cards held by them. This section will analyses the number of cards held with customers on different parameters. 5.. Numbers of cards held by users ( Age - wise) The opinion from age wise may reveal what actually utility perceived by different age group from the number of cards they hold Table 5.. Number of Card held (Age- Wise) Variable 8-30 years 3-45 years 46 years and above Total Card 3 (60.40) 7 (3.) 4 (7.5) 53 (8.5) -3 Cards 6 (36.0 85 (50.3) 3 (3.6) 69 (57.87) 4-5 Card 4 (5) 3 (3.6) 0 (7.9) 56 (9.7) >5 Card (4.30) 69 (57.87) 5 (35.7) 4 (4.79) Total 09 (37.30) 4 (48.3) 4 (4.4) χ =.5, df= 6, t-value at 5% =.6 Table 5.. shows that majority of the respondents (57.87%) have -3 cards, followed by the second lot (9.7%) with 4-5 cards. It was indicated that only 4.79% possess more than five cards which belong to different institutions. For those who reported to have -3 cards, majority (50.3%) were of the age between 3-45, followed by younger (less than 30 years) lot with 36.0%. The respondents who reported that 0
they had only one card, majority of them belonged to young category (less than 30 years of age). Also, minority was the older people with the age of over 45 years. The table further shows that the respondents who indicated that they possess 4-5 cards and above 5 cards majority were of the age 3-45 years (57.% and 50% respectively). 5% of the respondents from the age of less than 30 years and 7.9% more than 46 years said that they possess 4-5 cards whereas 4.30% and 35.7% of the respondents said that they possess more than five cards out the total 4 respondents from this category. The chisquare value of responses from age-wise for the holding of number of card is significant at 5% level of significance. It can be concluded from the above analysis that there is a strong association between age and number of cards held by respondents. The corelation value is positively correlated with the given attributes shows, with the age the possession of cards has been increased as majority of the respondents are the young middle aged people. 5.. Numbers of cards held by users (Gender- wise) This section will try to analyse the number of cards held by users gender wise. The opinion from gender wise reveals from what number of cards they receive the utility. Table 5.. Numbers of Cards held (Gender- Wise) Variable Male Female Total card 34 (64.) 9 (35.8) 53 (8.5) -3 cards 7 (75.) 4 (4.9) 69 (57.87) 4-5 cards 5 (9.) 5 (8.9) 56 (9.7) 75 cards 4 - - 4 (4.79) Total 6 (77.4) 66 (.6) χ =5.88, df= 3, t-value at 5% = 7.8 Table 5.. shows the result regarding the number of cards held by users on gender basis. It was clear that out of the majority of males and females respondents (57.87%) who reported that have -3 cards, 75.% were male respondents and 4.9% were female. Among those who said that they prefer using only one card, 64.% were 03
male and only 35.8% were female. It was interesting that only male respondents were having more than 5 cards in possession. However, it was not clear whether they use all of them or not. 9.7% of the male and female respondents reported to have 4-5 cards. Among those who possess 4-5 cards, 9.% were males and 8.9% were females. This can be interpreted that female rarely possess or use plastic money as the possession of plastic cards is dominated by males. The chi-square value of responses from gender-wise for the holding of cards is significant at 5% level of significance. Hence, there is an association between gender and number of cards held with users. Therefore, it is concluded from the analysis that the possession of plastic money is dominated by males as compared to females. 5..3 Numbers of cards held by users (Income-Wise) The opinion from income-wise may reveal what actually utility perceived by different income group from the number of cards they hold. Table 5..3 indicates that out of the total respondents who reported to be possess -3 cards, majority (59.%) belonged to the class of users who receive a monthly income between Rs. 0,00-60,000, 3.% belonged to upto Rs. 0,000 per month. Also,.4% of those who possess -3 cards were high income gainers (above Rs. 00,000). Among the respondents who posses only one card, the income of majority of them was less than Rs. 0,000 followed by income between Rs. 0,00-60,000. This indicates that the users of cards are mostly low income class. Table 5..3 Number of cards held (Income- Wise) Variable Up to Rs.0000 000-60000 6000-00000 Card 8 (5.8) (39.6) (.9) -3 Cards 39 00 6 (3.) (59.) (5.4) 4-5 Cards 7 3 6 (.5) (57.0) (8.6) More than 5 6 7 Cards (7.) (4.9) (50) Total 75 59 50 (5.70) (54.50) (7.0) χ =47.48, df= 9, t-value at 5% = 6.9 Above Total Rs.00000 3 53 (5.70) (8.5) 4 69 (.4) (57.87) 56 (.8) (9.7) - 4 (4.79) 8 (.70) 04
