A Study on Brand Preference of Mobile Phone Users in
Virudhunagar City


By

Dr.N.Subburaj
Professor
Department of Management Studies
St. Michael College of Engineering and Technology
KalayarKoil-630551, Tamilnadu
 


1. INTRODUCTION:

Mobile phone is a smart communication media. It is not a one-way communication like pager. Cellular communication basically gives the power of an advanced telephone system card. Cellular communication works like the radio set which is normally used. The handset or Mobile Phone is in fact an own private radio transmitter and receiver, very similar to the Walkie-talkies used by Police and Security Personnel. The key difference is that a cellular phone network is connected to the fixed line or conventional telephone system allowing additional access to the telephone world.

Mobile Phone can be used to make and receive STD and ISD calls. Now e-mailing message is also possible. Some cellular phones have the capacity to send and receive faxes and data when attached to a personal computer. The sole purpose of branding is to distinguish the branded product from those of the competitors. A well-promoted brand name, which has earned reputation in the market, is very difficult to compete with. Branding describes the establishing of brand name, make and trade names for a product.

2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

A lot of brands of Mobile Phone are available in the market. But the consumers prefer a particular brand of Mobile Phone. In the modern business world, due to the development of science and technology, many new brands have been introduced in the market every year.

3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

This study is mainly focuses on the leading brand preference for mobile phone and the attitude of consumers belongs to low, middle and high income groups are taken in virudhunagar city.

4. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

The important objectives of this study are

1. To study the origin and growth of Mobile Phone industry.
2. To study the importance of branding and its influence on consumers buying behavior.
3. To study the awareness and attitude of consumers towards Mobile Phone.
4. To study the factors influencing the brand preference of Mobile phones.

5. AREA OF THE STUDY:

This study has been conducted by the researcher in virudhunagar city as the suitable area due to the people of belongs to various levels.

6. PERIOD OF THE STUDY:

The data has been collected by the researcher through interview schedule from the consumers of mobile phone users during the period Nov 2008.

7. METHODOLOGY:

This is based on collection of primary data through interview schedule from 100 respondents of mobile phone uses in virudhunagar city. In this study the consumer preference relating to mobile phone were described with the help of percentage analyses were made.

8. SAMBLING DESIGN:

The researcher has adopted the convenient sampling and it was much careful to ensure that the sample represents the whole area of the study. A sample of 100 consumers has been selected for the study by using convenient sampling method. The sample has consisting of three groups viz, Low, Middle and High Income Groups are 22, 34 and 44 respondents respectively.

9. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS:

In this study an attempt by the researcher has been analyzed the brand preference of cell phone. The analysis of the data is based on the attitude or opinion, consumer awareness and selection of brand of cell phones in Virudhunagar City. A brand name may manipulate the buyer's perception about the product. Brand names are often useful in establishing an overall product concept. Occasionally, a brand name becomes the generic name of that product. Inferences are made on the basis of the opinion expressed by one hundred sample respondents comprising of 22 from Low income group, 34 from Middle income group and 44 from High income group.

9.1. Income wise classification

The researcher has classified the respondents into three groups, viz. Low Income Group (LIG) (monthly income up to Rs.10000), Middle Income group (MIG) (monthly income ranging between Rs.10000 and 25000) and High Income Group (HIG) (monthly income above Rs.25000). The number of respondents in each group is shown in the following table.

Table-1
Income wise classification

Monthly income

No. of respondents

Percentage

Up to Rs.10000 (LIG)

22

22

Rs.10000-25000 (MIG)

34

34

Above Rs25000(HIG)

44

44

Total

100

100


The table 1 reveals that of the total 100 respondents, 22% respondents are of low income group, 34% respondents are of middle income group and 44% respondents are of high income group.

9.2. Brand preference:

Many brands of cell phones are available in the market. People prefer a particular brand. The preference differs from person to another for various reasons. Hence, the researcher has made an attempt to analyze the brand used by respondents, as shown in Table 2.

Table-2.
Brand used

Brand

No. of Respondents

Percentage

Nokia

54

54

Samsung

14

14

Sony Ericsson

6

6

LG

10

10

Panasonic

4

4

Motorola

12

12

Total

100

100


From the above table it is clear that of the total 100 respondents 54% of them use Nokia brand mobile phones. Samsung is used by 14%, Motorola is used by 12%, LG is used by 10%, Sony Ericsson is used by 6% and Panasonic is used by 4%.

9.3. Sources of awareness

People come to know about the brand of their Mobile Phone through various sources. The researcher has made an attempt to study the sources of awareness of the respondents and has shown in the following table 3.

Table-3
Sources of awareness

Sources

Number of Respondents

Total

LIG

MIG

HIG

Advertisement

8
(36.36)

20
(58.82)

22
(50)

50
(50)

Friends

20
(90.9)

30
(88.24)

38
(86.36)

88
(88)

Relatives

4
(18.18)

7
(20.59)

9
(20.45)

20
(20)

Dealers

14
(63.64)

8
(23.53)

7
(15.91)

29
(29)


Figures in brackets indicate percentage

It is evident from the above table that friends are the main source of information through whom the respondents get information about the brand of their Mobile Phone as 88% hold this view. 50% viewed advertisement as the source of awareness. 29% of the respondents viewed that dealers are the source of awareness and 20% viewed that relatives are the source of awareness.

