Lenskart: Research For Marketing Decisions

Project Submission – Final Report
RESEARCH FOR MARKETING DECISIONS
lenskart
Data Analysis & Recommendations
Submitted by: Group 6

Harshad Naik 1711018
Kumar Kanak 1711030
Prabhu Goutam Chetan 1711036
S Anirudh Vishal Yadav 1711043
Sourav Saha 1711053
RMD Submission-Final Report Group-6 Lenskart
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
MDP & MRP .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Management Decision Problem ............................................................................................................... 4
Management Research Problem .............................................................................................................. 4
Components of MRP ................................................................................................................................. 4
Highlights from Secondary Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 6
Highlights & Findings from Qualitative research ........................................................................................ 7
1. Focused Group Discussions............................................................................................................... 7
2. Brand Concept Mapping ................................................................................................................... 8
3. Laddering through in-depth interviews ............................................................................................ 8
Survey Sample details .................................................................................................................................. 9
Qualitative Methods ................................................................................................................................. 9
Quantitative Methods............................................................................................................................... 9
Highlights & Findings from Quantitative research .................................................................................... 12
1. Frequency Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 12
2. Concept Test ................................................................................................................................... 14
3. Cross Tabulations ............................................................................................................................ 16
4. Regression Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 21
5. Factor Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 23
6 Discriminant Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 31
7 Cluster Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 34
Online Usage Trend (Alexa Ratings) .......................................................................................................... 40
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 44
Annexures ................................................................................................................................................... 47
Frequency Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 47
Secondary Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 49
Survey Questions .................................................................................................................................... 52
Coding Sheet ........................................................................................................................................... 62
2|Page
Abstract
Once deemed to be a stagnant market, the Indian eyewear segment today is one of the fastest
growing retail sectors with a volume growth of 4.7% with around 323,848.1 units being sold in
2017 (1).
Lenskart is into the eyewear sector with sales via physical outlets as well as their online website.
Lenskart was founded in 2010 and has since revolutionized the eye-wear industry in India by
providing unique services such as eye-check up at home and superior quality designer glasses to
their customers. Lenskart is currently serving over 1 lakh customers within a month and is trying
to expand and increase sales.
As of 2016, Lenskart has a market share of 0.4% in India, and ranks 18 th amongst companies with
highest market shares in India (2).
Lenskart has also roped in Katrina Kaif as their brand ambassador. Lenskart has experienced an
increase of around 80% in revenues from 2016 to 2017.However, the company has still suffered
losses of around INR 100 crore in the past two years. The current scenario implies that there exists
an opportunity for the company to try and increase its market share and try and make profits.
Our study looks into consumers’ attitude and buying patterns towards Lenskart, how it
differentiates itself from other eyewear companies, and the way forward for it to increase its sales
and market share.
Our marketing decision problem looks to understand how to increase the market share and sales
of Lenskart. We first conducted secondary research analysis to understand the market for eyewear
in India, which would further give us an idea about developing the methodology for conducting
primary research. Since we are dealing with the eyewear industry, the primary research dealt with
the responses of people wearing eyewear, both inside the campus and outside it. We conducted
Focussed group discussions, Brand Concept Mapping and Laddering as part of our primary
research. Focussed GD was conducted in order to understand the consumer purchase behaviour
for eyewear and the brand awareness of Lenskart, triggers and barriers to buying from Lenskart.
Brand Concept Mapping was conducted to understand the Brand Associations of Lenskart and
Laddering helped us understand how customers translated the attributes of the products into
meaningful associations for themselves.
Through primary research we came across some novel insights such as the focus on the frame for
people with lesser power and focus on lens for people with higher power, the utter lack of
awareness of brands of Lenskart among the consumers etc. With the help of the primary research,
we formulated a questionnaire which formed the basis for our qualitative research, with the help
of which we came up with our recommendations.
3|Page
Factor analysis revealed 4 different types of customer groups. We came up with the following
recommendations for each of them.
 Bring in a durable range of spectacles for the “Utility User”.
 Do not focus on the “Frugal User” as they are very price sensitive and tend to buy from
non-branded stores.
 Increase Brand awareness of Lenskart brands and project trust and sophistication for the
“Brand Conscious User”.
 Keep bringing in stylish and trendy new frames for the “Stylish User”.
Clustering helped us identify two clusters that can be targeted with value-based services:
 For the price sensitive segment (cluster 1), Lenskart should try and sell Vincent Chase as
it has lower prices.
 For the time sensitive segment (cluster 2), Lenskart can sell them John Jacobs by promising
delivery within a day.
MDP & MRP

The management decision problem was developed to understand the mechanisms to increase the
market share of Lenskart in the online and offline eyewear segment by focusing on sales increase
among the existing customers as well as attracting non-users.
To assuage our MDP, Marketing Research Problems were defined to facilitate the development of
hypothesis and further analysis
Management Decision Problem
How to increase the market share of Lenskart in eyewear sector
Management Research Problem

To analyze eyewear purchase behavior
To analyze the profile of the customers in the eyewear sector
To assess brand awareness and brand image of Lenskart
To investigate barriers and triggers to buying Lenskart
To propose marketing initiatives to improve sales and assess their impact
Components of MRP
MRP Components Information
What qualities/attributes does a Fitting of the frame, lens
To analyze eyewear customer look for in eyewear? quality, look, durability, cost
purchase behavior What are the reasons for Vitality of physical trials, ease
preference between online and of online ordering, promotional
offline buying? schemes
4|Page
Who influences the buying Sources such as doctors, ads,

decision? referrals, word of mouth
Rating the attributes that matter the Lens/ Frame, Attributes such as
most to a customer and antiglare, light weight, style
understanding the willingness to
pay for these attributes.
Assess impact of eye-checks and Impact of checkups done at
eye-wear purchase retail store with eye-wear
purchase
What is the profile of existing and Demographics, usage purpose
possible customers?
What is the lifestyle of the existing Occupation, Technological
To analyze the profile
customers? acceptance, usage of
of the customers in the
ecommerce platforms
eyewear sector
What is brand loyalty with respect Repeat buyers, factors
to the purchase of eyewear? influencing brand loyalty,
customer satisfaction
Is the brand awareness high? Percentage of brand recall &

recognition
To assess brand Understand what Understand the brand
awareness and brand feelings/attributes people attach to associations/map: style,
image of Lenskart Lenskart trendiness, discounts etc.
Does the brand resonate with its Brand perception, net promoter
positioning among the consumers? score
To understand the barriers to Unavailability of physical

buying from Lenskart’s trails, lack of trust, high prices,
To investigate barriers
online/offline stores lack of proper testing facility,
and triggers to buying
lead time etc.
Lenskart
To understand what triggers people First Frame Free, plenty of
to buy from Lenskart options/brands, discounts, etc
To evaluate effectiveness of Social Media Campaign,

existing marketing initiatives Katrina Kaif as brand
ambassador, Print ads, TV ads,
To propose marketing
etc
initiatives to improve
To evaluate effectiveness of Tying up with eye hospitals,
sales and assess their
proposed marketing initiatives and Improving effectiveness of eye-
impact
assess their potential impact checkups, one-day delivery,
partnerships with optometrist,
new product line tec.
5|Page
Highlights from Secondary Data Analysis
The Indian eye-wear market is majorly divided into two categories: Spectacles and Contact Lenses.
Over 95% of the market constitutes of spectacles. An analysis of the market shows the following:
1. Year-On-Year Volume Growth: 4.4% as of 2017 with a projected rate of 4.14% till 2022
2. Year-On-Year Retail Sales Growth: 12.9% as of 2017, retail sales of Rs. 241,613.3 in 2017
The four categories in spectacles are:

Current
% CAGR % CAGR
Category Category Value Year
(Historic) (Forecast)
Growth
Readymade
3193.8 11.5 14.7 10.9
reading glasses
Spectacle frames 69778.4 12.0 13.9 11.3
Spectacle lenses 110691.4 12.0 14.6 11.3
Sunglasses 57949.8 16.0 20.9 15.1
Fig: Sales of Spectacles in India by Category: Retail value RSP – INR Million (Current 2017)
The major trends observed in the industry are as follows:

1. With the shift in consumer perceptions, spectacles are now viewed as lifestyle products.
Market players are stocking up appealing products to attract the youth population.
2. The popularity of contact lenses limited the spectacles growth to 12.9% (2017) which is
below the average CAGR of 16%.
3. Sunglasses is fastest growing category because of it being viewed as a fashion accessory.