The table further shows that the users who possess more than 5 cards belonged to high income (Rs. 60,00-00,000). This indicates that the plastic card is a symbol status to the higher class people. The result also shows that among those who indicated that they possess 4-5 cards, majority of them (85.7%) earn Rs. 0,00-60,000. The chisquare value of responses from the income-perspective of users for the number of cards they hold is positively and significantly associated with it. This shows that with the increase in income of respondents, there is a tendency to hold more number of cards. 5..4 Number of cards held by users (Education- Wise) This section analyses the perception of cardholders from education perspective for the number of cards they hold. In this section users were asked to report the number of cards held by them. Table 5..4 shows that majority (57.87%) of the respondents said that they possess -3 plastic cards and among them 49.7% were post graduates, 45.6% were graduates and only 4.7% did not specify their qualification. Among those who reported that they possess only one card, 58.5% were graduates and 4.5% were post graduates. 9.7% of those who said they possess 4-5 cards 55.4% were post graduates and 39.3% were graduates. Table 5..4 Number of cards held (Education-Wise) Variable Graduate Post Graduate Any Other Total card 3 (58.5) (4.5) -3 cards 77 84 (45.6) (49.7) 4-5 cards 3 (39.3) (55.4) >5 cards 3 (.4) (78.6) Total 33 48 (45.5) (50.7) χ =0.84, df= 6, t- value at 5% =.6-53 (8.5) 8 69 (4.7) (57.87) 3 56 (5.4) (9.7) - 4 (4.79) (3.8) The table further shows that there were respondents who said that they have more than 5 cards and among them 78.6% were post graduates and.4% were graduates.. The value of chi-square of responses from the education perspective for the holding of cards is insignificant at 5% level of significance. This shows that holding of 05
more number of cards is not dependent upon the education of the users. Hence, we can say good qualification does not leads to holding of more cards. 5..5 Number of Cards Held by users (occupation- wise) The occupation wise category of card holders indicated that that some possess more than one card. Table 5..5 Number of cards held (occupation- Wise) Variable Business Service class Professional Total Card 5 (9.4) 3 (60.4) -3 Cards 5 07 (4.8) (63.3) 4-5 Cards 3 3 (3.) (55.4) More than 5 9 Cards (7.) (64.3) Total 44 79 (5.) (6.3) χ =6.07, df= 6,t-value at 5% =.6 6 (30.) 37 (.9) (.4) 4 (8.6) 69 (3.6) 53 (8.5) 69 (57.87) 56 (9.7) 4 (4.79) Table 5..5 indicates that out of total number of respondents, majority possess - 3 cards and from them 63.3% were service class and.9% were professionals. Further, the table shows that out of those who reported to possess only one card, majority were service class, followed by (30.%) professionals and (9.4%) business people. Some respondents also said that they possess more than 5 cards of which majority were from service class. The chi-square value is insignificant at 5% level of significance which means there is no association between occupation and the possession of cards by respondents as these variables are independent. The above analysis shows that age, gender and income level affect the number of cards held by users whereas occupational level and educational level does not seem to affect the number of cards in the possession of users. 5.3 Utility of Plastic Money The demand for plastic money is accelerated by the utility perceived by the users. This study attempted to get the perceived utility of plastic money which leads to 06
the need of cards adoption. The aim of this section was to observe to what extent, users perceived the utility from plastic money. The analysis was done keeping in mind different parameters, which are as follow: 5.3. Utility of Plastic Money (Age wise) This section will analyse the perceived utility of plastic money from different categories. From the age perspective, out of the total sample surveyed, 5.7 % of the respondents indicated that plastic money is essential, 30.3% reportedly indicated that plastic money is vital as shown in Table 5.3.. Also.36% and 68% respectively said that it is a waste of resources or they cannot say exactly. Table 5.3. Utility of Plastic Money (Age wise) Variable 8-30 years 3-45 years 46 years and above Total Vital 9 (33) 47 (3.6) (3.6) 88 (30.3) Essential 60 (39.7) 68 (45) 3 (5.) 5 (5.7) Desirable 6 (34) 4 (5.) 7 (4.9) 47 (6.09) A Waste of resource (50) (50) - 4 (.36) Can t say - - exactly (.68) Total 09 (37.3) 4 (48.3) 4. (4.4) χ =5.93, df= 8, t-value at 5% = 5.5 Out of the 5 respondents (5.7%) who said plastic money is essential, majority of them (45%) were between 3-45 years of age, 39.7% were less than 30 years of age and 5.% were over 46 years. Further, it was indicated that among those who said plastic money is vital, majority 53.4% were of the age between 3-45 years, followed by 33% at the age of less than 30 years. For the respondents who said that plastic money is desirable, majority (5.%) were between the age of 3-45, followed by those who were at the age of less than 30 years and lastly, 4.9% indicated that they were at the age of above 46 years. respondents were unable to say exactly about the utility of plastic money. Inferential statistics shows that age has insignificant relationship with the perception of users at 5% level of significance. It can be concluded 07
from above analysis that young users derived more utility from plastic money as compared to aged people. 5.3. Utility of Plastic Money (Gender wise) From gender perspective, the respondents were asked to indicate as to what extent they perceived the utility from plastic money. The result is presented in table no 5.3..the result indicates that among the majority (5.7%) of respondents who reported that plastic money is essential, 78.% were males and.9% were females. 30.3% who reported that plastic money is vital, 73.9% were males and 6.% were females. Table 5.3. Utility of plastic money (Gender wise) Variable Male Female Total Vital 65 (73.9) Essential 8 (78.) Desirable 39 (83) A waste of resources 3 (75) Can t say exactly (50) Total (6) (77.4) χ =.39, df= 4, t-value at 5% = 9.49 3 (6.) 33 (.9) 8 (7) (5) (50) (66) (.6) 88 (30.3) 5 (5.7) 47 (6.09) 4 (.36) (.68) This shows also that male respondents consider plastic money to be vital. This may be because of the reason that they are involved in many situations where payments are needed. Further, it clear that 6.09% who said that plastic money is desirable, 83% were males and 7% females. Among those who reportedly said that it is a waste of money, 75.0% were male and 5% were female. However, respondents were unable to express their value attitude towards plastic money. The chi-square value of responses on the utility of plastic money for the gender wise is insignificant at 5% level of significance. It shows both males and females do not differentiate between the utility derived from plastic money although the possession is dominated by the males as compared to females. 08
