BRAND EQUITY: MEASUREMENT OF SELECT MOBILE HANDSET BRANDS

CASIRJ Volume 6 Issue 1 [Year - 2015] ISSN 2319 – 9202

International Research Journal of Commerce Arts and Science http://www.casirj.com Page 53

BRAND EQUITY: MEASUREMENT OF SELECT MOBILE HANDSET BRANDS

By: NitikaAggarwal

Assistant Professor, University of Delhi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The increasing disposable income and the growing proportion of youth in the population

have ledto a growing mobile handset Industry in India. Expanding demand has led to increased

competition withBoth Indian and International players like Nokia, Samsung, LG, Panasonic,

Motorola, Siemens, etc. vyingfor space in the consumers’ purchase decisions. With so many

competitors vying for consumers’attention and tapping their purchase potential, the image of

individual brands and the valuepotential consumers attach to the available brands come into play.

The project is an attempt to measure this value in terms of Brand Equity. The report

entails the determination of the various factors that define Brand Equity and presents an

overview of the relation between them. It further explores the four mobile handset brands-Nokia,

Sony Ericsson, Samsung and LG- on the basis of the different parameters that determine Brand

Equity and how these parameters differ across brands. Recommendations have been provided

regarding the elements that each brand should focus on to magnify their Brand Equity and

combat competition.

INTRODUCTION

Background:

Given higher costs and greater competition, firms seek to increase the efficiency of

theirmarketing expenses. As a result marketers need a more thorough understanding of

consumerbehavior for making better strategic decisions about target market definition and

productpositioning, as well as better tactical decisions about specific marketing mix

actions.1Companies hence need to create perceived differences among products through

‘Branding’. This helps marketers develop a loyal consumer base by creating value that translates

into financial profits for firms. Brands thus have an importance for both consumers (reduces risk

and search cost, ensures quality, etc) and manufacturers (ensures legal backing, signals quality to

consumers, provides competitive advantage, etc.). Hence, for the longevity of a particular brand,

customers’ subjective and intangible assessment of a brand gains particular importance. This is

measured in terms of Brand Equity.

1 Measuring customer-based Brand Equity in Durable Goods Industry – N. Rajasekar, K.G Nalina



Brand Equity: In a general sense, brandequity is defined in the terms of marketing effects

uniquely attributable to the brand- for example,when certain outcomes result from the marketing

of a product or service because of its brandname that would not occur if the same product or

service would not have that name.

Kevin Lane Keller has defined consumer brand equity as "the differential effect that brand

knowledge has on the customer response to the marketing of that brand. Equity occurs when the

consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some favorable, strong and unique brand

association in memory."

Thus, Brand equity stems from the greater confidence that consumers place in a brand than they

do in its competitors. This confidence translates into consumers’ loyalty and their willingness to

pay a premium price for the brand.2

Purpose and Scope of Study:

The project aims to determine the various attributes that contribute towards building the

Brand Equity of mobile phone brands and calculate the Brand Equity for the mobile handset

brands- Nokia, Sony Ericsson, LG and Samsung. It also aims to assess the importance of the

various elements of brand Equity and the relationship among them.

The brand equity has been calculated by surveying the students of ICFAI Business School and

applying various statistical tools using SPSS.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The study entails Exploratory Research based on Primary Data. Primary data was collected

with the help of a questionnaire3 to find out the consumer perception towards the mobile phone

brands owned by the respondents, which helped define the problem more precisely and help in

identifying ways to measure Brand Equity.

Sampling

Sampling Frame

The following criteria4 were decided for sampling:

Respondents within the age group of 15-40, who are heavy users of mobile phones.

Sample consisted of working people and students who are heavy users of mobile phones.

The sample should contain users of different mobile handset brands.