Moreover, many brands with economical prices are aiding in greater adoption. Consumers
are keeping up with the latest trends and occasions.
4. The increase in brand conscious customers has opened the doors for international players
resulting in the category becoming much more organised. Nevertheless, Indian consumers
still prefer local stores over branded stores due to factors such as trust and reliance on them
for advice for purchase of spectacles.
5. The purchase decision of consumers is not influenced by brands and there is no brand
loyalty.
6|Page
6. Several kinds of coating like anti-reflective and anti-glare have proven to be effective and
are available easily. This has led to a significant increase in demand from the consumers
with scratchproof gaining popularity amongst working individuals and students.
7. The occurrence of Myopia, Hyperopia and Presbyopia has increased substantially in the
last few years. [Presbyopia – 22%, Myopia – 37% and Hyperopia – 28%]. Several certified
eye care centers are coming up in response to this demand.
8. In terms of retail sales, 98% of the sales are through Store-based retailing and only 2% of
the sales are through internet retailing. Optical shops are the preferred places for purchase
of spectacles registering sales of 86.7% of the total sales.
Highlights & Findings from Qualitative research
1. Focused Group Discussions
To analyze eyewear purchase behavior
Findings:
 The major attributes that are necessary for purchasing eyewear as mentioned by the group
members are durability, style, price cap, lead time, comfort, feel and trust factor.
 Previous purchase prices acted as a benchmark for current purchase decisions.
 Occasion played a major role in the type of frame worn by the members.
 Group members usually bought a new pair of spectacles immediately after an eye check-
up.
Brand Awareness of Lenskart
Findings:
 In an eyewear (powered spectacles) purchase, the members weren’t brand loyalists. Look
and feel mattered more to them.
 Lenskart had associations like first frame free, discounts, 3D try-ons etc.
 Few people had heard about the in-house brands of Lenskart, i.e., John Jacobs and Vincent
Chase. Many were unaware that Lenskart owned them.
Barriers and Triggers to buying from Lenskart
Findings:
 Barriers to buying spectacles from Lenskart were lack of physical trial, difference in look
and feel from online, lack of judgement of weight of frame etc.
7|Page
 Triggers to buying spectacles from Lenskart were discounts, promotions such as first frame
free, friends’ influence etc.
Marketing Initiatives
Findings:
 Members were not aware that Katrina Kaif was the brand ambassador of Lenskart (3 out
of 8 knew).
 People recalled spam mails, “in-shorts” ads and google ad messages.
2. Brand Concept Mapping
The strongest association was Lenskart promotions. Online 3D trials also enjoyed a strong
association with regards to their online presence.
One of the negative associations people had with Lenskart was that its website is very cluttered.
Large variety of trendy and stylish frames was also another association.
3. Laddering through in-depth interviews
The values that Lenskart is creating for the end user range from bringing happiness to becoming
an efficient person. Thus, Lenskart can base their promotions on value-based positioning. The
broad categories of values to the end user are happiness, family man, efficient person, social
acceptance, better sportsperson etc.
8|Page
Survey Sample details
Qualitative Methods
Method Sample Size Description

8 IIM PGP students who wore spectacles.
3 Lenskart users and 5 Non-Lenskart
Focused Group Discussion 08
users.
Duration: 30-40 mins
Brand Concept Mapping 11 Users and Non-users of Lenskart
Laddering via Depth
11 IIM PGP students
Interviews
Quantitative Methods
119 responses were obtained from the survey questionnaire. 93 people wearing eyewear have
completed the survey.
The user profile distribution is given below:
Age Gender
9|Page
Income Occupation
Category of vision defect
10 | P a g e
Gender Branded Stores Local Stores Total
Male 40 31 71
Female 15 7 22
Total 55 38 93
Age Branded Stores Local Stores Total
Under 18 1 0 1
18-25 24 17 41
26-33 20 11 31
34-40 0 1 1
Above 40 10 9 19
Total 55 38 93
11 | P a g e
Highlights & Findings from Quantitative research
1. Frequency Analysis
Factors that go into purchase decision

120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Durability Size, Lens Lead time Trust Factor Nose Pads Brand
Comfort & Quality
Feel
Lenskart User Non-User
 Size, comfort & feel, lens quality are the most important factors that go into the purchase
decision. The focus should be high on these factors and promotions should also address
these factors to tap the market.
Acquaintance source
Print Ads
10%
32% Referrals from
21% Friends/Family
Social Media
37%
TV Ads
 With 37%, social media is a major source through which people got to know about
Lenskart. TV Ads is a close second at 32%. This suggests that the major focus should be
on social media promotions to capture a greater market share.
12 | P a g e
Willingness to Pay attributes

95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
Stylish frames Antiglare feature Thinness of Lens Unbreakablity of Frame Weight
of lens lens (Light weight)
Lenskart User Non-User
 As seen, light weight frame, antiglare lens and unbreakability lead to higher willingness to
pay. Therefore, these attributes must be inculcated to provide better value to the customers
and earn higher margins in this process.
Lenskart Brand Associations
3D Mapping
16% 13% Online
Promotions
15%
13%
Spamming
Brand
15% 17%
Cheap
11%
Variety
The major brand associations of Lenskart are shown in the above pie chart. 11% associate
spamming with Lenskart. This perception should be changed by resorting to selective promotions.
There should be more focus towards attribute-based positioning so that customer associate quality
related connotations with brand Lenskart.
13 | P a g e
2. Concept Test
The following concept tests was tested in the survey:

 For customers who purchase from local stores:
“You dislike branded products as you feel that there are priced unreasonably high. You come
across a Lenskart ad which claims first frame free. You become curious and access their online
website and find that the prices are reasonable. Also, there is wide variety of options to choose
from with good discounts and 3D mapping helps you to see how every frame suits your face. This
motivates you to buy from Lenskart.”
 For customers who purchase from branded stores other than Lenskart:
“It is a Friday evening and there is an office team party planned post office hours. On the way
from your office to the party location, your friend switches his/her pair of office spectacles having
a professional look to the one having a trendy look matching the party occasion. You are amazed
by this and then your friend tells you that he/she purchased the two specs at the same time using
the buy one get one frame free offer on Lenskart. You like this idea and decide to buy two specs
suiting different occasions on Lenskart using this offer.”
 For customers who purchase from Lenskart offline stores:
“You access the Lenskart website and shortlist a few models of eyewear. The 3D mapping allows
you to see how it suits you. You are still worried about the feel and weight of the piece. So, you
decide to visit a Lenskart store. You meet the store manager and show him the shortlisted models
on your phone and also tell him about the difficulty faced and time spent in visiting the store. He
tells you about the option wherein the store person visits your home with the required frames for
you to check out at your doorstep. You are delighted to know about this service and decide to order
online after availing this option in future.”
 For customers who purchases from Lenskart Online users
“On your previous order on Lenskart, you used the 3D mapping feature which then saves your
face online. After a few months, when you want to order another pair of spectacles, you login to
your account and you get customized recommendations list based on the face which was saved last
time. This delights you and this also greatly saves your time spent in filtering. You quickly place
an order and are happy with the seamless online experience.”
14 | P a g e
Concept Test
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Concept Test for Local Concept Test for Other Concept Test for Concept Test for
User Brand User Lenskart Offline User Lenskart Online User
Overall appeal of idea Willingness to buy
Inferences:
 Concept Test for local users was found to be appealing my most people (it had a mean rating
of 3.61), however the willingness to purchase was close to 3.21
 Concept Test for the branded users who are not using Lenskart was conducted and it was
realized that there exists some sort of brand loyalty as not many respondents were willing to
switch (mean for willingness to buy was 3)
 Concept Test for converting offline store users of Lenskart to Online users of Lenskart yielded
neither positive nor negative results.
 Concept Test for Lenskart User Online yielded very positive results as the willingness to buy
had a mean of 3.89.
 In general, it was found that people may find a concept appealing, but they still may not be
willing to purchase.
15 | P a g e
3. Cross Tabulations
3.1 Purchase behavior vs Age distribution
Crosstab
Age
Under Above
18-25 26-33 34-40
18 40 Total
Purchase_Local_Bra Branded Stores Count 1 24 20 0 10 55

nded (Lenskart, Titan eye+, % within
100.0% 58.5% 64.5% 0.0% 52.6% 59.1%
GKBOpticals) Age
Local Count 0 17 11 1 9 38
% within
0.0% 41.5% 35.5% 100.0% 47.4% 40.9%
Age
Total Count 1 41 31 1 19 93
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Age
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 2.848 4 .584
Likelihood Ratio 3.552 4 .470
Linear-by-Linear Association .444 1 .505
N of Valid Cases 93
a. 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .41.
Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .175 .584
Cramer's V .175 .584

N of Valid Cases 93
16 | P a g e
Insights:
Out of the total 119 responses obtained, 93 are eyewear users. Out of these 93, 55 purchased from
branded stores and 38 purchased from local stores. The age categories of 18-25, 26-33 and above
40 have branded stores as the major category of buying eyewear.
3.2 Purchase behavior vs Occupation
Occupation
Working Business
Student Professional man Housewife Others Total
Purchase_Lo Branded Stores Count 28 26 1 0 0 55

cal_Branded (Lenskart, Titan eye+, % within 59.1
56.0% 68.4% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0%
GKBOpticals) Occupation %
Local Count 22 12 1 1 2 38
% within 100.0 40.9

44.0% 31.6% 50.0% 100.0%
Occupation % %
Total Count 50 38 2 1 2 93
% within 100.0 100.

