BIBLIOGRAPHY
SIDDAYAO, JAYCA Y. APRIL 2008. Employee Patronage on Products of
Selected Income Generating Projects at Benguet State University. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Darlyn D. Tagarino, PhD
ABSTRACT

The study was conducted to determine the level of employee patronage on the
selected Income Generating Projects at Benguet State University namely: the Food
Processing Center and the Bakery.

Among the 108 respondents, 53.70% are under the teaching category and 46.30%
are non-teaching staff. Majority of the employees surveyed belonged to the lower income
brackets. Majority allocated 51- 60% of their monthly income on food.
Both the teaching and non-teaching employees of Benguet State University
patronize the Food Processing Center and BSU Bakery. However, there were more non-
teaching than teaching employees who patronized these IGPs. FPC was more patronized
by majority of employees than the Bakery. However, majority of the products are not
strongly patronized.
The bulk of the respondents are buying on a monthly basis for most of the BSU
products. A mean quantity purchase of 2.82 for the FPC and 3.4 for the Bakery was
calculated.

---

Majority of the employees are very aware of the existence of the Food Processing
Center and the Bakery. There is a significant result showing awareness for all the
products by both the teaching and non-teaching employees for both FPC and Bakery.
There were more teaching employees who were very aware of the existence of the
majority of the products of the FPC and Bakery than non-teaching staff.
The overall perceived benefits of purchasing from FPC and Bakery are: products
are wholesome, nutritious and safe for consumption; quality of the products; working
area is clean; products are convenient to buy; accessibility is good; Marketing Center is a
good location for BSU products and; products are healthier than other brands.
The most important product market factors considered by teaching employees are
promotion and place for FPC and Bakery, respectively. Non-teaching staff considered
place as the most important product-market factor for FPC and Bakery.
The general reasons of employees for patronage are the following: assured
cleanliness and quality of the products; accessibility and; brand loyalty. The reasons for
non-patronage for the FPC were revealed as the following: due to its prohibitive costs;
lack of promotion strategies and; products are not always available; For the Bakery, the
following reasons were revealed: due to its prohibitive costs; irregularity of sizes, texture
and taste and; lack of promotion strategies.
Development of well-planned marketing strategies and a thorough review on the
array of the products, the schedule of production, and how to make the price more
competitive is recommended to drive stronger patronage.

ii

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS












Page





Bibliography………………............................................................................ i
Abstract……………........................................................................................ i
Table of Contents…................……........................... …….............................
iii

INTRODUCTION

Rationale of the Study …………….....................................................
1

Statement of the Problem….................................................................
3

Objectives of the Study……................................................................
4

Importance of the Study……...............................................................
5

Scope and Delimitation of the Study...................................................
6
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Personal and Socio-economic Profile..................................................
8

Extent of Patronage……….................................................... …….....
9

Factors Influencing Patronage…………….........................................
11

Conceptual Framework……................................................................
22

Hypotheses of the Study……………………………………………..
25
METHODOLOGY

Locale and Time of the Study …….....................................................
26

Respondents of the Study …..…….....................................................
26

Research Instrument............................................................................
27

Data Collection ……...........................................................................
27
iii

---

Data Analysis.......................................................................................
27
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Personal and Socio-Economic Profile ……………………................
29
Extent of Patronage


General Patronage…………....................................................
32


Patronage by Product...............................................................
33


Frequency of Patronage……...................................................
38


Quantity of Purchase…………………………………………
43

Level of Awareness


Product Awareness …………………………………………..
46
Perceived Benefits from patronizing the
BSU Food Processing Center………………………………………..
55


Perceived Benefits from Patronizing
the BSU Bakery……….......................................................................
56


Product-market Factors influencing Patronage


Product…….............................................................................
65


Price.........................................................................................
66


Place.........................................................................................
67
Promotion….............................................................................
70


Sales Personnel…………….....................................................
72


Other Factors……….. ……......................................................
72

Reasons for Patronage or Non-Patronage…………………………….
76


iv

---

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary……………………………………………………………...
78

Conclusions…………………………………………………………...
80

Recommendations………….................................................................
81
LITERATURE CITED……………………………………………………….
83
APPENDIX

A. Letter to the Respondents…………………………………………
85

B. Survey Questionnaire…………………………………………….. 86

v

---

INTRODUCTION



Rationale of the Study


In 1997, the Education Modernization or RA 8292 was enacted. This
required State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) to generate revenues on the optimum
utilization of their land reservations in order to augment their current budget
appropriations.

The recent decision of the national government to reduce and eventually phase out
the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses subsidy for state colleges and
universities put a lot of anxiety and pressure on SUCs to devise measures in order to
produce or increase their income. The suddenness of the decision caught many schools by
surprise, as they are not capable to take up the challenge. Although most SUCs are
similarly burdened, some are in a better position to ultimately shoulder such
responsibility in a shorter time. The situation is not only true to the Philippines. In more
advanced countries, many state universities have long shed their dependence on national
subsidy for their survival. Many of them are self-sustaining or depending on their own
initiatives to sustain their various programs.

The Integrated Multi-site Business Process Outsourcing Incubation Contact
Center is a project initiated by Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The project is
also an integral part of the CHED’s program to encourage SUCs to engage in income
generating activities to bolster their fiscal capability and autonomy. (Maragay, 2007).
Benguet State University, a public educational institution established by law, is
known for its Excellency in Agricultural Education. The institution has a four-fold
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

2
function: instruction, research, extension and production. It has become a dynamic and
vibrant state institution of higher learning. Thus, it has to generate financial resources
through Income Generating Projects (IGPs) in order to constantly support its four-fold
functions prompting itself to be less dependent on government allocations.
In the 2006 Annual Performance Rating (APR) of State universities and Colleges
(SUCs) recently conducted by the Department of Budget and Management – CAR, BSU
obtained the highest overall rating (UPAO, 2007). Moreover, DBM suggested that SUCs
must venture into various IGPs to improve their ratings under income accomplishments
to fund other relevant programs and to be judicious in managing financial resources.

In BSU, income generation is not novel. As a new state college in 1970, it already
adopted a “commercialization approach” in managing and operating its agricultural
production projects. As a result of the Education Modernization Act, the University
Business Program Organization and Management was reorganized to strengthen the
production function of the university for sustainability and productivity, and finally
towards the attainment of fiscal autonomy.

There are three kinds of IGPs implemented in the University, namely: the
agricultural based projects, the non-agricultural based and auxiliary services; and the stall
and commercial buildings owned by the University. These IGPs include floriculture,
bakery, swine, seed production, poultry projects, food processing centers, souvenir gift
shop, marketing center, root crop processing, high value crops, strawberry production
projects, dairy/cattle, pomology, special agroforestry and mushroom projects. Moreover,
RSDC Canteen, SLS Canteen, ELS Canteen, Guest House, Ladies’ and Men’s
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

3
Dormitories, Veterinary Hospital, CHET showcase, & PWRS belong to auxiliary service;
and the stalls and commercial buildings (Oblay, 2005).

BSU recently continues to generate additional revenues from its various agri-
based, non-agri based and special projects as well as from its auxiliary services. Also, the
university is strengthening its instruction-based IGPs, like the conduct of review classes,
conduct of short courses and others (BSU: Developing People with Excellence and Social
Conscience, 2005). The university will persist to expand and improve the efficiency of its
various income generating funds for its operations.
Employees of BSU are consumers of the different IGPs. They are important
ingredient in the successful operation of the different IGPs since their income comes
from the institution where they work for. Their patronage of BSU products would cause a
significant boost in sales. Hence, there is a need to conduct a study on employee
patronage of selected Income Generating Projects at BSU to learn more about their
purchase behavior towards BSU products and services. Such study would contribute to
the development of effective marketing strategies to further improve BSU-IGPs, and the
generation of income for the university.

Statement of the Problem

This study was conducted to determine the level of employee patronage on
products of selected BSU-IGPs.

Specifically, this study answered the following problems:
a. What is the personal and socio-economic profile of BSU employees?
b. What is the extent of employee patronage on the products of selected BSU-
IGPs?
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

4
c. What psychological factors and product-market factors are influencing
employee patronage?
d. What are the reasons why employees patronize or do not patronize the
products of selected BSU-IGPs?

Objectives of the Study

The general objective of the study was to determine the level of employee
patronage on the products of Income Generating Projects at Benguet State University.
Specifically, it aimed:
a. to determine the personal and socio-economic profile of BSU employees;
b. to determine the extent of employee patronage on the products of selected BSU-
IGPs;
c. to identify the factors influencing patronage as to:
1. psychological factors
i. level of awareness
ii. perceived benefits
2. product-market factors
i. product
ii. price
iii. place
iv. promotion
v. sales personnel
vi. other factors
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

5
d. to identify the reasons why employees patronize or do not patronize the products
of selected BSU-IGPs

Importance of the Study

The success of Benguet State University-Income Generating Projects (BSU-IGPs)
depends on the market, the acceptability of products by customers, among them
employees themselves. Patronage behavior of employees affects the business operation of
the different Income Generating Projects (IGPs). Nevertheless, the different IGPs can
have their own way of persuading customers to patronize their products by developing
innovative strategies or marketing program.

Results of this study would serve as inputs to policy and strategy formulation to
the Business Affairs Division (BAD) since the Business Affairs Council (BAC) is
responsible in drawing production policy and providing additional support to the
programs of colleges’ research and extension and the administration, identifying the level
of patronage will be a special guide in the planning process. The results may also
enlighten and encourage project managers to integrate competitiveness in their
production and marketing systems as they generate more income for the University.
Likewise, the findings will enable project managers to design more meaningful and
effective marketing strategies and manufacture of products that would cater to consumer
interests and preferences. It will also provide a firmer basis for policy decision that can be
possibly implemented in the selected BSU-IGPs. However, a lot of difficulties and
constraints are met by policy makers and implementers in undertaking programs and
projects. For these reasons, a benchmark study should be made before any development
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

6
program is implemented in order to be able to determine the impact of program or project
later on.
Moreover, the results will also serve the employees since they play a vital role in
the existence of BSU-IGPs. The information generated will improve awareness and/or
appreciation of their patronage behavior towards BSU-IGPs. Employees would be able to
know and understand how they behave in the purchase situation and patronage.
Furthermore, it is best to learn, understand, and examine the validation of theory on
consumer behavior. This will build up theoretical knowledge that is already available in
this area. Results of the study likewise will serve as comparison with other markets for
BSU-IGPs’ products.
Equipped with this set of information, this study would provide relevant
information for other interested groups of researchers who want to have similar studies as
such.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The study was confined mainly on the level of employee patronage on the
products of selected BSU-IGPs at Benguet State University. However, there are some
limitations associated in the research for this study.

Firstly, the study was concentrated in two Income Generating Projects of Benguet
State University namely: BSU Food Processing Center, and the BSU Bakery. These IGPs
have major contribution to the income of BSU-IGPs.

Secondly, the respondents of the study were BSU employees, categorized into
two strata such as teaching and non-teaching personnel. Only those who were employed
as of August 15, 2007 in the university were included in the study.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

7

In order to get a fair and comprehensive knowledge on employee patronage on the
BSU-IGPs, several points are to be considered. The study sought to find out the profile
of employees which includes their age, sex, civil status, place of residence, employee
category, monthly disposable income and the specific allocation for food; their extent of
patronage on the products of BSU-FPC and BSU Bakeshop which includes the number of
employees purchasing and not purchasing, volume of purchase and frequency of
purchases; the factors influencing their patronage behavior such as the psychological
factor which include their level of awareness on the products of the two IGPs and the
benefits they perceived from patronizing BSU-FPC and BSU Bakery and the product-
market factors which include product, price, place, promotion, sales personnel and other
factors related; and their reasons of patronage and for non-patronage.




















Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

8
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Business and industries cannot thrive without consumers to buy its goods and
services. This is the reason why Stone et al., (2000) noted that consumers are important
for a very fundamental reason: they give direction to our economic system by deciding
what shall and shall not to be produced. It is necessary to know their behaviors and
comments towards these products in order to improve and surf the needs, tastes and
preferences of target costumers.
Berkman (1994) also added that consumers’ behavior describes how consumers
make purchase decisions and how they use and dispose of the purchased goods and
services. It also includes the analysis of factors that influence purchase decision.
Shiffman and Kanuk (2000) described that consumers’ product and service
preference are constantly changing. In order to address this constant state of flux and
create a proper marketing mix for a well-defined market, managers must have a thorough
knowledge of consumer behavior.

Personal and Socio-economic Profile
Marketers realized that consumers did not always act or react as marketing theory
suggested they would. They preferred differentiated products that they felt reflected their
own special needs, personalities, and lifestyles.
Individual is also influenced by series of social factors, such as reference groups,
family, social roles and status, all of which can have a direct effect on buying behavior
(Gibney, 1998)
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

9
One author justified that food preferences of consumers are a function of socio-
economic, educational, personal, psychological, cultural, regional and religious extrinsic
and intrinsic factors that interact and influence each other as well (Singh, 1995).
Influencing factors that can be classified as personal include such things as age,
and life cycle, occupation, economic circumstances and lifestyle. Individuals will buy
different types of product depending on their age. A person’s occupation will influence
consumption.
Buying patterns are also heavily influenced by an individual’s economic
circumstances. Kotler (2000) stated that an individual’s economic circumstances consist
of disposable income, savings and assets, borrowing power and attitude toward spending
versus saving.
According to Cohen (1988), factors that affect consumer’s general willingness to
spend are expectations about future employment, income levels, prices, family size, and
general economic conditions. People are sometimes more willing to buy if they have the
buying power. Willingness to buy may increase if people are reasonably certain of higher
incomes in the future. Expectations of rising prices in the near future may also increase
the willingness to buy. One of the reasons for this relationship is that as the size of the
family increases, a greater of pesos must be spent to provide the necessities life to sustain
the family members.

Extent of Patronage

Behavioral scientists who favor the theory of instrumental conditioning believe
that brand loyalty and/or patronage results from an initial product trial that is reinforced
through satisfaction, leading to repeat purchase (Kotler and Armstrong, 1989).
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

10
Diamond et al. (1987) added that stores that are best able to satisfy customers will
make the sale. Consumers who are satisfied with their purchases are likely to become
loyal customers. Allen (2006) also asserted that satisfied customers are motivated to
return and buy again from the same business more often. Thus, it is obvious that the more
the retailer knows about the customer, the greater the chance of success.
Cognitive researches on the other hand, believe that consumers engage in
extensive problem-solving behavior involving brand and attribute comparisons, leading
to a strong brand and preference and repeat purchase behavior (Kotler and Armstrong,
1989). According to Hawkins and Hock (1992), one study measured loyalty found out
that products having few competitors, as well as those purchased with great frequency,
are likely to have greater loyalty. Thus, a more favorable attitude toward a brand, service
or store, compared to potential alternatives, together with repeat patronage is seen as the
requisite components of customer loyalty.
To cognitive learning theorists, frequency of purchase or proportion of total
purchases lack precision, because they do not distinguish between the “real” local buyer
who is intentionally faithful, and the spurious loyal buyer who repeat a purchase because
it is the only one available at the store. Such theorists say that loyalty must be measured
by attitude toward brand, rather than by purchase consistency.

The study of consumer behavior is of crucial importance. When consumers buy
certain products and more of it, they encourage their producers to step up their products
and make more of them, conversely, if a consumer shows little or no interest in a product
through small purchases, they make this one way of advising the business enterprise
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

11
concerned to produce something which consumers want most or go out of the business
(Kotler, 2006).

Some marketing scholars have noted a recent decline in brand loyalty or
patronage; some of the reasons include consumer boredom or dissatisfaction with the
products they use; increased concern with price, demand for new products, seasonality of
products, and no brand attached to products. Also, low quality of products also affects
patronage of consumers.
However, every business venture has its own way of persuading customers to
patronize its products. Marketing strategies play a vital role in influencing consumer
decision-making and lead to profitable exchanges.
Dr. Avila explained that what they do is improve traditional products like the
peanut butter which is one of the most saleable products of the center along with
strawberry preserves and ube jam. But they continue to conceptualize new products for
the center like yummy nuts to address the changing tastes and preferences, and demand
for new products by consumers (Estolas, 2004).