2 Measuring Customer Based Brand Equity: WalfriedLassar, Banwari Mittal and Arun Sharma.

3 Refer to Annexure I

4http://www.slideshare.net/kedarsohoni/mobile-usage-in-india-an-informate-report

http://comm215.wetpaint.com/page/India:+Mobile+Landscape

http://www.slideshare.net/kedarsohoni/mobile-usage-in-india-an-informate-report

http://comm215.wetpaint.com/page/India:+Mobile+Landscape



Sampling Technique

Non Probability Sampling: Convenience sampling, hence data was collected from the students of

IBS.

Sample Size

101 Respondents, ICFAI Business School

Methodology

The following steps outline the scheme of the study based on the collected data:

Acquaintance with the theoretical concepts of Brand Equity and comprehension of the

scope and applications of the collected data and the different methodologies of

calculating Brand Equity.

Filtration of data as per requirements of the study

Identification of the factors that define the Brand Equity for mobile handset brands by

employing Factor Analysis.

Computation of factor scores for each respondent for the respective handset brand.

Computation of Brand Equity for the various brands under the study.

ANALYSIS

Data Filtration

The total number of respondents was 101. Out of them the number of respondents for various

brands was as follows:

Brand No. of Respondents

Nokia 61

Sony Ericsson 17

LG 10

Samsung 7

Motorola 3

HTC 2

Apple 1



The brands Motorola, HTC and Apple were removed because of low number of respondents.

Post this, the analysis was carried out for Nokia, Sony Ericsson, LG and Samsung with a sample

size of 95.

Identification of factors that assess Brand Equity

Consumer behavior and the perception towards various mobile brands that they owned

were assessed with the help of Rating Scale (Likert Scale). First an Exploratory Factor Analysis

was run to test for the factor structure and determine the factors that would define Brand

Equity.Factor Analysis resulted into the following output:

Suitability of data:

The following table shows the two tests which indicate the suitability of the collected data for

factor analysis:

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .895

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2550.772

df 630

Sig. .000

Inference:

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy is a statistic which indicates

the proportion of variance in your variables which is common variance, i.e. which might be

caused by underlying factors. High values indicate that the data is fit for Factor Analysis. The

collected data had a KMO value of .895, thus indicating a very high fit of data for Factoring.

Bartlett's test of Sphericity indicates whether your correlation matrix is an identity

matrix, which would indicate that your variables are unrelated. Very small values (less than .05)

indicate that there are probably significant relationships among your variables and hence

different variables can be clustered together into a single factor. In this case there is 100%

confidence that there exists significant relationship among the variables.

Construction of Factors

A total of 7 factors were yielded which explained 69.82% of variance accounted for by

all the factors5. Ideally, the factors should have explained more than 75% of variance. This


International Research Journal of Commerce Arts and Science http://www.casirj.com 7

discrepancy may be due to less number of respondents.The following table provides an overview

of the variables that need to cluster within each of the 7 factors:

Rotated Component Matrix (a)

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Associate_with_Quality 0.737

Experience_VeryGood 0.732

Dependable_Brand 0.682

Well_Known_Brand 0.658

Respected_Brand 0.65

0.515

Reliable_Brand 0.629

Hold_in_High_Esteem 0.587

RelateToPeople

0.714

Makes_Feel_Different_from_Others

0.694

Brand_Different_from_others

0.66

Makes_Think_about_Lifestyle

0.608

Strong_Emotions

0.574

Buy_Recommend_accessories_sameBrand

Unique_Brand

0.736

Likeable_Brand

0.735

Attractive_Brand

0.716

Strong_Brand_in_Market

0.676

Excellent_Customer_Service

Do_not_Mind_Paying_Premium

Consider_only_this_Brand

0.815

Never_switch

0.67

Only_brand_I_Buy&Use

0.635

Purchase_same_brand_next_time

0.562

First_Brand_that_comes_to_mind

0.545

Recommend_to_Others

Requires_Less_Service_inComparison

Frequently_visit_website

0.8

Keep_Information_updated

0.738

First_comment_Opinionate

0.737

Aware_of_Advert_Promotions

0.653

Meets_Functional_Needs

0.713

ValueForMoney

0.685

Value_FunctionalBenefits

0.622

Excites_senses

0.534

Trust_Organization

0.692

Proud_Associated_With_Organisation

0.51

0.549

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

5 For Rotated sums of Squared Loadings, refer to Annexure II



Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a- Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

Inference:

In the above table, each number represents the partial correlation between the item and the

factor. Hence, the higher the factor loading, the higher the variable explains that particular factor.