5.3.3 Utility of Plastic Money (Income-wise) Respondents were asked to indicate whether plastic money is vital, essential, and desirable or a waste of resources. From income perspective, table 5.3.3 shows the result. Table 5.3.3 Utility of plastic money (Income-wise) Variable Upto Rs.0000 Vital 5 (7) Essential 4 (7.) Desirable 5 (3.9) A Waste of 3 (75) resources Can t say exactly (50) (50) Total 75 (5.70) 59 (54.50) χ =8.78, df=, t-value at 5% =.0 000-60000 53 (60.) 84 (55.6) 0 (4.6) (5) 6000-00000 Above Rs.00000 Total 0-88 (.7) (30.3) 5 5 (3.9) (3.3) (5.7) 9 3 47 (9.) (6.4) (6.09) - - 4 (.36) - - (.68) 50 (7.0) 8 (.70) Those respondents who reported that plastic money is essential, 55.6% earns between Rs. 0,00-60,000, 7.% earn less than Rs. 0,000 and 3.9% earn Rs. 60,00-00,000. Further, the result indicated that among those who said that plastic money is vital, 60% earn Rs. 0,00-60,000,.7% earn Rs. 60,00-,00,000 and 7% earn less then Rs. 0,000. 6.09% of those who said that it is desirable, 4.6% belonged to the class of people who earn Rs. 0,00-60,000, 9.% earn Rs. 60,00-00,000 and 3.9% earn less than Rs. 0,000. Only four respondents said that it is a waste of resources and majority were those who earn less than Rs. 0,000. The chi-square value of responses on the utility derived from plastic money is insignificant at 5% level of significance from the income perspective. It can be concluded that higher income group does not receive more utility as compared to other lower income group, rather income was observed and does not seem to affect the utility value of plastic money. 09
5.3.4 Utility of Plastic Money (Education-wise) The responses from the users on the basis of their educational level reported whether plastic money adoption is vital, essential, desirable, or a waste of resources. Table 5.3.4 Utility of plastic money (Education-wise) Variable Graduate Post Graduate Any Other Total Vital 39 (44.3) Essential 66 (43.7) Desirable 4 (5.) A waste of 3 resources (75) Can t say exactly (50) Total 33 46 (5.3) 79 (5.3) (44.7) (5) (50) 48 (50.7) (45.5) χ =.5, df= 8, t- value at 5% = 5.5 3 88 (3.40) (30.3) 6 5 (4) (5.7) 47 (4.3) (6.09) - 4 (.36) - (.68) (3.8) Table 5.3.4 shows that majority of the respondents reported that plastic money adoption was essential. Among those who said so, 5.3% were post graduates and 43.7% were graduates. Out of those who said that plastic money adoption is vital, 44.3% were graduates and 5.3% were post graduates. Only 3.40% belong to other class which did not specify their educational qualification. For those who said that plastic money is desirable, 5.% were graduates, 44.7% were post graduates and only 4.3% did not specify their qualification. Some respondents also said that it is a waste of resources, of which 3 respondents were graduates and respondent was post graduate. This result shows that plastic money is perceived to be essential and should be adopted as it provides useful services which replaces the conventional way of making purchases and payment. Inferential statistics shows there is no association between educational qualification and customers perceptions at 5 percent level of significance. It shows that 0
utility derived from plastic money is not dependent upon the educational qualification rather it is influenced by some other variable. 5.3.5 Utility of Plastic Money (Occupation-wise) Utility of plastic money is different for various occupational group. In this section, the extent of utility is derived from plastic money is analyzed from different occupational groups. The result are shown on table no.5.3.5 Table 5.3.5 Utility of plastic money (Occupation-wise) Variable Business Service class Professional Total Vital 9 (.6) 47 (53.4) (5) 88 (30.3) Essential 9 (.6) 9 (60.9) 40 (6.5) 5 (5.7) Desirable 6 (.8) 35 (74.5) 6 (.8) 47 (6.09) A Waste of resources - 3 (75) (5) 4 (.36) Can t say exactly - - (.68) Total 44 (5.) 79 (6.3) 69 (3.6) χ =0.43, df= 8, t-value at 5% = 5.5 Table 5.3.5 shows that majority (5.7%) of the respondents said that plastic money is essential. Among those who supported this intensity, 60.9% were service people, 6.5% were professionals and.6% were business people. Among those who said that plastic money is vital, 53.4% were service people,.6% of each were businessmen and 5% professional. Only six respondents said they either can t say or it is a waste of resources. The chi-square value of responses for the utility of plastic money on occupational basis is insignificant at 5% level of significance. It can be concluded from the above analysis that occupation does not seem to affect the utility derived from the usage of plastic money From the study, it is revealed that none of variables (age, gender, occupation, income and educational) has utility perceived from plastic money as all the variables are independent in mature.
