Perception Mapping: Purchase Behaviour of Mobile Phones

Gagandeep Singh gagandeep.singh11@bimtech.ac.in

BIMTECH, PGDM 2009-11

Sudhanshu Shekhar sudhanshu.shekhar11@bimtech.ac.in

BIMTECH, PGDM 2009-11

Ritesh Srivastava ritesh.srivastava11@bimtech.ac.in

BIMTECH, PGDM 2009-11

Tanu Motwani tanu.motwani11@bimtech.ac.in

BIMTECH, PGDM 2009-11

Sirisha Rani sirisha.rani11@bimtech.ac.in

BIMTECH, PGDM 2009-11

Tushar Jindal tushar.jindal11@bimtech.ac.in

BIMTECH, PGDM 2009-11

Vignesh R r.vignesh11@bimtech.ac.in
BIMTECH, PGDM 2009-11

Keywords: Perception Mapping, SPSS, Factor Analysis, Multi Dimensional Scaling, Tukey
Kramer Analysis

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1651482

ABSTRACT

his paper tends to portray the perception of the students of Birla Institute of Management Technology (BIMTECH) towards their purchase behaviour of mobile phones. Though this is a sample study, yet the extension of this study towards

generalization will lead to the conclusion about the purchase behavior of population in age group 22-25 years. Factoring of various parameters are done using SPSS and with the factors obtained using Parallel Analysis. These factors are further carried forward to obtain the perception mapping using Multidimensional Scaling. Perceptions are the critical input for the organizations for strategic decision making. Different companies are being analyzed to find respondents perception using similarity dissimilarity study and also the attribute based perception analysis. Various means are compared to visualize the positioning of various brands in the mind of these respondents. Conclusions have been drawn based on the perceptions of these companies by the respondents.

2|P age

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1651482

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.Introduction and Objective ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.Research Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 5 3.Data Analysis............................................................................................................................................ 8 3.1Factor Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.Similarity and Dis-Similarity Analysis .............................................................................................. 14 3.3Attribute Perception Mapping ......................................................................................................... 17 4.Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 27 4.1Factor Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 27 4.2Multidimensional Scaling ................................................................................................................. 27

3|P age

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

ndian Telecommunication industry, with about 525.65 million mobile phone connections (Oct 2009) , is the third largest telecommunication network in the world and the second largest in terms of number of wireless connections. For the past decade or so,

telecommunication activities have gained momentum in India. In the increasingly competitive mobile industry, all the companies are spending millions of dollars to understand the mind of customer. Today mobile has become the most important gadget for every class of people, especially youth of the country are driving the sales of the mobile in different direction, not only functional feature but features such as radio, connectivity, entertainment, flashy look, touchpad and many more. We have conducted a small research on the students of BIMTECH, Noida to draw out the underlining factors, which effect the perception of the student before making choice of a mobile purchase. We have used various analysis tools to bring these factors.

OBJECTIVE
1. To identify the various factors that the target group uses to rate the different mobile brands while making a purchase decision. 2. To obtain the perception map of the different brands based on the different factors identifies in the first objective. 3. To compare the brands based on the factors obtained & interpret the results.

4|P age

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1. Exploratory research An exploratory research was conducted to get a better understanding of the problem. Certain students of BIMTECH who are frequent buyers of mobile phones & have better knowledge of the different aspects of a mobile phone purchase were asked. 2. Questionnaire Based on the exploratory research, a questionnaire was formulated. The target groups consisting of the students of Bimtech were asked 40 different questions. Likert scale to indicate the degree of agreement and disagreement was used. The scale indicated 1 for strong disagreement and 5 for strong agreement. A total of 50 responses were obtained. The respondents of both genders belonged to different educational backgrounds. 3. Factor Analysis Factor analysis was used to reduce a large number of related variables to a more manageable number, prior to using them in the perception mapping. The procedure followed in the Factor analysis is as: 1. Paste the obtained data from the response into the data view and type the questions into the labels given in Variable view. 2. From the menu at the top of the screen, select the AnalyzeData Reduction Factor. 3. Click on the Descriptives button and in the Correlation Matrix box, check the KMO and Bartletts test of sphericity. In the Statistics section, Initial Solution is ticked. 4. In the Extraction In the Method section, make sure Principal components are listed. In the Analyze section, make sure the Correlation matrix option is selected. In the Display section, click on Screeplot and make sure the Unrotated factor solution option is also selected. Click on Continue. 5. Click on the Rotation. In the method box check the OBLIMIN@. In the display box, check the Rotated solution. Click Continue. 6. Click on the Options button. In the Missing Values section click on Exclude cases pairwise. In the Coefficient Display Format section click on Sorted by size. 7. Click on Continue and then OK.

