You are on page 1of 11

Question 25 When asked about PTCLs pricing strategy whem it comes to their internet offering, the respondents response

was as shown below in the table and graphed in the pie chart. Out of the total 81 PTCLs internet users 41 find it to be competitive to the market, where other ISPs are providing somewhat similar internet packages. This is a high ratio of about 50.6% compared to those who find PTCLs internet prices to be high, which is 29.6% of our sample size of PTCLs internet users. Whereas 16 out of 81 PTCL internet users, which is about 19.8%, find PTCLs prices to be cheap,
Price_evaluation Cumulative Frequency Valid competitive high cheap Total Missing Total System 41 24 16 81 69 150 Percent 27.3 16.0 10.7 54.0 46.0 100.0 Valid Percent 50.6 29.6 19.8 100.0 Percent 50.6 80.2 100.0

Question 26 A question regarding suggestions for PTCL was asked from the respondents and it was kept open ended just so that they can give any suggestion/feedback they wish for PTCL. In response to this question, we received numerous suggestions for PTCL which later were codified to 18 responses altogether. Majority of the respondents left this open ended question unanswered and it accumulated to 21.3% of the total 150 respondents. Other responses included many focusing either Internet or Landline specifically, like improvement in Router problems for internet which accounted to be 2% of total response or cross connections for landline which also accounts to 2% of the total 150 responses. Improvements in prices and reduction in response times were two other major suggestions for PTCL as a result of this study which accounted for 12% and 10% respectively of the total sample size. Also many respondents gave multiple suggestions which include multi responses like price and improvement in customer service which accounts for 2% of the total responses whereas Improvement in customer service for PTCL was a suggestion that in total accumulated to 15.4% of total responses. Further details of these responses are given in the table below.
Suggestions Cumulative Frequency Valid Improve customer service improve customer service, price Improve customer service, connection speed, cross connection Improve customer service/Support indifferent/ no effect offer better packages better bandwidth Price, Better bandwidth line disturbance greater compatibility cross connection router problems satisfied Connectivity, Satisfied no response 5 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 6 4 32 3.3 .7 .7 .7 1.3 1.3 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.7 21.3 3.3 .7 .7 .7 1.3 1.3 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.7 21.3 14.7 15.3 16.0 16.7 18.0 19.3 21.3 23.3 27.3 30.0 51.3 1 .7 .7 11.3 1 .7 .7 10.7 12 3 Percent 8.0 2.0 Valid Percent 8.0 2.0 Percent 8.0 10.0

quality Quality, Price price Price, connectivity connectivity Improve customer service, connectivity Connectivity, Line disturbance Connectivity, router problems connection speed consistency Consistency, quicken response time quick response time Price, Quick Response Time, Improve customer support Quicken response time, improve customer service improve customer support improve upload/download speed Total

7 1 18 4 4 1

4.7 .7 12.0 2.7 2.7 .7

4.7 .7 12.0 2.7 2.7 .7

56.0 56.7 68.7 71.3 74.0 74.7

2.0

2.0

76.7

.7

.7

77.3

6 2 1

4.0 1.3 .7

4.0 1.3 .7

81.3 82.7 83.3

15 1

10.0 .7

10.0 .7

93.3 94.0

1.3

1.3

95.3

6 1

4.0 .7

4.0 .7

99.3 100.0

150

100.0

100.0

Question 27 In order to get an unbiased response, the study was carried out with a goal in mind to keep the gender bias to the minimum and have approximately equal number of male and female respondents. A total of 150 questionnaires were circulated amongst which 71 were male respondents accounting for 47.3% of the total sample size and the remaining 79 respondents were female which equals to 52.7% of the sample size.

Gender Cumulative Frequency Valid Male Female Total 71 79 150 Percent 47.3 52.7 100.0 Valid Percent 47.3 52.7 100.0 Percent 47.3 100.0

Frequency

Female 53%

Male 47%

Question 28 Majority of the respondents to this questionnaire aged between 18-24 with figures as high as 64%.furtehr breakups of the age groups included 25-30 years, 31-35 years and 36-40 years with their representation in the sample as 13.3%,6% and 1.3% respectively. The remaining 15.3% was of respondents over the age of 40 which were 23 in number out of the total 150 sample size.

Age Cumulative Frequency Valid 18-24 years 25-30 years 31-35 years 36-40 years 40 plus Total 96 20 9 2 23 150 Percent 64.0 13.3 6.0 1.3 15.3 100.0 Valid Percent 64.0 13.3 6.0 1.3 15.3 100.0 Percent 64.0 77.3 83.3 84.7 100.0

Question 29 In order to determine the Gross monthly household income of the respondents of a question was asked in the demographics section of the questionnaire which revealed the fact that out of our sample size of 150, 66 respondents gross monthly household income was more than PKR150000. Out of the remaining 84 respondents, 12 respondents household income was between PKR30, 000- PKR60, 000. The remaining 72 respondents house hold income was between PKR60, 000 to PKR 150,000 with details of breakups given in the table and the graph following the table below.
Income Cumulative Frequency Valid rs30000-60000 rs60001-90000 rs90001-120000 12 27 20 Percent 8.0 18.0 13.3 Valid Percent 8.0 18.0 13.3 Percent 8.0 26.0 39.3

rs120001-150000 150001 plus Total

25 66 150

16.7 44.0 100.0

16.7 44.0 100.0

56.0 100.0

Question 30 In another attempt to classify the respondents in to SEC class A or B, another question regarding the highest level of education of the head of household was asked. Majority responded with Undergraduate level which accounted for 46.7% of the total sample size of 150 respondents. 20% of the respondents head of householdd highest level of education was below undergraduate with 18% responding as Alevels/Inter and 2% as OLevels/Matriculation. The remaining 1/3rd of the samples head of household were educated to a level more then undergraduate with 31.3% as post graduates and 3 out of 150 respondents head of households were Ph.D.s.
Education

Cumulative Frequency Valid olevels/matric alevels/inter undergraduate post graduate doctorate/phd Total 3 27 70 47 3 150 Percent 2.0 18.0 46.7 31.3 2.0 100.0 Valid Percent 2.0 18.0 46.7 31.3 2.0 100.0 Percent 2.0 20.0 66.7 98.0 100.0

Question 31 In order to make the classification of the respondents according to their social economic classes, occupation of the bread earner for the household was asked. Majority of the respondents head of household were self-employed professionals accounting to 24.7% of the total sample size followed by 21.3% of such respondents whose head of household was a senior executive/officer.

Those respondents whose head of household was either a small shopkeeper/business man or a supervisory level officer accounted for 8% each of the sample. 4 out of 150 respondents head of household were retired whereas 10.7% of the respondents head of household were large business man or factory owner. Further details of the breakup of the sampleshead of the familys occupation is depicted in the graph and the table that follows.
Occupation Cumulative Frequency Valid supervisory level small shopkeeper / business man lower / middle executive officer self / employed professional medium business man senior executive/officer large business man / factory owner Retired Total 4 150 2.7 100.0 2.7 100.0 100.0 37 26 32 16 24.7 17.3 21.3 10.7 24.7 17.3 21.3 10.7 48.0 65.3 86.7 97.3 11 7.3 7.3 23.3 12 12 Percent 8.0 8.0 Valid Percent 8.0 8.0 Percent 8.0 16.0