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Occupation % 0%
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.970a 4 .201

Linear-by-Linear Association .806 1 .369
N of Valid Cases 93
a. 6 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .41.
Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance

N of Valid Cases 93
17 | P a g e
Insights:
Branded stores are the major purchase location in all the categories except housewives who prefer
buying from local stores. With 68%, working professionals is a category with the highest majority
buying from branded stores.
3.3 Frequency of purchase vs Age distribution
Crosstab
Age Total
Under Above
18 18-25 26-33 34-40 40
Frequency_of_purcha More than twice in a Count 0 4 2 0 0 6

se year % within
0.0% 9.8% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5%
Age
Once a year Count 0 20 8 0 7 35
% within
0.0% 48.8% 25.8% 0.0% 36.8% 37.6%
Age
Once in 2 years Count 1 10 18 1 9 39
% within
100.0% 24.4% 58.1% 100.0% 47.4% 41.9%
Age
Once in greater than 2 Count 0 7 3 0 3 13

years % within
0.0% 17.1% 9.7% 0.0% 15.8% 14.0%
Age
Total Count 1 41 31 1 19 93
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Age
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.688 1 .194
N of Valid Cases 93
a. 13 cells (65.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .06.
18 | P a g e
Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance

N of Valid Cases 93
Insights:
All the age groups except 18-25 years have a purchase frequency of once in 2 years. In the 18-25
age group the major purchase frequency category is once in a year which may be attributed to
active lifestyle such as involvement in sports leading to damage of eyewear and also change in
power which is more rapid in this age category.
3.4 Branded store purchase locations vs Trust factor
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Value df Significance (2-sided)

Linear-by-Linear Association 6.292 1 .012
N of Valid Cases 61
a. 16 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .25.
Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance

N of Valid Cases 61
19 | P a g e
Crosstab
Trust_Factor
3: Neither 4:
2: Somewhat 5: Very
important nor Somewhat
unimportant Important
unimportant important Total
Brand_Purchase_L Lenskart Count 2 6 5 6 19

ocation % within
40.0% 54.5% 22.7% 26.1% 31.1%
Trust_Factor
GKB Count 1 1 4 1 7
Opticals % within
20.0% 9.1% 18.2% 4.3% 11.5%
Trust_Factor
Titan Eye+ Count 2 4 10 9 25
% within
40.0% 36.4% 45.5% 39.1% 41.0%
Trust_Factor
Essilor Count 0 0 2 1 3
International % within
0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 4.3% 4.9%
Trust_Factor
Lawrence & Count 0 0 1 6 7

Mayo % within
0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 26.1% 11.5%
Trust_Factor
Total Count 5 11 22 23 61
% within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Trust_Factor
Insights:
People who value trust factor generally buy from Titan Eye+. From this, we can conclude that
Lenskart needs to establish itself as a trusted brand through marketing communication and
consistently maintain high quality standards.
20 | P a g e
4. Regression Analysis
Variables Entered/Removeda
Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method
1 Trust_Factor, Style,
Price,
. Enter
Size_Comfort_Feel,
Durabilityb
a. Dependent Variable: Lenskart_Overall_Brand_Rating

b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Estimate
1 .748a .663 .390 1.021
a. Predictors: (Constant), Trust_Factor, Style, Price, Size_Comfort_Feel, Durability
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 17.188 5 3.438 11.298 .001b
Residual 13.549 13 1.042
Total 30.737 18

b. Predictors: (Constant), Trust_Factor, Style, Price, Size_Comfort_Feel, Durability
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 27.066 5.837 4.637 .000
Price -.806 .413 -.375 -1.952 .073
Style .696 .282 .471 2.466 .028
Durability .731 .446 .342 1.639 .025
Size_Comfort_Feel 1.641 .802 .396 2.046 .062
Trust_Factor .397 .239 .314 1.665 .020
21 | P a g e
Inference: -
As per the above results, the R squared value of the model is 0.671. The value indicates the amount
of variation in the dependent variable that is being explained by the independent variable.
Overall significance of the model is 0.001. The value is below the cut-off level and indicates high
significance.
The partial regression coefficients of the independent variables are as follows: -
Price = -0.806
Style = 0.696
Durability = 0.731
Size Comfort Feel = 1.641
Trust Factor = 0.397
The value shows the amount of variation in the dependent variable that can be explained by the
each of the independent variable, when all the other independent variables are constant. In the
above case, the independent variables have a negative correlation with the dependent variable
[Overall Brand Rating for Lenskart].
The significance values of these independent variables are: -
Price = 0.073
Style = 0.028
Durability = 0.025
Size Comfort Feel = 0.062
Trust Factor = 0.020
The equation of the model is

Overall Brand Rating = 27.066 - 0.806(Price) + 0.696(Style) + 0.731(Durability) + 1.641(Size
Comfort Feel) + 0.397(Trust Factor)
This shows that if price increases then the Brand rating for Lenskart will get affected. The brand
rating is positively correlated with style, durability, comfort and trust factor.
Overall size, comfort and feel contribute the most towards the brand rating. Customers give more
importance to the comfort and feel while deciding to purchase a spectacle from Lenskart. This
signifies that spectacles have become more of fashion accessories amongst the customers.
22 | P a g e
5. Factor Analysis
5.1 Attributes of spectacle:

KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .594
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 132.199
df 36
Sig. .000
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4
Price .043 -.383 .640 -.034
Style -.083 .042 .098 .920
Durability .030 .856 .068 .108
Size_Comfort_Feel .136 .315 .715 .140
Lens_Quality .457 .665 -.093 -.119
Lead_Time .558 .251 .214 -.192
Trust_Factor .675 .239 .268 -.095
Nose_Pads .668 -.025 .041 -.038
Brand_of_Spectacle .720 .033 -.275 .403
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.
 KMO value: 0.594 (between 0.5 and 1). Factor analysis is adequate.
23 | P a g e
 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: chi-square is 132.199 at 36 degrees of freedom, which is

significant at 0.05 level. Four factors are extracted having eigenvalues greater than 1. They
explain 63.92% of the variation cumulatively. (Rule of thumb of > 60% variance satisfied).
 Rotated Component Matrix: 9 variables are loaded onto 4 factors.
 Inferences:
Substantial Loadings on the factors:
Factor 1: Lead time, Trust Factor, Nose Pads, Brand of spectacle
Factor 2: Durability, Lens Quality
Factor 3: Price, Size/Comfort/Feel
Factor 4: Style
Factor 1 can be named as “Brand Conscious”. These people are the ones who place high
importance on the brand and derive the trust and other attributes from the brand itself.
Factor 2 can be named as “Utility User”. These people care about durability and lens quality, which
suggests that they only care about the utility aspect of the spectacle. They do not worry about any
frills (style) the spectacles have to offer.
Factor 3 can be named as “Frugal User”. These people are satisfied if the spectacles are available
for cheap and are comfortable to wear. They are not so worried about durability or style aspect.
Factor 4 can be named as “Style Conscious”. These people lay huge importance to the style of the
spectacle and consider the spectacle to be fashion product.
 Findings:
The Brand Conscious user can be targeted by Lenskart increasing brand awareness of Lenskart as
well as its exclusive brands which are John Jacobs and Vincent Chase.
Utility User can be targeted by emphasizing on the durability of spectacles or by bringing in a new
range of spectacles that are very durable.
Frugal user is difficult to target because they want spectacles that are cheap and may tend to buy
non-branded spectacles. It may not be prudent to lower prices of current line of spectacles as it
may signal a drop-in quality and may dilute the brand.
The style conscious user can be targeted by maintaining or adding additional frames which are
trendy and stylish.
24 | P a g e
5.2 Triggers to buy from Branded Stores:
df 10
Sig. .000
Component
1 2
Branded_Trigger_Discount .867 .095
Branded_Trigger_Eye_checkup .503 .700
Branded_Trigger_Exclusive_Brands -.022 .931
Branded_Trigger_Favourable_Location .799 .038
Branded_Trigger_Marketing_Campaigns .679 .397

