Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review__________________________________________ ISSN 2319-2836 Vol.2 (5), May (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com
17
BRAND PREFERENCE OF STUDENTS TOWARDS CHOOSING
CELLULAR SERVICE PROVIDERS IN HYDERABAD CITY
RAMULU BHUKYA*; DR. SAPNA SINGH**
*RESEARCH SCHOLAR,
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES,
UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD.
**READER,
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES,
UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
The Indian telecommunication (here onwards telecom) sector has plethora of Branded services
providers. Though the services are homogenous, the element of differentiation is introduced by
branding them. With the advent of liberalization in Indian telecom sector, drastic changes have
taken place in the form of cut-throat competition among telecom brands in retaining existing
customer base besides acquiring new ones. It is observed that after implementation of recent
telecom policies in India, the overall scenario of telecom sector has been changed. The marketers
are anxious and curious to understand and unravel the brand preference of subscribers in order to
control brand switchers by providing customized services. This study is undertaken with a view
to know the brand preference of students while choosing particular cellular service provider in
Hyderabad city. The reason behind selecting students as the focus of study is that the student
market is homogeneous and so reduces the impact of non-controllable confounding variables
(Homburg and Koschate, 2004, and Matzler et al., 2006) and their consumption behaviours and
perceptions resemble that of the typical users (Lim and Quester, 2003; Grimm, 2005; Hayes et
al., 2006; O‟Cass and Grace, 2004). The findings of this study are; Network Coverage, tariff
plans and customer services are the prime attributes considered by students while choosing
particular service provider and Friends and Advertisement are the major factors which influence
respondents to choose particular service providers.
KEYWORD: Brand Preference; Cellular Service Providers; Telecom Brands; Attributes;
Factors. _____________________________________________________________________________________
1. INTRODUCTION
The Indian telecom sector has witnessed tremendous growth over the past decade. Today, the
Indian telecom network is the second largest in the world after China. A liberal policy regime
and involvement of the private sector have played an important role in transforming this sector.
The total number of telephones has increased from 429.73 million on 31st March 2009 to 939.57
million on 31st Agust 2012. Brand preference is an abstract term and it is necessarily formed
through more than one component. This study endeavours to put together the antecedents and
components of brand preference and tries to create a comprehensive framework for the
measurement of the brand preference in the Indian cellular service providers context. Consumer
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review__________________________________________ ISSN 2319-2836 Vol.2 (5), May (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com
18
preferences is used primarily to mean to select an option that has the greatest anticipated value
among a number of options by the consumer in order to satisfy his/her needs or desires.
Preferences indicate choices among neutral or more valued options available. The preference of
the consumer is the result of their behaviour they show during searching, purchasing and
disposing the products.
With many regional markets now close to the saturation point and little in the way of
differentiation in underlying infrastructure, consumers are being influenced in their choice of
provider by brands that appeal to their particular demographic; social and family reference
groups, income levels and educational backgrounds.
Table 1: Market share of Cellular service providers in India till September-2012
Group Company wise % market share (Subscribers) - September 2012
Sl.
No.
Operator Total Sub
Figures
Additions in
September
2012
%
Market
Share
% Growth over
previous month
1 Bharti Airtel 18,59,22,489 -9,81,621 27.68% -0.53%
2 Vodafone Essar 15,26,64,767 -6,86,183 22.73% -0.45%
3 IDEA 11,54,64,737 -5,08,782 17.19% -0.44%
4 BSNL 9,62,80,504 0 14.33% 0.0%
5 Aircel 6,66,07,361 6,55,117 9.92% 0.99%
6 Uninor 4,21,46,345 32,662 6.27% 0.08%
7 Videocon 44,51,203 -3,25,818 0.66% -6.82%
8 MTNL 51,08,521 -14,756 0.76% -0.29%
9 Loop Mobile 30,28,539 -47,013 0.45% -1.53%
All India 67,16,74,466 -18,76,394 100.00%
Source: COAI monthly report on GSM subscriber statistics, September-2012
As per the table-1 it is noted that there is a positive additions in some service providers while
negative in others. Though Airtel is a market leader, it has lost almost all 1 million subscribers in
the month of September, 2012. While top 4 operators are losing their share in proportionate to
their market share, Aircel has gained more than a half million of subscriber. If the same growth
rate continues with Aircel, it will surpass the BSNL and occupy the 4th
place.
