6.0 Data Analysis and Interpretation 1.1.1 Demographic ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/21293/14/14_chapter 6.pdf · 6.0 Data Analysis and Interpretation ... phone(s)

6.0 Data Analysis and Interpretation

6.1 To meet the first objective the researcher had considered the following hypotheses

To study relationship between demographic factors and brand choice the researcher has proceed

as follows.

1.1.1 Demographic factor: Gender

H0: Choice of Brand Nokia is independent of Gender of User.

H1: Choice of Brand Nokia is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.1

Which brand of mobile

phone(s) are you presently

using Gender Total

Nokia Male Female

No Count 285 232 517

% within Gender 62.6% 68.4% 65.1%

Yes Count 170 107 277

% within Gender 37.4% 31.6% 34.9%

Total Count 455 339 794

% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)

Pearson Chi -Square 2.876(b) 1 .090

Continuity Correction(a) 2.626 1 .105

Fisher's Exact Test .098 .052

The above hypothesis is tested at 5% LOS

P value = 0.052

Since p= 0.52 > 0.05 therefore Null hypothesis is accepted by the Researcher.

Thus Researcher concludes that Nokia is not significant with the gender of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand NOKIA is independent of Gender of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand LG is independent of Gender of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand LG is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.2



using

Gender Total

LG

Male Female

No Count 436 327 763

% within

Gender 95.8% 96.5% 96.1%

Yes Count 19 12 31

% within

Gender 4.2% 3.5% 3.9%


% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)

Pearson Chi -Square .209(b) 1 .647

Continuity

Correction(a) .074 1 .785

Likelihood Ratio .211 1 .646


Linear -by-Linear

Association .209 1 .647

N of Valid Cases 794


P value = 0.396


Thus Researcher concludes that LG is not significant with the gender of the mobile phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand LG is independent of Gender of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Samsung is independent of Gender of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Samsung is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.3

Which brand of mobile phone(s)

are you presently using

Gender Total

Samsung Male Female

No Count 381 283 664

% within

Gender 83.7% 83.5% 83.6%

Yes Count 74 56 130

% within

Gender 16.3% 16.5% 16.4%


% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)


Continuity

Correction(a) .000 1 1.000



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.499


Thus Researcher concludes that Samsung is not significant with the gender of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SAMSUNG is independent of Gender of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Reliance is independent of Gender of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Reliance is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.4



Gender Total

Reliance

Male Female

No Count 441 326 767

% within

Gender 96.9% 96.2% 96.6%

Yes Count 14 13 27

% within

Gender 3.1% 3.8% 3.4%


% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)


Continuity




Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.348


Thus Researcher concludes that Reliance is not significant with the gender of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand RELIANCE is independent of Gender of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Blackberry is independent of Gender of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Blackberry is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.5



Gender Total

Blackberry Male Female

No Count 278 220 498

% within

Gender 61.1% 64.9% 62.7%

Yes Count 177 119 296

% within

Gender 38.9% 35.1% 37.3%

Total

Count 455 339 794

% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)


Continuity

Correction(a) 1.041 1 .307

Likelihood Ratio 1.201 1 .273


Linear -by-Linear

Association 1.197 1 .274



P value = 0.154


Thus Researcher concludes that Blackberry is not significant with the gender of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand BLACKBERRY is independent of Gender of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Apple is independent of Gender of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Apple is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.6



using

Gender Total

Apple

Male Female

No Count 397 307 704

% within

Gender 87.3% 90.6% 88.7%

Yes Count 58 32 90

% within

Gender 12.7% 9.4% 11.3%


% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)


Continuity




Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.089


Thus Researcher concludes that Apple is not significant with the gender of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand APPLE is independent of Gender of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Motorola is independent of Gender of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Motorola is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.7



Gender Total

Motorola Male Female

No Count 448 332 780

% within

Gender 98.5% 97.9% 98.2%

Yes Count 7 7 14

% within

Gender 1.5% 2.1% 1.8%


% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)


Continuity




Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.384


Thus Researcher concludes that Motorola is not significant with the gender of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand MOTOROLA is independent of Gender of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Sony is independent of Gender of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Sony is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.8



using

Gender Total

Sony Male Female

No Count 440 324 764

% within

Gender 96.7% 95.6% 96.2%

Yes Count 15 15 30

% within

Gender 3.3% 4.4% 3.8%


% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)


Continuity




Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.261


Thus Researcher concludes that Sony is not significant with the gender of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SONY is independent of Gender of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Micromax is independent of Gender of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Micromax is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.9



using

Gender Total

Micromax

Male Female

No Count 450 328 778

% within

Gender 98.9% 96.8% 98.0%

Yes Count 5 11 16

% within

Gender 1.1% 3.2% 2.0%


% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)


Continuity




Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.031

Since p= 0.031 < 0.05 therefore Null hypothesis is Rejected by the Researcher.