For the purpose of the study, variables having factor loadings greater than .5 were considered.

Post this, the various factors were:

Factor Variables Factor Name

1

Associate_with_Quality

Perceived Quality

Experience_VeryGood

Dependable_Brand

Well_Known_Brand

Respected_Brand

Reliable_Brand

Hold_in_High_Esteem

2

RelateToPeople

Brand Associations

Makes_Feel_Different_from_Others

Brand_Different_from_others

Makes_Think_about_Lifestyle

Strong_Emotions

3

Unique_Brand

Brand Perceptions Likeable_Brand

Attractive_Brand

Strong_Brand_in_Market

4

Consider_only_this_Brand

Brand Loyalty

Never_switch

Only_brand_Buy_Use

Purchase_same_brand_next_time

First_Brand_that_comes_to_mind

5

Frequently_visit_website

Brand Awareness Keep_Information_updated

First_comment_Opinionate

Aware_of_Advert_Promotions

6

Meets_Functional_Needs

Brand Value ValueForMoney

Value_FunctionalBenefits

7 Trust_Organization Organizational

Association Proud_Associated_With_Organisation



Test for Reliability of Factors:

After an exploratory factor analysis was carried out a ‘Confirmatory analysis’ was done

that dealt with each of the individual factors. The Cronbach’s alpha (measure of reliability) was

studied for each of the factors resulted out of Factor Analysis. A higher value, greater that 0.7

was obtained for all the factors which ensured reliability of the factors. The Cronbach’s Alpha

values for the factors in the individual data sets are mentioned below:

Name of the factor No. of items Cronbach's Alpha

1)Perceived Quality 7 0.925

2)Brand Associations 5 0.828

3)Brand Perceptions 3 0.883

4)Brand Loyalty 5 0.872

5)Brand Awareness 4 0.805

6)Brand Value 3 0.755

7)Organizational Association 2 0.782

Computation of Factor Scores and Grouping of respondents on basis of the

scores

Respondents' factor scores were computed as the sum of weighted item scores (raw score

on items included in the latent variable multiplied by the item's factor loading).6 The factor

scores helped in computing a quantitative value for all the factors for all respondents which was

used in further analysis.

Next, the respondents were grouped into two groups for each factor (cut-off point: 50 percentile)

based on the factor scores.7

6http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110007054271/en

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/9/155

7 1- Below cut off point, 2- Above cut off point

http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110007054271/en

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/9/155



FINDINGS

Correlation Analysis

Correlation Analysis was carried out to see the strength of relationship between the

various factors that define Brand Equity. The result was as follows:

Correlations

Brand_

Awarene

ss_Score

Brand_V

alue_Sco

re

Brand_Ass

ociations_S

core

Brand_Per

ceptions_S

core

Brand_L

oyalty_Sc

ore

Perceived_

Quality_Sc

ore

Orgaizational_

Association_S

core

Brand_Aware

ness_Score

Pearson

Correlation 1.000 0.346 0.438 0.430 0.478 0.368 0.307

Sig. (2-

tailed)