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review__________________________________________ ISSN 2319-2836 Vol.2 (5), May (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com
19
Table 2: Subscriber base of cellular service providers in Andhra Pradesh (September-2012)
Operator Total Sub Figures-
Till August,2012
Total Sub Figures-
September,2012
Monthly
Addition
Growth over
previous
month
IDEA 1,06,70,306 1,07,28,762 58,456
Bharti Airtel 1,88,82,255 1,86,93,692 -1,88,563
Vodafone Essar 61,82,992 63,98,393 2,15,401
BSNL 90,33,124 90,33,124 0
Aircel Limited 19,64,589 19,75,021 10,432
Uninor 38,96,912 39,96,512 99,600
Videocon 9,876 9,763 -113
5,06,40,054
5,08,35,267
1,95,213
0.39%
Source: COAI monthly report on GSM subscriber statistics, September-2012
According to Table-2, Airtel is not only leader at nationwide it also leader in Andhra Pradesh
telecom market with total 18.69 millions of subscriber as on September,2012.. Idea occupies 2nd
position in Andhra Pradesh telecom market with total 10.7 million which is ahead to Vodafone.
Here also Airtel has lost 1% of its market share in the month of September, 2012. Vodafone and
Idea Cellular have gained 6 and 5 digit numbers of subscribers.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Baker (1991) advocates that Brand preference is the result of brand loyalty where consumer
prefers a particular brand in market but switch to competitor brand when desired brand is not
available.
Haque et al (2007) found that promotional offers, call rates, availability and service quality
plays dominant role while choosing particular telecom service provider.
Raj Kumar and Harish (2011) have concluded that price has positive significant impact on
consumer while choosing particular service provider.
Hellier et al. (2003) delineated that Brand preference is depended upon the demographic profile
of the consumers.
According to Riquleme (2001) six key attributes; call rates, access cost, connection fees, handset
features, special offers and call cost of mobile to mobile have significant impact on consumers
while making decision to choose particular service provider.
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review__________________________________________ ISSN 2319-2836 Vol.2 (5), May (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com
20
Ranaweera and Prabhu, (2003) unlike retails store purchasing patterns, telecom purchase
pattern are continuous and different.
Kotler (2005) uttered that marketers are very much interested to study demographic environment
of market in a view that it involves people and people make up market.
Lin (2002) advises to Businesses that to grow the sales revenue, marketers can use brand
preference as a key factor to develop competitive product strategy.
Nilson, (2000), Brand Managers should focus on customers preferences in tune to align the
brand loyalty.
Karjaluoto et al. (2005) in their study conducted in Finland mobile industry, they have
identified certain factors which significant impact on choosing particular service provider are call
rates, services and network coverage.
Kalpana and Chinnadurai (2006) proposed that among all other influencing factors,
advertisement plays a prominent role in taking decision on choosing particular brand.
Paulrajan (2011) Indain telecom market has a significant growth rate due to decline in tariffs
and economical vadue added services.
Yasin et al., (2007) affirmed that the origin of country also decides the choice of brand
preference.
Keller (2004), Chang, and Ming (2009) Brand loyalty and Brand equity constitute Brand
Preference; therefore brand managers should concentrate on brand loyalty related issues.
Rundle-Thiele and Mackay, (2001) use brand preference and brand loyalty interchangeably.
According to Anthony Dadzie (2011) the reason for switching subscribers to competitor brand
is due to network and tariff related issues.
Lui (2002) explained in his „study of factors that affect brand decision in the mobile phone
industry in Asia‟, that the quality of network coverage and cost of calls are the main attributes
which plays vital role in choosing particular service provider.