Thus Researcher concludes that

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand MICROMAX is dependent of Gender of User.

Preference of Brand Micromax with Gender

Fig. 6.1.1.9

It is very clear from the above segmented bar diagram, that Females are more pro towards

the brand of Micromax than males

(jazzy) given to the handset which

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No

0.05 therefore Null hypothesis is Rejected by the Researcher.

Thus Researcher concludes that Micromax is significant with the gender of the mobile phones

Choice of Brand MICROMAX is dependent of Gender of User.

Micromax with Gender


the brand of Micromax than males. The strongest reason for that is the aesthetic look

(jazzy) given to the handset which attracts more Females than males.

Yes

Female

Male

is significant with the gender of the mobile phones


The strongest reason for that is the aesthetic look

H0 : Choice of Brand Tata is independent of Gender of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Tata is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.10



using

Gender Total

Tata Male Female

No Count 452 335 787

% within

Gender 99.3% 98.8% 99.1%

Yes Count 3 4 7

% within

Gender .7% 1.2% .9%


% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)


Continuity




Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.343


Thus Researcher concludes that Tata is not significant with the gender of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand TATA is independent of Gender of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand HTC is independent of Gender of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand HTC is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.11



using

Gender Total

HTC Male Female

No Count 445 335 780

% within

Gender 97.8% 98.8% 98.2%

Yes Count 10 4 14

% within

Gender 2.2% 1.2% 1.8%


% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)


Continuity




Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.212


Thus Researcher concludes that HTC is not significant with the gender of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand HTC is independent of Gender of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Philips is independent of Gender of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Philips is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.12



using

Gender Total

Philips Male Female

No Count 455 339 794

% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value

Pearson Chi -Square .(a)


No statistics are computed because Philips is a constant

From Table 6.1.1.12 Researcher has concluded that none of the respondent likes the brand

Philips.

H0 : Choice of Brand Spice is independent of Gender of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Spice is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.13



using

Gender Total

Spice Male Female

No Count 453 338 791

% within

Gender 99.6% 99.7% 99.6%

Yes Count 2 1 3

% within

Gender .4% .3% .4%


% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)


Continuity

Correction(a) .000 1 1.000


Fisher's Exact Test 1.000 .609

Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.609


Thus Researcher concludes that Spice is not significant with the gender of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SPICE is independent of Gender of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Videocon is independent of Gender of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Videocon is dependent of Gender of User.

Table 6.1.1.14



Gender Total

Videocon

Male Female

No Count 455 339 794

% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value

Pearson Chi-Square .(a)


No statistics are computed because Videocon is a constant. From Table 6.1.1.14 Researcher

has concluded that none of the respondent likes the brand Videocon.

1.1.2 Demographic factor: AGE

H0 : Choice of Brand Nokia is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Nokia is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.1



using

Age Total

Nokia

18-28 29-39 40-50

51 &

above

No Count 234 126 125 27 512

% within

Age 71.3% 60.6% 63.1% 55.1% 65.4%

Yes Count 94 82 73 22 271

% within

Age 28.7% 39.4% 36.9% 44.9% 34.6%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi -Square 10.000(a) 3 .019


Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.019

Since p= 0.019 <0.05 therefore Null hypothesis is Rejected by the Researcher.

Thus Researcher concludes that Nokia

Therefore Choice of Brand NOKIA is dependent of Age of User.

Preference of Brand Nokia with Age

Fig.

From the above segmented cone diagram it is clear that the age group of 18

years and 40-50 years have greater preference as compared to age group of 51 years and

above.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

18-28 29-39

Since p= 0.019 <0.05 therefore Null hypothesis is Rejected by the Researcher.

Nokia is significant with the Age of the mobile phones users.

Choice of Brand NOKIA is dependent of Age of User.