Factors Influencing Patronage Behavior
Allen (2006) asserted that everyone has a customer. This has quite implications. It
means that every work group has to think about providing value to the people who use
their product. This involves finding out exactly what the user needs and wants, and
ensuring that the process provides it.
Kotler (2000) mentioned that the major factors influencing consumer behavior are
cultural, social, personal and psychological factors. However, many earlier theories
concerning consumer behavior were based on economic theory, on the notion that
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

12
individuals act rationally to maximize their benefits (satisfactions) in the purchase of
goods and services. Later research discovered that consumers are just as likely to
purchase impulsively, and to be influenced not only by family and friends, by advertisers
and role models, but also by mood, situation, and emotion. All of these factors combine
to form a comprehensive model of consumer behavior that reflects both the cognitive and
emotional aspects of consumer decision making.
Psychological Factors. A person’s buying decisions are also influenced by
psychological factors such as: motivation, perception, learning, and beliefs and attitudes.
Burstiner (1994) expressed that the social sciences have furnished the basics for
marketing researchers to investigate why people select certain products and services as
opposed to others, and why they prefer to shop at certain stores. These investigators have
probed motives, perceptions, individual needs and wants (both innate and learned),
attitudes, how people learn and remember or forget, and many other facets of the human
personality and psyche. All these factors appear to affect purchasing behavior.
Motivation arises from perceived needs. These needs can be biogenic and
psychogenic. Biogenic needs arise from psychological states of tension such as hunger,
thirst and discomfort. Psychogenic needs arise from psychological states of tension such
as need for recognition, esteem or belonging. Maslow’s theory of motivation seeks to
explain why people are driven by particular needs at particular times. Maslow argued that
human needs are arranged in a hierarchy comprising, in their order of importance:
psychological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs and self-actualization
needs.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

13
The way customers view an object could include their mental picture of a brand,
or the traits they attribute to the brand. The way that a person perceives a situation will
affect how they act (Gibney, 1998). The buying behavior of consumers as stated by
Lusch (1987) as cited by Delim (2005) is strongly influenced by how they perceive the
environment around them, including products and other marketing stimuli.
In general, it’s been found out that reference group influence is very, very strong
in an information vacuum where the customer has little or no direct knowledge about the
attributes of a product or service.
Gibney (1998) also indicated that knowledge make it possible for the consumer to
make healthy food choices without giving up family tradition or personal preference.
Schiffman and Kanuk (2000) suggested that opinion leaders often specialize in
the product categories in which they give information and advice. They are perceived to
be knowledgeable because, apart from their perceived credibility, they provide
information based on their experience, use and knowledge of a product. They are likely to
influence consumers in a desired way and provide information to influence consumers’
decision to purchase and to repeat purchases.

Perceived Benefits from Patronage. Many earlier theories concerning consumer
behavior were based on economic theory on the notion that individuals act rationally to
maximize their benefits in the purchase of goods and services (Zimmerer and
Scarborough, 2005).
Go (1997) states that the product function is to provide benefits desired by the
target market in its feature like quality, service, brand, and package.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

14
According to Armendez (1999), an effective product strategy is achieved by
creating products that are significantly different from competing companies and meeting
or exceeding the needs and expectations of customers. Products physical appearance,
packaging, and labeling information can influence whether consumer notice a product in
store, examine it and create consumer perception from those of competitors that the
products are worthwhile (Go,1997).
Through effective product strategy, consumer patronage increases. Thus, a
company could maximize its sales and profits, too (Allen, 2006).
A progressive organization should have a well established strategy for quality,
one that is based in customers’ perception regarding quality. Quality is partly determined
by the expectations and perceptions of the customer and because each individual
perceives stimuli differently, quality will be different for each customer (Allen, 2006).
Customers, who were not adequately responded to, are not like to feel satisfied.
In BSU, BSU products are perceived to be quality products because products are
generally commented as moderately high-priced products. Additionally, consumers are
assured in the quality of the products produced. Estolas (2004) reported that the Food
Processing Center of Benguet State University practice sensory and visual inspection
from the raw materials they use until the finished products are ready to ensure quality.
This is also true to other BSU IGPs. Dr Jane K. Avila also added that FPC employs 5’s’
techniques to ensure cleanliness. In English, these are: sweep, sort, systematize, sanitize,
and self-discipline. This may be the reason why consumers continuously patronize the
products.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

15
By satisfying customers with quality products and extra service, you will get
repeat business and referrals. Of course, price must be competitive and customers must
have an easy access. Although marketing and advertising are important to get more
customers, quality, service and customer satisfaction are what keep a business successful
in the long run (Allen, 2006).
Quality is defined by Allen (2006) a meeting the needs and expectations,
customer satisfaction can readily be measured. However, this requires the customer to
answer specific questions about how he or she feels about the company’s performance.
This is why it is so important to capture their interest and build credibility needed to gain
the cooperation.
Kotler (2000) revealed that the trend nowadays is that people are becoming
health-conscious. Singh (1995) further remarked that an aging and affluent society is
becoming more interested in healthy foods, both those foods that are free of bads such as
fat and sodium and have more “goods” such as antioxidants and vitamins and other
attributes. In m any ways, the wellness market is just developing as the science and
consumer awareness continues to grow (Singh, 1995).

Estolas (2004) reported that local buyers including tourists buy the products
because they think these are prepared in an academic environment, therefore, it is
wholesome, nutritious, and safe to consumers. There is no kind of cheating or
adulteration in the process. Thus, these products have already become a by-word to
everyone. This perhaps, is the reason why consumers continue to patronize the food
products at Benguet State University.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

16
Allan (2006) found that products are successful because their creators identified
an unmet need in the market. The safety of a product use is an important consideration
for many consumers, particularly for manufactured and processed products.
According to Assael (1990), one of the influencing factors in the purchase
decision of consumers positive or negative predisposition toward a particular brand or
company unless the product is totally new. He further stated that consumer’s mindset is
formed by his or her needs, perceptions at a brand or company and attitude toward that
brand or company.
Indulgence is a broad category that covers many products attributes and
characteristics. Products that appeal to indulgence are those designed to meet the
consumers deeply felt desires as opposed to their needs. Indulgence in this sense does not
necessarily mean unimportant or frivolous, but rather items need to possess
characteristics above and beyond the simple ability to maintain life or to provide
minimum quality at a minimum price (Decision-Making Fact Sheet (PDF), 2005).
A consumer may buy fewer candy bars to keep the weight off but the candy bars
he or she buys are more expensive, and are of higher quality or more exciting taste and
variety. Affluent, less price conscious consumers will look for products that will satisfy
more than their needs, they will look for products that enhance their lifestyle, their values
and their beliefs.
In the study of Boc-Ong (2006), she found out that most buyers nowadays are
practical. They sacrifice the other attributes of the product for a low price. For some
consumers, they perceive a product with low price as less quality and a high price product
as a better quality (Go, 1997).
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

17
Price coupled with a basic level of performance is the hallmark of its quality,
texture, taste, and nutritional value (Kittikumpanat et al., 2005). Allen (2006) affirmed
that the right price for a product or a service is one of the essential elements in a solid
business model. Berkman (1994) added that some consumers perceive a product with low
price as less quality and a high price as a better quality. Moreover, products that meet the
consumers’ needs at the lowest price fulfill the consumers’ preferences for value.
Also, their perceptions of future economic conditions influence willingness to buy
(Nestle, 1998). Benefits of well-conceived pricing include increasing sale to current
customers, attracting new customers, maximizing short-run cash flow, and maintaining
an established position.
Consumers may perceive that products sold in exclusive outlets, has higher
quality
Benefits of packaging to the seller include protection of the product, more
efficient physical distribution, lower total costs, and relatively higher sales and profits.
Benefits of packaging to the consumer relate to helping keep the product clean and
uncontaminated until it is needed.

Product-Market Factors
Each element of the marketing mix—product, price, place promotion—can affect
consumers in their buying decisions (Peter and Donnelly, 2001 as cited by Delim, 2005;
Rue and Holland, 1986). Go (1997) stated that the product function is to provide benefits
desired by the target market in its features like the quality, service, brand and package.
Product. Mahmood (1996) noted that the attraction of the consumers to the
company can be attributed to the special features of its products. A package can be vital
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

18
part of a product. A brand name, a package can influence consumer’s attitude toward a
product, which in turn affects their purchase decisions.
In product influences, people tend to buy a particular brand of product because of
its quality, texture, taste, and nutritional value (Go, 1997). As Mahmood (1996) affirmed
that customers’ attraction to a company can be attributed to the special features of its
products. As Kotler (2000) also explained that product strategy is interrelated with
product design as the factor that determines the competitive edge of a company.
Several researchers such as Kittikumpanat and Elsey (2005) examined the effect
of adding information on the nutrition label to change the purchasing behavior of the
consumers. Most health conscious consumers (Kotler, 2000) read the label and they
require more complete and detailed information. As a consequence, to meet the
requirement of consumers, providing information on the label should be exhaustive of a
product’s attributes and its benefits.
Allen (2006) added that quality can give the business a competitive edge and can
help to keep and gain more customers and their patronage as well.
Price. Kotler (2006) and Go (1997) observed that the price of the product is one of
the highest influencing factors that determine the behavior of consumers. The right price
for a product is one of the essential elements in a solid business model. Go (1997) also
revealed that many of today’s value conscious consumers may buy products more on the
basis of price than other attributes. Ideally, a price should meet three requirements: it
should match the competition; it should be attractive to potential customers in such a way
that they will repeat purchases; and it should earn a profit (Allen, 2006). In the study of
Boc-ong (2006), she found out that most buyers nowadays are practical. They sacrifice
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

19
the other attributes of the product for a low price. It attracts customers best for they are
able to buy quality product at a low price. Boc-Ong (2006) stated that product’s price, the
level of satisfaction that is obtained from currently used products, family size and
expectation about future employment, income, prices and general economic conditions as
factors that affect the willingness to spend. The willingness to purchase local products
will be a function of personal utility as well as community loyalty or attachment (Miller,
1998).
Place. Place is usually referred to as channel/distribution. This has always been
very important in business. The purpose is to make the product available and accessible
to target consumers.
Place of distribution would affect consumers in several ways. First, Anonymous
(2007), products that are convenient to buy in a variety of stores increase the chances of
consumers in finding and buying them.
Assael (1990) and Kotler (2000; 2006) revealed that products that are convenient
to buy in a variety of stores increase the chances of consumers in finding and buying
them. Also, consumers may perceive that products sold in exclusive outlets have higher
quality. As a result, consumers are willing to pay a price premium for foods that are
convenient (Kotler and Armstrong, 1989).
Promotion. Promotion has its own task in the marketing mix to communicate with
the customers what the other elements offer. It has four major elements. These are
advertising which is used to effectively inform and persuade target market; public
relations which is the way to a positive image of the company and the brand (Kotler,
2000); personal selling to get the customers to buy; and sales promotions to convince
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

20
customers to buy immediately (Go, 1997) at a low price (Kotler, 2000). Public relations
offer a positive image of the company and the brand of the product. Selling directly to
consumers would actually convince them depending on the sales person.
The purpose of packaging is to protect the product, to enhance the product’s value
to the consumer, and to stimulate sales. According to Mahmood (1996), advertising has
an important role vital to the survival of an undertaking. Advertisement comes in a
number of ways and means, each with its own objectives to inform, attract, influence, and
convince customers to have a desire for the product and in turn decide to buy the product
again.
Emotion sells. People are often motivated to buy a product or service because of
some emotion, whether it is greed, fear or want. Response to advertisements often
increases whenever these elements are injected into an ad (Allen, 2006).
Sales Personnel. Aside from advertising, and sales promotions, sales people, and
publicity can also influence what consumers think about products, what emotions they
experience in purchasing and using them, and what behavior they perform, including
shopping in particular stores and purchasing specific brands/labels.
One entrepreneur says, “If you are not taking care of your customers and
nurturing that relationship you can bet there is someone else out there who will.”
Customer complaints should be welcomed. Customer feedback can help refine and
improve products, services and all the operations of a business. Allen (2006) noted that a
company must aim to make good service as part of business culture.
Other Factors. Schiffman et al., (2000) expressed that other factors that
contributed to the growing interest in consumer behavior were the accelerated rate of new
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

21
product development, the consumer movement, public policy concerns, environmental
concerns, and the opening of national markets throughout the world.
Some marketers have started to promote consistency of operation and
convenience in an effort to combat shifting loyalties. Others have adopted such sales
promotion devices as frequent-users credits to encourage brand loyalty. Because of the
importance of brand imagery to loyalty, many marketers develop a simple, descriptive
promotional line and through heavy repetition, engrave it in consumers’ memories.
Discovering how consumers learn about brands and become attached to certain
brands assists marketers in achieving this goal—loyal consumers.

Conceptual Framework
The intent of the study is to determine the extent of employee patronage on the
products of selected BSU IGPs.
A lot of variables will affect the attainment of the study’s objectives. The
independent variables considered in the study are: a.) the personal and socio-economic
factors such as age, sex, civil status, place of residence, employee category, monthly
disposable income, and disposable income allocated to food budget; b.) the psychological
factors such as the level of awareness on the products of selected BSU-IGPs; perceived
benefits/motivation; c.) and product-market factors such as product, price, place/outlet
image, promotion, personnel and others.
It is assumed that these factors are associated with their level or extent of
patronage. The personal and socio-economic profile of the employees has moderate
influences on their purchase behavior. Their age, sex, civil status, place of residence,
employee category, and economic circumstances will influence their taste, preferences
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

22
and consumption of FPC and Bakery products. Generally, teaching personnel have higher
income than non-teaching employees. Therefore, the buying patterns of employees are
also influenced by their economic circumstances.
The way employees view BSU products could include their mental picture of the
brand, or the traits they attribute to the brand. The way they perceive circumstances by
buying BSU products will affect their purchase decision which in turn affects their extent
of patronage. These are the reasons why psychological factors such as level of awareness
on the products of FPC and Bakery and perceived benefits were considered as factors in
relation to employee patronage. Assael (1990) affirmed that consumers’ mindset is
formed by his or her needs, perceptions at a brand or a company or institution and
attitude toward that brand.
Product-market factors are also assumed to affect the extent of employee
patronage on BSU products. If BSU products provide benefits and good features, like the
quality, service, brand and package desired by the BSU employees then there is a
tendency that they will be more inclined to buy the products.
The price of the BSU products is one of the highest influencing factors that
determine the behavior of consumers. The lower the price or the higher the purchasing
power of the employees, the more they are willing to buy more of the products. This
situation also corresponds to the economic principle of demand behavior.
There is a greater likelihood of the products to be purchased if the channel or
distribution/outlet is readily accessible and convenient.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

23
Employee customers are convinced to buy more of the products depending on the
promotion strategy established by FPC and Bakery. If the products are well-promoted
then it is expected to gain more consumer patronage from the BSU employees.
Also, selling directly to consumers would actually convince them depending on
the sales personnel of the FPC and Bakery and the marketing center.


















Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

24

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT VARIABLES









Personal and Socio-Economic

Profile:



EXTENT OF PATRONAGE

-Age
ON PRODUCTS OF

-Sex
SELECTED BSU IGPs

-Civil Status


-Place of Residence
- Number of employees

-Employee Category
purchasing

-Monthly Disposable Income
(Teaching & non-

-Disposable Income Allocated to
teaching)

Food



- Volume of purchases

Psychological Factors:


-Frequency of purchase

-Level of awareness on the products


offered by the selected IGPs

-Perceived benefits



Product-Market Factors:



-Product
-Price

-Place
-Promotion

-Personnel
-Other factors

Others

-Reasons for patronage or non-
patronage


Figure 1. Paradigm of the study showing the relationship of variables included


Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

25
Hypotheses of the Study

The following hypotheses were drawn for testing based on the stated problems of
the study:
a. 50% of the employees patronize the Food Processing Center;
b. 50% of the employees patronize the Bakery;
c. The BSU employees are not aware of the BSU products (FPC products and
Bakery products) and;
d. The benefits perceived by employees from patronizing selected BSU-IGPs do not
differ significantly.














Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

26
METHODOLOGY

Locale and Time of the Study

The study was conducted at Benguet State University during the 2nd semester
2007-2008. The survey period covered the months of December 2007 to January 2008.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study are the employees of Benguet State University –
main campus. As of August 15, 2007, the university has total regular plantilla positions
of 609 in its main campus. The total workforce composed of 319 teaching personnel
(permanent and contractual), 271 non-teaching staff, and 19 substitute employees
(teaching and non-teaching).





46%
Teaching
54%
Non- teaching


Respondents of the study


Figure 2. Respondents of the study

The derivation of sample was based on stratified random sampling. The
population was divided into two strata. Based on typology (i.e. teaching and non-
teaching), random samples were drawn from each stratum of which 18.20% or 58 from
teaching and another 18.20% or 50 from non-teaching. The list obtained from the Human
Resource Management Office of the university was used as a sample frame.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

27
Research Instrument

The survey questionnaire is the main instrument used in gathering the data. The
survey questionnaire was composed of open-ended and closed-ended questions that
satisfy the objectives of the study.