5|P age

Oblimin Also called simple structure and refers to the rotated factor loadings matrix. Simple structure is difficult to define in that it refers to the situation where most of the loadings on any specific factor are small and a few loadings are as large as possible. Cureton & Mulaik (1975) proposed the Weighted Varimax rotation so that Varimax (Kaiser, 1958) could reach simple solutions when the complexities of the variables in the solution are larger than one. In the present paper the weighting procedure proposed by Cureton & Mulaik (1975) is applied to Direct Oblimin (Clarkson & Jennrich, 1988), and the rotation method obtained is called Weighted Oblimin. It has been tested on artificial complex data and real data, and the results seem to indicate that, even though Direct Oblimin rotation fails when applied to complex data, Weighted Oblimin gives good results if a variable with complexity one can be found for each factor in the pattern. Weighted Oblimin seems to be adequate even with highly oblique factors. The new rotation method was compared to other rotation methods based on the same weighting procedure and, whenever a variable with complexity one could be found for each factor in the pattern, Weighted Oblimin gave the best results. When rotating a simple empirical loading matrix, Weighted Oblimin seemed to slightly increase the performance of Direct Oblimin. 4. Parallel Analysis An additional technique growing popularity in social litera ture is Horns Parallel analysis. It involves comparing eigenvalues with those obtained from randomly generated dataset of same size.Only those eigenvalues that exceeds the corresponding values from random data set are retained. This approach is to find the correct number of components to retain has been shown to be accurate with both Kaisers Criteria and Catells sree test tending to overestimate the number of components. 5. Multidimensional Scaling Often denoted as MDS . Multidimensional scaling (MDS) is a set of related statistical techniques often used in information visualization for exploring similarities or dissimilarities in data. MDS is a special case of ordination. An MDS algorithm starts with a matrix of item item similarities, then assigns a location to each item in N-dimensional space, where N is specified a priori. For sufficiently small N, the resulting locations may be displayed in a graph or 3D visualization. It is often used in Marketing to identify key dimensions underlying customer evaluation of products, services or companies. MDS is a generic term that includes many different specific types. These types can be classified according to whether the similarities data are qualitative (called nonmetric MDS) or quantitative (metric MDS). The number of similarity matrices and the nature of the MDS model can also classify MDS types. This classification yields classical MDS (one matrix, unweighted model),
6|P age

replicated MDS (several matrices, unweighted model), and weighted MDS (several matrices, weighted model). We discuss the nonmetric-metric and the classical-replicated-weighted classifications in the following sub-sections. Finally MDS algorithms fall into a taxonomy, depending on the meaning of the input matrix: Classical multidimensional scaling also known as Torgerson Scaling or Torgerson-Gower scaling takes an input matrix giving dissimilarities between pairs of items and outputs a coordinate matrix whose configuration minimizes a loss function called strain. Metric multidimensional scaling A superset of classical MDS that generalizes the optimization procedure to a variety of loss functions and input matrices of known distances with weights and so on. A useful loss function in this context is called stress which is often minimized using a procedure called Stress Majorization. Non-metric multidimensional scaling In contrast to metric MDS, non-metric MDS both finds a non-parametric monotonic relationship between the dissimilarities in the item-item matrix and the Euclidean distance between items, and the location of each item in the low-dimensional space. The relationship is typically found using isotonic regression. Generalized multidimensional scaling An extension of metric multidimensional scaling, in which the target space is an arbitrary smooth non-Euclidean space. In case when the dissimilarities are distances on a surface and the target space is another surface, GMDS allows finding the minimum-distortion embedding of one surface into another

7|P age

DATA ANALYSIS
Factor Analysis
We framed 50 statements to analyze the perception mapping of the mobile handsets of the BIMTECH students. In order to reduce the number of statements and find out the attributes we carried out factor analysis using SPSS 17.0 and principle component analysis method is used.

KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square Df Sig.

0.628 30.898 36 0.002

The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was .628, exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974) and the Bartletts Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix. We used parallel analysis to determine the no. of factors.

Compare the first eigen value we obtained in SPSS with the corresponding first value from the random results generated by parallel analysis. If value is larger than the criterion value from parallel analysis, then retain this factor; if it is less, then reject it. The results for this can be summarised as: Component number Actual eigen value from PCA
1.548 1.262 1.176 1.047 1.010 1.005 1.002

Criterion value from parallel analysis

1.5203 1.2591 1.1651 1.0217 1.0050 1.0025 1.0010

Decision

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept

8|P age

Parallel analysis
Number of variables: 50 Number of subjects: 50 Number of replications: 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Eigenvalue # Random Eigenvalue Standard Dev ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 1.5203 .0340 2 1.2591 .0341 3 1.1651 .0361 4 1.0217 .0341 5 1.0050 .0352 6 1.0025 .0336 7 1.0010 .0367 8 1.0001 .0335 9 1.0008 .0321 10 0.9979 .0307 11 0.9961 .0276 12 0.9498 .0278 13 0.8983 .0246 14 0.8541 .0263 15 0.8149 .0253

The results of parallel analysis support our decision from the screeplot toretain only seven factors for further investigation. Further carrying out the test by using oblimin.

9|P age

Total Variance Explained Componen t Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
a

Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.548 1.262 1.176 1.047 1.010 1.005 1.002 .718 .583

% of Variance 17.203 14.018 13.061 11.631 11.217 9.945 8.465 7.980 6.479

Cumulative % 17.203 31.221 44.282 55.913 67.131 77.076 85.541 93.521 100.000

Total 1.380 1.111 1.113 1.113 1.090 1.083 1.036

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.

Principal component analysis revealed the presence of 7 components with eigen values greater than one and explaining 85.541 % of the total variance. An inspection of the screeplot revealed a clear break after the seventh component. Using Catells (1966) scree test, it was decided to retain seven components for further investigation. This was further supported by the results of Parallel Analysis, which showed only seven components with eigenvalues exceeding the corresponding criterion values for a randomly generated data.

10 | P a g e

Pattern Matrixa
Component 1 17.I buy mobile because of its innovative features 13. Voice clarity, weight and style are three major criterion for buying mobile phone. 49.Cheaper and good looking mobiles are more preferred 7 . Higher Standby time is preferred over additional features 34.Lesser the time to charge the mobile the greater is the performance 50.I will not buy mobile if the after sales service is poor irrespective of the mobile's performance 22. mobile phone should atleast have infrared connectivity 37. Phones compatible with free online softwares or games are liked over those which do not allow external softwares 10. mobile phone should be WIFI and Bluetoth enabled Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 13 iterations. -.062 .133 .135 .110 -.109 .035 .909 .001 -.013 .014 .095 -.012 -.951 -.033 -.050 .100 .104 .086 .970 .016 -.098 .039 -.075 -.091 .956 .085 -.086 .097 .057 -.113 .942 -.097 .108 -.026 .125 .143 -.805 -.253 -.128 .293 -.056 .108 -.074 -.854 .156 .117 -.150 .013 -.197 .754 -.079 -.040 .138 .024 .294 -.033 .868 2 .109 3 .080 4 -.071 5 -.061 6 -.200 7 -.023