Preference of Brand Nokia with Age

Fig. 6.1.2.1

From the above segmented cone diagram it is clear that the age group of 18

50 years have greater preference as compared to age group of 51 years and

39 40-50 51 &

above

Nokia Yes

Nokia No

is significant with the Age of the mobile phones users.

From the above segmented cone diagram it is clear that the age group of 18-28 years, 29-39

50 years have greater preference as compared to age group of 51 years and

H0 : Choice of Brand LG is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand LG is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.2


phone(s) are you

presently using

Age Total

LG 18-28 29-39 40-50

51 &

above

No Count 320 196 189 47 752

% within

Age 97.6% 94.2% 95.5% 95.9% 96.0%

Yes Count 8 12 9 2 31

% within

Age 2.4% 5.8% 4.5% 4.1% 4.0%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.265

Since p= 0.265 > 0.05 therefore Null hypothesis is Accepted by the Researcher.

Thus Researcher concludes that LG is not significant with the Age of the mobile phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand LG is independent of Age of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Samsung is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Samsung is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.3


phone(s) are you

presently using

Age Total

Samsung 18-28 29-39 40-50 51 & above

No Count 274 177 163 40 654

% within

Age 83.5% 85.1% 82.3% 81.6% 83.5%

Yes Count 54 31 35 9 129

% within

Age 16.5% 14.9% 17.7% 18.4% 16.5%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi -Square .708(a) 3 .871


Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.871


Thus Researcher concludes that Samsung is not significant with the Age of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SAMSUNG is independent of Age of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Reliance is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Reliance is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.4



using

Age Total

Reliance 18-28 29-39 40-50 51 & above

No Count 319 200 192 45 756

% wi thin

Age 97.3% 96.2% 97.0% 91.8% 96.6%

Yes Count 9 8 6 4 27

% within

Age 2.7% 3.8% 3.0% 8.2% 3.4%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.265


Thus Researcher concludes that Reliance is not significant with the Age of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand RELIANCE is independent of Age of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Blackberry is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Blackberry is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.5



using

Age Total

Blackberry 18-28 29-39 40-50

51 &

above

No Count 175 142 130 43 490

% within

Age 53.4% 68.3% 65.7% 87.8% 62.6%

Yes Count 153 66 68 6 293

% within

Age 46.6% 31.7% 34.3% 12.2% 37.4%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.000


Thus Researcher concludes that Blackberry is significant with the Age of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand BLACKBERRY is dependent of Age of User.

Preference of Brand Blackberry with Age

Fig. 6.1.2.5

From the above segmented bar graph it is observed that Blackberry is liked by the youth

and the middle age people because being smart phone they can use in their business,

service etc. the least preferred is by the age group of 51 years and above.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

No Yes

Blackberry

51 & above

40-50

29-39

18-28

H0 : Choice of Brand Apple is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Apple is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.6


phone(s) are you

presently using

Age Total

Apple

18-28 29-39 40-50 51 & above

No Count 283 190 171 49 693

% within

Age 86.3% 91.3% 86.4% 100.0% 88.5%

Yes Count 45 18 27 0 90

% within

Age 13.7% 8.7% 13.6% .0% 11.5%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.015


Thus Researcher concludes that Apple is significant with the Age of the mobile phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand APPLE is dependent of Age of User.

Preference of Brand Apple with Age

Fig. 6.1.2.6

From the above multiple Bar Graph it is notice that being apple as a Smartphone it is

highly preferred by the young and the middle age customers.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

18-28 29-39 40-50 51 &

above

Apple No

Apple Yes

H0 : Choice of Brand Motorola is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Motorola is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.7


phone(s) are you

presently using

Age Total

Motorola 18-28 29-39 40-50 51 & above

No Count 324 204 194 47 769

% with in

Age 98.8% 98.1% 98.0% 95.9% 98.2%


% within

Age 1.2% 1.9% 2.0% 4.1% 1.8%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.541


Thus Researcher concludes that Motorola is not significant with the Age of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand MOTOROLA is independent of Age of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Sony is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Sony is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.8


phone(s) are you

presently using

Age Total

Sony 18-28 29-39 40-50 51 & above

No Count 318 197 191 47 753

% within

Age 97.0% 94.7% 96.5% 95.9% 96.2%

Yes Count 10 11 7 2 30

% within

Age 3.0% 5.3% 3.5% 4.1% 3.8%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.615