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1. To study the attributes considered by students while choosing a particular cellular service
provider
2. To compare the gender differences while choosing cellular services
3. To identify the factors influencing the choice of service provider among students.
4. To rank the attributes and factors which influence the selection of particular service
provider
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review__________________________________________ ISSN 2319-2836 Vol.2 (5), May (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com
21
4. HYPOTHESES
H1: There is a significant difference between gender of the students and considering attributes for
choosing present service provider
H2: There is a significant difference among age group of the student and considering attributes
for choosing service provider
H3: There is a significant difference among Students‟ educational qualification and considering
attributes for choosing service provider
H4: There is a significant difference in gender of the students and factors influencing to choose
service provider
5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.1 Research Design
The main aim of the study is to know the brand preferences and identify the factors that
influnece the subscriber to choose the particular brand. Therefore descriptive research is used to
find out the brand preferences among students.
5.2 Area of the Study
The study was conducted among students pursing higher education i.e graduation, post
graduation, M.Phil and PhD students who are using cellular services in Hyderabad City.
5.3 Method of Data Collection
Primary data is collected from respondents by administering questionnaire which comprised
closed and open-ended questions.
5.4. Sample Size and Sampling Technique
Total 200 respondents are drawn on convenience sampling basis.
5.5. Data Analysis Tools
The data collected is tabulated, analyzed and interpreted by applying the following statistical
tools:
Simple Percentage
Ranking
Chi-Square Tests
SPSS Software
Level of Significance
Alpha = 0.05
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review__________________________________________ ISSN 2319-2836 Vol.2 (5), May (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com
22
6. DATA ANALYSIS
Table 3: Demographic Profile of Respondents
Characteristics Frequencies Percent Cumulative Percent
Gender
Female
Male
81
119
40.5
59.5
40.5
100.0
Age Group
Under 20 Years
21-30 Years
31year and above
58
78
64
29.0
39.0
32.0
29.0
68.0
100.0
Qualification
Graduation
Post Graduation
M.Phil
PhD
46
47
59
48
23.0
23.5
29.5
24.0
23.0
46.5
76.0
100.0
Family Monthly Income
5000 - 10000
10001 - 15000
15001 - 20000
20001 and Above
57
46
47
50
28.5
23.0
23.5
25.0
28.5
51.5
75.0
100.0
Monthly Expenditure on Mobile
usage
Up to 100
101- 200
201- 300
Above 300
44
50
61
45
22.0
25.0
30.5
22.5
22.0
47.0
77.5
100.0
Attributes Identified
Network Coverage
Tariff Plans
Offers
Customer Service
Preferred brand (Brand Loyalty)
Factors Identified
Advertisements
Dealer
Family Members
Friends
Relatives
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review__________________________________________ ISSN 2319-2836 Vol.2 (5), May (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com
23
Table 4: Cross-Tabulation of Students‟ Present cellular Service Provider and Considering
attributes for Choosing them
Attributes considered for Choosing Present brand
Total
Present Service Provider Network
Coverage
Tariff
plans Offers
Preferred
Brand
Customer
Service
Aircel 8 9 9 2 3 31
Airtel 8 10 8 6 9 41
BSNL 5 2 3 1 4 15
Idea 5 6 3 2 5 21
MTS 2 5 3 0 3 13
Reliance 7 1 0 1 2 11
Tata
Docomo
3 3 6 3 2 17
Tata
Indicom
2 1 4 1 2 10
Uninor 0 5 3 3 3 14
Vodafone 8 3 4 3 9 27
Total 48 45 43 22 42 200
Among 200 respondents, 48 have preferred their present service providers by considering good
network coverage as the prime attribute and 45 have considered Tariff plans while 43 have
considered Offers along with 22 respondents considered Preferred Brand next to Customer
service.
H1: There is a significant difference between gender of the students and considering attributes
for choosing service provider
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review__________________________________________ ISSN 2319-2836 Vol.2 (5), May (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com
24
Table 5 : Cross-Tabulation of Gender and Considering attributes for Choosing service provider
Considering attributes for Choosing Service provider
Total Network Coverage Tariff plans Offers Preferred Brand Customer Service
Gender Female 18 17 20 11 15 81
Male 30 28 23 11 27 119
Total 48 45 43 22 42 200
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Degrees of
freedom Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.186a 4 .702
Likelihood Ratio 2.171 4 .704
Linear-by-Linear Association .046 1 .829
N of Valid Cases 200
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.91.