Data Collection

The data set which was used in this study were the list of names employed in the
university as of August 15, 2007. The list of employees was secured from the Human
Resource Department of Benguet State University.

In obtaining relevant data, a survey questionnaire was administered in the study.
This questionnaire served as the foundation for this benchmarking study and it provides a
common link among the benchmarking participants (Allen, 2006).
A pre-test was conducted to fifteen respondents in order to test the reliability of
the guide questionnaire and to further improve its contents before the full-blown data
gathering.
The researcher personally distributed and retrieved the questionnaire from the
respondents.

Data Analysis

The study used the descriptive normative survey method which deals more on
fact-finding with adequate analysis, ideas and opinions. It is normative in the sense that it
will survey actual and prevailing situation. It is descriptive in nature because the data
gathered was summarized and reduced into meaningful values in order to describe the
characteristics of the samples used in this study. Open-ended responses were coded and
quantified (i.e. converted into numerical scores) and then all the responses were
tabulated, analyzed and interpreted using appropriate statistical tools.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

28
The study satisfied the elements of the parametric statistical model. For the
parametric statistical model, t-test was used to determine the significant difference among
the variables compared.

Descriptive frequencies and means were analyzed using the Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS).
The level of awareness made use of the following statistical limits:
Statistical limits




Description




1.00-1.59
Very
aware




1.60-2.59
Slightly
aware




2.60-3.00
Not
aware


The perceived benefits made use of the following scale:
Statistical limits




Description





4.50-5.00
Strongly
agree





3.50-4.49
Moderately
agree





2.50-3.49
Undecided





1.50-2.49
Moderately
disagree





1.00-1.49
Strongly
disagree


The product-market factors made use of the following scale:
Statistical limits




Description

4.50-5.00




Very important factor

3.50-4.49




More important factor
2.50-3.49




Undecided
1.50-2.49




Less important factor
1.00-1.49




Not Important Factor
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

29
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


This section presents the discussion, analysis, and interpretation of the findings
drawn from respondents with regards to their level of patronage on products of selected
Income Generating Projects at Benguet State University.

The data presented in this section were derived from the responses to the
questionnaire floated to selected employees of Benguet State University. The data
gathered were related to the following: 1) personal and socio-economic profile of
respondents; 2) extent of patronage and psychological factors (level of awareness and
perceived benefits) affecting patronage; 3) product-market factors affecting patronage;
and 4) the reasons for patronage or non-patronage.

Personal and Socio-Economic Profile

Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents according to some demographic
characteristics such as age, sex, civil status, and place of residence. The distribution of
respondents according to designation is shown in Table 2 and Table 3 shows the
distribution of respondents according to income and specific allocation for food.
Age. The age distribution of the respondents is reflected in Table 1. It could be
seen from the table that the respondents have ages ranging from 20 to 70 years. The
largest proportion representing 34.3 percent or 37 of the respondents had ages ranging
from 20-30 years. Such distribution shows that most of the employees are below the
middle adult age.
Sex. It could be gleaned from the table that there are more female (70.40%) than
male (29.60%) respondents in the survey conducted.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

30
Civil status. Seventy-one (65.70%) of respondents are married, thirty-six
(33.30%) are single, and one (0.90%) is a widower.

Place of residence. Most of the respondents 55 (50.90%) reside outside the school
campus but within La Trinidad, twenty-nine (26.90%) live within the school campus, and
twenty-four (22.20%) live outside of La Trinidad.

Table 1. Distribution of respondents according to some socio-demographic characteristics

CHARACTERISTIC FREQUENCY
PERCENT
Age




20-30
37
34.30
31-40
32
29.60
41-50
27
25.00
51-60
9
8.30
61-70
3
2.80
TOTAL 108
100.00
Sex





Male
32
29.60
Female
76
70.40
TOTAL 108
100.00
Civil Status





Single
36
33.30
Married
71
65.70
Widow/widower
1
0.90
TOTAL 108
100.00
Place of Residence



29
26.90
Within school campus
55
50.90
Outside school campus


but within La Trinidad
24
22.20
Outside La Trinidad
TOTAL 108
100.00

Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

31
Employee category. It could be seen from Table 2 that 53.70% are under the
teaching category and 46.3% are non-teaching staff. From the teaching category, 32.7%
are instructors, 5.5% are Assistant Professors, 8.2% are Associate Professors, and 6.4%
are Professors.
Monthly disposable income. The finding shows that 41 or 38% of the employees
has income in the bracket of P10, 001-15,000 and 37 or 34.30% has income in the
bracket of P5, 001-10,000. This finding shows that majority of the employees surveyed
belonged to the lower income brackets (Table 3).
Disposable income allocated to food budget. As shown in Table 4, out of 108
employees, 24 (22.20%) have allocate less than 40% of their monthly income on food, 31
(28.7%) allocate about 41-50% of their monthly income, 32 (29.60%) of the employees
allocate 51-60% of the income to food, 16 (14.80%) allocate about 61-70% and 5
(4.60%) allocate 71% and above on food items. This finding shows that most of the
employees allocated a higher percentage of their monthly disposable income to food
expenditure.

Table 2. Distribution of respondents according to employee position

PARTICULAR FREQUENCY
PERCENT
Teaching
58
53.70



Instructor
36
32.70
Assistant Professor
6
5.50
Associate Professor
9
8.20
Professor
7
6.40



Non-teaching
50
46.3

TOTAL 108
100.00

Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

32
Table 3. Distribution of respondents according to monthly disposable income
PARTICULAR FREQUENCY
PERCENT
<P5, 000
10
9.30
P5, 001-10,000
37
34.30
P10, 001-15,000
41
38.00
P15, 001- 20,000
11
10.20
P20,001 and above
9
8.30
TOTAL 108
100.00

Table 4. Distribution of respondents according specific allocation for food
PARTICULAR FREQUENCY
PERCENT
<40%
24
22.20
41-50%
31
28.70
51-60%
32
29.60
61-70%
16
14.80
71% and above
5
4.60
TOTAL 108
100.00


Extent of Patronage
General patronage. Table 5 presents the number of teaching and non-teaching
personnel who patronize and do not patronize the selected BSU-IGPs. Majority of both
the teaching (68.97% and 62.07%) and non-teaching (82% and 76%) employees of BSU


Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

33
Table 5. Distribution of respondents as to patronage of the BSU-IGPs

FOOD PROCESSING CENTER
BSU BAKERY

NON-
NON-
TEACHING
TEACHING
TEACHING
TEACHING

F % F % F % F %
Buying
40 68.97 41 82.00 36 62.07 38 76.00
Not
buying 18 31.03 9 18.00 22 37.93 12 24.00
TOTAL
58 100.00 50 100.00 58 100.00 50 100.00


patronize the Food Processing Center and the Bakery, respectively. It is notable that there
were more non-teaching employees than teaching employees who patronized these IGPs.
The Food Processing Center was also more patronized by majority of the employees than
the Bakery with 81 out of 108 or 75% buying from it compared to the 74 out of the 108
or 69% who were buying from the Bakery.
Based on the statistical results, 50% of the employees are patronizing the BSU-
IGPs at 0.10 level of significance. However, while more were found to be patronizing the
said IGPs, the next section reveals the extent of patronage by product.
Patronage by product. It can be observed that majority of the FPC products are
not strongly patronized except for Peanut butter, Strawberry preserves and Ube Jam with
58.33%, 53.70% and 56.48% of the total respondents respectively, acknowledging having
purchased these items. This result agrees with the report of Estolas (2004) that these
products are the most saleable products of the FPC. Peanut Butter and Ube Jam of the
FPC are well known and patronized for a reputation of incomparable quality. The other
products like peanut brittle, peanut adobo and pineapple-papaya jam were patronized by
only less than or equal to a third of the respondents. The notable number of non-
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

34
patronage for other products could probably due to its newness in the market. The
distribution of respondents according to product patronage can be seen in Table 6 for the
Food Processing Center and Table 7 for the Bakery.
In the case of the Bakery, majority of the products are also not strongly patronized
except for cinnamon loaf and plain loaf as patronized by 54.63% and 48.15% of the
respondents, respectively. The purchase behavior of the teaching vis-à-vis the non-
teaching does not vary much in terms of product purchase as well as non-patronage for
the bakery. The minimal patronage for some products like birthday and other specialty
cakes can be explained by the fact that these products are offered largely as ordered. The
notable number of non-patronage for the other products may also be explained by
unavailability on a daily basis of these products in the marketing center.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

35
Table 6 . Distribution of respondents as to product patronage or non- patronage for the Food Processing Center.

TEACHING NON-
TEACHING
TOTAL
FPC PRODUCTS
Patronizing
Not
Patronizing
Not
Patronizing Not
Patronizing
Patronizing
Patronizing
F F F F F
%
F
%
Chayote Champoy
3
55
5
45
8
7.41
100 92.59
Chocoberry 6
52
12
38
18
16.67
90 83.33
Chocoflakes
10 48 16 34 26
24.07
82 75.93
Kimchi 2
56
5
45
7
6.48
101 93.52
Peanut
Adobo
10 48 21 29 31
28.70
77 71.30
Peanut
Brittle
15 43 18 32 33
30.56
75 69.44
Peanut
Butter
35 23 28 22 63
58.33
45 41.67
Peanut
Polvoron
12 46 13 37 25
23.15
83 77.85
Pineapple-Papaya
Jam 16 42 15 35 31
28.70
77 71.30
Pineapple Tartlets
4
54
6
44
10
9.26
98 90.74
Santol Candy
2
56
19
31
21
19.44
87 80.56
Strawberry Cookies
9
49
7
43
16
14.81
92 85.19
Strawberry Preserve
38 20 20 30 58
53.70
50 46.30
Strawberry Spread
7
51
8
42
15
13.89
93 86.11
Strawberry Syrup
3
55
2
48
5
4.63
103 95.77
Strawberry Tarts
8
50
9
41
17
15.74
91 84.26
Toasted
Peanuts
10 48 11 39 21
19.44
87 80.56
Ube
Jam
31 27 30 20 61
56.48
47 43.52
Yummy
Nuts
16 42 11 39 27
25.00
81 75.00
n=108

Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

36
Table 7 . Distribution of respondents as to product patronage or non- patronage for the Bakery.

TEACHING NON-
TEACHING
TOTAL
BAKERY PRODUCTS
Not
Not
Not
Patronizing
Patronizing
Patronizing
Patronizing
Patronizing
Patronizing
F F F F F
%
F
%
Cinnamon
Loaf
28 30 31 19 59
54.63
49
45.37
Plain
Loaf
29 29 23 27 52
48.15
56
51.85
Cheese
Loaf
11 47 17 33 28
25.93
80
74.07
Cream
Loaf
17 41 10 40 27
25.00
81
75.00
Cheese
Rolls
21 37 18 32 39
36.11
69
63.89
Cinnamon
Square
19 39 23 27 42
38.89
66
61.11
Herb Bread
12
46
5
45
17
15.74
91
84.26
Ensaymada
13 45 19 31 32
29.63
76
70.37
Hot
Pandesal
12 46 13 37 25
23.15
83
76.85
Pandesal
Putok
11 47 10 40 21
19.44
87
80.56
Spanish
Bread
12 46 10 40 22
20.37
86
79.63
Nutri-buns
9 49 8 42
17
15.74
91
84.26
Raisin
Bread
11 47 14 36 25
23.15
83
76.85
Ube
Basket
17 41 12 38 29
26.85
79
73.15
Carrot Basket
15
43
8
42
23
21.30
85
78.70
Mongo
Basket
8 50 7 43
15
13.89
93
86.11
Toasted Siopao
11
47
8
42
19
17.59
89
82.41
Coconut
Tokens
6 52 4 46
10
9.26
98
90.74
Coconut Bars
10
48
4
46
14
12.96
94
87.04
Oatmeal
Bars
21 37 22 28 43
39.81
65
60.19
Peanut Bars
13
45
8
42
21
19.44
87
80.56
Chayote
Cookies
3 55 3 47 6
5.56
102
94.44
Chayote
Bars
3 55 3 47 6
5.56
102
94.44


Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

37
Table 7. Continued…

TEACHING
NON- TEACHING
TOTAL
BAKERY PRODUCTS
Not
Patronizing
Not
Not
Patronizing
Patronizing
Patronizing
Patronizing
Patronizing
F
F
F
F
F
%
F
%
Carrot Cookies
5
53
6
44
11
10.19
97
89.81
Caramel Tarts
5
53
4
46
9
8.33
99
91.67
Carrot Tarts
4
54
2
48
6
5.56
102
94.44
Ube Tarts
4
54
2
48
6
5.56
102
94.44
Chayote Tarts
7
51
2
48
9
8.33
99
91.67
Crinkles
4 54 8 42
12


11.11
96
88.89
Lengua de Gato
5
53
9
41
14
12.96
94
87.04
Oatmeal Cookies
4
54
6
44
10
9.26
98
90.74
Pinipig Cookies
6
52
5
45
11
10.19
97
89.81
Butter Cake
4
54
5
45
9
8.33
99
91.67
Cheese Cup Cake
2
56
2
48
4
3.70
104
96.30
Blackforest Cake
2
56
1
49
3
2.78
105
97.22
Birthday Cake
1
57
1
49
2
1.85
106
98.15




Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

38
Frequency of patronage. Another indication of the extent of patronage is the frequency of
purchase as shown in Tables 8 and 9 for the teaching and non-teaching employees in
relation to the Food Processing Center, and in Tables 10 and 11 in relation to the Bakery.
It is expected that the frequency of purchase varied by employee but the findings revealed
that there is so much irregularity in the purchase behavior of BSU employees for products
of the FPC and the Bakery. It is evident in all the concerned tables that purchase was
skewed towards a monthly, semestral or annual basis. This is indicative of generally low
patronage for the products.
Both the teaching and non-teaching employees very seldom buy on a daily basis
of the FPC products. Only the chayote champoy was purchased daily by very few
respondents. This was while the product was available because the product did not stay
long in the market. The highest percentage of respondents buying FPC products was a
little more than 30% for peanut butter and ube jam and this is on a monthly basis. There
is no evidence of very frequent purchase behavior for the FPC products as purchased by
both the teaching and non-teaching employees. It is widely spread over the various
products on a monthly, semestral and annual basis.
For the Bakery products, daily purchases were noted for the teaching employees
for items such as plain loaf, cream loaf, cheese rolls, spanish bread, nutri-buns, toasted
siopao, coconut bars, and oatmeal bars. This was true for items such as cheese loaf,
cream loaf, carrot basket, mongo basket, and carrot cookies for the non-teaching
employees. However, it should be noted that the respondents buying daily are again very
minimal. The bulk of the respondents are buying only a monthly basis for most of the
baked products.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

39
Table 8. Distribution of teaching respondents according to frequency of purchase by
product of the FPC per buying period

DAILY WEEKLY MONTHLY SEMESTRAL ANNUAL
PRODUCT
F % F % F % F
% F %
Chayote
1 2.5 -
-
1 2.5 -
12.5 1 2.5
Champoy
Chocoberry
- - - - 3 7.5 -
- 4 10
Chocoflakes
- - - - 4 10 5 10 1 2.5
Kimchi
- - - - - - - 15 2 5
Peanut Adobo
- - 6 15 - - 4 22.5 -
Peanut Brittle
- - - - 4 10 6 12.5 5 12.5
Peanut Butter
- - - - 22 55 9 10 4 10
Peanut
- - - - 3 7.5 5 2.5 4 10
Polvoron
Pineapple-
- - - - 11 27.5 4 2.5 1 2.5
Papaya Jam
Pineapple
- - - - 1 2.5 1 2.5 2 5
Tartlets
Santol Candy
- - - - 1 2.5 1
5 -
Strawberry
- - - - 4 10 1 2.5 4 10
Cookies
Strawberry
- - - - 4 10 2 2.5 2 5
Preserve
Strawberry
- - - - 5 12.5 1 7.5 1 2.5
Spread
Strawberry
- - - - 2 5 1 2.5 -
Syrup
Strawberry
- - - - 4 10 3 17.5 1 2.5
Tarts
Toasted
- - - - 7 17.5 1 2.5 2 5
Peanuts
Ube Jam
- - 1 2.5 18 45 7 12.5 4 10
Yummy Nuts
- - 1 2.5 10 25 1