0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002

N 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000

Brand_Value_

Score

Pearson

Correlation 0.346 1.000 0.522 0.540 0.544 0.629 0.495

Sig. (2-

tailed) 0.001

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

N 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000

Brand_Associ

ations_Score

Pearson

Correlation 0.438 0.522 1.000 0.543 0.635 0.605 0.575

Sig. (2-

tailed) 0.000 0.000

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

N 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000

Brand_Percept

ions_Score

Pearson

Correlation 0.430 0.540 0.543 1.000 0.548 0.715 0.590

Sig. (2-

tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.000 0.000 0.000

N 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000

Brand_Loyalty

_Score

Pearson

Correlation 0.478 0.544 0.635 0.548 1.000 0.612 0.538

Sig. (2-

tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.000 0.000

N 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000

Perceived_Qu

ality_Score

Pearson

Correlation 0.368 0.629 0.605 0.715 0.612 1.000 0.620

Sig. (2-

tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.000

N 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000

Orgaizational_

Association_S

core

Pearson

Correlation 0.307 0.495 0.575 0.590 0.538 0.620 1.000

Sig. (2-

tailed) 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

N 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000 95.000



Inference:

Ideally, the factors should not have a high correlation among themselves because that

would imply overlapping variables. In this case, though the relationship between the factors is

significant (The significance value of all the factors was very low – hence, nearly 100%

confidence in all cases), but the strength of relation is not very strong because the r-square values

are not high in all cases. The highest correlation lies between Brand Perceptions and Perceived

Quality (.715).

N-way Analysis of Variance

An n-way analysis of variance was carried out for the seven factors for the four brands.

Hypothesis:

H0: The means of factor scores for different brands are equal.

H1: The means of factor scores for different brands are unequal.

The output was as follows:

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Dependent Variable

Type III

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Current_

Mobile Brand_Awareness_Score 27.035 3 9.012 1.077 0.363

Brand_Value_Score 10.105 3 3.368 2.539 0.061

Brand_Associations_Score 75.730 3 25.243 3.438 0.020

Brand_Perceptions_Score 110.061 3 36.687 10.077 0.000

Brand_Loyalty_Score 283.792 3 94.597 11.259 0.000

Perceived_Quality_Score 221.877 3 73.959 8.812 0.000

Orgaizational_Association_

Score 9.440 3 3.147 3.618 0.016



Inference:

Current_Mobile Mean N

Brand_Awareness_Score Nokia 9.16942623 61

Sony Ericsson 9.124 17

LG 7.6238 10

Samsung 9.955142857 7

Total 9.056494737 95

Brand_Value_Score Nokia 9.108983607 61


LG 8.1912 10

Samsung 8.496428571 7

Total 8.880084211 95

Brand_Associations_Score Nokia 11.59711475 61


LG 8.9226 10

Samsung 9.825428571 7

Total 11.02964211 95

Brand_Perceptions_Score Nokia 12.99472131 61


LG 9.5648 10

Samsung 11.43757143 7

Total 12.35397895 95

Brand_Loyalty_Score Nokia 12.54406557 61


LG 7.5137 10

Samsung 9.88 7

Total 11.34957895 95

Perceived_Quality_Score Nokia 21.24562295 61


LG 16.5639 10

Samsung 18.96985714 7

Total 20.24416842 95

Orgaizational_Association_Score Nokia 5.25895082 61


LG 4.2623 10

Samsung 4.984428571 7

Total 5.063936842 95

It was observed that there existed significant difference between the means of Brand

Associations, Brand Perceptions, Brand Loyalty, Perceived Quality, and Organizational

Association based on the significance values. Hence H0 was rejected for these variables while

accepted for Brand Awareness and Brand Value. These were cross-checked looking at the

Means Table:



It is seen that for LG is low in Brand awareness as compared to other brands, whose

means are nearly equal. There is no significant difference between the means for different brands

for Brand Value, but the means for other Brand Equity parameters differ greatly for the different

brands.