significant at 0.05 level. Two factors are extracted having eigenvalues greater than 1. They
explain 72.637% of the variation cumulatively. (Rule of thumb of > 60% variance
satisfied).
25 | P a g e
 Inferences:
Substantial loadings on the factors:
Factor 1: Discount, Favorable Location, Marketing Campaigns
Factor 2: Eye Checkup, Exclusive Brands
Factor 1 can be named as “Low involvement User”. These people are local users who may switch
to branded stores when they are given incentives such as discounts or they can be lured through
favorable locations or marketing campaigns.
Factor 2 can be named as “Highly involvement User”. These people who purchase from local
stores but could be made to develop a liking for and associate with an exclusive brand through
experience (eye-checkup) and become loyal to this brand.
 Findings:
Providing discounts and incentives may help to get on onboard low involvement user but they may
not stay loyal to the brand once the discount is removed.
High involvement users need exclusive brands in order to get them on-board and they will maintain
their loyalty.
5.3 Attributes for other brands
df 28
Sig. .000
26 | P a g e
Component
1 2 3
Other_Brand_Quality_Eye_Checkup .666 -.043 .125
Other_Brand_Huge_Variety .673 .008 .298
Other_Brand_Courteous_Staff .011 -.066 .874
Other_Brand_Lead_Time -.084 .823 .175
Other_Brand_Established_Brand .247 .202 .730
Other_Brand_Easily_Accessible .797 .337 .029
Other_Brand_Better_Quality .828 .016 -.042
Other_Brand_Post_Purchase_Service .207 .867 -.077

significant at 0.05 level. Three factors are extracted having eigenvalues greater than 1.
They explain 66.978% of the variation cumulatively. (Rule of thumb of > 60% variance
satisfied).
 Inferences:
Factor 1: Quality Eye Checkup, Huge Variety, Easily Accessible, Better Quality
Factor 2: Lead Time, Post purchase service
Factor 3: Courteous Staff, Established brand
27 | P a g e
Factor 1 can be named as “Quality Conscious”. These people care about the quality provided by
the brand, in terms of spectacles and eye checkups.
Factor 2 can be named as “Time Conscious”. These people value time. They care about the lead
time and post purchase service (where time is a major factor).
Factor 3 can be named as “Experience driven”. These people derive their loyalty to an established
brand through their in-store experience with the staff.
 Findings:
Lenskart is losing out Quality Conscious, Time Conscious and Experience driven customers.
Perhaps Lenskart can try and signal quality by various measures such as products, stores and staff.
Time conscious customers can be attracted by promising one/two day delivery. Experience driven
customers are loyalists and very difficult to attract.
5.4 Lenskart Associations

df 21
Sig. .000
Component
1 2
Lenskart_Association_3D_Mapping .421 .624
Lenskart_Association_Online .531 .566
Lenskart_Association_Promotions .413 .684
Lenskart_Association_Spamming .889 .073
Lenskart_Association_Brand .894 .249
Lenskart_Association_Cheap .527 .445
Lenskart_Association_Variety -.057 .904
28 | P a g e

significant at 0.05 level. Three factors are extracted having eigenvalues greater than 1.
They explain 68.049% of the variation cumulatively. (Rule of thumb of > 60% variance
satisfied).
 Inferences:
Factor 1: Spamming, Brand, Cheap
Factor 2: 3D mapping, Online, Promotions, Variety
Factor 1 can be named as “Hollow/Negative Associations”. These people feel that Lenskart spams
their mailboxes with promotions and have a negative association with it.
Factor 2 can be named as “Technical/Positive Associations”. These people positively associate
with Lenskart and associate with the technical aspects such as 3D mapping, online presence,
variety etc.
 Findings:
Lenskart can try and reduce spamming (selective spamming as recommended earlier in qualitative)
in order to please this kind of customer.
Retaining the second type of customer can be done by continuing the good practices and bringing
in more technical innovations.
29 | P a g e
5.5 Peer Recommendations

df 10
Sig. .000
Component
1 2
Rec_Friends .811 .034
Rec_Parents .890 .125
Rec_Prev_Purchase .463 .591
Rec_Doctor .513 .439
Rec_Attributes -.054 .903
Extraction Method: Principal Component

Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser

Normalization.a

significant at 0.05 level. Two factors are extracted having eigenvalues greater than 1. They
explain 66.106% of the variation cumulatively. (Rule of thumb of > 60% variance
satisfied).
30 | P a g e
 Inferences:
Factor 1: Friends, Parents, Doctor
Factor 2: Previous purchase, Attributes
Factor 1 can be named as “Suggestion Seeking”. These people are dependent on the
recommendations of their peers while buying spectacles.
Factor 2 can be named as “Individualistic”. These people decide on their own about the next
purchase of spectacles.
 Findings:
Word of mouth publicity is one of the ways that can be used for getting this type of customer to
buy from Lenskart. This can be done by improving brand awareness and increasing sales, because
as the sales base grows it will automatically lead to additional word of mouth publicity.
Individualistic category of people can be satisfied by promotes the attributes of spectacles. In the
ELM Model, Lenskart has to follow a central approach.
6 Discriminant Analysis
Group Statistics
Valid N (listwise)
Purchase_Local_Branded Mean Std. Deviation Unweighted Weighted
Branded Stores (Lenskart, WTP_Spectacles_Lens 3.69 .968 62 62.000

Titan eye+, GKBOpticals) Frequency_of_purchase 2.66 .829 62 62.000
Local WTP_Spectacles_Lens 2.71 1.274 42 42.000
Frequency_of_purchase 2.48 .773 42 42.000
Total WTP_Spectacles_Lens 3.30 1.198 104 104.000
Frequency_of_purchase 2.59 .808 104 104.000
Tests of Equality of Group Means
Wilks' Lambda F df1 df2 Sig.
WTP_Spectacles_Lens .838 19.791 1 102 .000
Frequency_of_purchase .987 1.319 1 102 .254
31 | P a g e
Pooled Within-Groups Matrices
WTP_Spectacles_ Frequency_of_pur
Lens chase
Correlation WTP_Spectacles_Lens 1.000 .025
Frequency_of_purchase .025 1.000
Wilks' Lambda
Test of Function(s) Wilks' Lambda Chi-square df Sig.
1 .830 18.798 2 .000
Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function

Coefficients
Function
WTP_Spectacles_Lens .968
Frequency_of_purchase .227
Structure Matrix
Function
WTP_Spectacles_Lens .974
Frequency_of_purchase .251
Pooled within-groups correlations between discriminating

variables and standardized canonical discriminant
functions
Variables ordered by absolute size of correlation within
function.
Classification Resultsa,c
Predicted Group Membership
Branded Stores
(Lenskart, Titan
eye+,
Purchase_Local_Branded GKBOpticals) Local Total
32 | P a g e
Original Count Branded Stores (Lenskart,

36 26 62
Titan eye+, GKBOpticals)
Local 14 28 42
% Branded Stores (Lenskart,

58.1 41.9 100.0
Local 33.3 66.7 100.0

Cross-validatedb Count Branded Stores (Lenskart,
36 26 62
Local 14 28 42
% Branded Stores (Lenskart,

58.1 41.9 100.0
Local 33.3 66.7 100.0
a. 61.5% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