4 10

n=40

Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

40
Table 9. Distribution of non-teaching respondents according to frequency of purchase by

product of the FPC per buying period

DAILY WEEKLY
MONTHLY
SEMESTRAL
ANNUAL
PRODUCT
F % F % F % F % F %
Chayote
1 2.44 - - 4 9.76 -
- - -
Champoy
Chocoberry
- - - - 6
14.63
4 9.76 2
4.88
Chocoflakes
- - - - 11
26.83
1 2.44 4
9.76
Kimchi
- - - - 4 9.76
- - 1
2.44
Peanut
- - - - 15
36.59
4 9.76 2
4.88
Adobo
Peanut Brittle
- - - - 13
31.71
2 4.88 3
7.32
Peanut Butter
1 2.44 1 2.44 19 46.34
2 4.88 5 12.20
Peanut
- - - - 6
14.63
4 9.76 3
7.32
Polvoron
Pineapple-
- - - - 12
29.27
2 4.88 1
2.44
Papaya Jam
Pineapple
- - - - 5
12.20
1 2.44 - -
Tartlets
Santol Candy
- - - - 14
34.15
3 7.32 2
4.88
Strawberry
- - - - 4 9.76
2 4.88 1
2.44
Cookies
Strawberry
- - - - 13
31.71
1 2.44 6
14.63
Preserve
Strawberry
- - - - 6
14.63
1 2.44 1
2.44
Spread
Strawberry
- - - - 2 4.88
- - - -
Syrup
Strawberry
- - - - 4 9.76
1 2.44 4
9.76
Tarts
Toasted
- - - - 9
21.95
- 2
4.88
Peanuts
Ube Jam
- - - - 18
43.90
7
17.07
4
9.76
Yummy Nuts
- - - - 6
14.63
1 2.44 3
7.32
n=41
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

41
Table 10. Distribution of teaching respondents according to frequency of purchase by
product of the Bakery per buying period

DAILY WEEKLY MONTHLY
SEMESTRAL ANNUAL
PRODUCT
F % F % F % F % F
%
Cinnamon
Loaf - - 1 2.78 22 61.11 5 13.89 - 2.78
Plain
Loaf
1 2.78 1 2.78 25 69.44 1 2.78 1
2.78
Cheese Loaf
-
-
-
-
10
27.78
-
-
1
2.78
Cream
Loaf
2 5.56 2 5.56 12 33.33 -
- 1
-
Cheese
Rolls 1
2.78 - - 15 41.67 5 13.89 -
-
Cinnamon
Square
- - - - 14 38.89 5 13.89 -
-
Herb Bread
-
-
-
-
11
30.56
1
2.78
-
2.78
Ensaymada
- - - - 8 22.22 4 11.11
1
-
Hot Pandesal
-
-
-
-
11
30.56
1
2.78
-
-
Pandesal Putok
-
-
-
-
8
22.22
3
8.33
-
-
Spanish Bread
1
2.78
-
-
11
30.56
-
-
-
-
Nutri-buns 1
2.78
-
-
7
19.44
1
2.78
- -
Raisin Bread
-
-
-
-
11
30.56
-
-
-
-
Ube Basket
-
-
-
-
16
44.44
1
2.78
-
-
Carrot Basket
-
-
-
-
14
38.89
1
2.78
-
-
Mongo Basket
-
-
-
-
7
19.44
1
2.78
-
-
Toasted Siopao
1
2.78
-
-
10
27.78
-
-
-
2.78
Coconut Tokens
-
-
-
-
4
11.11
1
2.78
1
11.11
Coconut Bars
1
2.78
-
-
4
11.11
1
2.78
4
13.89
Oatmeal Bars
1
2.78
-
-
12
33.33
3
8.33
5
5.56
Peanut Bars
-
2.78
-
-
8
22.22
3
8.33
2
2.78
Chayote
Cookies
- - - - 1 2.78 1 2.78
1 2.78
Chayote Bars
-
-
-
-
2
5.56
-
-
1
2.78
Carrot Cookies
-
-
-
-
4
11.11
-
-
1
-
Caramel Tarts
-
-
-
-
4
11.11
1
2.78
-
2.78
Carrot
Tarts
- - - - 2 5.56 1 2.78
1
-
Ube
Tarts
- - - - 3 8.33 1 2.78 - 5.56
Chayote Tarts
-
-
-
-
5
13.89
-
-
2
5.56
Crinkles -
-
-
-
2
5.56
-
-
2
5.56
Lengua de Gato
-
-
-
-
3
8.33
-
-
2
-
Oatmeal Cookies
-
-
-
-
5
13.89
1
2.78
-
-
Pinipig
Cookies - - - - 2 5.56 2 5.56 - 2.78
Butter
Cake
- - - - 3 8.33 1 2.78
1 2.78
Cheese Cup
-
-
-
-
3
8.33
-
-
1
5.56
Cake









Blackforest Cake
-
-
-
-
4
11.11
-
-
2
2.78
Birthday Cake
-
-
-
-
2
5.56
-
-
1
-
Chocofudge Cake
-
-
-
-
1
2.78
-
-
-
2.78











n=36


Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

42
Table 11. Distribution of non-teaching respondents according to frequency of purchase
by product of the Bakery per buying period

DAILY WEEKLY MONTHLY
SEMESTRAL ANNUAL
PRODUCT
F % F % F % F
% F %
Cinnamon Loaf
-
-
3
7.89
23
60.53
4
10.53
1
2.63
Plain Loaf
-
-
3
7.89
17
44.74
3
7.89
-

Cheese Loaf
1
2.63
1
2.63
12
31.58
2
5.26
1
2.63
Cream Loaf
1
2.63
-
-
6
15.79
2
5.26
1
2.63
Cheese Rolls
-
-
1
2.63
12
31.58
4
10.53
1
2.63
Cinnamon Square
-
-
1
2.63
20
52.63
1
2.63
1
2.63
Herb
Bread
- - 1 2.63 3 7.89 - - 1 2.63
Ensaymada -
-
1
2.63
16
42.11
1
2.63
1
2.63
Hot Pandesal
-
-
-
-
13
34.21
-
-
-
-
Pandesal Putok
-
-
-
-
10
26.32
-
-
-
-
Spanish Bread
-
-
-
-
9
23.68
1
2.63
-
-
Nutri-buns -
-
-
-
7
18.42
1
2.63
-
-
Raisin Bread
-
-
-
-
10
26.32
2
5.26
2
5.26
Ube Basket
-
-
-
-
12
31.58
-
-
-
-
Carrot Basket
1
2.63
-
-
8
21.05
-
-
-
-
Mongo Basket
1
2.63
-
-
6
15.79
1
2.63
-
-
Toasted Siopao
-
-
-
-
6
15.79
1
2.63
1
2.63
Coconut Tokens
-
-
-
-
4
10.53
-
-
-
-
Coconut Bars
-
-
-
-
3
7.89
1
2.63
-
-
Oatmeal Bars
-
-
-
-
16
42.11
2
5.26
4
10.53
Peanut Bars
-
-
-
-
6
15.79
1
2.63
1
2.63
Chayote Cookies
-
-
-
-
2
5.26
-
-
1
2.63
Chayote Bars
-
-
-
-
2
5.26
-
-
1
2.63
Carrot Cookies
1
2.63
-
-
4
10.53
1
2.63
1
2.63
Caramel Tarts
-
-
-
-
1
2.63
1
2.63
2
5.26
Carrot Tarts
-
-
-
-
1
2.63
-
-
1
2.63
Ube Tarts
-
-
-
-
1
2.63
-
-
1
2.63
Chayote Tarts
-
-
-
-
1
2.63
-
-
1
2.63
Crinkles -
-
-
-
5
13.16
-
-
3
7.89
Lengua de Gato
-
-
-
-
7
18.42
1
2.63
1
2.63
Oatmeal Cookies
-
-
-
-
4
10.53
1
2.63
1
2.63
Pinipig Cookies
-
-
-
-
4
10.53
-
-
1
2.63
Butter Cake
-
-
-
-
3
7.89
1
2.63
1
2.63
Cheese Cup Cake
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
5.26
-
-
Blackforest Cake
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
2.63
-
-
Birthday Cake
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chocofudge Cake
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
2.63
-
-











n=38
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

43
Quantity of purchase. Another insight to see the extent of patronage is seen in
Tables 12 and 13. These tables show the calculations of average quantity purchase by the
employees standardized on a monthly basis. Majority of the FPC products are bought on
a range of 1-5 quantity per month. The overall mean is 2.82. It can be noticed that
Pineapple Tarlets has the highest computed mean of 12.51 which means that this product
is bought by employees on an average quantity of 13 packs per month. An average of
4.04 packs of ube jam, 3.78 packs of santol candy, and 3.76 packs of chayote champoy
are bought per month. The rest of the products are bought on average of 2 packs/bottles
per month. The lowest demand is for Peanut Adobo at less than 1 pack purchased within
a month.
For the Bakery products, majority of the products are bought on an average of 1-5
quantity per month. Hot Pandesal garnered the highest mean of 8.07 packs this is
followed by packs of Ube Basket, Carrot Basket and Mongo Basket with 7.48, 7.35 and
7.28, respectively. The overall mean is 3.4.
Tables 12 and 13 show that the quantity purchased on a monthly basis for both the
FPC and the Bakery products are not really big quantities as desired by BSU
management.






Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

44
Table 12. Average quantity of purchases by the employees on a per month basis for FPC

MEAN
FPC PRODUCTS
(µ)
Chayote Champoy
3.76
Chocoberry
2.88
Chocoflakes
1.55
Kimchi
0.68
Peanut Adobo
1.71
Peanut Brittle
1.89
Peanut Butter
2.67
Peanut Polvoron
2.17
PIPA Jam
2.9
Pineapple Tarlets
12.51
Santol Candy
3.78
Strawberry Cookies
1.44
Strawberry Preserve
2.4
Strawberry Spread
1.59
Strawberry Syrup
1.76
Strawberry Tarts
1.81
Toasted Peanuts
1.41
Ube Jam
4.04
Yummy Nuts
2.72
GRAND MEAN
2.82













Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

45
Table 13. Average quantity of purchases by the employees on a per month basis for the
Bakery

MEAN
BAKERY PRODUCTS
(µ)
Cinnamon Loaf
2.61
Plain Loaf
5.12
Cheese Loaf
3.82
Cream Loaf
5.04
Cheese Rolls
4.02
Cinnamon Square
2.57
Herb Bread
3.06
Ensaymada
4.73
Hot Pandesal
8.07
Pandesal Putok
5.61
Spanish Bread
2.14
Nutri-buns
2.40
Raisin Bread
2.80
Ube Basket
7.48
Carrot Basket
7.35
Mongo Basket
7.28
Toasted Siopao
4.75
Coconut Tokens
1.74
Coconut Bars
3.31
Oatmeal Bars
4.89
Peanut Bars
2.31
Chayote Cookies
2.52
Chayote Bars
2.99
Carrot Cookies
1.87
Caramel Tarts
2.36
Carrot Tarts
1.75
Ube Tarts
1.88
Chayote Tarts
1.88
Crinkles
2.89
Lengua de Gato
2.29
Oatmeal Cookies
1.23
Pinipig Cookies
2.25
Butter Cake
2.26
Cheese Cup Cake
4.38
Blackforest Cake
0.69
Birthday Cake
0.08
GRAND MEAN
3.40
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

46
Level of Awareness. Generally, majority of the teaching employees (87.9%) and
the non-teaching employees (92%) were very aware of the existence of the Food
Processing Center and the Bakery. See Table 14. It is interesting that there is still a small
percentage of the employees that are slightly or not aware at all that these IGPs exist.

Table 14. Distribution of respondents as to level of awareness of the Selected IGPs
TEACHING NON-TEACHING
IGP
VERY
SLIGHTLY
NOT
VERY
SLIGHTLY
NOT
AWARE
AWARE
AWARE AWARE
AWARE
AWARE
F % F % F % F % F % F %













51
87.90
7
12.10
-
-
46
92
4
8
-
-
FPC
Bakery 51 87.90 4 6.9 1 1.7 45 90 1 2.0 2 4.0



Product awareness. A closer look on the awareness of the employees of the
different products of the Food Processing Center is shown in Table 15. Overall, both the
teaching and non-teaching employees are very aware of 15 out of the 19 FPC products
(or 79%). The statistical test revealed that there is a significant result that both the
teaching and non-teaching employees are aware of the FPC products. The products where
employees are very aware of are: Chayote Champoy (1.10); Chocoberry (1.05);
Chocoflakes (1.53); Peanut Adobo (1.42); Peanut Butter (1.19); Peanut Polvoron (1.10);
Pineapple-Papaya Jam (1.07); Pineapple Tarlets (1.26); Santol candy (1.36); Strawberry
Cookies (1.53); Strawberry Preserve (1.56); Strawberry Spread (1.37); Strawberry Tarts
(1.35); Ube Jam (1.38); and Yummy Nuts (1.23).
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

47

Table 16 shows the comparative distribution of the teaching and non-teaching
respondents as to level of awareness. It can be seen that there is a greater percentage of
the teaching employees who are very aware of the FPC products than of the non-teaching
employees. The top five products according to order that the teaching employees are very
aware of are: peanut butter, ube jam, peanut brittle, peanut adobo and strawberry
preserve. On the other hand, the top five products according to order that the non-
teaching employees are very aware of are: ube jam, peanut butter, peanut brittle, peanut
adobo and strawberry preserve. Teaching and non-teaching personnel are identical as to
the top five products that they are aware of. Generally, one can see that there is not much
difference between the teaching and non-teaching employees as to the FPC products that
they are most aware of.

Table 17 shows the overall awareness level of the employees for the Bakery
products. Table 18 shows the comparison between the teaching and non-teaching
employees in terms of level of awareness for the Bakery products. The findings show that
employees are very aware of 19 out of the 37 products or 51%. Awareness has to be
promoted for 49% of the bakery products especially for birthday cakes that can be made
upon order. There is a significant result that there is awareness for the products by the
employees based on the statistical test. Comparing the teaching with the non-teaching
employees, there were more teaching employees who were very aware of the existence of
the products of the BSU bakery. The non-teaching employees were found to be very
aware over the teaching employees only for the following products: cheese rolls, herb
bread, hot pan de sal, peanut bars, chayote tarts, crinkles, lengua de gato, oatmeal
cookies, pinipig cookies, cheese cup cake and birthday cakes.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

48
Table 15. Distribution of respondents according to level of awareness for FPC products

VERY
SLIGHTLY
NOT

DESCRIPTIVE
FPC PRODUCTS
AWARE
AWARE
AWARE
MEAN
t-value ROBABILITY
n
VALUE
F % F % F %
Chayote Champoy 108
50 46.30
29 26.85
29 26.85
1.10
Very
aware
-64.92
0.000
Chocoberry
108
68 62.96
23 21.30
17 15.74
1.05
Very
aware
-87.81
0.000
Chocoflakes
108
75 69.44
21 19.44
12 11.11
1.53
Very
Aware -20.28
0.000
Kimchi
108
52 48.15
32 29.63
24 22.22
1.80 Slightly
Aware -14.84
0.000
Peanut Adobo
108
93 86.11
10 9.26
5 4.63 1.42 Very
aware -24.01
0.000
Peanut Brittle
108
98 90.74
9 8.33
1 0.93 1.74 Slightly
Aware -16.33
0.000
Peanut Butter
108
101 93.52
6 5.56
1 0.93 1.19 Very
aware -38.04
0.000
Peanut Polvoron
107
83 77.57
20 18.69
4 3.74 1.10 Very
aware -59.20
0.000
PIPA Jam
108
75 69.44
27 25.00
6 5.56 1.07 Very
aware -67.50
0.000
Pineapple Tarlets
108
64 59.26
31 28.70
13 12.04
1.26
Very
aware
-34.57
0.000
Santol Candy
108
65 60.19
26 24.07
17 15.74
1.36
Very
aware
29.00
0.000
Strawberry
108
77 71.30
22 20.37
9 8.33 1.53 Very
Aware -21.76
0.000
Cookies
Strawberry
108
94 87.04
10 9.26
4 3.70 1.56 Very
Aware -19.94
0.000
Preserve
Strawberry Spread 108
78 72.22
22 20.37
8 7.41 1.37 Very
aware -26.66
0.000
Strawberry Syrup
108
58 53.70
33 30.56
17 15.74
1.67 Slightly
Aware -41.09
0.000
Strawberry Tarts
108
79 73.15
17 15.74
12 11.11
1.35
Very
aware
-27.80
0.000
Toasted Peanuts
108
89 82.41
13 12.04
6 5.56 1.62 Slightly
aware -19.24
0.000
Ube Jam
108
101 93.52
6 5.56
1 0.93 1.38 Very
aware -24.77
0.000
Yummy Nuts
108
73 67.59
24 22.22
11 10.19
1.23
Very
aware
-34.03
0.000
48
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