11 | P a g e

Analysis of the Pattern matrix: We used the most used direct oblimin to determine how strongly inter-correlated the factors actually are, and the pattern matrix is similar to rotated component matrix of Varimax and it gives us the loadings of the factors to each of the components. Here questions 17 & 13 are explained by component 1, questions 49& 7 are explained by component 2, question 34 is explained by component 3, question 50 is explained by component 4, question 22 is explained by component 5, question 37 is explained by component 6 and question 10 is explained by component 7. We name the components as follows: Component Number Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4 Component 5 Component 6 Component 7 Name of the component Design Cost effectiveness Battery life After sales service Connectivity Multimedia Information

12 | P a g e

Structure Matrix Component 1 17.I buy mobile because of its innovative features 13.mobile phone should be WIFI and Bluetoth enabled 49.Cheaper and good looking mobiles are more preferred 7.mobile phone should atleast have infrared connectivity 34.Lesser the time to charge the mobile the greater is the performance 50.I will not buy mobile if the after sales service is poor irrespective of the mobile's performance 22.Voice clarity, weight and style are three major criterion for buying mobile phone 37.Phones compatible with free online softwares or games are liked over those which do not allow external softwares 10.Higher Standby time is preferred over additional features Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. -.069 .266 .159 .044 -.055 -.015 .899 -.071 .056 .120 .120 -.062 -.953 -.029 -.001 .054 .022 .033 .934 .033 -.005 -.003 -.002 -.028 .926 .027 -.088 -.002 .017 -.027 .911 -.058 .040 -.108 .126 .242 -.547 -.461 -.457 .421 .038 .321 -.050 -.842 .108 .103 -.154 .044 -.326 .775 -.146 -.120 .081 .083 .353 -.042 .842 2 .068 3 .054 4 -.095 5 -.019 6 -.157 7 .015

13 | P a g e

Component Correlation Matrix Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.000 -.065 -.066 -.058 .070 .067 .024

-.065 1.000 .092 .074 -.054 -.067 .116

-.066 .092 1.000 .077 -.03 -.104 -.009

-.058 .074 .077 1.000 -.084 -.022 -.07

.070 -.054 -.03 -.084 1.000 .040 .016

.067 -.067 -.104 -.022 .040 1.000 -.018

.024 .116 -.009 -.07 .016 -.018 1.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

Analysis of the component correlation matrix:

Component correlation matrix shows the strength of the relationship between the two factors (in this case the values are quite low ranging from -0.065 to 0.116). This gives us information to decide whether it was reasonable to assume that the seven components were notrelated or whether it is necessary to use, and report, the more complex Oblimin rotation solution shown here. In this case the correlation between the seven components are quite low, so we would expect solutions from the Oblimin rotation. If, however, components are more strongly correlated (e.g. above .3) then we may find discrepancies between the results of the two approaches to rotation.

Similarity and Dis-Similarity Analysis

Nokia Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola dummy 1 dummy 2 dummy 3

3.952381 4.285714 3.8809524 5.166667 5.2380952 5.4285714 4.690476 4.1666667 3.5714286 5.8333333 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4

1 1

14 | P a g e

Table shows the respondents aggregate brand comparison matrix. We have taken 3 dummy variables to reduce the complexity of getting the questionnaire filled which if otherwise would have created biases in the responses. Also we had taken a 5 point scale to ease the decision making process of the respondents with 1 being Strongly similar and 5 being Strongly Dissimilar
Nokia Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola Dummy 1 Dummy 2 Dummy 3 0 4.008 5.942 7.873 9.093 10.802 11.121 11.432 Sony Ericsson 0 3.931 6.729 7.737 9.688 10.043 10.386 0 5.881 6.498 8.731 9.123 9.499 Samsung Apple Motorola Dummy1 Dummy2 Dummy3

0 5.833 8.248 8.662 9.057

0 5.831 6.403 6.928

0 1 1.414

0 1

Table shows the raw un scaled data for subject 1 which has been used by SPSS for its further calculation.
Iteration 1 2 3 S-stress 0.09373 0.08431 0.0843 Improvement 0.00942 0.00001

Stimulus Name Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Dimension 1 1.6631 1.375 1.0861 0.5817 -0.2955

Dimension 2 -0.8705 -0.4795 0.0524 1.1191 0.8942

The Euclidean distances signifies to us the distances between each of the stimulus to that of the other stimulus under a particular dimension. Note we have removed the values for the dummy variables. For example with respect to dimension 1 Nokia and Apple are far apart and Nokia and Sony Ericsson are fairly close to each other. This can be diagrammatically expressed as

15 | P a g e

Dimension 1 distances
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Dimension 2 distances
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

The conclusions that cam be made with this data is that, taken these dimensions individually Nokia and Motorola are perceived very differently in dimension 1. Nokia and Sony Ericsson are close competitors in dimension 1. In dimension 2 Nokia and Apple are perceived poles apart. And Apple and Motorola are perceived close in the dimension.