5.4 Frequency of Card Usage Even though card users possess multiple cards, the way they use them is also vital to the cards industry. Some respondents possess more than cards but they don t use them frequently. Users were asked to indicate their frequency in using their cards to know whether they are active cardholders or inactive one. This will help the card providing firm to know if the increase in the number of cards actually do the work they are adopted for. In the study since the number of inactive cardholders as per data collection is 9 out of, which is very negligible, it is not found worth while to differentiate between active and in active users for the present study. So, all the respondents under study are active cardholders. Perhaps persons who rarely use the card, may be only for withdrawals from ATM, comes in the category of inactive card user. Secondly, because ATM withdrawals have become compulsion for salaried peoples, who only use the card to withdraw their salaries. The active cardholders are those who use card for purchasing of goods or services but not only withdrawal of money through ATM. 5.4. Frequency of Card Usage (Age-wise) Different age-group may have the different frequency for using their cards. From the age perspective, the frequency of card usage is shown on table No. 5.4. Table 5.4. Frequency of Card usage (Age-wise) Variable 8-30 years 3-45 years 46 years and above Total Almost daily 5 (57.7) 9 (34.6) (7.7) 6 (8.90) 6-0 times in month 30 (39.5) 36 (47.4) 0 (3.) 76 (6.0) 3-5 times in month 36 (8.3) 69 (54.3) (7.3) 7 (43.49) - time in month (45.7) (45.7) 4 (8.7) 46 (5.75) Not more than once a month (5) 3 (37.5) 3 (37.5) 8 (.74) Rarely used 5 (55.6) 3 (33.3) (.) 9 (3.08`) Total 09 (37.3) 4 (48.3) 4 (4.4) χ =6.9, df= 0, t-value at 5% = 8.3
From table 5.4., it was indicated that majority (43.49%) of respondents use their cards 3-5 times in a month, 6.0% use their cards at point of sale terminals 6-0 times in a month and 5.75% of respondents reported that they use their cards - times a month. The high frequency of use will indicate that card user have placed their faith and confidence in using plastic money. From age wise perspective, majority of the users who said that they use their cards 3-5 times a month were 54.3% with the age of 3-45 years. Also 8.3% with the age of less than 30 years said that they use their cards 3-5 times a month. Further, from the table, it is indicated that among those who report that they use their cards 6-0 times in a month, again majority were in age between 3-45 years, followed by 39.5% who were less than 30 years. The overall outlook suggests, that more than 75% respondents reportedly indicated that they use their cards at least five times a month. This shows that the trend is picking up. However, there is a need for more to be done, for instance, taking the customers to confidence. The chi-square value of responses for the frequency of card usage from the age perspective is insignificant at 5% level of significance. This shows that frequency of card usage is not affected by the age factor but it is dependent upon some other policy variable which is needed to be explored for the policy variable.. 5.4. Frequency of Card Usage (Gender-wise) Gender wise analysis for the frequency of card usage depicts whether there exists any disparity among the males and females for using the plastic money. The result are presented in table no.5.4. Table 5.4. Frequency of card usage (Gender-wise) Variable Male Female Total Almost Daily (84.6) 4 (5.4) 6 (8.9) 6-0 times in a month 6 (80.3) 5 (9.7) 76 (6.0) 3-5 times in a month 0 (79.5) 6 (0.5) 7 (43.49) - times in a month 33 (7.7) 3 (8.3) 46 (5.75) Not more than once a month 7 (87.5) (.5) 8 (.74) Rarely used (.) 7 (77.8) 9 (3.08) Total 6 (77.4) 66 (.6) χ =8.43, df= 5, t- value at 5% =. 3
From table 5.4., it was indicated that 8.9% respondents who reportedly said that they use their cards daily, majority (84.6%) were male and 5.4% were females. 80.3% of the respondents who were male indicated that they use 6-0 times in a month and the rest were female who said that they use their cards 6-0 times in a month. 5.75% of respondents who use - times a month, 7.7% were males and 8.3% females. 43.49% of male and female both use plastic money 3-5 times in a month, but again it is dominated by male as compared to their counter parts. Among those who said that they rarely use their cards, 77.8% were females and.