Crosstabulations and Chi Square Test

Once the different respondents were divided into high and low bands based on the scores

of various Brand Equity parameters, Cross tabulations were constructed to compare the different

parameters independently for the various brands. Due to missing links between the parameters of

Brand Equity (in absence of any method to calculate a combined value for Brand Equity); each

factor was studied independently for the four handset brands. The different brands were ranked

based on proportion (within current mobile) of sample in the high bands

The following table summarizes the output:

Ranks of Mobile Handset Brands

Factors of Brand Equity Nokia Sony Ericsson LG Samsung

Brand Awareness 2 3 4 1

Brand Value 1 2 4 3

Brand Associations 1 2 4 3

Brand Perceptions 1 2 4 3

Brand Loyalty 1 2 4 3

Perceived Quality 1 2 4 3

Organizational Association 1 2 4 3

Hence we see that based on different parameters of Brand Equity, Nokia ranks the highest

followed by Sony Ericsson, Samsung and LG.

Further, Chi Square was carried out to test whether

a. The population proportions could be considered equal or not

b. The differences observed among the values of sample proportions are significant or only due

to chance.



The results were as follows:

Current_Mobile

Brand_Awareness_Score (Banded) Chi-square 5.066

Df 3

Sig. .167(a)

Brand_Value_Score (Banded) Chi-square 7.389

Df 3

Sig. .060(a)

Brand_Associations_Score (Banded) Chi-square 9.117

Df 3

Sig. .028(*,a)

Brand_Perceptions_Score (Banded) Chi-square 15.689

Df 3

Sig. .001(*,a)

Brand_Loyalty_Score (Banded) Chi-square 16.477

Df 3

Sig. .001(*,a)

Perceived_Quality_Score (Banded) Chi-square 12.836

Df 3

Sig. .005(*,a)

Orgaizational_Association_Score

(Banded)

Chi-square 8.627

Df 3

Sig. .035(*,a)

Results are based on nonempty rows and columns in each innermost sub table.

* The Chi-square statistic is significant at the 0.05 level.

a More than 20% of cells in this sub table have expected cell counts less than 5. Chi-square results may be invalid.

Inference:

The lower the significance value, the less likely it is that the two variables are

independent (unrelated). Hence, it can be inferred that the variables are not independent in cases

of Brand Loyalty, Brand Perceptions and Perceived Quality for the different brands while the

other factors are independent of each other for different brands.

Regression Analysis

Regression Analysis was carried out for each factor of Brand Equity (assuming the other

factors to be independent).



The following output was obtained for each parameter:

Dependent Variable: Brand Awareness

Coefficients(a)

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B

Std.

Error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.619 2.147 0.754 0.453

Brand_Value_Score 0.109 0.299 0.044 0.365 0.716

Brand_Associations_Score 0.197 0.133 0.191 1.477 0.143

Brand_Perceptions_Score 0.331 0.181 0.248 1.827 0.071

Brand_Loyalty_Score 0.249 0.112 0.287 2.228 0.028

Perceived_Quality_Score -0.074 0.136 -0.083 -0.547 0.586

Orgaizational_Association_Score -0.220 0.373 -0.074 -0.589 0.557

Inference:

It is observed that among all the variables, Brand Perception and Brand Loyalty are most

significant indicators of Brand Awareness.

Regression Analysis gives us the following equation for predicting the level of Brand

Awareness:

Brand Awareness = 1.619 + .109(Brand Value) + .197(Brand Associations) + .331 (Brand

Perceptions) + .249(Brand Loyalty) -.074(Perceived Quality) - .220 (

Organizational Association)

Dependent Variable: Brand Value

Coefficients(a)

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B

Std.

Error Beta

1 (Constant) 4.033 0.636 6.338 0.000




Perceived_Quality_Score 0.125 0.047 0.343 2.683 0.009

Orgaizational_Association_Score 0.083 0.133 0.068 0.621 0.536

Brand_Awareness_Score 0.014 0.038 0.034 0.365 0.716



Inference:

It is observed that among all the variables, Perceived Quality is the most significant

indicator of Brand Value.