16 | P a g e

The actual distance between two companies taken together with equal weight for each dimension gives the following distance matrix
Nokia Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola 0.00 0.49 1.09 2.26 2.64 Sony Ericsson 0.00 0.61 1.78 2.16 Samsung Apple Motorola

0.00 1.18 1.62

0.00 0.91

0.00

The findings of he above data is that, taken these two dimensions together having equal weight Sony Ericsson and Nokia are closely competing and Nokia and Motorola is far signifying the gap in the perception of the respondents.

Attribute Perception Mapping:

Design Multimedia Battery life 1.27 2.39 2.71 2.61 3.00 Cost effectiveness 1.67 2.16 2.12 3.14 2.45 connectivity After sales service 1.49 2.37 2.71 2.35 2.78 Information

Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

1.57 1.82 2.44 1.41 2.45

1.67 1.67 2.54 1.33 2.59

1.41 1.96 2.31 1.51 2.43

1.20 1.80 2.24 2.49 2.22

Below we are comparing the companies for two attributes taken at a time. The inputs for these graphs are the aggregate perception of the respondents for individual attribute. As we know there ate 7 attributes and 7C2 combinations and the key observation from the graph is highlighted below. The values are in the scale 1 to 5 with 1 being Strongly Agree and 5 being Strongly Disagree. The observations have been made keeping in mind the question asked to the respondents.

17 | P a g e

Design and Multimedia

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Multimedia Cost Efficiency 1.57 1.82 2.44 1.41 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

Design and Cost Efficeiency

1.57 1.82

2.44 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

1.41

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

2.45

2.45

Design

Design

Observation from the graph : Apple is considered to have an edge over all the other companies when it comes to design and multimedia. Samsung and Motorola are perceived as competitors in these dimensions and also respondents do not perceive these companies a pro in designing and multimedia taken together.

Observation from the graph : Nokia mobile phones are perceived to have the better combo of both design and cost efficiency and though Apple stands best in the design respondents feel that it is not comparatively cost efficient.

Design and Battery Life

Connectivity 4.00 Battery Life 3.00 2.00 1.57 1.82 2.44 1.41 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.45 Design

Design and Connectivity

3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.57 1.82 2.44 1.41

1.00 0.00

2.45

Design

Observation from the graph : Nokia is perceived as the best among the 5 company mobiles and especially when it comes to battery life Nokia stands ahead of all other mobile phones.

Observation from the graph : Nokia and Apple are perceived as a close competitor in this criteria esp with Nokia having a small edge.

Design and After Sales Service

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 Battery Life After sales 1.57 1.82 2.44 1.41 2.45 Design

Multimedia and Battery Life

4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.67 1.67 2.54 1.33 2.59 Multimedia

Observation from the graph : Nokia clearly stands ahead of all other companies when it comes to after sales service and the design taken at a time.

Observation from the graph : Sony Ericsson and Apple are being viewed close on this scale with Nokia having an egde in these dimensions.

Design and Information

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 Information Cost Efficiency 1.57 1.82 2.44 1.41 2.45

Multimedia and Cost Efficiency

4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.67 1.67 2.54 1.33 2.59

Design

Multimedia

Observation from the graph : Nokia as in the previous cases have been perceived as a better company in terms of the design and information criteria.

Observation from the graph : There are two set of competitors in this area, one is the Nokia Sony pair and the other is the Samsung Motorola pair. The former pair has been perceived better in the above dimensions.