Decision: As the Pearson Chi-Square p-value 0.702 is greater than 0.05 at 4 degrees of freedom,
H1 is rejected and can be concluded that there is no significant difference between gender of the
student and considering attributes to choose present service provider
H2: There is a significant difference among age group of the student and considering
attributes for choosing present service provider
Table 6 : Cross-Tabulation of Students‟ age group and considering attributes for choosing service
provider
Considering attributes for Choosing Present brand
Total
Network Coverage Tariff plans Offers
Preferred
Brand
Customer
Service
Age
Group
Under 20 Years 17 12 6 11 12 58
21-30 Years 16 24 17 5 16 78
31Year and above 15 9 20 6 14 64
Total 48 45 43 22 42 200
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review__________________________________________ ISSN 2319-2836 Vol.2 (5), May (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com
25
Chi-Square Tests
Value Degrees of freedom Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 16.783a 8 .032
Likelihood Ratio 16.955 8 .031
Linear-by-Linear Association .193 1 .661
N of Valid Cases 200
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.38.
Decision: As the Pearson Chi-Square p-value 0.032 is lesser than 0.05 at 8 degrees of freedom,
H2 is accepted and can be concluded that there is a significant difference among age group of the
student in considering attributes for choosing service provider.
H3: There is a significant difference among Students’ educational qualification and
considering attributes for choosing present service provider.
Table 7 : Cross-Tabulation of Students‟ Qualification Levels and considering attributes for
choosing service provider
Considering attributes for Choosing service provider
Total
Network
Coverage
Tariff
plans Offers
Preferred
Brand
Customer
Service
Qualification
Levels
Graduation 12 9 7 6 12 46
Post Graduation 14 7 11 6 9 47
M.Phil 12 16 14 5 12 59
PhD 10 13 11 5 9 48
Total 48 45 43 22 42 200
Chi-Square tests
Value Degrees of freedom Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.203a 12 .906
Likelihood Ratio 6.361 12 .897
Linear-by-Linear Association .159 1 .691
N of Valid Cases 200
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review__________________________________________ ISSN 2319-2836 Vol.2 (5), May (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com
26
Decision: As the Pearson Chi-Square p-value 0.906 is greater than 0.05 at 12 degrees of
freedom, H3 is rejected and can be concluded that there is no significant difference among
qualification levels of the student and considering attributes to choose service provider.
Table 8: Cross-Tabulation of Students‟ Present Service Provider and Factors Influenced to choose
them
Factors Influencing to choose present service providers
Total
Advertisement Dealer
Family
Members Friends Relatives
Present Service
Provider
Aircel 6 6 4 14 1 31
Airtel 7 6 6 15 7 41
BSNL 2 4 0 5 4 15
Idea 7 4 6 3 1 21
MTS 2 1 4 5 1 13
Reliance 3 1 1 4 2 11
Tata
Docomo
3 3 4 5 2 17
Tata Indicom 4 2 2 1 1 10
Uninor 2 5 3 4 0 14
Vodafone 5 4 9 5 4 27
Total 41 36 39 61 23 200
H4: There is a significant difference between gender of the students and factors influencing to
choose service provider
Table 9 : Cross-tabulation of Students‟ Gender and Factors influenced to choose present service
provider
Factors Influencing to choose present service provider
Total
Advertisement Dealer
Family
Members Friends Relatives
Gender Female 13 15 10 32 11 81
Male 28 21 29 29 12 119
Total 41 36 39 61 23 200
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review__________________________________________ ISSN 2319-2836 Vol.2 (5), May (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com
27
Chi-Square Tests
Value Degrees of freedom Asymp. Sig.(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 9.042a 4 .060
Likelihood Ratio 9.212 4 .056
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.570 1 .059
N of Valid Cases 200
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 9.32.
Decision: As the Pearson Chi-Square p-value 0.060 is greater than 0.05 at 4 degrees of freedom,
H4 is rejected and can be concluded that there is no significant difference in between gender of
the students and factors influencing to choose service provider.
Table 10: Ranking of attributes considered to choose cellular service provider
Frequency Percent Ranking
Network Coverage 48 24.0 1
Tariff plans 45 22.5 2
Offers 43 21.5 3
Preferred Brand 22 11.0 5
Customer Service 42 21.0 4
Total 200 100.0
Above table-10 clearly depicts that Network coverage and tariff plans are the key priority
attributes which influences students to choose particular service provider. Offers and Customer
service are the next important attributes prior than preferred brand.