49
Table 16. Distribution respondents according to product awareness for Food Processing Center by Employee Category
TEACHING NON-TEACHING
FPC PRODUCTS
VERY
SLIGHTLY
SLIGHTLY
NOT AWARE VERY AWARE
NOT AWARE
AWARE
AWARE
AWARE
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Chayote
Champoy 39 67.24 11 18.97 8 13.79 21 42.00 18 36.00 11 22.00
Chocoberry 39
67.24
11
18.97
8
13.79
29
58.00
12
24.00
9
18.00
Chocoflakes 44
75.86
5
8.62
9
15.52
31
62.00
16
32.00
3
6.00
Kimchi 32
55.17
10
17.24
16
27.59
20
40.00
22
44.00
8
16.00
Peanut Adobo
52
89.66
3
5.17
3
5.17
41
82.00
7
14.00
2
4.00
Peanut Brittle
56
96.55
2
3.45
0
0.00
42
84.00
7
14.00
1
2.00
Peanut Butter
57
98.28
1
1.72
0
0.00
44
88.00
5
10.00
1
2.00
Peanut Polvoron
47
81.03
10
17.24
0
0.00
36
72.00
10
20.00
4
8.00
PIPA Jam
44
75.86
12
20.69
2
3.45
31
62.00
15
30.00
4
8.00
Pineapple Tarlets
39
67.24
12
20.69
7
12.07
25
50.00
19
38.00
6
12.00
Santol Candy
38
65.52
12
20.69
8
13.79
27
54.00
14
28.00
9
18.00
Strawberry Cookies
43
74.14
12
20.69
3
5.17
34
68.00
10
20.00
6
12.00
Strawberry Preserve
52
89.66
5
8.62
1
1.72
42
84.00
5
10.00
3
6.00
Strawberry Spread
42
72.41
11
18.97
5
8.62
36
72.00
11
22.00
3
6.00
Strawberry Syrup
35
60.34
15
25.86
8
13.79
23
46.00
18
36.00
9
18.00
Strawberry Tarts
46
79.31
7
12.07
5
8.62
33
66.00
10
20.00
7
14.00
Toasted Peanuts
50
86.21
7
12.07
1
1.72
39
78.00
6
12.00
5
10.00
Ube Jam
56
96.55
2
3.45
0
0.00
45
90.00
4
8.00
1
2.00
Yummy Nuts
44
75.86
8
13.79
6
10.34
29
58.00
16
32.00
5
10.00




49
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

50
Table 17. Distribution of respondents according to level of awareness for Bakery products


VERY
SLIGHTLY
NOT
DESCRIPTIVE
BAKERY
MEAN
t-value PROBABILITY
n
AWARE
AWARE
AWARE
VALUE
PRODUCTS
F % F % F %



Cinnamon Loaf
106
93
87.74
8
7.55
5
4.72
1.11
Very Aware
-49.27
0.000
Plain Loaf
104
77
74.04
19
18.27
8
7.69
1.13
Very Aware
-45.36
0.000
Cheese Loaf
104
67
64.42
26
25.00
11
10.58
1.34
Very Aware
-27.49
0.000
Cream Loaf
104
81
77.88
19
18.27
4
3.85
1.46
Very Aware
-23.02
0.000
Cheese Rolls
104
88
84.62
12
11.54
4
3.85
1.26
Very Aware
-34.05
0.000
Cinnamon Square
104
54
51.92
25
24.04
25
24.04
1.19
Very Aware
-38.07
0.000
Herb Bread
104
86
82.69
13
12.50
5
4.81
1.72
Slightly Aware
-15.72
0.000
Ensaymada 104
76
73.08
20
19.23
8
7.69
1.22
Very
Aware
-34.85
0.000
Hot Pandesal
104
76
73.08
17
16.35
11
10.58
1.35
Very Aware
-27.22
0.000
Pandesal Putok
104
80
76.92
19
18.27
5
4.81
1.38
Very Aware
-24.70
0.000
Spanish Bread
104
69
66.35
21
20.19
14
13.46
1.28
Very Aware
-32.04
0.000
Nutri-buns 104
77
74.04
18
17.31
9
8.65
1.47
Very
Aware
-21.55
0.000
Raisin Bread
104
77
74.04
16
15.38
11
10.58
1.35
Very Aware
-26.56
0.000
Ube Basket
104
70
67.31
21
20.19
13
12.50
1.37
Very Aware
-24.91
0.000
Carrot Basket
104
66
63.46
22
21.15
16
15.38
1.45
Very Aware
-22.27
0.000
Mongo Basket
104
64
61.54
19
18.27
21
20.19
1.52
Very Aware
-20.13
0.000
Toasted Siopao
104
44
42.31
25
24.04
35
33.65
1.59
Very Aware
-17.84
0.000
Coconut Tokens
104
52
50.00
22
21.15
30
28.85
1.91
Slightly Aware
-12.72
0.000
Coconut Bars
104
80
76.92
15
14.42
9
8.65
1.79
Slightly Aware
-14.26
0.000
Oatmeal Bars
104
70
67.31
26
25.00
8
7.69
1.32
Very Aware
-27.36
0.000
Peanut Bars
104
56
53.85
29
27.88
19
18.27
1.40
Very Aware
-25.79
0.000
Chayote Cookies
104
47
45.19
32
30.77
25
24.04
1.64
Slightly Aware
-17.84
0.000
Chayote Bars
104
52
50.00
33
31.73
19
18.27
1.79
Slightly Aware
-15.28
0.000
Carrot Cookies
104
52
50.00
29
27.88
23
22.12
1.68
Slightly Aware
-17.52
0.000
Caramel Tarts
104
54
51.92
27
25.96
23
22.12
1.72
Slightly Aware
-16.18
0.000
Carrot Tarts
103
54
52.43
32
31.07
17
16.50
1.70
Slightly Aware
-16.32
0.000


50
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

51
Table 17. Continued…

BAKERY
VERY
SLIGHTLY
NOT
DESCRIPTIVE
MEAN
t-value PROBABILITY
PRODUCTS
AWARE
AWARE
AWARE
VALUE



F
% F % F %
Ube Tarts
57
54.81
27
25.96
20
19.23
1.64
Slightly Aware
-18.34
0.000
Chayote Tarts
61
58.65
25
24.04
18
17.31
1.64
Slightly Aware
-17.56
0.000
Crinkles 58
55.77
33
31.73
13
12.50
1.59
Very
Aware
-18.70
0.000
Lengua de Gato
51
49.51
32
31.07
20
19.42 1.57 Slightly
Aware -20.66
0.000
Oatmeal Cookies
52
50.00
30
28.85
22
21.15
1.70
Slightly Aware
-16.98
0.000
Pinipig Cookies
42
40.38
34
32.69
28
26.92
1.71
Slightly Aware
-16.50
0.000
Butter Cake
36
34.62
30
28.85
38
36.54
1.87
Slightly Aware
-14.23
0.000
Cheese Cup Cake
28
26.92
25
24.04
51
49.04
2.02
Slightly Aware
-11.80
0.000
Blackforest Cake
26
25.00
24
23.08
54
51.92
2.22
Slightly Aware
-9.38
0.000
Birthday Cake
27
25.96
24
23.08
53
50.96
2.67
Not Aware
-8.89
0.000

















51
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

52
Table 18. Distribution of respondents according to level of awareness for BSU Bakery products

TEACHING NON-TEACHING
BAKERY
SLIGHTLY
VERY
SLIGHTLY
PRODUCTS
VERY AWARE
NOT AWARE
NOT AWARE
AWARE
AWARE
AWARE
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Cinnamon
Loaf
50 86.21 6 10.34 2 3.45 43
89.58
2 4.17 3 6.25
Plain Loaf
42
75.00
11
19.64
3
5.36
35
72.92
8
16.67
5
10.42
Cheese Loaf
37
66.07
15
26.79
4
7.14
30
62.50
11
22.92
7
14.58
Cream
Loaf
46 82.14 8 14.29 2 3.57 35
72.92
11
22.92 2 4.17
Cheese
Rolls
46 82.14 9 16.07 1 1.79 42
87.50
3 6.25 3 6.25
Cinnamon
Square 31 55.36 13 23.21 12 21.43 23 47.92
12 25.00 13 27.08
Herb Bread
45
80.36
10
17.86
1
1.79
41
85.42
3
6.25
4
8.33
Ensaymada
42 75.00 9 16.07 5 8.93 34
70.83
11
22.92 3 6.25
Hot Pandesal
40
71.43
10
17.86
6 10.71 36
75.00 7 14.58 5 10.42
Pandesal
Putok
44 78.57 9 16.07 3 5.36 36
75.00
10
20.83 2 4.17
Spanish Bread
39
69.64
10
17.86
7
12.50 30
62.50
11 22.92 7 14.58
Nutri-buns 43
76.79
10
17.86
3
5.36
34
70.83
8
16.67
6
12.50
Raisin
Bread
42 75.00 7 12.50 7 12.50 35
72.92 9 18.75 4 8.33
Ube
Basket
40 71.43 9 16.07 7 12.50 30
62.50
12 25.00 6 12.50
Carrot Basket
37
66.07
10
17.86
9
16.07
29
60.42
12
25.00
7
14.58
Mongo Basket
36
64.29
9
16.07
11
19.64 28
58.33
10 20.83
10
20.83
Toasted
Siopao
27 48.21 14 25.00 15 26.79 17 35.42
11 22.92 20 41.67
Coconut
Tokens
30 53.57 13 23.21 13 23.21 22 45.83 9 18.75 17 35.42
Coconut
Bars
43 76.79 9 16.07 4 7.14 37
77.08
6 12.50
5
10.42
Oatmeal Bars
39
69.64
14
25.00
3
5.36
31
64.58
12
25.00
5
10.42
Peanut
Bars
29 51.79 16 28.57 11 19.64 27 56.25
13 27.08 8 16.67
Chayote
Cookies
27 48.21 16 28.57 13 23.21 20 41.67
16 33.33 12 25.00
Chayote Bars
31
55.36
16
28.57
9
16.07
21
43.75
17
35.42
10
20.83
Carrot
Cookies
32 57.14 14 25.00 10 17.86 20 41.67
15 31.25 13 27.08
Caramel Tarts
30 53.57 16
28.57
10
17.86
24
50.00
11
22.92
13
27.08
*n depends on the number of responses










Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
52
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

53
Table 18. Continued…

TEACHING NON-TEACHING
BAKERY
SLIGHTLY
VERY
SLIGHTLY
VERY AWARE
NOT AWARE
NOT AWARE
PRODUCTS
AWARE
AWARE
AWARE
F % F %
F
% F
%
F
%
F
%

Carrot
Tarts
31 55.36 15 26.79 10 17.86 23 48.94 17 36.17 7 14.89
Ube
Tarts
32 57.14 14 25.00 10 17.86 25 52.08 13 27.08 10 20.83
Chayote Tarts
31
55.36
17
30.36
8
14.29
30
62.50
8
16.67
10
20.83
Crinkles
30 53.57 19 33.93 7 12.50 28 58.33 14 29.17 6 12.50
Lengua de Gato
27
49.09
20
36.36
8
14.55
24
50.00
12
25.00
12
25.00
Oatmeal Cookies
25
44.64
22
39.29
9
16.07
27
56.25
8
16.67
13
27.08
Pinipig Cookies
21
37.50
26
46.43
9
16.07
21
43.75
8
16.67
19
39.58
Butter
Cake
22 39.29 20 35.71 14 25.00 14 29.17 10 20.83 24 50.00
Cheese
Cup
Cake 15 26.79 18 32.14 23 41.07 13 27.08 7 14.58 28 58.33
Blackforest
Cake 14 25.00 17 30.36 25 44.64 12 25.00 7 14.58 29 60.42
Birthday
Cake
13 23.21 18 32.14 25 44.64 14 29.17 6 12.50 28 58.33

*n depends on the number of responses








Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
53
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

54
Perceived Benefits from Patronizing
the BSU Food Processing Center
Table 19 exhibits the benefits perceived by BSU employees from patronizing the
BSU-Food Processing Center. For the teaching personnel, they perceived the following
top ten benefits based on the overall mean results: products are wholesome, nutritious and
safe for consumption, 4.27; products are of good quality, 4.15; FPC working area is
clean, 4.06; products are convenient to buy, 4.00; products are healthier than other
brands, 3.93; Marketing Center is a good location for FPC products, 3.86; personnel
assigned to jobs are readily accessible, 3.56; generally, prices of FPC products are
reasonable, 3.53; sellers are quick and efficient, 3.53; and products are always available,
3.36.
The non-teaching employees perceived the following top ten benefits (Table 20).
Products are wholesome, nutritious and safe for consumption, 4.31; products are of good
quality, 4.18; FPC working area is clean, 4.03; and products are convenient to buy, 4.02;
personnel assigned to jobs are readily available, 3.90; products are healthier than other
brands, 3.84; marketing center is a good location for FPC products, 3.70; sellers are quick
and efficient, 3.52; the management acts immediately on customer complaints, 3.41; and
generally prices of FPC products are reasonable, 3.20.
As summarized in Table 21, overall the top five perceived benefits of purchasing
from the FPC are: products are wholesome and nutritious for consumption garnering an
over-all mean of 4.29. This result is coincided with the report of Kotler (2000) that
people nowadays are becoming health conscious. Employees tend to be more interested
in healthy foods like BSU products. The reason perhaps is that, they perceive that these
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

55
are prepared in an academic environment therefore it is wholesome, nutritious and safe to
consumers (Estolas, 2004).
FPC products are perceived to be of good quality as it garnered an over-all mean
of 4.17. BSU products are perceived to be quality products because these are generally
commented as moderately high-priced products. In addition, BSU-FPC practice sensory
and visual inspection from the raw materials they used until the finished products are
ready to ensure quality.
Employees continuously patronize the products because they perceived that FPC
working area is clean with an over-all mean of 4.03. In the report of Estolas (2004), the
FPC employees in fact practice the 5’s technique to ensure cleanliness. These are: sweep,
sort, systematize, sanitize and self-discipline.
Products are convenient to buy with an over-all mean of 4.01 which means that
employees find FPC products convenient because they can easily access the products
either in the Marketing Center or directly in the FPC mini-outlet from their offices. This
result links to the findings of Assael (1990) and Kotler (2000; 2006) that those products
that are convenient to buy in a multiple outlets increase the chances of consumers in
finding and buying them. The FPC producst are also perceived to be healthier than other
brands with an overall mean of 3.89.

Perceived Benefits from Patronizing
the BSU Bakery

Table 22 exhibits the benefits perceived by BSU employees from patronizing the
BSU Bakery products.
For teaching personnel, they perceive the following top ten benefits based on the
overall mean scores: products are wholesome, nutritious and safe for consumption, 4.25;
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

56
Marketing Center is a good location for bakery products, 3.98; working area is clean,
3.96; accessibility is good, 3.88; products are of good quality, 3.71; generally, prices of
bakery products are reasonable, and products are convenient to buy are identical with
3.51 computed mean; sellers are quick and efficient, 3.50; personnel assigned to jobs are
readily accessible, 3.49; and the management acts immediately on customer complaints,
3.43; and products are healthier than other brands, 3.42.
The non-teaching employees, on the other hand, perceived the following top ten
benefits: products are wholesome, nutritious and safe for consumption, 4.22; products are
convenient to buy, 3.93; accessibility is good, and working area is identical with 3.88;
Marketing Center is a good location for Bakery products, 3.77; generally, prices of
bakery products are reasonable, 3.72; products are healthier than other brands, 3.68;
products are of good quality, 3.59; sellers are quick and efficient, 3.38; and Personnel
assigned to jobs are readily accessible, 3.31 (Table 23).

In summary, Table 23 shows that taking the five major benefits perceived by
employees from purchasing from the bakery are: products are wholesome, nutritious and
safe for consumption, working area is clean, accessibility is good, the Marketing Center
is a good location for bakery products, and the products are healthier than other brands.

Comparing Tables 21 and 24 in terms of the overall top five benefits, it can be
observed that there is both a positive perceived benefit for the Food Processing Center
and the bakery of offering products that are generally good and better than others. The
other perceived benefit for the bakery stands out as having a good location, while for the
food processing center is the perceived benefit of quality aside from accessibility.