19 | P a g e

Multimedia and Connectivity

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.67 1.67 2.54 1.33 2.59 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Connectivity Information

Multimedia and Information

1.67 1.67 2.54 1.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.59

Multimedia

Multimedia

Observation from the graph : There are three companies that are close in terms of the connectivity and multimedia characteristics. They are Nokia, Apple and Sony Ericsson.

Observation from the graph : Sony and Nokia are perceived to have the same multimedia features but differ in the information availability among the respondents.

Multimedia and After sales service

Cost Efficiency 3.00 After sales 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.67 1.67 2.54 1.33 2.59 Multimedia

Battery Life and Cost Efficiency

4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

1.27
2.39

2.71
2.61

0.00

2.00
Battery Life

4.00

3.00

Observation from the graph : Nokia stands alone in these dimensions, perceived superior when compared to rest.

Observation from the graph : When it comes to cost efficiency and battery life Nokia is the only player perceived good in this area rest of the companies dimensions.
20 | P a g e

lag

on

one

or

more

Battery Life and Connectivity

Connectivity 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Battery Life 4.00 1.27 2.39 2.71 Information 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

Battery Life and Information

1.27 2.39 2.71 0.00 2.00 Battery Life 4.00

2.61
3.00

2.61
3.00

Observation from the graph : Nokia scores again in this combination with all the other companies forming a cluster

Observation from the graph : Nokia has an edge over the other companies taken in this dimension.

Battery Life and After sales Service

2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Battery Life 4.00 1.27 2.39 2.71 2.61 3.00 Connectivity After sales 3.00

Cost Efficiency and Connectivity

3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Cost Effeciency 4.00 1.67 2.16 2.12 3.14 2.45

Observation from the graph : Nokia leads in having the perception of people as having comparatively good battery life and after sales service

Observation from the graph : Apple stands farthest when it comes to the cost efficiency and Nokia stands as a better perceived company in these attributes taken.

21 | P a g e

Cost Efficiency and After sales service

3.00 After sales 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Cost Efficiency 4.00 1.67 2.16 2.12 3.14 2.45 After sales

Connectivity and After Sales

3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.41 1.96 2.31 1.51 2.43

Connectivity

Observation from the graph : Sony Ericsson, Motorola and Samsung are perceived very close in these dimensions.

Observation from the graph: Samsung and Motorola are viewed as the least combination by the

respondents .

Cost Efficiency and Information

3.00 Information 2.00 1.67 2.16 2.12 0.00 0.00 2.00 Cost Efficiency 4.00 3.14 2.45 Information 3.00 2.00

Connectivity and Information

1.41 1.96 2.31 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.51 2.43 Connectivity

1.00

1.00

Observation from the graph : The information and cost efficiency are perceived to be had best by Nokia with Motorola, Samsung and Sony perceived very close with each other.

Observation from the graph : The perception is scattered with Apple, Nokia and Sony Ericsson scoring good in different dimensions with Motorola and Samsung viewed as close

competitor.

22 | P a g e

After sales and Information

Information 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.49

Observation from the graph : Nokia stands alone when it comes to the perception among the After sales and Information availability.
2.37
2.71

2.35
2.78

After sales

Tukey Kramer Values : Hypothesis considered are as under. The null hypothesis: No significant difference between the two means Alternate Hypothesis: There is significant difference between the two means The analysis is done based on the sample as given under. With only design as the decision criteria Nokia and Sony Ericsson are perceived as having no significant difference. [The p value 0.2449 is less than the critical value 0.563235. So we accept the null hypothesis.Similar analysis has been done pair wise in the table and combined analysis is done later in this chapter. Tukey Kramer table for Design

Design
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia 0.2449 0.8661* 0.16327 0.8776*

Sony Ericsson 0.43573354 0.6212* 0.4082 0.6327*

Samsung 0.437997 0.437997 1.0293* 0.01148

Apple 0.435734 0.435734 0.437997 1.0408*

Motorola 0.435734 0.435734 0.437997 0.435734 -

Analysis

Design
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia Do not Differ Differ Do not Differ Differ