% were males. From this result, it is clearly indicated that female respondents don t use their cards in spending which may be because either they are not involved in spending procedures or they don t like spending by using plastic money. The chi-square value of responses for the frequency of card usage on the gender basis is significant at 5% level of significance. Hence, gender has the association with the frequency usage of plastic money. It is clear from the analysis that male respondents are more involved in spending with card as compared to their counterparts. 5.4.3 Frequency of Card Usage (Income-wise) The researcher sought to know from different income groups their frequency for using the plastic money. From income perspective, the result for frequency of card usage is shown on table 5.4.3 Table 5.4.3 Frequency of card usage (Income-wise) Variable Up to 000-60000 6000-00000 Above Total Rs.0000 Rs.00000 Almost Daily 0 (38.5) (46.) 3 (.5) (3.8) 6 (8.9) 6-0 times a month 6 (.) 4 (53.9) 7 (.4) (.6) 76 (6.0) 3-5 times month 7 (.3) 75 (59.) 3 (8.) (.6) 7 (43.49) - times a month 6 (34.8) 6 (56.5) (4.3) (4.3) 46 (5.75) Not more that a month (5) (.5) 5 (6.5) - 8 (.74) Rarely used 4 (44.4) 4 (44.4) - (.) 9 (3.08) Total 75 (5.70) 59 (54.50) 50 (7.0) 8 (.70) χ =30.60, df= 5, t- value at 5% = 5.0 4
The table shows that majority of the respondents using plastic money 3-5 times in a month earn between Rs. 0,00-60,000. Also 8.% of them earn Rs. 60,00-00,000 and.3% earn less than Rs. 0,000. Further, 5.75% who use their cards one to twice, among 56.5% earn between Rs. 0,00 to 60,000, 34.8% earn less than Rs. 0,000 and 4.3% earns above Rs. 00,000. 8.9% respondents reported that they use their card almost daily. Among them, 38.5% earn less then Rs. 0,000, 46.% earn between Rs. 0,00-60,000 and 3.8% earn above Rs. 00,000. Those who said that they use their cards once a month were only 8 respondents and among them majority earn between Rs. 60,00-00,000. The chi-square value of responses for the frequency of card usage on the income basis is significant at 5% level of significance. So, there is a strong association between income and frequency of card usage but they are negatively co-related to each other. Hence, with the increase in income level does not mean usage frequency will also increase. Rather it will decrease. 5.4.4 Frequency of card usage (Education-wise) Education being the vital parameter. From this perspective, researcher sought to know whether there is any disparity among the more educated then the less qualified user. The result is shown in table 5.4.4 Table 5.4.4 Frequency of card usage (Education-wise) Variable Graduate Post Graduate Any Other Total Almost daily 3 6 (46.) (50) (3.8) (8.9) 6-0 times in a month 3-5 times in a month - times in a month Not more than once a month 30 (39.5) 5 (40.9) 8 (60.9) 6 (75) Rarely used 5 (55.6) Total 33 (45.5) χ =3.98, df= 0, t- value at 5% = 8.3 4 (53.9) 7 (55.9) 8 (39.) (5) 3 (33.3) 48 (50.7) 5 (6.6) 4 (3.) 76 (6.0) 7 (43.49) - 46 (5.75) - 8 (.74) 9 (.) (3.08) (3.8) 5
Table 5.4.4 shows that majority of card users use them 3-5 times a month, followed by those who use 6-0 times a month and then those who use their cards - times a month. Among 43.49% of who use 3-5 times a month, 55.9% were post graduates and 40.9% of were graduates. Also, 6.0% of those who use their cards 6-0 times in a month, 53.9% were post graduates, 39.5% were graduates and 6.6% did not specify their qualification. Further, the result revealed that 5.75% of those who said that they use plastic money once to twice a month, 60.9% were graduates and 39.% were post graduates. Only 8 respondents said that they use it once a month and 9 respondents reported that they rarely use their cards. This indicates that still all card users have not full trusted the use of plastic money. The chi-square value of responses for the usage frequency on the educational basis is insignificant at 5% level of significance. Hence, higher education has no relation with the usage frequency of cards but it is dependent upon some other variable. 5.4.5 Frequency of Card usage (Occupation-wise) Frequency of card usage is dependent upon the need of the user. Different occupational group may have different frequency for using their card according to their needs. Frequency for card usage on occupational wise is shown on table no.5.4.5. Study reveals that the majority (43.49%) of the respondents use their cards 3-5 times a month. Out of them, 6.% were service people, 3.6% professionals and 4.% were business people. Among those who said that they use their cards almost daily, 65.4% were from service class, 5.4% were professionals and 9.% were business people. Table 5.4.5 Frequency of card usage (Occupation-wise) Variable Business Service class Professional Total Almost Daily 5 (9.) 7 (65.4) 6-0 time in a 8 47 month (0.5) (6.8) 3-5 time in a 8 79 month (4.) (6.) - time in a 3 7 month (8.3) (58.7) Not more than - 7 once month (87.5) Rarely used - (.) Total 44 79 (5.) (6.3) χ =7.59, df= 0, t-value at 5% = 8.3 7 (5.4) (7.6) 30 (3.6) 6 (3) (.5) 7 (77.8) 69 (3.6) 6 (8.90) 76 (6.0) 7 (43.49) 46 (5.75) 8 (.74) 9 (3.08) 6