Thus Researcher concludes that Sony is not significant with the Age of the mobile phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SONY is independent of Age of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Micromax is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Micromax is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.9


phone(s) are you

presently using

Age Total

Micromax

18-28 29-39 40-50 51 & above

No Count 324 200 196 47 767

% within

Age 98.8% 96.2% 99.0% 95.9% 98.0%


% within

Age 1.2% 3.8% 1.0% 4.1% 2.0%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.087


Thus Researcher concludes that Micromax is not significant with the Age of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand MICROMAX is independent of Age of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Tata is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Tata is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.10


phone(s) are you

presently using

Age Total

Tata 18-28 29-39 40-50 51 & above

No Count 326 205 197 48 776

% within

Age 99.4% 98.6% 99.5% 98.0% 99.1%

Yes Count 2 3 1 1 7

% within

Age .6% 1.4% .5% 2.0% .9%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.558


Thus Researcher concludes that Tata is not significant with the Age of the mobile phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand TATA is independent of Age of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand HTC is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand HTC is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.11


phone(s) are you

presently using

Age Total

HTC

18-28 29-39 40-50

51 &

above

No Count 323 206 193 47 769

% with in

Age 98.5% 99.0% 97.5% 95.9% 98.2%


% within

Age 1.5% 1.0% 2.5% 4.1% 1.8%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.389


Thus Researcher concludes that HTC is not significant with the Age of the mobile phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand HTC is independent of Age of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Philips is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Philips is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.12


phone(s) are you

presently using

Age Total

Philips 18-28 29-39 40-50 51 & above

No Count 328 208 198 49 783

% wi thin

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value



No statistics are computed because Philips is a constant.


Philips.

H0 : Choice of Brand Spice is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Spice is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.13


phone(s) are you

presently using

Age Total

Spice 18-28 29-39 40-50

51 &

above

No Count 327 207 198 48 780

% with in

Age 99.7% 99.5% 100.0% 98.0% 99.6%

Yes Count 1 1 0 1 3

% within

Age .3% .5% .0% 2.0% .4%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.222


Thus Researcher concludes that Spice is not significant with the Age of the mobile phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SPICE is independent of Age of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Videocon is independent of Age of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Videocon is dependent of Age of User.

Table 6.1.2.14



using

Age Total

Videocon

18-28 29-39 40-50 51 & above

No Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value



No statistics are computed because Videocon is a constant.


VIDEOCON.

1.1.3 Demographic factor: OCCUPATION

H0 : Choice of Brand Nokia is independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Nokia is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.1



Occupation Total

Nokia Service Business Professional Student Housewife

No Count 103 89 93 124 108 517

% within

Occupatio

n

60.6% 57.1% 65.0% 75.6% 67.1% 65.1%

Yes Count 67 67 50 40 53 277

% within

Occupatio

n

39.4% 42.9% 35.0% 24.4% 32.9% 34.9%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0

%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.007



users.

Therefore Choice of Brand NOKIA is dependent of OCCUPATION of User.

Preference of Brand Nokia with Occupation

From the above diagram, the researcher claims that there are 39.4% service class, 42.9%

business class, 35% professionals 24.4% students and 32.9% housewives shows that Nokia

is one of the prominent brands.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Thus Researcher concludes that Nokia is significant with the Occupation of the mobile phones

Choice of Brand NOKIA is dependent of OCCUPATION of User.

Preference of Brand Nokia with Occupation

Fig. 6.1.3.1



brands.

Nokia Yes

Nokia No

is significant with the Occupation of the mobile phones

Choice of Brand NOKIA is dependent of OCCUPATION of User.



H0 : Choice of Brand LG is independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand LG is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.2


phone(s) are you

presently using

Occupation Total

LG Service Business Professional Student Housewife

No Count 155 151 142 161 154 763

% within

Occupatio

n

91.2% 96.8% 99.3% 98.2% 95.7% 96.1%

Yes Count 15 5 1 3 7 31

% within

Occupatio

n

8.8% 3.2% .7% 1.8% 4.3% 3.9%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.002



users.

Therefore Choice of Brand LG is dependent of OCCUPATION of User.