Regression Analysis gives us the following equation for predicting the level of Brand Value:

Brand Value = 4.033 + .045(Brand Associations) + .051 (Brand Perceptions) + .058(Brand

Loyalty) +.125(Perceived Quality) + .083 (Organizational Association) +

.014(Brand Awareness)

Dependent Variable: Brand Associations

Coefficients(a)

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B

Std.

Error Beta

1 (Constant) -1.406 1.697

-

0.829 0.410







Inference:

It is observed that among all the variables, Brand Loyalty and Organizational

Associations are the most significant indicators of Brand Associations.


Associations:

Brand Associations = -1.4063 + .047 (Brand Perceptions) + .243(Brand Loyalty)

+.146(Perceived Quality) + .606 (Organizational Association) +

.123(Brand Awareness) + .219(Brand Value)



Dependent Variable: Brand Perceptions

Coefficients(a)

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B

Std.

Error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.328 1.235 1.075 0.285







Inference:

It is observed that among all the variables, Perceived Quality, Organizational

Associations and Brand Awareness are the most significant indicators of Brand Perceptions.


Perceptions:

Brand Perceptions = 1.328 + .025 (Brand Associations) + .024(Brand Loyalty)



Dependent Variable: Brand Loyalty

Coefficients(a)

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B

Std.

Error Beta

1 (Constant) -4.385 1.943

-

2.257 0.026









Inference:

It is observed that among all the variables, Brand Awareness and Brand Associations are

the most significant indicators of Brand Loyalty.

Regression Analysis gives us the following equation for predicting the level of Brand Loyalty:

Brand Loyalty = -4.385 + .335 (Brand Associations) + .063(Brand Perceptions)



Dependent Variable: Perceived Quality

Coefficients(a)

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B

Std.

Error Beta

1 (Constant) 2.592 1.666 1.556 0.123


Brand_Awareness_Score -0.046 0.083 -0.041 0.547 0.586





Inference:

It is observed that among all the variables, Brand Value, Brand Perceptions and

Organizational Associations are the most significant indicators of Perceived Quality.

Regression Analysis gives us the following equation for predicting the level of Perceived

Quality:

Perceived Quality = 2.592 + .143 (Brand Associations) + .563(Brand Perceptions)

+.140(Brand Loyalty) + .508 (Organizational Association) -




Dependent Variable: Organizational Association

Coefficients(a)

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B

Std.

Error Beta

1 (Constant) 0.867 0.607 1.428 0.157

Brand_Awareness_Score -0.018 0.030 -0.053 0.589 0.557






Inference:

It is observed that among all the variables, Brand Associations and Brand Perceptions are

the most significant indicators of Organizational Association.

Regression Analysis gives us the following equation for predicting the level of Organizational

Association:

Organizational Association = .867+ .079(Brand Associations) + .102(Brand Perceptions)

+.035(Brand Loyalty) + .067 (Perceived Quality) -


CONCLUSIONS

Nokia has the highest Brand Equity followed by Sony Ericsson, Samsung and LG.

Brand Awareness and Brand Value do not vary much across various brands. Hence, there

weightage in the calculation of Brand Equity would be low.

Brand Loyalty, Brand Perceptions and Perceived Quality of different brands are very

closely related to each other. This may imply that comparative assessment is done by

consumers of the brands based on these parameters.

Organizational Association and Brand Associations are also linked with each other, thus

implying the importance of secondary associations in building Brand Equity.



Scope for further Research:

Further Research can be carried out in three areas:

The linkage between the various factors can be further studied to develop a formula /

model for calculating Brand Equity and giving it a quantified value

The relationship between Perceived Quality and Brand Perceptions needs to be further

analyzed to gain more insights into Brand equity

Factors affecting perceived quality should be further studied as it is related to most of the

other variables that define Brand Equity.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Mobile handset companies should also emphasize on the Organizational Associations

while marketing their products as they help build up brand associations which result in

building loyalty and resulting into purchase.