Further, the table reveals that 6.0% of the respondents who said that they use their cards 6-0 times in a month, 6.8% were service people, 7.6% were professionals and 0.5% were business class people. The result also shows that some respondents (7) use once or rarely use their cards, among them were only servicemen and professionals. Business class people who possess plastic money reported use of their cards atleast once to twice a month. This is evident that service people are regular users of plastic money, followed by professionals and then businessmen who prefer using mostly other means of payment apart from plastic money. The chi-square value of responses on the occupational basis for the frequency of card usage is significant at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is also clear from the analysis usage frequency of service class is more as compared to professional or business class people. It is inferred from above analysis that frequency of card usage is being affected by gender, income and occupational level. As the males counterparts are having more cards than the female ones and they spend more by cards than the females whereas the persons having fixed and regular income are likely to spend more on purchasing the goods. The age and educational qualification does not seem to affect the frequency for using the cards. 5.5 Monthly Spending on Cards From this perspective, the actual amount spent will be important apart from the frequency. The users may use the cards in purchasing small quantity of goods which may become significant in spending. Customer trust on the card providers and brand will determine the amount spent on the cards. This section will try to analyse the monthly spending on cards from different perspective. 5.5. Monthly Spending on Cards (Age-wise) This section analyses the monthly spending on card from the age perspective, the result for monthly spending on card is shown Table No. 5.5. 7
Table 5.5. Monthly spending on cards (Age-wise) Variable 8-30 years 3-45 years 46 years and above Total <5000 40 (5.6) 7 (35.5) Rs. 500 to 53 77 Rs. 5000 (35.3) (5.3) Rs. 500 to 4 33 Rs. 30000 (3.7) (55.9) More than Rs.30000 4 (8.6) (57.) Total 09 4 (37.3) (48.3) χ =3.59 df= 6, t-value at 5% =.6 9 (.8) 0 (3.3) (0.3) (4.3) 4 (4.4) 76 (6.0) 50 (5.36) 59 (0.0) 7 (.39) Table 5.5. shows that the majority of the card users (5.36%) belong to the group who spend Rs. 500-Rs. 5,000, followed by the second group which spend less than Rs. 5000. This shows that more than 75% of the respondents spend less than Rs. 5,000 in a month by cards. This spending is considerably low when comparing it with the developed countries. Further, the table shows that only 0.0% reported that they spend between Rs. 5,00 to Rs. 30,000. From the age-wise perspective, among the majority of the respondents who reported that they spend between 500 to 5,000, 5.3% were between the age of 3-45 years, 35.3% were less 30 years and 3.3% were more than 46 years of age. Among those who reported that they spend less than Rs. 5000 a month, 5.6% were less than 30 years, 35.5% were between the age of 3-45 and.8% were at the age of 46 and above. The table also indicates that.39% of respondents in the category of spending more than Rs. 30,000, 85% of respondents were less than 45 years of age. The result indicates that card users do not spend much through the cards in a month. This may be interpreted that still cash is king even in the presence of plastic money. Also, it may be due to the less number of merchant establishments who accept the cards at different shopping malls and terminals. Inferential statistics for the monthly spending on card for the age-wise category is significant at 5% level of significance. It was found that there 8