9.4. Influence from reference group

Reference group plays a vital role in the selection of a particular brand of Mobile Phone. The consumers are very much influenced by the reference group while making a purchase decision. Hence, the researcher has attempted to analyze the influence of reference group on the respondents.

Table -4
Influence of reference group

Response

Number of Respondents

Total

LIG

MIG

HIG

Yes

14
(63.64)

24
(70.59)

28
(63.64)

66
(66)

No

8
(36.36)

10
(29.41)

16
(36.36)

34
(34)

Total

22

34

44

100


Figures in brackets indicate percentage

It is obvious from the Table 4 that 66% of the total respondents are influenced by reference group. Also it is seen that 70.59% in MIG, 63.64 in LIG and 63.64% in HIG are influenced by the reference group. The rest 34% of the total respondents are not influenced from any of the reference group. The income classification shows that 36.36% of LIG, 29.41% of MIG and 36.36% of HIG are in this category.

9.5. Duration of using Mobile Phone

The researcher has made an attempt to analyze the duration of using Mobile Phone by the respondents. The following table shows the duration of using Mobile Phone.

Table-5
Duration of using Mobile Phone

Duration

Number of respondents

Total

LIG

MIG

HIG

Up to 2 years

20
(90.90)

24
(70.59)

26
(59.09)

70
(70)

2-5 years

2
(9.1)

8
(23.53)

12
(27.27)

22
(22)

Above 5 years

-

2
(5.88)

6
(13.64)

8
(8)

Total

22

34

44

100


Figures in brackets indicate percentage

 The above Table.5 exhibits that majority (70%) of respondents are using Mobile Phone for less than 2 years. On the basis of income classification 90.90% in LIG, 70.59% in MIG and 59.09% in HIG use Mobile Phone for less than 2 years.22% of the respondents are using for 2-5 years. On the basis of income classification 27.27% in HIG, 23.53% and 9.1% in LIG use for 2-5 years. Only 8% of respondents use Mobile Phone for more than 5 years. On the basis of income classification 13.64% in HIG and 5.88 in MIG have been using mobile phone for more than 5 years.

9.6. Prime objective of using Mobile Phone

 People use mobile phone for different purposes. The researcher has identified various purposes as shown in the Table 4.3. But the researcher intended to study the prime objective of using Mobile Phone by the respondents, as shown in the following table.6

Table-6
Prime objective of using Mobile Phone

Purpose

Number of Respondents

Total

LIG

MIG

HIG

To contact family members

4
(18.18)

12
(35.29)

8
(18.18)

24
(24)

To contact friends

8
(36.36)

10
(29.4)

11
(24.97)

29
(29)

To contact relatives

2
(9.09)

-

4
(9.08)

6
(6)

To contact business clients

5
(22.72)

8
(23.55)

14
(31.78)

27
(27)

To contact professional

Clients

3
(13.63)

4
(11.76)

7
(15.89)

14
(14)

Total

22

34

44

100


Figures in brackets indicate percentage

 Table.6 shows the prime objective of using mobile phones by the respondents as follows. 29% of the total respondents use mobile to contact friends. On the basis of income classification 33.36% in LIG, 29.4% in MIG and 24.97% in HIG use mobile to contact friends. 27% of the total respondents use to contact business clients. On the basis of income classification 31.78% in HIG, 23.52% in MIG and 22.72% in LIG use mobile to contact business clients.24% of the total respondents use mobile to contact members of the family. On the basis of income classification 35.28% in MIG, 18.18% in LIG and 18.16% in HIG use mobile to contact family friends.

14% of the total respondents use to contact professional clients. On the basis of income classification15.89% in HIG, 13.63% in LIG and 11.76% in MIG use contact professional clients. Only 6% of the total respondents use mobile to contact relatives. On the basis of income classification 9.09% in LIG and 9.08% in HIG and none in the MIG use mobile to contact relatives.

9.7. Average talk time (Dialing)

The average talk time with respect to dialing (Out going calls) is analyzed by the researcher and the same is shown in the following    Table.7

Table-7
Average talk time (Dialing)

Talk time per day
(minutes)

Number of Respondents

Total

LIG

MIG

HIG

Less than 30

20
(90.90)

16
(470.6)

6
(13.64)

42
(42)

30 60

2
(9.10)

12
(35.29)

26
(59.09)

40
(40)

Above 60

-

6
(17.65)

12
(27.27)

18
(18)

Total

22

34

44

100


Figures in brackets indicate percentage

It is depicted in the above table that 42% of the total respondents use their Mobile Phone for less than 30 minutes (Dialing) in a day. On the basis of income classification 90.90% in LIG, 47.06% in MIG and 13.64% in HIG use less than 30 minutes in a day.40% use for 30-60minutes a day. On the basis of income classification 59.09% in HIG, 35.29% in MIG and 9.10% in LIG use for 30-60 minutes.18% of the respondents use for more than 60 minutes a day. On the basis of income classification 27.27% in HIG and 17.65% in MIG use for more than 60 minutes.