Table 11 : Ranking of the factors influencing students to choose particular service provider
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review__________________________________________ ISSN 2319-2836 Vol.2 (5), May (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com
28
Factors Frequency Percent Ranking
Advertisement 41 20.5 2
Dealer 36 18.0 4
Family Members 39 19.5 3
Friends 61 30.5 1
Relatives 23 11.5 5
Total 200 100.0
As reelected in the table-11, friends influence students the most in choosing particular service
provider followed by Advertisement and family members as the next influencers and lastly
Dealers and relatives.
Table 12: Brand Shares in Student market
Brand Frequency Percent Ranking
Aircel 31 15.5 2
Airtel 41 20.5 1
BSNL 15 7.5 6
Idea 21 10.5 4
MTS 13 6.5 8
Reliance 11 5.5 9
Tata Docomo 17 8.5 5
Tata Indicom 10 5.0 10
Uninor 14 7.0 7
Vodafone 27 13.5 3
Total 200 100.0
CONCLUSION
The study of students Brand Preference of service providers throws light on the various attributes
considered important and crucial for selection of service provider are Network Coverage, Tariff
plans and Customer Services by both male and female students. According to the students the
important factors are friends followed by advertisement and family members next only comes in
Dealer and Relatives. It is noted that Brand Loyalty is the least considered attributes among
students. According this study, it can be concluded that except age group of the respondents, the
other demographic factors do not have significant difference in considering various attributes and
factors while choosing particular service provider. Therefore Marketers should give due
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review__________________________________________ ISSN 2319-2836 Vol.2 (5), May (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com
29
importance to Network Coverage and competitive tariff plans along with good customer services
apart from offering attractive promotional offers to satisfy subscribers which will constitute
brand loyalty and ultimately leads to Brand preference.
REFERENCES
1. Ahmed Alamro, Jennifer Rowley, (2011),"Antecedents of brand preference for mobile
telecommunications services", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 Issue: 6
pp. 475-486
2. Hellier, et al (2003), “Customer repurchase intention: a general structural equation
model”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 11/12, pp. 1762-800.
3. Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity, 2nd ed., Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
4. Lin, C.F. (2002), “Segmenting customer brand preference: demographic or
psychographic”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 249-68.
5. Paulrajan, R. (2011). Service Quality and Customers preference of Cellular Mobile
Service Providers. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, Volume 6, Issue I ,
p.38-45.
6. Telecommunications Today. (2008). Report 5: Consumer chioce and preference in
adopting services. Melbourne: Australian Communications and Media Authority.
7. Rundle-Thiele, S. and Mackay, M. (2001), “Assessing the performance of brand loyalty
measures”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 529-46.
8. Chang, H. and Ming, L. (2009), “The impact of brand equity on brand preference and
purchase intentions in the service industries”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 29 No. 12,
pp. 1687-706.
9. Yasin, N.M., Noor, M.N. and Mohamad, O. (2007), “Does image of country-of-origin
matter to brand equity?”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp.
38-48.
10. Nilson, T. (2000), Competitive Branding Winning in the Market Place with Added Value
Brands, 3rd ed., Wiley, Chichester.
11. Kumar, D. (2012). An Empirical Study of Brand Preference of Mobile Phones Among
College And University. International Journal of Research in Commerce and
Management,Volume No. 2, Issue No. 3 (MARCH) , pp.81-85.
12. Sardar, R. (2012). Brand Preference Of Passenger Cars In Aurangabad District. ZENITH
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research,Vol.2 Issue 3, March , pp.431-442.
13. Kotler, Philip (2005), Marketing Management – Analysis, Planning, Implementation and
Control, Prentice Hall of India: New Delhi, p151
14. Riquelme, H (2001), Do Consumers Know What They Want? Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 18(5),pp.437-448
15. Anthony Dadzie (2011), Brand Preference for Mobile Phone Operator Services in the
Cape Coast Metropolis, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6, No.
11; November 2011, pp.190-205.
16. Baker, M.J. (1991). Marketing: An introductory text, Macmillan, London
17. Vikkraman,P (2012) European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative
Science Issue 50 (2012),pp.46-52