was an association between the age and monthly spending on card. Hence, majority of young middle aged people spend more as compared to other groups. 5.5. Monthly Spending on Cards (Gender-wise) When respondents were asked to indicate the amount spent in using cards, majority (5.36%) indicated that they spend Rs. 5000 to 5,000 in a month. Among the respondents who said this, 79.3% were males and 0.7% were females. Table 5.5. Monthly spending on cards (Gender-wise) Variable Male Female Total <5000 55 (7.4) (7.6) 76 (6.0) Rs. 5000 to 5000 9 (79.3) 3 (0.7) 50 (5.36) Rs. 500 to 39000 47 (79.7) (0.3) 59 (0.0) More than Rs. 5 7 30000 (7.4) (8.6) (.39) Total 6 (77.4) 66 (.6) χ =.74, df= 3, t- value at 5% = 7.8 Among 6.0% of the respondents who spend less than Rs. 5000 per month, 7.4% were males and 7.6% were females. The result also shows that 0.0% of the respondents who spend between Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 30,000,79.7% were males and 0.3% were females. Few respondents said that they spend more than Rs. 30,000 a month through plastic money and the majority who do this spending 7.4% were males. The chi-square value of responses on the monthly spending on card from the gender perspective is insignificant at 5% level of significance. It was found that there was a weak association between the gender and monthly spending on card. It can be concluded that there was no difference between the monthly spending on card by males and females. 5.5.3 Monthly Spending on Cards (Income-wise) Different income groups may have the different spending pattern. From income perspective, monthly spending on card by different income group, the result is as follow: 9
Table 5.5.3 Monthly spending on cards (Income-wise) Variable Up to Rs.0000 Rs. <5000 36 (47.4) Rs. 500-5000 34 (.7) 500-30000 5 (8.5) 000-60000 6000-00000 30 (39.5) 96 (64) 9 (49.) > Rs. 30000-4 (57.) Total 75 (5.70) 59 (54.50) χ =58.73, df= 9, t-value at 5% = 6.9 9 (.8) 5 (0) 4 (40.7) (8.6) 50 (7.0) Above Rs.00000 (.3) 5 (3.3) (.7) (4.3) 8 (.70) Total 76 (6.0) 50 (5.36) 59 (0.0) 7 (.39) Table 5.5.3 shows how respondents spend using their cards. It was clear that out of the total respondents, 5.36% spend between Rs. 500-5,000, followed by those who spend less than Rs. 5000 and then those who spend between Rs. 500 to 30,000. 6.0% of those who spend less than Rs. 5000, majority of them earn less than Rs. 0,000, followed by those who earn between Rs. 0,00-60,000, Rs. 60,00 to 00,000 and lastly those who earn Rs. 00,000 and above. Also among those who spend between Rs. 5000-5,000 majority (64.0%) were users who earn between Rs. 0,00-60,000, followed by those who earn upto Rs. 0,000. 0.0% of those who spend between Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 30,000, majority belong to the class of users who earn Rs. 0,00-60,000, followed by 40.7% who earn between Rs. 60,000-00,000 and 8.5% were those who earn less then Rs. 0,000. Among the class of people who spend above Rs. 30,000, majority were those who earn between Rs. 0,00 to less than Rs. 00,000. The result shows that medium income earners spend between Rs. 5000-30,000 as low income class don t spend much using cards. The chi-square value of responses on the monthly spending on card from income perspective is positively co-related and significant at 5% level of significance which shows that with the increase in the income level of users there is tendency to spend more from the card because of the strong association between the given attributes. 0
5.5.4 Monthly Spending on Cards (Education- wise) From education perspective, monthly spending on card usage is shown in table 5.5.4 Table 5.5.4 Monthly spending on cards (Education wise) Variable Graduate Post Graduate Any Other Total Rs. <5000 50 (65.8) 4 (3.6) Rs.5000 to 59 87 Rs. 5000 (39.3) (58) Rs. 5000 to 0 35 Rs. 30000 (33.9) (59.3) More than 4 Rs. 30000 (57.) (8.6) Total 33 48 (45.5) (50.7) χ =.89, df= 6, t- value at 5% =.6 (.6) 4 (.7) 4 (6.8) (4.3) (3.8) 76 (6.0) 50 (5.36) 59 (0.0) 7 (.39) Table 5.5.4 indicates the spending pattern of different classes of card users who possess different qualifications. The table reveals that majority (5.36%) of the respondents spend between Rs. 5000 to Rs. 5000 and among them, 58% were post graduates and 39.3% were graduates. Also, out of those who spend less than Rs. 5000, 65.8% were graduates, 3.6% were post graduates and.6% did not specify their qualifications. Further, it is revealed that 59.3% of those who said that they spend between Rs. 5000 to 30,000 were post graduates, 33.9% were graduates and 6.8% did not specify their qualifications. This result confirms that majority of card users spend less than Rs. 5000 a month and many of do not have confidence of spending much on the cards. This perhaps might be due to the less number of traders accepting cards or technical problems related to cards and branch restrictions on card usage. The chisquare value of responses on monthly spending on card from education-wise variable is positively co-related and significant at 5% level of significance. Hence it is proved that people with good educational background are sought to use more from the plastic money. This may be easy for the highly qualified people to manage their funds more wisely as compared to other groups.
