BRAND PREFERENCE OF STUDENTS TOWARDS CHOOSING …

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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


25

Chi-Square Tests

Value Degrees of freedom Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)






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)






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


27

Chi-Square Tests

Value Degrees of freedom Asymp. Sig.(2-sided)



Linear-by-Linear Association 3.570 1 .059



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


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


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

BRAND PREFERENCE OF STUDENTS TOWARDS CHOOSING …

Documents

Transcript of BRAND PREFERENCE OF STUDENTS TOWARDS CHOOSING …