At 90% level of significance, employees do not differ significantly in their
perceived benefits from patronizing both FPC and Bakery except for products are always
available having a P-value of 0.142 for FPC and 0.107 which are far greater than 0.10.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

57
Table 19. Perceived Benefits of the BSU Teaching Employees for Purchasing FPC Products

MODERATELY
MODERATEL
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
UNDECIDED
MEAN RANK
DISAGREE
Y AGREE
AGREE
PERCEIVED BENEFITS


F % F
%
F % F % F %
1. Products are wholesome, nutritious
and safe for consumption
1 1.7 2
3.4
3 5.2 26 44.8 26 44.8 4.27 1

2. Products are healthier than other
brands
1 1.7 5
8.6
10 17.2 23 39.7 19 32.8 3.93 5

3. Products are always available
4 6.9 9
15.5
11 19.0 27 46.6 7 12.1 3.41 10

4. Products are of good quality
1 1.7 3
5.2
7 12.1 22 37.9 25 43.1 4.15 2

5. Generally, prices of FPC products
are reasonable
3 5.2 8
13.8
13 22.4 23 39.7 11 19.0 3.53 8.5

6. Products are convenient to buy
1 1.7 2
3.4
9 15.5 30 51.7 16 27.6 4.00 4

7. Accessibility is good
11
19.0
14
24.1 14
24.1
12
20.7
7
12.1
2.82
13
8. Marketing center is a good location
3 5.2 4
6.9
8 13.8 26 44.8 17 29.3 3.86 6
for FPC products
9. The value provided by FPC is
similar to local food processing
5 8.6 7
12.1
17 29.3 22 37.9 7 12.1 3.32 12
centers
10. Location of working area is clean 1
1.7
-
-
13
22.4
24
41.4
20
34.5
4.06
3
11. The management acts
immediately on customer
3 5.2 5
8.6
26 44.8 14 24.1 9 15.5 3.36 11
complaints
12. Sellers are quick and efficient

9 15.5 19 32.8
20
34.5 10
17.2 3.53 8.5
13. Personnel assigned to jobs are
readily accessible
2 3.4 8
13.8
13 22.4 25 43.1 10 17.2 3.56 7




Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
59
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

58
Table 20. Perceived Benefits of the BSU Non-Teaching Employees for Purchasing FPC Products

MODERATELY
MODERATELY
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
UNDECIDED
MEAN RANK
PERCEIVED BENEFITS
DISAGREE
AGREE
AGREE
F % F % F % F % F %


1. Products are wholesome, nutritious and safe
1 2.0 1 2.0 3 6.0 17 34.0 22 44.0 4.13 1
for consumption
2. Products are healthier than other brands
5 10 3 6 4 8.0 14 28.0 18 36 3.84 6

3. Products are always available
10 20.0 9
18
8 16.0 10 20.0 7 14.0 2.68 12

4. Products are of good quality
1
2.0
1 2.0 4 8.0
21 42 17 34 4.18 2

5.Generally, prices of FPC products are
reasonable
5 10 8 16 10 20 15 30 6 12 3.20 10

6. Products are convenient to buy
2
4.0
1 2.0 7
14.0
18 36 16 32 4.02 4

7. Accessibility is good
10
20.0
12
24.0
14
28 5 10 3 6.0 2.52 13

8. Marketing center is a good location for FPC
products
1 2.0 4 8.0 11 22 19 38 9 18 3.70 7

9. The value provided by FPC is similar to
local food processing centers
4 8.0 10 20 13 26 12 24 5 10 3.09 11

10. Location of working area is clean
1 2.0
13 26 13 26 17 34 4.03 3

11. The management acts immediately on
customer complaints
1 2.0 5 10.0 18 36 13 26 6 12 3.41 9

12. Sellers are quick and efficient
2 4.0 7 14 11 22 14 28 10 20 3.52 8

13. Personnel assigned to jobs are readily
accessible
2 4.0 1 2.0 8 16.0 21 42.0 12 24 3.90 5


60
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

59
Table 21. Summary Mean Scores for Perceived Benefits by BSU Employees for Purchasing FPC Products
NON-
PERCEIVED BENEFITS
TEACHING
TOTAL RANK t-value
Probability
TEACHING
1. Products are wholesome, nutritious and safe
for consumption
4.27 4.31
4.29
1
15.15 0.000

2. Products are healthier than other brands
3.93
3.84
3.89
5
7.77 0.000
3. Products are always available
3.41
2.68
3.18
11
1.48 0.142
4. Products are of good quality
4.15
4.18
4.17
2
12.91 0.000
5. Generally, prices of FPC products are
reasonable
3.53 3.20
3.39
9
3.38 0.001

6. Products are convenient to buy
4.00
4.02
4.01
4
10.99 0.000
7. Accessibility is good
2.82
2.52
2.69
12
-2.46 0.016
8. Marketing Center is a good location for FPC
Products
3.86 3.70
3.59
7
5.27 0.000

9. The value provided by FPC is similar to local
food processing centers
3.32 3.09
3.23
10
2.01 0.047

10. Location of working area is clean
4.06
4.03
4.04
3
11.48 0.000
11. The management acts immediately on
customer complaints
3.36 3.41
3.39
9
3.92 0.000

12. Sellers are quick and efficient
3.53
3.52
3.52
8
5.14 0.000
13. Personnel assigned to jobs are readily
3.56 3.90
3.70
6
6.68 0.000
accessible


61
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

60
Table 22. Perceived Benefits of the BSU Teaching Employees for Purchasing BSU Bakery Products

MODERATELY
STRONGLY
DISAGREE MODERATELY
UNDECIDED
MEAN RANK
PERCEIVED BENEFITS
DISAGREE
AGREE
AGREE
F % F % F % F % F %


1. Products are wholesome, nutritious and
safe for consumption
- - 1 1.7 9 15.5 21 46.2 24 41.4 4.25 1

2. Products are more healthier than other
brands
2 3.4 4 6.9 9 15.5 19 32.8 19 32.8 3.42 11

3. Products are always available
10 17.2 12 20.7 18 31 11
19
2 3.4 2.42 13

4. Products are of good quality
2 3.4 4 6.9
16 27.6 19 32.8 14 24.1 3.71 5

5. Generally, prices of bakery products are
reasonable
3 5.2 8 13.8
16 27.6 15 25.9 13 22.4 3.51 6.5

6. Products are convenient to buy
4 6.9 7 12.1
11 19 21 36.2 10 17.2 3.51 6.5

7. Accessibility is good
1 1.7 6 10.3
10 17.2 16 27.6 19 32.8 3.88 4

8. Marketing center is a good location for
Bakery products
1 1.7 1 1.7
12 20.7 23 39.7 15 25.9 3.98 2

9. The value provided by Bakery is similar
to local bakeshops.
9 15.5 11 19 22 37.9 10 17.2 3 5.2 2.80 12

10. Working area is clean
1 1.7 1 1.7
12 20.7 24 41.4 16 27.6 3.96 3

11. The management acts immediately on
customer complaints
3 5.2 2 3.4 26 44.8 14 24.1 9 15.5 3.43 10

12. Sellers are quick and efficient
1 1.7 5 8.6 21 36.2 20 34.5 7 12.1 3.50 8

13. Personnel assigned to jobs are readily
accessible
2 3.4 3 5.2 24 41.4 17 29.3 8 13.8 3.49 9


Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
62
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

61
Table 23. Perceived Benefits of the BSU Non-Teaching Employees for Purchasing BSU Bakery Products

MODERATELY
MODERATELY
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
UNDECIDED
MEAN RANK
DISAGREE
AGREE
AGREE
PERCEIVED BENEFITS
%
F %
F
% F % F
%
F



1. Products are wholesome, nutritious and
safe for consumption
1 2.0 1
2 9 18 9
18
24 48 4.22
1

2. Products are healthier than other brands

3 6.0 5
10 9 18 14
28
13 26 3.68
7
3. Products are always available
5 10 13 26 13 26 6
12
7 14 2.90 13

4. Products are of good quality
4 8.0 6
12 9 18 11
22
14 28 3.59
8

5. Generally, prices of bakery products are
reasonable
1 2 10 20 4 8 10 20
19 38 3.72 6

6. Products are convenient to buy
6 12 7
14 5 10 15 30
10 20 3.93 2

7. Accessibility is good
2 4 1
2 13 26 13 26
15 30 3.88 3.5

8. Marketing center is a good location for
Bakery products
1 2 6 12 14 24 8 16
17 34 3.77 5

9. The value provided by Bakery is similar
to local bakeshops.
3 6 14 28 9 18 11 22
7 14 3.09 12

10. Working area is clean
1 2 1
2 16 32 12 24
14 28 3.88 3.5

11. The management acts immediately on
customer complaints
3 6 4
8 23 46 11 22
3 6 3.15 11
12. Sellers are quick and efficient
2 4 4
8 17 34 16 32
5 10 3.38 9

13. Personnel assigned to jobs are readily
accessible
2 4 6 12 15 30 17 34
4 8 3.31 10


63
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

62
Table 24. Summary Mean Scores for Perceived Benefits by BSU Employees for Purchasing Bakery Products
NON-
PERCEIVED BENEFITS
TEACHING
TOTAL RANK t-value
Probability
TEACHING
1. Products are wholesome, nutritious and safe for
4.25 4.22
4.24
1
13.94
0.000
Consumption

2. Products are healthier than other brands
3.42 3.68
3.81
5
5.62
0.000
3. Products are always available
2.42 2.90
2.80
13
7.02
0.107
4. Products are of good quality
3.71 3.59
3.66
7
-1.63
0.000
5.Generally, prices of bakery products are
3.51 3.72
3.61
8
2.28
0.025
Reasonable

6. Products are convenient to buy
3.51 3.93
3.70
6
8.09
0.000
7. Accessibility is good
3.88 3.88
3.88
3.5
4.48
0.000
8. Marketing center is a good location for Bakery
3.98 3.77
3.88
3.5
9.96
0.000
Products

9. The value provided by Bakery is similar to local
2.80 3.09
2.93
12
5.23
0.000
Bakeshops

10. Working area is clean
3.96 3.88
3.92
2
4.30
0.000
11. The management acts immediately on customer
3.43 3.15
3.31
11
4.87
0.000
Complaints

12. Sellers are quick and efficient
3.50 3.38
3.45
9
3.83
0.000
13. Personnel assigned to jobs are readily accessible
3.49 3.31
3.41
9
3.19
0.002




64
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

65
Product-market Factors Affecting Patronage

Tables 25 to 32 present the different factors that influence the employees’
patronage of BSU products.
Product. It could be gleaned from Table 25 that the very important factors
considered by BSU employees in patronizing FPC products are: functional use of the
product with 4.78, taste with an overall mean of 4.75; and shelf life with 4.65. On the
other hand, appearance with 4.40; texture with a mean of 4.22; size with 4.22, and color
with 4.12, are considered as important factors. This implies that FPC should consider
these factors in developing new products to satisfy its customers.

For Bakery products, Table 26 shows that taste with 4.87 mean, shelf life with
4.76 mean, and quantity with mean of 4.70 are considered as very important factors
followed by texture with 4.37, size with 4.43, appearance with 4.44 and color with 4.25
are considered as important factors. This signifies that BSU Bakeshop should put an eye
to these factors to further cater to the needs of its customers.

Moreover, the results corroborate with the findings of Go (1997) that people tend
to buy a particular product because of its quality, texture, taste and appearance and as
Mahmood (1996) also affirmed that customers’ attraction to buy can be attributed to the
special features of its products.

Through effective product strategy, consumer patronage increases. Thus, these
IGPs could maximize its sales and profits as revealed by Allen (2006).
Price. Kotler (2006) and Go (1997) observed that price of the products is one of
the highest influencing factors that determine patronage behavior of consumers. Some
consumers perceive a product with low price as less quality and high priced product as a
better quality.



Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
66
Table 25. Distribution of respondents according to product factors affecting their
patronage for FPC products

NOT
LESS
MORE
VERY
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT UNDECIDED IMPORTANT IMPORTANT

FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
DEGREE
T NT T NT T NT T NT T NT
% % % % % % % % % %
Taste
1.7 - 3.4 - 17.2 - 77.6
14.0 - 74.0
Texture
3.4 4.0 3.4 6.0 3.4 16.0 36.2 16.0 53.4 46.0
Size
1.7 4.0 3.4 4.0 6.9 12.0 34.5 32.0 53.4 36.0
Appearance
1.7 2.0 3.4 2.0 3.4 4.0 31.0 24.0 60.5 56.0
Color
1.7 4.0 8.6 4.0 6.9 10.0 36.2 36.0 46.6 34.0
Shelf life
1.7 -
- 2.0 1.8 8.0 19.3 14.0 77.2


64.0
Functional
1.7 - 1.7
-
- -
12.1 16.0 84.5


88.0
use of the
product



Table 26. Distribution of respondents according to product factors affecting their
patronage for BSU Bakery products

NOT
LESS

MORE
VERY
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT UNDECIDED
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT

FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
DEGREE
T NT T NT T NT T NT T NT
% % % % % % % % % %
Taste -
-
-
-
1.7
2
12.1
4
81.0
84
Texture 1.7
4
-
4
10.3
6
25.9
18
56.9
58
Size 1.7
2
1.7
4
5.2
8
31.0
14
55.2
62
Appearance 3.4 - - - 8.6 6 27.6 30 55.2 54
Color 3.4
2
1.7
2
8.6
16
31
24
50
46
Shelf life
1.7
-
1.7
2
-
-
13.8
10
77.6
78
Functional
- -
1.7
-
3.4
4
22.4
18
67.2
68
use of the
product



Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
As shown in Tables 27 and 28, BSU employees prefer certain price reflecting the
quality of the product (for FPC: 4.58 mean, 4.63 for Bakery) yet affordable to them (4.69
for FPC and 4.57 for Bakery). In other words, most of the employees are quality-
conscious. These factors are very important to them however, some of the respondents
revealed that they prefer low priced products (4.33 for FPC and 4.43 for Bakery) but it
does not mean that they prefer less quality products. It was observed previously that
34.30% belonged to P5, 001-10,000 income brackets and 9.3% belonged to less than P5,
000 income group. Thus, corresponds to the report of Kotler (2000) that willingness of
consumers to buy products is heavily influenced by the employees’ economic
circumstances. Additionally, Boc-ong (2006) found out that most buyers nowadays are
practical which means that they sacrifice other attributes of the product for a low price.
Place. Tables 29 and 30 show the most considered factors as to place by the BSU
employees. For FPC products and Bakery products, cleanliness of the outlet i.e.
Marketing Center, accessibility, convenience and layout are very important factors to the
employees. Cleanliness of the outlet has a mean of 4.79 for FPC and 4.76 for Bakery;
accessibility has 4.82 for FPC and 4.67 for Bakery; convenience has a mean of 4.77 for
FPC and 4.62 for Bakery; and layout has 4.49 for FPC and 4.54 for Bakery.

Outlet is usually referred to as channel for BSU products. The cleanliness of the
marketing center adds value to the products. Therefore, FPC and Bakery should make
sure that outlet is well-sanitized so that it will emphasize more the quality of the products.
The buying behavior of consumer as stated by Lusch (1987) as cited by Delim (2005) is
strongly influenced by how customers perceive the environment around them, including
products and other marketing stimuli.
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
68
Table 27. Distribution of respondents according to price factors affecting their patronage
for FPC products

NOT
LESS
MORE
VERY
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT UNDECIDED
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT

FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
DEGREE
T NT T NT T NT T NT T NT
% % % % % % % % % %

Price










reflecting
-
-
-
-
3.5
8.0
12.1
20.0
84.5
60.0
quality

Affordable
- - - -
1.7
6.0
35.1
16.0
61.4
66.0
price

Lower
price than 1.7 4.0 1.7 2.0 3.4 14.0 27.6
22.0
70.7
46.0
competing
brands


Table 28. Distribution of respondents according to price factors affecting their patronage
for BSU Bakery products

NOT
LESS
MORE
VERY
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT
UNDECIDED
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT

FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
DEGREE
T NT T NT T NT T NT T NT
% % % % % % % % % %

Price










reflecting
-
-
1.7
2
1.7
6
32.8
6
58.6
76
quality

Affordable
price
- -
1.7
2
6.9
8
22.4
12
63.8
68

Lower
price than
- 4 5.2
4
6.9
4
24.1
18
58.6
60
competing
brands




Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
69
Table 29. Distribution of respondents according to place factors affecting their patronage
for FPC products

NOT
LESS
MORE
VERY
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT UNDECIDED
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT

FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
DEGREE
T NT T NT T NT T NT T NT
% % % % % % % % % %











Cleanliness
-
-
1.7
-
3.4
2.0
10.3
2.0
84.5
74.0
of the outlet











Accessibility
-
-
1.7
-
-
2.0
19.0
10.0
81.0
76.0
Convenience
- - - - 3.4 -
20.7
14.0
75.9
74.0
Layout
- 2.0 - 4.0 3.4 4.0
29.3
2.0 63.8
56.0




Table 30. Distribution of respondents according to place factors affecting their patronage
for BSU Bakery products

NOT
LESS
MORE
VERY
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT UNDECIDED IMPORTANT IMPORTANT

FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
DEGREE
T NT T NT T NT T NT T NT
% % % % % % % % % %











Cleanliness
-
-
-
-
1.7
-
24.1
14
94.8
76
of the outlet











Accessibility
- - - - 5.2 2
24.1
18
65.5
70











Convenience
68
- - 3.4 - 3.4 2
22.4
20
65.5
Layout
- - 1.7 4 6.9 4 25.9 18 60.3 64




Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
70

It was observed earlier that most of the respondents were living outside school
campus but within La Trinidad. Thus, employees find BSU products accessible since the
outlet is located within the school campus.