Sony Ericsson 0.435734 Differ Do not Differ Differ

Samsung 0.437997 0.437997 Differ Do not Differ

Apple 0.435734 0.435734 0.437997 Differ

Motorola 0.435734 0.435734 0.437997 0.435734 -

23 | P a g e

Tukey Kramer table for After Sales service

After sales service

Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia 0.8776* 1.2245* 0.8571* 1.2857*

Sony Ericsson 0.57049856 0.3469 0.020408 0.4082

Samsung 0.570499 0.570499 0.3673 0.06122

Apple 0.570499 0.570499 0.570499 0.4286

Motorola 0.570499 0.570499 0.570499 0.570499 -

Analysis

After sales service

Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia Differ Differ Differ Differ

Sony Ericsson 0.570499 Do not Differ Do not Differ Do not Differ

Samsung 0.570499 0.570499 Do not Differ Do not Differ

Apple 0.570499 0.570499 0.570499 Do not Differ

Motorola 0.570499 0.570499 0.570499 0.570499 -

Tukey Kramer table for Connectivity

Connectivity
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia 0.551* 0.898* 0.10204 1.0204*

Sony Ericsson 0.48149834 0.3469 0.449 0.4694

Samsung 0.481498 0.481498 0.7959* 0.12245

Apple 0.481498 0.481498 0.481498 0.9184*

Motorola 0.481498 0.481498 0.481498 0.481498 -

Analysis

Connectivity
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia Differ Differ Do not Differ Differ

Sony Ericsson 0.481498 Do not Differ Do not Differ Do not Differ

Samsung 0.481498 0.481498 Differ Do not Differ

Apple 0.481498 0.481498 0.481498 Differ

Motorola 0.481498 0.481498 0.481498 0.481498 -

24 | P a g e

Tukey Kramer table for Cost Effectiveness

Cost effectiveness
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia 0.4898 0.449 1.4694* 0.7755*

Sony Ericsson 0.56323489 0.04082 0.9796* 0.28571

Samsung 0.563235 0.563235 1.0204* 0.3265

Apple 0.563235 0.563235 0.563235 0.6939*

Motorola 0.563235 0.563235 0.563235 0.563235 -

Analysis

Cost effectiveness
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia Do not Differ Do not Differ Differ Differ

Sony Ericsson 0.563235 Do not Differ Differ Do not Differ

Samsung 0.563235 0.563235 Differ Do not Differ

Apple 0.563235 0.563235 0.563235 Differ

Motorola 0.563235 0.563235 0.563235 0.563235 -

Tukey Kramer table for Battery Life

Battery life
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia 1.1224* 1.449* 1.3469* 1.7347*

Sony Ericsson 0.57224279 0.3265 0.22449 0.6122*

Samsung 0.572243 0.572243 0.10204 0.28571

Apple 0.572243 0.572243 0.572243 0.3878

Motorola 0.572243 0.572243 0.572243 0.572243 -

Analysis

Battery life
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia Differ Differ Differ Differ

Sony Ericsson 0.572243 Do not Differ Do not Differ Differ

Samsung 0.572243 0.572243 Do not Differ Do not Differ

Apple 0.572243 0.572243 0.572243 Do not Differ

Motorola 0.572243 0.572243 0.572243 0.572243 -

25 | P a g e

Tukey Kramer table for Information Availability

Information availability
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia 0.5918* 1.0408* 1.2857* 1.0204*

Sony Ericsson 0.49381404 0.449 0.6939* 0.4286

Samsung 0.493814 0.493814 0.2449 0.020408

Apple 0.493814 0.493814 0.493814 0.26531

Motorola 0.493814 0.493814 0.493814 0.493814 -

Analysis

Information availability
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia Differ Differ Differ Differ

Sony Ericsson

Samsung

Apple

Motorola 0.493814 0.493814 0.493814 0.493814

0.493814 0.493814 0.493814 0.493814 0.493814 Do not Difer 0.493814 differ Do not Difer Do not Difer Do not Difer Do not Difer -

Tukey Kramer table for Multimedia

Multi media
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia #NUM! 0.8682* 0.3469 0.9184*