b. Cross validation is done only for those cases in the analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the functions derived
from all cases other than that case.
c. 61.5% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.
Inference:
In this case the discriminant analysis has been performed keeping the place of purchase i.e.
Branded or Local as the grouping variable and the willingness to pay for spectacles (there were
ranges from 500-1000,1000-2000 and so on) and frequency of purchase.
The Wilks ratio is the ratio of within group sum of squares to the between group sum of squares
for each of the chosen predictors.
The lower the Wilks ratio, the more likely the variable is to be significant.
As one can see from the Pooled Within-Groups Matrices the Willingness to Pay is significant
whereas the frequency of purchase is not significant.
Overall from the Wilk’s Lambda table one can see that the model is significant overall.
The group statistics indicate that the willingness to pay for spectacles is higher for branded stores
than local stores.
The classification matrix indicates the percentage of correctly classified cases is 61.5%.
Findings:
The discriminant analysis indicates that people who have a higher willingness to pay would buy
from a branded store. Thus, Lenskart would be able to charge a price premium to its loyal customer
base as people are willing to spend more for spectacles from a branded store. Also, in order to get
people to switch from local store to branded store, Lenskart may offer discounts or introduce a
brand with a lower price range.
33 | P a g e
7 Cluster Analysis
34 | P a g e
Final Cluster Centers
Cluster
1 2
Other_Brand_Quality_Eye_Chec
5 4
kup
Other_Brand_Huge_Variety 5 2
Other_Brand_Courteous_Staff
5 4
Other_Brand_Lead_Time 1 4
Other_Brand_Established_Brand
2 5
Other_Brand_Easily_Accessible
4 4
Other_Brand_Better_Quality 5 5
Other_Brand_Post_Purchase_S
1 4
ervice
Distances between Final Cluster Centers
Cluster 1 2
1 4.925
2 4.925
Inferences:
For clustering two methods were used Hierarchical and Non-hierarchal were used. In this case we
used those users who purchase from branded shops other than Lenskart.
Hierarchical clustering allows us to get an idea about the number of clusters that are required in
Final Clusters, because we look for a massive jump in the coefficient column.
In this case it was realized that the number of clusters required is 2.
After performing the k-means clustering, we get the Final Cluster Centres as shown above. Cluster
1 contains users who does not care much about lead time and post purchase service. For users from
cluster 1, a variety of other factors such as Quality of eye-checks, Variety of spectacles available
and overall quality of the product matter much more. This customer is not someone who does not
care much about whether the brand is established or not. Also, he seems a patient customer because
35 | P a g e
he seems to be unaffected by delays. Basically, this customer can be labelled as a ‘Quality and
Variety conscious customer’.
The second cluster consists of customers who are very cautious about quality, lead time, well
established brand and post purchase service. Variety does not matter much for this customer. This
category of customers is someone is very particular about fast delivery and cares about how well
established the brand is. Basically, this customer can be labelled as “Time and brand conscious
customer”.
Findings:
Lenskart can work on trying to reduce lead times and maintain a good post-purchase service which
would help it to acquire customers from
36 | P a g e
Cluster
1 2
Lenskart_Online_No_Physic
2 5
al_Stores
Lenskart_Online_Saves_Ti
2 5
me
Lenskart_Online_3D_Trial 3 4
Lenskart_Online_Referrals 5 2
Lenskart_Online_Promotion
5 3
als
Lenskart_Online_Others 3 2
Distances between Final Cluster

Centers
Cluster 1 2
1 2.477
2 2.477
Inferences:
In this case we tried to cluster using the reasons why Lenskart customer purchase from their online
platform of website or application. The reason for doing this was to try and cluster the users into
categories on the basis of the reasons they purchase from Lenskart online platform.
Hierarchical clustering was performed to try and understand what is the ideal number of clusters
that need to be created in k-means clustering.
In the k-means clustering it appears that cluster 1 consists of people who buy online from Lenskart
because of referrals and promotions. On the other hand, Cluster 2 consists of people who are
buying from Lenskart because of the absence of physical stores and the fact that it saves time.
Cluster 1 can be labelled by “Promotion driven customer” and Cluster 2 can be labelled as
“Customer who knows how to use technology and looking for convenience.”
Findings:
Lenskart will have to continue to offer discounts and promotions in order to retain customers of
cluster 1 and perhaps it’s could try and provide an efficient and quick delivery and delivery
tracking system in order to retain this customers from cluster 2.
37 | P a g e
38 | P a g e
Cluster
1 2 3
Branded_Prevent_High_Pric
5 4 3
e
Branded_Prevent_Lack_Tru
3 4 2
st
Branded_Prevent_No_Physi
1 4 4
cal_Store
Branded_Prevent_Physical_
4 4 1
Trait
Branded_Prevent_High_Lea
2 4 5
d_Time
Branded_Prevent_Improper
3 5 1
_Testing
Distances between Final Cluster Centers
Cluster 1 2 3
1 2.039 4.695
2 2.039 6.064
3 4.695 6.064
Here, we are trying to understand what prevents the customers from buying from Branded stores.
Hierarchical clustering suggested formation of 3 clusters.
Using k means clustering, we get 3 distinct clusters as seen above. The 1st cluster can be termed
as “Price Sensitive” segment as price is a major factor which prevents them from buying from
branded stores. The third cluster is mainly prevented due to lack of physical stores and high lead
time. Thus, this cluster can be termed as “Time Sensitive” segment. Cluster 2 has high values on
all the attributes and therefore it is difficult to tap this segment. Thus, the marketing initiatives
should focus on cluster 1 and 3 by resorting to reasonable pricing and reducing lead times
respectively to increase the customer base and thereby increased sales
39 | P a g e
Online Usage Trend (Alexa Ratings)
Observations of Online platform:

1. Most consumers face difficulty in finding the appropriate designs that match their needs
owing to the website being cluttered.
2. Owing to the repetition of similar designs throughout the webpage, minimizes the chances
of finding the right model of spectacles for the customers.
3. Too much redundancy in product categories is perceived as desperation on the part of

Lenskart.
4. The app has a better user interface in comparison to the Lenskart website. Co-incidentally,
the app is not so popular among the customers.
5. The checking out process is tedious and time-consuming making the purchase process of
the spectacle not a pleasurable one.
The below graph obtained from the survey results reinforces the same observations: -
Recommendations to enhance online platform:
1. Simplicity of the homepage and creating distinct and clear workflows for various
categories of products.
40 | P a g e
2. Avoid repetition of similar products and attempt to minimize the amount of time
that customer takes to arrive at his desired product.
3. Attempt to increase mobile app awareness by promoting the mobile app
4. Reduction in the number of steps needed from search for product to final check-
out.
5. Reducing excessive use of Javascript as it may potentially slow the website
Alexa Rating metrics:
41 | P a g e
42 | P a g e
43 | P a g e
Recommendations
1) Attribute based positioning:
Currently most of the ads of Lenskart focus on 1+1 frame free for the first time which will
be useful to get on board new customers but may not be useful for repurchase and
repurchase is a very important factor in spectacles as the lifetime value of customers can
be very high.
Attribute based positioning of product can be very useful for attracting customers for
repurchase. Attributes of specs such as antiglare lens, unbreakable lens seemed to be highly
valued during the focus group discussions.
The survey questionnaire results showed that the willingness to pay for attributes of specs
such as antiglare lens, light weight frames and unbreakable lens was very high. This shows
that if Lenskart has some ads on the basis of attributes than it would be very successful in
attracting users.
2) Value Based Service catering to the needs of customers using other brands:
Using k means clustering we realized that there were two clusters that could be targeted
with value-based services that would induce them to switch from other brands to using
Lenskart. The 1st cluster can be termed as “Price Sensitive” segment as price is a major
factor which prevents them from buying from branded stores. For the price-sensitive
customer Lenskart should try and sell Vincent Chase because it has lower prices.
The second cluster is mainly prevented due to lack of physical stores and high lead time.
Thus, this cluster can be termed as “Time Sensitive” segment. High Prices do not act as a
deterrent to this customer. This customer can be targeted by selling him John Jacobs, which
is their premium brand via a physical store and promising him delivery within a day. This
will give him the value that he is looking for.
Thus in this manner by providing each segment of customers with their respective value
adding services Lenskart can induce them to switch from other brands to Lenskart.
3) Targeting different customer segments with different strategies/Products:
Factor Analysis revealed that there are four different types of customers groups, (“Utility
User”, “Frugal User”, “Brand Conscious User” and “Style Conscious User”) and Lenskart
can use the following strategy:
 Utility User can be targeted by emphasizing on the durability of spectacles or by
bringing in a new range of spectacles that are very durable.
 Frugal user is difficult to target because they want spectacles that are cheap and may
tend to buy non-branded spectacles. It may not be prudent to lower prices of current
line of spectacles as it may signal a drop-in quality and may dilute the brand.
 The Brand Conscious user can be targeted by Lenskart increasing brand awareness of
Lenskart as well as its exclusive brands which are John Jacobs and Vincent Chase.
44 | P a g e
 The style conscious user can be targeted by maintaining or adding additional frames
which are trendy and stylish.
4) Reducing Spamming/Sending Excessive Emails/messages:
The fact that Lenskart was spamming people with advertisements emails and messages was
something that was raised during the Focus Group Discussions as well in when people
were making the Brand Concept Map. It was verified that customers did feel that the
Lenskart was spamming them by the survey results. Spamming was strongly associated
with Lenskart in the survey questionnaire.
Lenskart should try and reduce the frequency of sending promotional messages and emails
because it may cause customers to stop reading those emails and also because if the fact
that people usually tend to buy specs once in a year or once in two years.
5) Fix a positioning:
During our Brand Concept Map building activities, there were certain people who stated
that Lenskart was cheap while some people stated that Lenskart was expensive. Also the
survey results showed that Lenskart users did not strongly associate/disassociate cheap
with Lenskart, indicative of the fact that there was no fixed positioning by Lenskart.
There are three options available to Lenskart in this case:
 Project itself as a cost-leader: Most of the spectacles that Lenskart sells should be at
prices lower than those sold else-where.
 Project itself as a premium brand seller: Emphasize on the high-quality of the frames
and lens it sells.
 Adopt neither of this-strategies, behave as an aggregator of brands the way Amazon is
(sells to all segments of society). In that case people should clearly be able to
understand what is premium and what is economical.
6) Improving the Brand Awareness of John Jacobs:
Out of all the brand concept maps that we performed no one associated or recalled John
Jacobs with Lenskart. In-fact even during our Focus group discussions, John Jacobs was
mentioned only by one person.
Survey results showed that 56% of the survey respondents were aware about Vincent Chase
whereas only 41% were aware of John Jacobs. This shows that the brand awareness of John
Jacobs needs to be improved by marketing it more.
7) Social Media Campaigns should continue:
Most Survey respondents (37%) stated that they became aware of Lenskart via social media
as compared to other forms of media. Therefore, a recommendation for Lenskart is to
continue using social media campaigns because they seem to have a higher impact.
45 | P a g e
8) Concept Tests and Ideas for the increasing sales:
Concepts such as the concept for retaining online Lenskart customers should be used
because they will be very helpful in retaining customers. The mean value of willingness to
pay is 3.89 for that particular test. Therefore, similar such tests can be used for trying to
increase the sales.
9) Website needs to be decluttered:
Some people associated the website as cluttered during brand concept mapping. Also, the
variety available on the website is so huge that it makes it almost impossible for people to
find whatever they want. People stated that they wanted Lenskart to look uncluttered and
they stated it should try to match the simple and clean user interface that is used by
Amazon.
46 | P a g e
Annexures
Frequency Analysis
Triggers for non-Lenskart branded users
Discounts / Offers
16% 22% Providing high quality eye