Preference of Brand LG with Occupation

From the above multiple bar Graph the researcher claims that, there are 8.8% service

class, 3.2% business class, 0.7% professionals 1.8% students and 4.3% housewives shows

that LG is one of the prominent brands.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Thus Researcher concludes that LG is significant with the Occupation of the mobile phones

Choice of Brand LG is dependent of OCCUPATION of User.

Preference of Brand LG with Occupation

Fig. 6.1.3.2



LG is one of the prominent brands.

LG No

LG Yes




H0 : Choice of Brand Samsung is independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Samsung is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.3


phone(s) are you

presently using

Occupation Total

Samsung

Service Business Professional Student Housewife

No Count 138 133 119 141 133 664

% within

Occupatio

n

81.2% 85.3% 83.2% 86.0% 82.6% 83.6%

Yes Count 32 23 24 23 28 130

% within

Occupatio

n

18.8% 14.7% 16.8% 14.0% 17.4% 16.4%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.764


Thus Researcher concludes that Samsung is not significant with the Occupation of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SAMSUNG is independent of OCCUPATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Reliance is independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Reliance is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.4


phone(s) are you

presently using

Occupation Total

Reliance


No Count 161 153 139 161 153 767

% within

Occupatio

n

94.7% 98.1% 97.2% 98.2% 95.0% 96.6%

Yes Count 9 3 4 3 8 27

% within

Occupatio

n

5.3% 1.9% 2.8% 1.8% 5.0% 3.4%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0

%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.241


Thus Researcher concludes that Reliance is not significant with the Occupation of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand RELIANCE is independent of OCCUPATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Blackberry is independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Blackberry is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.5


phone(s) are you

presently using

Occupation Total

Blackberry Service Business Professional Student Housewife

No Count 133 93 80 75 117 498

% within

Occupatio

n

78.2% 59.6% 55.9% 45.7% 72.7% 62.7%

Yes Count 37 63 63 89 44 296

% within

Occupatio

n

21.8% 40.4% 44.1% 54.3% 27.3% 37.3%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.000



phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand BLACKBERRY is dependent of OCCUPATION of User.

Preference of Brand

From the above simple Graph the researcher has made an attempt to find the preference of

brand blackberry (in %) occupation wise. There are 21.8% service class, 40.4% business

class, 44.1% professionals 54.3% students and 27.3% housewives shows that

BLACKBERRY is one of the prominent brand.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


Thus Researcher concludes that Blackberry is significant with the Occupation of the mobile

Choice of Brand BLACKBERRY is dependent of OCCUPATION of User.

Preference of Brand Blackberry with Occupation

Fig. 6.1.3.5



lass, 44.1% professionals 54.3% students and 27.3% housewives shows that

BLACKBERRY is one of the prominent brand.

Blackberry Yes

Blackberry No

is significant with the Occupation of the mobile

Choice of Brand BLACKBERRY is dependent of OCCUPATION of User.

with Occupation



lass, 44.1% professionals 54.3% students and 27.3% housewives shows that

Blackberry Yes

Blackberry No

H0 : Choice of Brand Apple is independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Apple is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.6


phone(s) are you

presently using

Occupation Total

Apple


No Count 158 126 127 144 149 704

% within

Occupatio

n

92.9% 80.8% 88.8% 87.8% 92.5% 88.7%

Yes Count 12 30 16 20 12 90

% within

Occupatio

n

7.1% 19.2% 11.2% 12.2% 7.5% 11.3%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.004



users.

Therefore Choice of Brand APPLE is dependent of OCCUPATION of User.

Preference of Brand


business class, 11.2% professionals 12.2% students and 7.5% housewives shows that

APPLE is one of the prominent brand.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Thus Researcher concludes that Apple is significant with the Occupation of the mobile phones

Choice of Brand APPLE is dependent of OCCUPATION of User.

Preference of Brand Apple with Occupation

Fig.6.1.3.6



ominent brand.

Apple No

Apple Yes


Choice of Brand APPLE is dependent of OCCUPATION of User.



H0 : Choice of Brand Motorola is independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Motorola is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.7


phone(s) are you

presently using

Occupation Total

Motorola Service Business Professional Student Housewife

No Count 164 156 139 162 159 780

% within

Occupatio

n

96.5% 100.0% 97.2% 98.8% 98.8% 98.2

%

Yes Count 6 0 4 2 2 14

% within

Occupatio

n

3.5% .0% 2.8% 1.2% 1.2% 1.8%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.