Sony Ericsson 0.41906771 0.8682* 0.3469 0.9184*

Samsung 0.421245 0.421245 1.2151* 0.05017

Apple 0.419068 0.419068 0.421245 1.2653*

Motorola 0.419068 0.419068 0.421245 0.419068 -

Analysis

Multi media
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia #NUM! Differ Do not Differ Differ

Sony Ericsson 0.419068 Differ Do not Differ Differ

Samsung 0.421245 0.421245 Differ Do not Differ

Apple 0.419068 0.419068 0.421245 Differ

Motorola 0.419068 0.419068 0.421245 0.419068 -

26 | P a g e

CONCLUSION
Factor Analysis:
From the above Factor Analysis data it can be clearly seen that the there are 7 factors that contribute majorly for the buying behaviour of the mobile phones by BIMTECH students. They are Design, Multimedia features, Battery Life, Cost effectiveness of the mobile, After sales service and the Information availability.

Multidimensional Scaling:
A one to one comparison of the companies based on Tukey Kramer significant difference is done and the complied result is shown as under by comparing two companies at a time.

Design
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia Do not Differ Differ Do not Differ Differ Nokia Differ Differ Differ Differ Nokia

Sony Ericsson 0.435734 Differ Do not Differ Differ Sony Ericsson 0.570499 Do not Differ Do not Differ Do not Differ

Samsung 0.437997 0.437997 Differ Do not Differ Samsung 0.570499 0.570499 Do not Differ Do not Differ Samsung

Apple 0.435734 0.435734 0.437997 Differ Apple 0.570499 0.570499 0.570499 Do not Differ Apple

Motorola 0.435734 0.435734 0.437997 0.435734 Motorola 0.570499 0.570499 0.570499 0.570499 Motorola 0.481498 0.481498 0.481498 0.481498 Motorola 0.563235 0.563235 0.563235 0.563235 27 | P a g e

After sales service

Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Connectivity
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Differ Differ Do not Differ Differ Nokia Do not Differ Do not Differ Differ Differ

Sony Ericsson 0.481498 Do not Differ Do not Differ Do not Differ Sony Ericsson 0.563235 Do not Differ Differ Do not Differ

0.481498 0.481498 Differ Do not Differ Samsung 0.563235 0.563235 Differ Do not Differ

0.481498 0.481498 0.481498 Differ Apple 0.563235 0.563235 0.563235 Differ

Cost effectiveness
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Battery life
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Nokia Differ Differ Differ Differ Nokia Differ Differ Differ Differ Nokia #NUM! Differ Do not Differ Differ

Sony Ericsson

Samsung

Apple

Motorola 0.572243 0.572243 0.572243 0.572243

0.572243 0.572243 0.572243 0.572243 0.572243 Do not Differ 0.572243 Do not Differ Do not Differ Differ Do not Differ Do not Differ Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple

Information availability
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Motorola 0.493814 0.493814 0.493814 0.493814

0.493814 0.493814 0.493814 0.493814 0.493814 Do not Difer 0.493814 differ Do not Difer Do not Difer Do not Difer Do not Difer Sony Ericsson 0.419068 Differ Do not Differ Differ Samsung 0.421245 0.421245 Differ Do not Differ Apple 0.419068 0.419068 0.421245 Differ

Multi media
Nokia Sony Ericsson Samsung Apple Motorola

Motorola 0.419068 0.419068 0.421245 0.419068 -

It can be clearly seen from the attribute mean graphs of various companies that Nokia is having an edge over every other company in terms of the dimensions considered. Apple is considered the most expensive as well as the most impressive phonein terms of the multimedia features. Motorola and Samsung are sailing in the same boat and being perceived as competitors in most cases. And if Motorola and Samsung wants to compete with either of the other three brand it has to improve its performance in any one of the 7 dimensions considered as the parameters for the purchase behaviour. Sony Ericsson is perceived very close to the dimensions taken together and if it wants to improve then it needs to improve in the 7 factors mentioned above so as to be perceived equally with the competitor Nokia.

28 | P a g e