Layout is considered as another very important factor. If the layout of the outlet is
ideal, consumers will easily access the products
Promotion. Promotion factors affecting employee patronage on selected IGPs are
shown in Tables 31 and 32. For FPC, packaging material used on the products has a mean
of 4.45 and 4.51 for BSU bakeshop. Product/nutrition label has the mean of 4.49 for both
FPC and Bakery.

Table 31. Distribution of respondents according to promotion factors affecting their
patronage for FPC products

NOT
LESS
MORE
VERY
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT
UNDECIDED
IMPORTANT

FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
DEGREE
T NT T NT T NT T NT T NT
% % % % % % % % % %
Packaging
3.4 2.0 3.4 - 3.4 4.0 32.8 22.0
56.9
60.0
materials used

Creative display
5.2 2.0 3.4 8.0 6.9 14.0 37.9 36.0 46.6
28.0
of products

5.2 2.0 13.8 - 15.5
10.0
25.9 38.0
39.7
38.0
Words-of-mouth

Referral by family
6.9 4.0 15.5 6.0 12.1 30.0 24.1 22.0 41.4 26.0
members/friends

Popularity of
5.2 4.0 15.5 8.0 5.2 14.0 25.9 34.0 48.3
28.0
products

Product / nutrition
1.7 - 6.9
2.0
3.4 4.0
27.6
18.0
60.3
64.0
label
Recognized brand
3.4 2.0 10.3 8.0 6.9 16.0 34.5 22.0 44.8
40.0
name

Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
71
This implies that the overall assessment of the packaging materials used and
nutrition label as factors affecting employee patronage are considered as very important
factors. This may be due to the fact that the way customers view product could include
their mental picture of a brand, or the traits they attribute to the brand.
The remaining factors under promotion such as the following: creative display of
products with means of 4.21 for FPC and 4.30 for Bakery; referral by a family member
with means 3.74 for FPC and 3.81 for Bakery; Word-of-mouth with means of 3.85 for
FPC and 4.05 for Bakery; popularity of the products with means of 3.74 for FPC and 3.95
for Bakery; recognized brand name with means of 4.05 for FPC and 4.11 for Bakery are
generally considered as important factors.

Table 32. Distribution of respondents according to promotion factors affecting their
patronage for BSU Bakery products

NOT
LESS
MORE
VERY
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT UNDE CIDED IMPORTANT IMPORTANT

FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
DEGREE
T NT T NT T NT T NT T NT
% % % % % % % % % %
Packaging
1.7 - 5.2 - 3.4 6 27.6
18
56.9
66
materials used

Creative display
5.2 - 5.2 2 8.6 6 27.6
22
48.3
60
of products

3.4 2 8.6 6 10.3 14
29.3
30
43.1
38
Word-of-mouth

Referral by family
3.4 2 17.2 8 12.1 20
27.6
28
34.5
32
members/friends

Popularity of
5.2 2 15.5 6 6.9 14
25.9
28
41.4
40
products

Product / nutrition
- 2
8.6 - - 10
24.1
18
62.1
60
label

Recognized brand
3.4 2 10.3 4 6.9 12
32.8
30
41.4
42
name

Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
72
As observed, one of the influencing factors in the purchase decision of consumers
is the positive or negative predisposition toward a particular brand (Assael, 1990). The
brand of BSU and the package apparently influence consumers’ attitude and purchase
decisions for the FPC and Bakery products.
Sales Personnel. Tables 33 and 34 exhibit the human relation factors that can
possibly influence patronage of employees on the products of the selected BSU-IGPs.

The attitude of the sellers in the marketing center is considered a very important
factor as it has the highest computed mean of 4.59 for both the FPC and the bakery. The
quickness of the sellers with 4.34 for FPC and 4.49 for bakery is considered as an
important factor. However, employees are not as unanimous in considering the
qualifications of personnel, 3.22 for FPC and 3.32 for Bakery, as an important or a very
important factor.
Other
Factors. There were other factors identified to be considerations in the
patronage of the FPC and the Bakery. See Tables 35 and 36. These are the extension of
credit, brand loyalty, parking space, and proximity to conveyance. For both the FPC and
the bakery, these factors appear to be generally more important than to the non-teaching
than the teaching employees.

In summary, Tables 36 and 37 show the various product-market factors for the
Food Processing Center and the Bakery according to the overall comparative mean
scores. For the FPC, the teaching employees considered promotion as the most important
product-market factor as it has highest mean score of 4.71. This is in contrast with the
non-teaching employees who considered place as the most important product-market
factor at a mean score of 4.73. Altogether, place is the most important product-market
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
73
factor for the FPC. The accessibility, convenience, layout and cleanliness of the outlets,
from the point of view of the teaching and non-teaching employees, matter the most in
their purchase decisions for the FPC. Moreover, place as the factor is most evident in the
case of the Bakery. There is a common agreement between the teaching and non-teaching
employees that place is the most important product-market factor.

Table 33. Distribution of respondents according to sales personnel factors affecting their
patronage for FPC products

NOT
LESS
MORE
VERY
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT UNDECIDED IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT

FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
DEGREE
T NT T NT T NT T NT T NT
% % % % % % % % % %
Attitudes of
the seller
1.1 6.0 5.2 2.0 3.4 8.0 25.9 12.0 63.8 60.0

Efficiency/
Quickness
1.7 4.0 3.4 2.0 10.3 10.0 27.6 16.0 56.9 56.0

Qualifications
8.6 16.0 24.1 10.0 17.2 30.0 24.1 18.0 25.9 14.0
of personnel


Table 34 . Distribution of respondents according to sales personnel factors affecting their
patronage for Bakery products

NOT
LESS
MORE
VERY
IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT UNDECIDED IMPORTANT IMPORTANT

FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
DEGREE
T NT T N T NT T NT T NT
%
% % % % % % % % %
Attitudes of
the seller
- 2 - 2 6.9 4
22.4
16
65.5
66

Efficiency/
Quickness
-
- 3.4 4 5.2 6 22.4 26 63.8 54

Qualifications
3.4 12 22.4 12 17.2 16 19.0 20 32.8 30
of personnel


Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
74
Table 35. Distribution of respondents according to other factors affecting their patronage
for FPC products

NOT
LESS
MORE
VERY
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT UNDECIDED IMPORTANT IMPORTANT

FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
DEGREE
T NT T NT T NT T NT T NT
% % % % % % % % % %
Extension of
credit
19 10.0 29.3 14.0 13.8 28.0 20.7 10.0 15.5 26.0

Brand loyalty
10.3 6.0 15.5 16.0 17.2 30.0 29.3 12.0 25.9 24.0
Parking space
13.8 8.0 13.8 12.0 10.3 20.0 24.1 24.0 36.2 24.0
Proximity to
5.2 2.0 6.9 10.0 12.1 18.0 27.6 24.0 46.6 34.0
conveyance




Table 36. Distribution of respondents according to other factors affecting their patronage
for Bakery products

NOT
LESS
MORE
VERY
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT UNDECIDED IMPORTANT IMPORTANT

FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
FACTOR
DEGREE
T NT T NT T NT T NT T NT
% % % % % % % % % %
Extension of
credit
3.4 10 20.7 6 17.2 42 27.6 6 25.9 26

Brand loyalty
3.4 6 8.6 14 10.3 26 29.3 20 39.7 22
Parking space
6.9 6 10.3 10 15.5 20 15.5 24 43.1 30
Proximity to
10.3 2 8.6 4 10.3 12 29.3 28 39.7 44
conveyance







Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
75
Table 37 . Summary Mean Scores for the Product-Market Factors of the FPC
TEACHING AND
FACTORS TEACHING
NON-TEACHING
NON-TEACHING
Price

4.49 4.48 4.53
Place
4.57 4.73 4.72
Promotion 4.71 4.13 4.10
Sales
Personnel
4.08 3.91 3.98
Other
Factors 3.48 3.52 3.49
TOTAL
MEAN
4.23 4.20 4.21



Table 38 . Summary Mean Scores for the Product-Market Factors of the Bakery

TEACHING AND
FACTORS TEACHING
NON-TEACHING
NON-TEACHING
Product 4.54
4.55
4.54
Price
4.51
4.56
4.54
Place 4.61
4.71
4.65
Promotion 4.05
4.25
4.17
Sales personnel
4.26
4.13
4.20
Other Factors
3.54
3.62
3.57
TOTAL MEAN
4.26
4.30
4.28








Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
76
Reasons for Patronage or Non-Patronage
Table 39 shows the general reasons why employees patronize BSU products. The
top five reasons cited by the majority are: are assured cleanliness and quality of the
products; accessibility; brand loyalty; a way of helping BSU-IGPs; and referrals from
family members and friends. This corresponds to the earlier findings on the factors
influencing employee patronage. They are motivated to buy more of the products if their
perceived benefits are well-satisfied but they are also easily affected by the product-
market factors influencing their patronage.

Table 39. General reasons for patronage enumerated by the respondents
REASONS F
%
RANK
Assured cleanliness and quality of the product
76
98.06
1
Brand loyalty
16
20.65
3
Referrals by family members and friends
12
15.48
5
A way of helping BSU-IGP
14
18.06
4
Unique packaging
9
11.61
7
Accessibility 23
29.68
2
Quite competitive with other brands
10
12.90
6
Less or no preservatives
9
11.61
7
Wide selection of products
2
2.58
8
n=Buying FPC +Buying BB)
n=77.50
2




Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
77
Tables 40 and 41, on the other hand, show the reasons for non-patronage of the
selected BSU-IGPs. The major reasons for FPC are: due to its prohibitive costs, 42.59%;
lack of promotion strategies, 68.52%; products are not always available, 17.59%; I can
buy at a nearer market, 12.04%; and not a necessity so I only buy during special
occasions or as pasalubong, 25%.
The major reasons for BSU Bakery are: due to its prohibitive costs, 62.03%;
irregularity of sizes, texture and taste 19.44%; lack of promotion strategies, 75.93%; short
shelf life, 12.04%; and poor customer service, 16.67%.

Table 40. Distribution of respondents according to reasons for non-patronage of FPC

REASON FREQUENCY
%
Prohibitive cost
46
42.59
Lack of promotion strategies
74
68.52
Products are not always available
19
17.59
I can buy at a nearer market
13
12.04
Not a necessity so I only buy during special
27 25.00
occasions or as pasalubong


Table 41. Distribution of respondents according to reasons for non-patronage of Bakery

REASON FREQUENCY
%
Prohibitive cost
67
62.03
Irregularity of sizes, texture and taste
21
19.44
Lack of promotion strategies
52
48.15
Products are not always available
13
12.04
Poor customer service/relation
18 16.67

Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Summary

This study was conducted to determine the level of employee patronage on the
products of selected Income Generating Projects at Benguet State University, namely: the
Food Processing Center and the Bakery.

The following are the salient findings of the study:
1. The respondents have a majority age from 20-30 years. There are more
married respondents than single and widower; and more female than male respondents.
Most of them reside outside the school campus but within La Trinidad. Among the 108
respondents, 53.70% are under the teaching category and 46.30% are non-teaching staff.
Most of them have income in the bracket of P10, 001-15,000 (38%) followed by P5, 001-
10, 000 with 34.30%. Majority (29.60%) allocated 51- 60% of their monthly income on
food.
2. Majority of both the teaching and non-teaching employees of Benguet State
University patronizes the Food Processing Center and BSU Bakery. However, there were
more non-teaching than teaching employees who patronized these IGPs. FPC was more
patronized by majority of employees than the Bakery. Majority of the products are not
strongly patronized. This is true to both FPC and Bakery. There was so much irregularity
in the purchase behavior of BSU employees for products of the FPC and the Bakery.
Both teaching and non-teaching employees very seldom buy on a daily basis of the FPC
products and Bakery products. The bulk of the respondents are buying on a monthly basis
for most of the BSU products. A mean quantity purchase of 2.82 for the FPC and 3.4 for
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
79
the Bakery was calculated. Products such as Pineapple Tarlets for FPC and Hot
Pandesal, Carrot Basket, and Mongo Basket for Bakery are being bought more than the 1-
5 range.
3. Majority of the employees is very aware of the existence of the Food Processing
Center and the Bakery. Generally, both the teaching and non-teaching employees are very
aware of 68.4% of the FPC products. Statistical test revealed that there is a significant
result showing awareness for all the products by both the teaching and non-teaching
employees. A greater percentage of the teaching employees are very aware of the FPC
products than of the non-teaching employees. For Bakery products, employees are very
aware of 43% of the products. There is also a significant result showing awareness for the
Bakery products based on the statistical test. There were more teaching employees who
were very aware of the existence of the majority of the products of the Bakery than non-
teaching staff.

4. The overall top five perceived benefits of purchasing from FPC are: products
are wholesome, nutritious and safe for consumption; quality of the products; FPC
working area is clean; products are convenient to buy and; products are healthier than
other brands. On the other hand, the five major benefits perceived by employees for the
Bakery are: products are wholesome, nutritious and safe for consumption; working area
is clean; accessibility is good; Marketing Center is a good location for Bakery products
and; products are healthier than other brands.

5. In terms of product-market factors influencing patronage, teaching employees
considered promotion as the most important factor for FPC. This is in contrast with the
non-teaching employees who considered place as the most important product-market
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
80
factor. For the Bakery, there is a common agreement for both teaching and non-teaching
employees that place factor is the most important product-market factor

6. Employees revealed that their general reasons for patronage are the following:
assured cleanliness and quality of the products; accessibility; brand loyalty; a way of
helping BSU-IGPs; and referrals from family members and friends. The reasons for non-
patronage for the FPC were also revealed as the following: due to its prohibitive costs;
lack of promotion strategies; products are not always available; I can buy at a nearer
market and; not a necessity so I only buy during special occasions or as pasalubong. For
the Bakery, the following reasons were revealed: due to its prohibitive costs; irregularity
of sizes, texture and taste; lack of promotion strategies; short shelf life and; poor
customer service.

Conclusions

Based on the findings, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. There is a potential market for FPC and Bakery products for ages from 20 and
above at BSU especially for employees who live within La Trinidad, since the employees
also allocate as much 71% of their monthly disposable income on food;
2. The market extends specifically to both the teaching and non-teaching
employees of Benguet State University who were found to patronize the Food Processing
Center and BSU Bakery;
3. Patronage level varies by product. There is a need to improve patronage even
if there is significant awareness for all the products by both the teaching and non-teaching
employees for the both FPC and the Bakery;
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
81
4. While employees are buying the FPC and Bakery products, it is evident that
the frequency and quantity of purchase is low for the products as attributed to the wide
product range some of which are also not regularly available in the outlets;
5. Employees purchase from the FPC and the Bakery because they perceived
positive benefits from these IGPs;
6. The important product-market factors for the FPC and the bakery are place
and promotion;
7. Quality and accessibility are the major reasons for patronage of the FPC and
the Bakery. High price and lack of promotion are the major reasons for non-patronage.