Loyalty being least for LG, they should focus on building positive associations and

perceptions and increasing brand awareness through various marketing strategies.

Sony Ericsson needs to emphasize more on Brand Awareness to further strengthen its

Brand Equity.

Among the various indicators of Brand Equity, Nokia needs to concentrate most on

building Brand Awareness by updating websites, increasing visits to webpage (through

offers, interactive mediums, etc.) and overall inducing consumer curiosity of Nokia

products.

LIMITATIONS

The project had the following drawbacks:

The study was conducted in 2010. So the results might be not completely applicable now.

The different factors affecting Brand Equity have been individually studied but their

combined effect could not be analyzed.

All the factors were reliable indicators of Brand Equity, yet it could not be assessed which

factors had comparatively greater effect on the Brand Equity of mobile phones.

The difference in the sample sizes for different brands may have obscured the results to an

extent though crosstabs were used to minimize the effect of the difference.

The limitations of individual statistical procedures could not be done away with.

The sample size was small and hence may not represent the entire population



Annexure I

I. Demographic Details (Tick where necessary)

A. Name: _________________________________________________________________

B. Age: 15-25 26-40 41-60 60 Above

C. Gender: Male Female

D. Occupation: Student Business Homemaker Office

Professional Others (Please specify)

__________________________

II. Mobile Brand Details

A. Which is/are the Current Mobile Brand(s) you are using?

_______________________________________________________

B. Since how long are you using the current mobile brand (in months)?

__________________________________________________________________________

C. Specify the mobile services you use.

Voice calls Download games Play Games Text messages

Picture messages Download ring tones Wireless Internet Access

Others (Please Specify) ______________________________________________

III. Brand Experience

A. What is your experience with the Mobile Phone you are using? Please read the statements

one by one and rate it according to the following scale:

Rating Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Neither Disagree

Nor Agree

Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Code in

Grid

1 2 3 4 5

(Tick the required rating)

Statements 1 2 3 4 5

The brand provides good value for the money.

The brand meets my functional needs.

This brand provides excellent customer service.

I value the functional benefits provided by the mobile phones of this

brand.

Using this brand excites my sense.

I have strong emotions for this mobile phone brand.

I can relate to other people through this mobile phone brand.

This brand tries to make me think about lifestyle.

It is a well-known brand in the market.

It is a strong brand in the market.



It is an attractive brand.

It is a likeable brand.

It is a Unique brand.

I do not mind paying a premium for this brand.

I would recommend this brand to family/ friends.

I would never switch over to other brands.

This is the first brand that comes to my mind when I think of mobile

phones.

This is the only brand that I buy and use.

My use experience with this brand has been very good.

When I think of this brand, I think of quality.

The brand is a respected brand.

I hold the brand in high esteem.

I trust the organization.

I am proud to be associated with this organization.

This brand is very different from the others.

This brand makes me feel different from others.

I would buy this brand the next time I upgrade my mobile.

I buy/ recommend accessories of this brand only.

The brand is reliable.

I keep myself updated about this brand irrespective of my purchase

intentions.

The brand is dependable.

I frequently visit the brands' website.

I am aware of the advertisements and promotions of the brand.

I am the first to comment/ form opinions whenever a new phone is

launched of the brand.

This brand requires less service compared to other brands.

I would consider this brand while purchasing mobile phones.

REFERENCES

MALHOTRA NARESH. Marketing Research – An Applied Orientation. Pearson Education, Inc.

KELLER KEVIN, KOTLER PHILIP. Marketing Management

www.statsoft.com (basics on statistics)

White papers

BRAND EQUITY: MEASUREMENT OF SELECT MOBILE HANDSET BRANDS

Documents

Transcript of BRAND EQUITY: MEASUREMENT OF SELECT MOBILE HANDSET BRANDS