checkups
Exclusive high quality
22% brands
21% Favourable locations
19%
Interesting marketing
campaigns
Figure 01
Reasons to not buy from Branded
High Prices
16% 18%
Lack of Trust
16%
16% Lack of availability of
physical stores
17% 17%
Unavailability of physical
trails at online websites of
the big retailers
Figure 02
47 | P a g e
Reasons to buy offline
Comfort and fitting cannot

be judged
19% 22%
Difference in pictures v/s
actual feel
18%
21%
Physical trial not possible
20%
Figure 03
Reasons for Online

Lack of Options in nearby
stores
Saves time
9% 17%
3-D trial
20%
22% Referrals
15%
17% Promotional Discounts
Others
Figure 04
48 | P a g e
Secondary Data Analysis
Year Retail Volume- ‘000 units % Y-O-Y Growth

2003 83174.4 -
2004 94893.9 14.1
2005 108866.6 14.7
2006 121695.0 11.8
2007 136193.3 11.9
2008 155382.0 14.1
2009 170412.4 9.7
2010 185868.2 9.1
2011 201533.4 8.4
2012 217391.4 7.9
2013 233801.5 7.5
2014 250682.9 7.2
2015 268196.8 7.0
2016 281327.0 4.9
2017 293741.7 4.4
2018 306730.4 4.4
2019 319865.5 4.3
2020 333094.7 4.1
2021 346498.0 4.0
2022 360025.9 3.9
Figure 5: Retail Volume Sale of Spectacles in India - ‘000 units (2003 – 2022)
iIndia
Figure 6: Sale of Spectacles in India- Retail value RSP – INR Million (2003-2022)
49 | P a g e
Figure 7: % Y-O-Y Growth in Spectacles sales (2003 – 2022)
Others
Arkay Optical Mfg Co
FA Chasmawala Pvt Ltd
Prakash Opticals Pvt Ltd
Lenskart Solutions Pvt Ltd
Vision Service Plan Global
Silhouette International Schmied AG
GKB Ophthalmics Ltd
Grand Vision SA
Lawrence & Mayo Ltd
Safilo Group SpA
Luxottica Group SpA
Essilor International SA
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Figure 8: % Company shares (2016)
Categorization Type Unit 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Presbyopia
% 21.0 21.0 21.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Population
Myopia Population % 32.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 36.0 37.0
Hyperopia
% 24.0 24.0 26.0 26.0 28.0 28.0
Population
Figure 9: Rise in the percentage of people suffering from different eye related problems
50 | P a g e
Eye Disorders in India

600,000.0
500,000.0
400,000.0
300,000.0
200,000.0
100,000.0
0.0
Presbyopia Population Myopia Population Hyperopia Population
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 10: Population of people suffering from different eye related problems
Figure 11: Channel distribution for spectacles- % breakdown 2017 and point growth trend (2012-2017)
51 | P a g e
Survey Questions
1. Do you use eyewear?

Yes
No
If answer to Q1 is “No”,
2. Are you aware of Lenskart?

Yes
No
If answer to Q1 is Yes, then:
3. How important are the following factors in selecting eyewear? (On a scale of 1 to 5)
2: 3: Neither 4:
1: Not at all 5: Very
Attribute Somewhat important nor Somewhat
important Important
unimportant unimportant important
Price
Style
Durability
Size, Comfort & Feel
Lens Quality
Lead Time
Trust Factor
Nose Pads
Brand of the spectacle
4. Who/What influences your decision of buying spectacles?

2: 3: Neither 4:
Influence Somewhat important nor Somewhat
important Important
Friends
recommendations
Parents
recommendation
Previous Purchases
Doctors
Recommendation
Attributes and features
of Eyewear
52 | P a g e
5. How often do you buy spectacles?

More than twice in a year
Once a year
Once in 2 years
Once in greater than 2 years
6. Rate the reliability of the following to get your eye checkup done?
4:
1: Not very 2: Somewhat 5: Very
3: Neutral Reasonably
reliable reliable Reliable
Reliable
Specialized Doctors/
Optometrist
In-store Eye test
In-home eye test
7. How much are you willing to pay for your spectacles and Lens?
<1000
1000-1500
1500-2500
2500-5000
>5000
8. Rate the following attributes on the basis of willingness to pay:

2: 3: Neither 4:
Attribute Somewhat important nor Somewhat
important Important
Stylish frames
Antiglare feature of
lens
Thinness of Lens
Unbreakablity of lens
Frame Weight (Light
weight)
53 | P a g e
9. Which of the following brands are you aware about?

RayBan
Oakley
John Jacobs
Tommy Hilfiger
Tagheur
TitanEye+
Vincent Chase
10. Where do you purchase your spectacles from?

Branded Stores (Lenskart, Titan eye+, GKBOpticals)
Local
If the answer to Q10 is local stores then:
11. What are some of the barriers that prevent you from buying from branded stores such as
Lenskart? (Rate them according to their importance: 1 to 5)
1: Not at 3: Neither 4:
2: Somewhat 5: Very
Trigger all important nor Somewhat
important unimportant important
High Prices
Lack of Trust
Lack of availability of
physical stores
trails at online websites of
the big retailers
Higher Lead Times
Improper testing methods

at some of the bigger
brands
54 | P a g e
12. What are some of the triggers that could make you buy from some of the branded stores?
1: Not at 3: Neither 4:
2: Somewhat 5: Very
Trigger all important nor Somewhat
important unimportant important
Discounts/Offers
Providing high quality eye
checkups
Exclusive high quality
brands
Favourable locations (easy
access as well as locations
near eye hospital)
campaigns
13. Have you heard of Lenskart?

Yes
No
Concept Test
“You dislike branded products as you feel that there are priced unreasonably high. You come
across a Lenskart ad which claims first frame free. You become curious and access their online
website and find that the prices are reasonable. Also, there is wide variety of options to choose
from with good discounts and 3D mapping helps you to see how every frame suits your face. This
motivates you to buy from Lenskart.”
14. Rate the overall appeal of the idea (Likert Scale: 1-5)
3: Neither
1: Highly 5: Highly
2: Appealing nor 4:
Unappealing Appealing
Unappealing
15. Willingness to buy from Lenskart post seeing the above concept as an advertisement
1: Defintely not 3: May or May not 5: Defintely will
2: 4:
Purchase purchase purchase
If answer to Q10 is Branded stores, then:
16. Where do you generally prefer to purchase branded eyewear?