9.8 Average talk time (Receiving)

The researcher has made an attempt to analyze the average talk time (receiving) of the respondents. The following table deals with the same.

Table-8
Average talk time (Receiving)

Talk time per day
(minutes)

Number of Respondents

Total

LIG

MIG

HIG

Less than 30

6
(27.27)

9
(26.47)

7
(15.91)

22
(22)

30 60

5
(22.73)

13
(38.24)

13
(29.55)

31
(31)

Above 60

11
(50)

12
(35.29)

24
(54.54)

47
(47)

Total

22

34

44

100


Figures in brackets indicate percentage

From the table it is clear that 47% of the total respondents have an average talk time (Receiving) of above 60 minutes in a day, i.e. 54% in HIG, 50% in LIG and 35.29% in MIG.31% of the total respondents receive calls for 30 60 minutes in a day, i.e. 38.24% in MIG, 29.55% in HIG and 22.73% in LIG.22% of the total respondents receive calls for less than 30 minutes in a day, i.e. 27.27% in LIG, 26.47% in MIG and 15.91% in HIG.

9.9. Average number of messages (Sending)

Message sending is an important additional facility available in Mobile Phones. Nowadays people make use of this facility very much. The researcher has attempted to analyze the average number of messages send in one day.

Table-9
Number of messages sent

No. of messages

Number of Respondents

Total

LIG

MIG

HIG

Less than 10

4
(18.18)

12
(35.29)

12
(27.27)

24
(24)

10 20

6
(27.27)

10
(29.41)

26
(59.09)

42
(42)

Above 20

12
(54.55)

12
(35.29)

6
(13.64)

30
(30)

Total

22

34

44

100


Figures in brackets indicate percentage

 Table 4.6 reveals that 42% of the total respondents send message at the rate of 10 20 per day. On the basis of income classification 59.09% in HIG, 29.41% in MIG and 27.27% in LIG send 10 20 messages a day.30% of the total respondents send above 20 messages. On the basis of income classification the percentages work out as 54.55% in LIG, 35.29% in MIG and 13.64% in HIG.24% of the total respondents send less than 10 messages in a day. On the basis of income classification the percentages work out as 35.29% in MIG, 27.27% in HIG and 18.18% in LIG.

9.10. Average number of messages (Receiving)

The researcher has made an attempt to analyze the average number of messages received by the respondents in a day. The following table 10 deals with the same.

Table-10
Number of messages received


No. of messages

Number of Respondents

Total

LIG

MIG

HIG

Less than 10

6
(27.27)

14
(41.18)

22
(50)

22
(22)

10 20

5
(22.73)

12
(35.29)

14
(31.82)

31
(31)

Above 20

11
(50)

8
(23.53)

8
(18.18)

47
(47)

Total

22

34

44

100


Figures in brackets indicate percentage

Table 10 clearly shows that 47% of the total respondents receive message at an average of above 20 in a day. On the basis of income classification 50% in LIG, 23.53% in MIG and 23.53% HIG receive more than 20 messages a day.31% of the respondents receive message at the range of 10 - 20 a day. On the basis of income classification the percentages work out as 35.29% in MIG, 31.82% in HIG and 22.73% in LIG.22% receive less than 10. On the basis of income classification the percentages work out as 50% in HIG, 41018% in MIG and 27.27% in LIG.

9.11. Satisfaction of choice

People buy products with a belief that the product will satisfy their expectation. In some cases it does not happen. So the researcher attempted to study whether the respondents are satisfied with their choice of brand of Mobile Phones.

Table-11
Satisfaction of choice

Response

Number of Respondents

Total

LIG

MIG

HIG

Satisfied

20
(90.9)

32
(94.12)

38
(82.61)

90
(90)

Not Satisfied

2
(9.1)

2
(5.88)

6
(13.4)

10
(10)

Total

22

34

44

100


Figures in brackets indicate percentage

 Out of 100 respondents, 90% are satisfied with their choice of particular brand of Mobile Phone. On the basis of income classification 90.9% of LIG, 94.12% of MIG and 82.61% of HIG are satisfied. Only 10% of the respondents are not satisfied with their selection of Mobile Phone. The income classification shows that 9.1% of LIG, 5.88% of MIG and 13.4% of HIG are not satisfied with their choice of brand.
 

--> Article continued on next page, click here  -->

Source: E-mail December 15, 2010

          

Articles No. 1-99 / Articles No. 100-199 / Articles No. 200-299 / Articles No. 300-399 / Articles No. 400-499 / Articles No. 500-599
Articles No. 600-699 / Articles No. 700-799 / Articles No. 800-899 / Articles No. 900-1000 / Articles No. 1001-1100
Articles No. 1101-1200 / Articles No. 1201 Onward / Faculty Column Main Page