Recommendations

In the light of the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following
recommendations are proposed:
1. The FPC and Bakery should think of marketing strategies to tap the potential
market that is available. Such strategies may include reviewing the product, price,
place, and promotion that is currently being used. Expanding the channels of
distribution within the school or even within La Trinidad is one specific strategy
that may increase sales;
2. A well-planned special promo should be made for both the teaching and non-
teaching employees for them to feel that their patronage on the IGPs is very much
treasured. By making them feel important, an increased patronage may be
observed;
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
82
3. Product market test for new products and constant promotion blitzes for current
products should be done to further improve the level of awareness. This is
important in order for the employees to test the attributes of the new products as
they are very seldom known by the employees. A continuous product
development and quality control should be implemented for both FPC and
Bakery.
4. To increase frequency and quantity of purchase, FPC and Bakery should not only
strategize on promotion but also on regular delivery of the products in the outlets.
This should involve a thorough review of the array of the products and the
schedule of production if it is good for the market. A market survey to get a feel
of what the market wants should be done regularly. The monthly buying trend
may be made into a daily or weekly habit through good promotion strategies;
5. The FPC and Bakery should always keep in mind the perceived benefits of the
consumers on their products. Moreover, these perceived benefits should be used
in formulating marketing strategies; and
6. It should maintain the quality and the accessibility of the products which are the
major reasons for good patronage. It should review how to make the price more
competitive aside from the promotion strategies already suggested.









Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
LITERATURE CITED


ALLEN, MICHAEL E.2006.How to Develop and Maintain Quality. Lotus Press,
New Delhi.Pp.15;102-108.

ANONYMOUS. 2005. Decision-Making Fact Sheet (PDF). Retrieved November
20, 2007 from (http://www.foodsafety.cas.psu.edu/processor/resources.htm.)

ANONYMOUS.2005.BSU: Developing People with Excellence and Social Conscience.
Retrieved November 18, 2007 from (http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2005/)

ARMENDEZ, MILLER.1994.The Product Strategy of Narda’s Company in Terms of
its Handwoven Crafts.Unpublished Thesis.Baguio Colleges Foundation.Gov.Pack
Road, Baguio City.CHED-CAR.P.10.

BERKMAN.1994.Consumer Attitudes and Decision-Making. Retrieved November 20,
2007 from (http://www.skyronix.com/tsoc/courses/cb/beh.htm)

BOC-ONG, JULIET.2006. Decision-making Factors in the Purchase of Strawberry
Jam.BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet

BURSTINER, IRVING. 1994. The Small Business Handbook. New York: Simon
and Schuster Inc.P.17.

COHEN, WILLIAM A. 1988. The Practice of Marketing Management: Analysis,
Planning and Implementation. MacMillan Publishing Company.Pp. 179-
180; 182-185.

DELIM, WILMA P. 2005. Factors Affecting Meal Preferences of CCDC
College Students. BS Thesis. Benguet State University. La T rinidad, Benguet.

DIAMOND, J. and G. PINTEL. 1987. Retailing. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall
Inc.Pp.89-90.

ESTOLAS, WILFREDO. 2004. Rangtay. BSU Food Products, A Must to
Tourists.January-June, 2007.Vol.VI,No.1.

GIBNEY.1998.Consumer Attitudes, Buying Behavior and Purchase Drivers. Retrieved
November 23, 2007 from (http://www.iddba.org/store/pffs/sandwichtoc.pdc.)

GO, JOSIAH. 1997. Marketing Mix Strategy in the Philippine Setting. P. 44.




Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
84
HAWKINS, S.A. and STEPHEN J. HOCK, “Low Involvement Learning: Memory
Without Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research.September 1992.Pp.212-
225.

KITTIKUMPANAT, MALEE AND BARRY ELSEY. 2005. Opinion Leader
and Nutritional marketing Communication of Nutritional Product in
Thailand.Retrieved November 22, 2007 from





(http://www.journal.au.edu/abac_journal/2005/ ).

KOTLER, PHILIP, et al., 2006. Marketing Management: An Asian Perspective.
Pearson Education South Asia Pte.Ltd.

KOTLER, PHILIP. 2000. Marketing Management. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
U.S.A.Pp.162-170.

KOTLER, PHILIP and GARY ARMSTRONG.1989. Principles of Marketing. Prentice
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, U.S.A.

LUSCH, R.F.1987. Principles of Marketing Management. Prentice Hall
International Edition.P.160-167;185.

MARAGAY, FEL V.2007.Another Stalled Cyber Project. Retrieved November 20,
2007 from (http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=felmaragay_oct1_2007)

NESTLE.2005. Consumer Behavior and Marketing. Retrieved November 20, 2007
from (http://www.marketresearch.com/product/).

OBLAY, BRENDA. 2005. Entrepreneurial Competencies of Managers of the
Different Income Generating Projects of Benguet State University.BS
Thesis.Benguet State University,La Trinidad, Benguet.

PETER, P. and J.H. Donnelly, Jr .2001. Marketing Knowledge and
Skills.P52.

RUE, L.W. and HOLLAND, P.G. 1986. Strategic Management: Concepts
and Experiences.P.554.

SABADO, J.L. 2006. BSU Food Processing Center is No.1 Tourist Attraction.
Retrieved November 20, 2007 from (http://www.bsu.edu.ph)

SCHIFFMAN, LEON G. and LESLIE LAZAR KANUK 2000.
Consumer Behavior. Prentice Hall Inc.Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.P.38.




Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
85

STONE, MERLIN, NEIL WOODLOCK and LIZ MACHTYNGER. 2000.
Customer Relationship Marketing. Kogan Page Ltd.120 Pentonville Road
London.Pp.31;191.

SINGH,S. 1995. International Marketing of Agro-food Products by Developing
Country Firms. Some Conceptual Issues. International Journal.
Vol.12, No.1.

UPAO.2007. BSU Obtains Highest Performance Rating among SUCs in CAR in
2006. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from
(http://www.bsu.edu.ph/content/newa/2007_02b.php)

ZIMMERER, T.W. and SCARBOROUGH. 2005. Essentials of Entrepreneurship and
Small Business Management. Pearson Education, Incorporation, Upper Saddle
River New Jersey.Pp.177.







Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

86
APPENDIX A

Letter to the Respondents



Republic of the Philippines
Benguet State University
College of Agriculture
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
AND AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT
La Trinidad, Benguet




Sir/Madam:


Greetings!


I am Jayca Y. Siddayao, an Agribusiness student of Benguet State University
majoring in Enterprise Management. I am a graduating student however I need to
complete my thesis, titled: Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income
Generating Projects at Benguet State University.


In connection with this, I am requesting for your assistance to complete my thesis
by answering the attached questionnaire. Rest assured that all data gathered will be
held confidential and it shall be used only to serve the purpose of my study.



Thank you very much for your cooperation.





Respectfully yours,



JAYCA Y. SIDDAYAO
Researcher



Noted:



DR. DARLYN D. TAGARINO
Adviser
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
87
APPENDIX B

Survey Questionnaire

Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects at Benguet State
University

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE


Direction: Please respond to each item in the questionnaire by putting a check mark or

providing the information asked on the appropriate blanks and spaces provided for you.

There will be no wrong answers. Your cooperation to answer this survey questionnaire

is highly solicited.



I.
Respondent’s Profile

1. Name (optional):_____________________________
2. Sex:
___Male
___Female

3. Age: _______


4. Civil Status:
___Single
___Married
___Widow/Widower



5. Place of Residence:
___a.
within
school
campus


___b. outside school campus but within La Trinidad


___c. Outside La Trinidad


6. Employee Designation:


___Teaching Academic Rank (where applicable): __________________
___Non-teaching


7. Monthly Disposable Income:
___a.
Below
P5,
000/month


___b. P5, 001-P10, 000/ month


___c. P10, 001-P15, 000/ month


___d. P15, 001-P20, 000/ month


___e. P20, 001 and above/ month


8. Disposable Income Allocated to Food budget:
___Below
40%
___41%-50%
___51%-60%
___61%-70%
___71%
and
above
Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
88
II. Level of Awareness:

Please identify your level of awareness regarding the existence of the following Income
Generating Projects (IGPs) at Benguet State University (put a check mark):


Very
Slightly
Not
Aware
Aware
Aware
VA
SA
NA
Food Processing Center (FPC)



BSU Bakery






IGP-1: FOOD PROCESSING CENTER


III. EXTENT OF PATRONAGE


1. Please indicate the: a) average quantity you buy; b) the average frequency of
your purchases; and c) level of awareness


Average
(a)How many




Quantity
times do you
VA-very A ware

Bought per
purchase?
SA-

Slightly Aware

purchase
(b) indicate if it is:
NA-

Not Aware

FPC Products
Qty
unit d-per day m-




per month
VA
SA
NA
s-per semester
y- per year
(a) (b)
A. CHAYOTE CHAMPOY






B. CHOCOBERRY






C. CHOCOFLAKES






D. KIMCHI






E. PEANUT ADOBO






F. PEANUT BRITTLE






G. PEANUT BUTTER






H. PEANUT POLVORON






I. PINEAPPLE-PAPAYA JAM






J. PINEAPPLE-TARLETS






K. SANTOL CANDY






L. STRAWBERRY COOKIES






M. STRAWBERRY PRESERVE






N. STRAWBERRY SPREAD






O. STRAWBERRY SYRUP






P. STRAWBERRY TARTS






Q. TOASTED PEANUTS






R. UBE JAM






S. YUMMY NUTS






Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
89

2a. Why do you patronize FPC products over other

brands?



____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________




2b. What are the reasons why you don’t patronize FPC

products?





____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________
____________________

________________________________
____________________

________________________________
____________________

________________________________
__________________________
____________________

IV. PRODUCT-MARKET FACTORS: Factors considered in purchasing BSU-FPC products.


Direction: Please rate the following factors that you

consider when purchasing FPC products:



Legend: 1-Not considered as a factor 2-Less important Factor

3-undecided 4-More important Factor 5-Very important Factor

BSU-FPC 1
2
3
4 5
PRODUCT
1. Taste





2. Texture





3. Size





4. Appearance





5. Color





6. Functional Use of the Product





7. Expiration Date/ shelf life






PRICE






1. Price reflecting the quality of the product
2. Affordable price





3. Lower price than competing brands





Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
90


Legend: 1-Not considered as a factor 2-Less important Factor

3-undecided 4-More important Factor 5-Very important Factor



1
2
3 4 5
Place/OUTLET Image





1. Cleanliness of the outlet (i.e. Mktg. center)





2. Accessibility





3. Convenience





4. Layout (where FPC products can be found in the mktg. center)





BSU-FPC 1
2
3 4 5

PROMOTION





1. Packaging Material used





2. Creative display of products





3. Word-of-Mouth or influenced by friends/Co-





employees
4. Referral by a family member





5. Popularity of the products





6. Product label/nutrition label





7. Recognized brand name






SALES PERSONNEL






1. Attitudes of the seller (in the mktg. center)





2. Efficiency/Quickness





3. Qualifications of personnel





(i.e. degree, personal background, etc.)

OTHERS











1. Extension of Credit
2. Loyalty to Brand





3. Parking Space





4. Proximity to Conveyance





5. Others, plsease specify


















Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
91

V. PERCEIVED BENEFITS


Direction: Please identify your level of agreement with the

following statement in relation to your perceived benefits

derived from BSU-FPC



Legend: 1-Disagree 2-Moderately Disagree

3-Undecided 4-Moderately Agree 5-Strongly Agree


BSU-FPC
PRODUCTS

1 2 3 4 5
1. Products are wholesome, nutritious





and safe for consumption
2. Products are healthier than other





brands
3. Products are always available










4. Products are of good quality





5.Generally, prices of FPC products are
reasonable





6. Products are convenient to buy





7. Accessibility is good





8. Marketing center is a good location
for FPC products





9. The value provided by FPC is similar
to local food processing centers





10. Location of working area is clean





11. The management acts immediately
on customer complaints





12. Sellers are quick and efficient





13. Personnel assigned to jobs are
readily accessible

Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
92
III. EXTENT OF PATRONAGE
1. Please indicate the: a) average quantity you buy b) the frequency of your purchases; and c) level of
awareness on the products

Average quantity
(a)Average




bought per purchase
frequency of
VA-ve
ry Aware
BSU Bakery Products
purchase
SA-

Slightly Awar e
NA-Not Aware
(b) indicate if it is:



d-per day



m- per month
VA
SA
NA
s-per semester
y- per year
LOAF BREAD
qty unit
(a)
(b)



Cinnamon Loaf







Plain Loaf







Cheese Loaf







Cream Loaf







BREAD ROLLS







Cheese Rolls







Cinnamon Square







Herb Bread







Ensaymada







Hot Pandesal







Pandesal Putok







Spanish Bread







Nutri-buns







Raisin Bread







Ube Basket







Carrot Basket







Mongo Basket







Toasted Siopao














Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
93


Average
(a)Average Frequency of




Quantity
purchase



BSU Bakery
Bought per
(b)*pls. indicate if it is:
d-per day
VA
SA
NA
Products
purchase
m- per month
s-per semester
y- per year
COOKIES


(a) (b)



Coconut Tokens






Coconut Bars






Oatmeal Bars






Peanut Bars






Chayote Cookies






Chayote Bars






Carrot Cookies






TARTS and JARS






Caramel Tarts






Carrot Tarts






Ube Tarts






Chayote Tarts






Crinkles






Crinkles






Lengua de GAto






Oatmeal Cookies






Pinipig Cookies






CAKES






Butter Cake






Cheese Cup Cake






Blackforest Cake






Birthday Cake






Chocofudge Cake














Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
94

2a. Why do you patronize BSU Baked products over other brands?



_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________





2b. What are the reasons why you don’t patronize BSU Bakery

products?





_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


IV. PRODUCT-MARKET FACTORS: Factors that you consider in purchasing BSU- Bakery
products.


Legend: 1-Not considered as a factor 2-Less important Factor
3-undecided 4-More important Factor 5-Very important Factor


BSU-BAKERY
1 2 3 4
5

PRODUCT





1. Taste





2. Texture





3. Size





4. Appearance





5. Color





6. Expiration Date/Shelf Life





7. Functional use of the Product





PRICE
1. Price reflecting quality of the product





2. Affordable price





3. Lower price than competing brands











Place/OUTLET Image





1. Cleanliness of the outlet (i.e. Mktg. center)





2. Accessibility





3. Convenience





4. Layout





Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
95

Legend: 1-Not considered as a factor 2-Less important Factor

3-undecided 4-More important Factor 5-Very important Factor


BSU-BAKERY
1
2
3 4 5
PROMOTION






1. Packaging Material used





2. Creative display of products





3. Word-of-Mouth or influenced by friends/Co-





employees
4. Referral by a family member





5. Popularity of the products





6. Product label/nutrition label





7. Recognized brand name











SALES PERSONNEL

1. Attitudes of the seller (in the mktg. center)





2. Efficiency/Quickness





3. Qualifications of personnel





(i.e. degree, personal background, etc.)

OTHERS











1. Extension of Credit
2. Loyalty to brand





3. Parking Space





4. Proximity to Conveyance





5. Others, plsease specify




















Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

67
96
V. PERCEIVED BENEFITS


Direction: Please identify your level of agreement with the

following statement in relation to your perceived benefits

derived from BSU Bakery



Legend: 1-Disagree 2-Moderately Disagree

3-Agree 4-Moderately Agree 5-Strongly Agree

BSU
Bakery
PRODUCTS:
1 2 3 4 5
1. Products are wholesome, nutritious





and safe for consumption
2. Products are more healthier than





other brands
3. Products are always available





4. Products are of good quality










5.Generally, prices of bakery products are
reasonable





6. Products are convenient to buy





7. Accessibility is good





8. Marketing center is a good location for
Bakery products
9. The value provided by Bakery is similar




to local bakeshops.





10. Working area is clean





11. The management acts immediately
on customer complaints





12. Sellers are quick and efficient
13. Personnel assigned to jobs are readily




accessible






Employee Patronage on Products of Selected Income Generating Projects
at Benguet State University / Jayca Y. Siddayao. 2008

---

Document Outline

• Employee Patronage on Products ofSelected Income Generating Projects at Benguet State University
  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • ABSTRACT
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • INTRODUCTION
    • Rationale of the Study
    • Statement of the Problem
    • Objectives of the Study
    • Importance of the Study
    • Scope and Delimitation of the Study
  • REVIEW OF LITERATURE
    • Personal and Socio-economic Profile
    • Extent of Patronage
    • Factors Influencing Patronage Behavior
    • Product-Market Factors
    • Conceptual Framework
    • Hypotheses of the Study
  • METHODOLOGY
  • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    • Personal and Socio-Economic Profile
    • Extent of Patronage
    • Perceived Benefits from Patronizingthe BSU Food Processing Center
    • Perceived Benefits from Patronizingthe BSU Bakery
    • Product-market Factors Affecting Patronage
    • Reasons for Patronage or Non-Patronage
  • SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    • Summary
    • Conclusions
    • Recommendations
  • LITERATURE CITED
  • APPENDIX

---