Lenskart
55 | P a g e
GKB Opticals
Titan Eye+
Essilor International
Lawrence & Mayo
If the answer to Q14 is not Lenskart, then:
17. Rate the following on the basis of your preference for the above store:
2: 3: Neither
1: Not at all 4: Somewhat 5: Very
Somewhat important nor
important important Important
unimportant unimportant
Quality of eye-checkup
Huge variety
Courteous and helpful
staff
Lead time
More established brand
Easily Accessible
Better quality
Better post-purchase
services
18. Rate each factor on the basis of the relevance it plays in your dislike for Lenskart?
3: Neither
1: Not at all 2: Somewhat 4: Somewhat 5: Very
important nor
important unimportant important Important
unimportant
Not a good value for
money
Lot of Spamming
Quality of eye checkup
Longer lead time

Offline stores not in the
vicinity
56 | P a g e
Concept Test
“It is a Friday evening and there is an office team party planned post office hours. On the way
from your office to the party location, your friend swtiches his /her pair of office spectacles
having a professional look to the one having a trendy look matching the party occasion. You are
amazed by this and then your friend tells you that he/she purchased the two specs at the same
time using the buy one get one frame free offer on Lenskart. You like this idea and decide to buy
two specs suting different occasions on Lenskart using this offer.”
3: Neither
1: Highly 5: Highly
2: Appealing nor 4:
Unappealing
20. Willingness to buy from Lenskart post seeing the above concept as an advertisement
2: 4:
If answer to Q14 was Lenskart, then:

21. How did you come to know about Lenskart?
Social Media
Print Ads
TV Ads
Referrals from Friends/Family
Hoardings/Banners
22. How strongly do you associate the following with brand Lenskart?
1: Do not 2: 3: 4: 5: Strongly
associate associate
3-D Mapping
Online
Promotions (First
Frame Free/ 1+ 1
Frame Free)
Spamming
Brand (Vincent Chase\
John Jacobs)
Cheap
Variety
57 | P a g e
23. Do you usually buy online or offline?

Online
Offline
If answer to Q23 is offline:

24. What are the barriers to buy online?
3: Neither 4:
1: Not at all 2: Somewhat 5: Very
relevant nor Somewhat
relevant irrelevant relevant
irrelevant relevant
be judged
actual feel
Physical trial not possible
Doctor medical
prescription is difficult to
decipher online
Double eye-checkup
(initial and just before
purchase) done offline is
not possible online
Concept Test
“You access the Lenskart website and shortlist a few models of eyewear. The 3D mapping allows
you to see how it suits you. You are still worried about the feel and weight of the piece. So you
decide to visit a Lenskart store. You meet the store manager and show him the shortlisted models
on your phone and also tell him about the difficulty faced and time spent in visiting the store. He
tells you about the option wherein the store person visits your home with the required frames for
you to check out at your doorstep. You are delighted to know about this service and decide to
order online after availing this option in future.”
3: Neither
1: Highly 5: Highly
2: Appealing nor 4:
Unappealing
58 | P a g e
26. Willingness to buy Online post viewing the above concept

2: 4:
If answer to Q23 is online:

27. Which online mode?
Website
App
28. Why do you buy online?

1: Not 5: Very
2 3 4
Relevant Relevant
Lack of Options in
nearby stores
Saves time
3-D trial eliminates need

for a physical trial
Referrals
Promotional Discounts
Others
If answer to Q27 is Website:

29. Which of the following features do you strongly associate with Lenskart’s website?
1: Don’t 5: Strongly
2 3 4
Agree Agree
Uncluttered and user

friendly
Fast checkout process
Little repetition of
products
Ease of payment
Smooth functioning
Ease of search/filter
59 | P a g e
If answer to Q27 is app, then:

30. Which of the following features do you strongly like or dislike about with Lenskart app?
1: Strongly 5: Strongly
2 3 4
Disagree Agree
Product Reviews
Ease of Search
Tracking of orders
User Interface
Payment gateways
Concept Test
“On your previous order on Lenskart, you used the 3D mapping feature which then saves your
face online. After a few months, when you want order another pair of spectacles. You login to
your account and you get customized recommendations list based on the face which was saved
last time. This delights you and this also greatly saves your time spent in filtering. You quickly
place an order and are happy with the seamless online experience.”
3: Neither
1: Highly 5: Highly
2: Appealing nor 4:
Unappealing
32. Willingness to buy from Lenskart’s website post viewing the above concept ad
2: 4:
33. What is your age (years)?

Under 18
18-25
26-33
34-40
Above 40
60 | P a g e
34. What is your gender?

Male
Female
35. What is your occupation?

Student
Working Professional
Businessman
Housewife
Others
36. What is your annual income?

No income
<5 LPA
5-10 LPA
10-17 LPA
17-25 PA
>25 LPA
37. Which category do you belong to: [Myopia means short sightedness, Hypermetropia means
far sightedness]?
Low Power Myopia (0-2)

High Power Myopia (greater than 2)
Hypermetropia
Both (Myopia and Hypermetropia)
38. How much will you rate brand Lenskart overall?
1: Extremely poor 3: 5: 7: 10: Excellent
61 | P a g e
Coding Sheet
Var Code
Q.No Description Scale Codes
No Range
1: Yes
1 1 Do you use eyewear? 1-2 Nominal
2: No
IF ANSWER TO Q1 IS 2, GO TO Q2. ELSE GO TO Q3
1: Yes
2 2 Are you aware of Lenskart 1-2 Nominal
2: No
How important are the 1-5
3 following factors in Likert Interval
selecting eyewear? Scale
3 Price 1: Not at all Important
4 Style 2: Somewhat Unimportant
3: Neither Important nor
5 Durability
Unimportant
6 Size, Comfort & Feel 4: Somewhat Important
7 Lens Quality 5: Completely Relevant
8 Lead time
9 Trust
10 Nose Pads
11 Spectacle Brand
Who/What influences your 1-5
4 decision of buying Likert Interval
spectacles Scale
12 Friends Recommendation 1: Not at all Important
13 Parents Recommendation 2: Somewhat Unimportant
14 Previous Purchases
Unimportant
15 Doctors Recommendations 4: Somewhat Important
Attributes and features of
16 5: Completely Relevant
eyewear
1: More than twice in a year

2: Once a year
How often do you buy
5 17 1-4 Nominal 3: Once in 2 years
spectacles
4: Once in Greater than 2
years
1: <1000
How much are you willing 2: 1000 -1500
6 18 to pay for your spectales + 1-5 Nominal 3: 1500 – 2500
Lens? 4: 2500 – 5000
5: >5000
62 | P a g e
Rate the reliability of the 1-5

7 following to get your eye Likert Interval
checkup done? Scale
Specialized Doctors/
19 1: Not very reliable
Optometrist
20 In-store Eye test 5: Very reliable
21 In-home eye test
Rate the following 1-5
8 attributes based on Likert Interval
willingness to pay Scale
22 Stylish Frames 1: Not at all Important
23 Antiglare feature of Lens 2: Somewhat Unimportant
24 Thinness of lens
Unimportant
25 Unbreakability of Lens 4: Somewhat Important
26 Frame weight (Light weight) 5: Completely Relevant
Which of the following
9 1-2 Nominal
brands are you aware about
1: Yes
27 Ray Ban
2: No
1: Yes
28 Oakley
2: No
1: Yes
29 John Jacobs
2: No
1: Yes
30 Tommy Hilfiger
2: No
1: Yes
31 TagHeur
2: No
1: Yes
32 Titan Eye+
2: No
1: Yes
33 Vincent Chase
2: No
1: Branded Stores (Lenskart,
Where do you purchase
10 34 1-2 Nominal Titan eye+, GKBOpticals)
your spectacles from?
2: Local
PROCEED ONLY IF ANSWER TO Q10 IS 2. ELSE GO TO Q16
What are some of the
barriers that prevent you
1-5
from buying from branded
11 Likert Interval
stores such as Lenskart?
Scale
(Rate them according to
their importance)
35 High Prices 1: Not at all Important
63 | P a g e
36 Lack of trust 2: Somewhat Unimportant