5.5.5 Monthly Spending on Cards (Occupation - wise) From occupation perspective, monthly spending on card is shown in table 5.5.5 Table 5.5.5 Monthly spending on cards (Occupation -wise) Variable Business Service class Professional Total Rs. < 5000 4 (8.4) 44 (57.9) Rs. 500-5000 9 98 (.7) (65.3) Rs. 500,- 0 35 30000 (6.9) (59.3) > Rs. 30000 (4.3) (8.6) Total 44 79 (5.) (6.3) χ =6.58, df= 6, t- value at 5% =.6 8 (3.7) 33 () 4 (3.7) 4 (57.) 69 (3.6) 76 (6.0) 50 (5.36) 59 (0.0) 7 (.39) Table 5.5.5 shows the monthly spending pattern of respondents on the basis of their occupation. It is evident that majority (5.36%) of respondents spend between Rs. 500 to 5,000 in a month. Among this group, 65.3% were service class, % were professionals and.7% were business people. Also, 6.0% of those who said that they spend less than Rs. 5000 in a month, 57.9% were service class, 3.7% were professionals and 8.4% were business people. Further, among the respondents who reported that they spend more than Rs. 30,000 a month, majority (57.%) were professionals and 4.3% were business people. The study indicates that service men who earn 500-5000 spend more on card as compared to professional and business people. The chi-square value of responses is significant at 5% level of significance. This shows that monthly spending on card is not affected by the occupation of the person but the different perception they hold on the usage of plastic money. It was revealed from the above analysis that age, qualification and income level have the association with monthly spending on card whereas gender and occupation level are the independent variables and not associated with monthly spending on cards.
5.6 Making Payment of Credit Card Bills Cards users decide to make payments in different patterns. Some make payments up to the minimum required, some pay full payment within grace period and some beyond grace period. This section try to analyses from different parameters the behaviour of the respondents for making the payment. The results are presented here below: 5.6. Making Payment of Credit Card Bills (Age wise) Different age group users make payment on credit card in diverse way. The result from age perspective for the payment of credit card bill is shown in table 5.6.. Table 5.6. shows that 63.35% of the respondents prefer making full payment within the grace period, 0.96% make payment on fixed amount each month, greater than the minimum required. Only 3.0% and 4.79% indicated that they make payment more than minimum required and full payment beyond grace period respectively. Table 5.6. Payment of credit card bills (Age wise) Variable <30 years 3-45 years 746 years Total Minimum balance required 4 (60.9) More than minimum required 0 (5.6) Fixed amount each month, greater than minimum required (37.5) Full payment within grace period 58 (3.4) Full payment beyond grace period 5 (35.7) Total 09 (37.3) χ =5.3, df= 8, t-value at 5% = 5.5 8 (34.8) 6 (4.) 4 (43.8) 95 (5.4) 8 (57.) 4 (48.3) (4.3) (5.3) 6 (8.8) 3 (7.3) (7.) 4 (4.4) 3 (7.87) 38 (3.0) 3 (0.96) 85 (63.35) 4 (4.79) Similarly, out the total respondents who reported that they make full payment within the grace period, majority (5.4%) were between the age of 3-45 years and 3.4% were less than 30 years. Also, those who indicated that they make fixed amount each month, greater than minimum required, majority (5.6%) belong to the age group less then 30 years and 4.% aged between 3-45 years. Inferential statistics shows that 3
there is no association between age and payment of credit card bills at 5 percent level of significance. It can be concluded that pattern of bill payment is not affected by age, but with some other attribute. 5.6. Making Payments on Credit Card Bills (Gender wise) Different card users have various ways of making payment on credit card bills. From the gender prospective, it was indicated in Table 5.6. that, among those who make payment up to the minimum balance required, majority (60.9%) were male and the rest female. Table 5.6. Payments of credit card bills (Gender wise) Variable Male Female Total Minimum balance required 4 (60.9) More than minimum required 5 (65.8) Fixed amount each month, Greater than minimum required 5 (78.) Full payment within Grace period 50 (8.) Full Payment beyond grace period (85.7) Total 6 (77.4) χ =8.5, df= 4, t- value at 5% =9.49 9 (39.) 3 (34.) 7 (.9) 35 (8.9) (4.3) 66 (.6) 3 (7.87) 38 (3.0) 3 (0.96) 85 (63.35) 4 (4.79) The overall result indicated that 63.35% people make full payment within the grace period required and among them, only 8.% where males and 8.9% were female. Further, it was indicated that those who make payment more than minimum required majority (65.8%) were males and 34.% were females. The chi-square value of responses for the payment of credit card bills is insignificant at 5% level of significance. Hence, it is proved that both males and females pay their dues within time, there is no difference in making the bill payment on gender basis. 4