Lack of availability of 3: Neither Important nor
37
physical stores Unimportant
38 trails at online websites of 4: Somewhat Important
the big retailers
39 Higher Lead Times 5: Very Important
Improper testing methods at
40
some of the bigger brands
What are some of the
1-5
triggers that could make
12 Likert Interval
you buy from some of the
Scale
branded stores
41 Discounts/Offers 1: Not at all Important
Providing high quality eye
42 2: Somewhat Unimportant
checkups
Exclusive high-quality 3: Neither Important nor
43
brands Unimportant
Favourable locations (easy
44 access as well as locations 4: Somewhat Important
near eye hospital)
45 5: Very Important
campaigns
Have you heard of 1: Yes
13 46 1-2 Nominal
Lenskart? 2: No
Concept Test
“You dislike branded products as you feel that there are priced unreasonably high. You come across a
Lenskart ad which claims first frame free. You become curious and access their online website and find
that the prices are reasonable. Also, there is wide variety of options to choose from with good discounts
and 3D mapping helps you to see how every frame suits your face. This motivates you to buy from
Lenskart.”
1-5
Rate the overall appeal of 1: Highly Unappealing
14 47 Likert Interval
the idea 5: Highly Appealing
Scale
Willingness to buy from 1: Definitely not purchase
Lenskart post seeing the 1-5 2:
15 48 above concept as an Likert Interval 3: May or may not purchase
advertisement Scale 4:
5: Definitely will purchase
64 | P a g e
1: Lenskart
Where do you generally 2: GKB Opticals
16 49 prefer to purchase branded 1-5 Nominal 3: Titan Eye+
eyewear? 4:Essilor International
5: Lawrence & Mayo
PROCEED ONLY IF ANSWER TO Q13 IS NOT 1. ELSE GO TO Q21
Rate the following on the 1-5
17 basis of you preference for Likert Interval
the above store Scale
50 Quality of eyecheckup 1: Not at all important
51 Huge variety 2: Somewhat Unimportant
52 Courteous and helpful staff
Unimportant
53 Lead time 4: Somewhat Important
54 More established brand 5: Very Important
55 Easily Accessible
56 Better quality
Better post-purchase
57
services
Rate each factor on the
1-5
basis of the relevance it
18 Likert Interval
plays in your dislike for
Scale
Lenskart
58 Not a good value for money 1: Not at all important
59 Lot of spamming 2: Somewhat Unimportant
60 Longer lead time
Unimportant
61 Quality of eye checkup 4: Somewhat Important
Offline stores not in the
62 5: Very Important
vicinity
Concept Test
“It is a Friday evening and there is an office team party planned post office hours. On the way from your
office to the party location, your friend swtiches his /her pair of office spectacles having a professional
look to the one having a trendy look matching the party occasion. You are amazed by this and then your
friend tells you that he/she purchased the two specs at the same time using the buy one get one frame
free offer on Lenskart. You like this idea and decide to buy two specs suting different occasions on
Lenskart using this offer.”
1-5
Scale
65 | P a g e
Willingness to buy from 1: Definitely not purchase

Lenskart post seeing the 1-5 2:
20 64 above concept as an Likert Interval 3: May or may not purchase
advertisement Scale 4:
1: Social Media
2: Print Ads
How did you come to know
3: TV Ads
21 65 about Lenskart? 1-5 Nominal
4: Referrals from Friends/
Family
5: Hoardings/ Banners
How strongly do you 1-5
22 associate the following with Likert Interval
brand Lenskart? Scale
663-D Mapping 1: Do not associate
67Online 5: Strongly Associate
Promotions (First Frame
68
Free/ 1+ 1 Frame Free)
69 Spamming
Brand (Vincent Chase\ John
70
Jacobs)
71 Cheap
72 Variety
Do you usually buy online 1: Online
23 73 1-2 Nominal
or offline? 2: Offline
1-5
What are the barriers to
24 Likert Interval
buy online?
Scale
74 1: Not at all relevant
be judged
75 2: Somewhat irrelevant
actual feel
3: Neither relevant not
76 Physical trial not possible
irrelevant
Doctor medical prescription
77 4: Somewhat relevant
is difficult to decipher online
Double eye-checkup (initial
and just before purchase)
78 5: Completely relevant
done offline is not possible
online
66 | P a g e
Concept Test
“You access the Lenskart website and shortlist a few models of eyewear. The 3D mapping allows you to
see how it suits you. You are still worried about the feel and weight of the piece. So you decide to visit a
Lenskart store. You meet the store manager and show him the shortlisted models on your phone and
also tell him about the difficulty faced and time spent in visiting the store. He tells you about the option
wherein the store person visits your home with the required frames for you to check out at your
doorstep. You are delighted to know about this service and decide to order online after availing this
option in future.”
1-5
Scale
1: Definitely not purchase
Willingness to buy online
1-5 2:
post seeing the above
26 80 Likert Interval 3: May or may not purchase
concept
Scale 4:
1: Website
27 81 Which online mode 1-2 Nominal
2: App
1-5
28 Why do you buy online Likert Interval
Scale
Lack of Options in nearby
82 1: Not relevant
stores
83 Saves time 5: Very relevant
3-D trial eliminates need for
84
a physical trial
85 Referrals
86 Promotional Discounts
1-5
features do you strongly
29 Likert Interval
associate with Lenskart
Scale
website
Uncluttered and user
87 1: Don’t Agree
friendly
88 Fast checkout process 5: Strongly Agree
89 Little repetition of products
90 Ease of payment
91 Smooth functioning
92 Ease of search/filter
67 | P a g e

1-5
features do you strongly
30 Likert Interval
like or dislike about
Scale
Lenskart app
93 Product Reviews 1: Strongly Disagree
94 Ease of Search 5: Strongly Agree
95 Tracking of orders
96 User Interface
97 Payment Gateways
Concept Test
“On your previous order on Lenskart, you used the 3D mapping feature which then saves your face
online. After a few months, when you want order another pair of spectacles. You login to your account
and you get customized recommendations list based on the face which was saved last time. This delights
you and this also greatly saves your time spent in filtering. You quickly place an order and are happy
with the seamless online experience.”
1-5
Scale
1: Definitely not purchase
Willingness to buy from 1-5 2:
Lenskart’s website post
32 99 Likert Interval 3: May or may not purchase
viewing the above concept
Scale 4:
ad
1: Under 18
2: 18-25
33 100 Age 1-5 Nominal 3: 26-33
4: 34-40
5: 40+
1: Male
34 101 Gender 1-2 Nominal
2: Female
1: Student
2: Working Professional
35 102 Occupation 1-5 Nominal 3: Businessman
4: Housewife
5: Others
1: No Income
2: <5 LPA
3: 5-10 LPA
36 103 Annual Income 1-6 Nominal
4: 10-17 LPA
5: 17-25 LPA
6: >25 LPA
68 | P a g e
What category do you

1: Low Power Myopia (0-2)
belong to? (Myopia means
2: High Power Myopia (0-2)
37 104 short sightedness, 1-4 Nominal
3: Hypermetropia
Hypermetropia: far
4: Both
sightedness]
How much will you rate Continuous 1: Extremely poor

38 105 1-10
brand Lenskart overall? Scale 10: Excellent
69 | P a g e

Lenskart: Research For Marketing Decisions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lenskart: Research For Marketing Decisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Submission – Final Report

RESEARCH FOR MARKETING DECISIONS

Submitted by: Group 6

MDP & MRP

Management Research Problem

To analyze the profile of the customers in the eyewear sector

To assess brand awareness and brand image of Lenskart

To investigate barriers and triggers to buying Lenskart

To propose marketing initiatives to improve sales and assess their impact

Who influences the buying Sources such as doctors, ads,

Is the brand awareness high? Percentage of brand recall &

To understand the barriers to Unavailability of physical

To evaluate effectiveness of Social Media Campaign,

Highlights from Secondary Data Analysis

The four categories in spectacles are:

The major trends observed in the industry are as follows:

3. Sunglasses is fastest growing category because of it being viewed as a fashion accessory.

Highlights & Findings from Qualitative research

1. Focused Group Discussions

To analyze eyewear purchase behavior

Brand Awareness of Lenskart

Barriers and Triggers to buying from Lenskart

2. Brand Concept Mapping

3. Laddering through in-depth interviews

Survey Sample details

Method Sample Size Description

Category of vision defect

Gender Branded Stores Local Stores Total

Age Branded Stores Local Stores Total

Highlights & Findings from Quantitative research

Factors that go into purchase decision

Lenskart User Non-User

Willingness to Pay attributes

Lenskart User Non-User

Lenskart Brand Associations

The following concept tests was tested in the survey:

Overall appeal of idea Willingness to buy

3.1 Purchase behavior vs Age distribution

Purchase_Local_Bra Branded Stores Count 1 24 20 0 10 55

Nominal by Nominal Phi .175 .584

Cramer's V .175 .584

3.2 Purchase behavior vs Occupation

Purchase_Lo Branded Stores Count 28 26 1 0 0 55

% within 100.0 40.9

% within 100.0 100.

Pearson Chi-Square 5.970a 4 .201

Nominal by Nominal Phi .253 .201

Cramer's V .253 .201

3.3 Frequency of purchase vs Age distribution

Frequency_of_purcha More than twice in a Count 0 4 2 0 0 6

Once a year Count 0 20 8 0 7 35

Once in 2 years Count 1 10 18 1 9 39

Once in greater than 2 Count 0 7 3 0 3 13

Pearson Chi-Square 13.000a 12 .369

Nominal by Nominal Phi .374 .369

Cramer's V .216 .369

3.4 Branded store purchase locations vs Trust factor

Pearson Chi-Square 13.803a 12 .313

Nominal by Nominal Phi .476 .313

Cramer's V .275 .313

Brand_Purchase_L Lenskart Count 2 6 5 6 19

Titan Eye+ Count 2 4 10 9 25

Lawrence & Count 0 0 1 6 7