0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.122


Thus Researcher concludes that Motorola is not significant with the Occupation of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand MOTOROLA is independent of OCCUPATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Sony is independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Sony is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.8


phone(s) are you

presently using

Occupation Total

Sony


No Count 163 148 139 159 155 764

% within

Occupatio

n

95.9% 94.9% 97.2% 97.0% 96.3% 96.2%

Yes Count 7 8 4 5 6 30

% within

Occupatio

n

4.1% 5.1% 2.8% 3.0% 3.7% 3.8%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0

%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.834


Thus Researcher concludes that Sony is not significant with the Occupation of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SONY is independent of OCCUPATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Micromax is independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Micromax is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.9


phone(s) are you

presently using

Occupation Total

Micromax Service Business Professional Student Housewife

No Count 166 155 141 162 154 778

% within

Occupatio

n

97.6% 99.4% 98.6% 98.8% 95.7% 98.0%

Yes Count 4 1 2 2 7 16

% within

Occupatio

n

2.4% .6% 1.4% 1.2% 4.3% 2.0%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0

%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.145


Thus Researcher concludes that Micromax is not significant with the Occupation of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand MICROMAX is independent of OCCUPATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Tata is independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Tata is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.10


phone(s) are you

presently using

Occupation Total

Tata Service Business Professional Student Housewife

No Count 167 155 142 164 159 787

% within

Occupatio

n

98.2% 99.4% 99.3% 100.0% 98.8% 99.1%

Yes Count 3 1 1 0 2 7

% within

Occupatio

n

1.8% .6% .7% .0% 1.2% .9%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0

%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.497


Thus Researcher concludes that Tata is not significant with the Occupation of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand TATA is independent of OCCUPATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand HTC is independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand HTC is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.11


phone(s) are you

presently using

Occupation Total

HTC Service Business Professional Student Housewife

No Count 168 151 140 162 159 780

% within

Occupatio

n

98.8% 96.8% 97.9% 98.8% 98.8% 98.2%

Yes Count 2 5 3 2 2 14

% within

Occupatio

n

1.2% 3.2% 2.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.8%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0

%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.586


Thus Researcher concludes that HTC is not significant with the Occupation of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand HTC is independent of OCCUPATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Philips is independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Philips is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.12



using

Occupation Total

Philips


No Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value





Philips.

H0 : Choice of Brand Spice is independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Spice is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.13


phone(s) are you

presently using

Occupation Total

Spice


No Count 169 156 142 164 160 791

% within

Occupatio

n

99.4% 100.0% 99.3% 100.0% 99.4% 99.6%

Yes Count 1 0 1 0 1 3

% within

Occupatio

n

.6% .0% .7% .0% .6% .4%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0

%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.725


Thus Researcher concludes that Spice is not significant with the Occupation of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SPICE is independent of OCCUPATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Videocon independent of Occupation of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Videocon is dependent of Occupation of User.

Table 6.1.3.14


phone(s) are you

presently using

Occupation Total

Videocon


No Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupatio

n

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value





Videocon.

1.1.4 Demographic factor: INCOME

H0 : Choice of Brand Nokia independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Nokia is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.1

Which brand of

mobile phone(s)

are you presently

using

Income Total

Nokia Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 198 68 83 59 89 497

%

within

Income

70.0% 55.7% 65.4% 62.1% 63.1% 64.7%

Yes Count 85 54 44 36 52 271

%

within

Income

30.0% 44.3% 34.6% 37.9% 36.9% 35.3%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

%

within

Income

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.085


Thus Researcher concludes that Nokia is not significant with the Income of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand NOKIA is independent of INCOME of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand LG independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand LG is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.2


phone(s) are you

presently using

Income Total

LG Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 275 116 117 94 137 739

% within

Income 97.2% 95.1% 92.1% 98.9% 97.2% 96.2%

Yes Count 8 6 10 1 4 29

% within

Income 2.8% 4.9% 7.9% 1.1% 2.8% 3.8%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

% within

Income 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.054


Thus Researcher concludes that LG is not significant with the Income of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand LG is independent of INCOME of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Samsung independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Samsung is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.3

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear





phone(s) are you

presently using

Income Total

Samsung Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 240 102 103 72 126 643

% within

Income 84.8% 83.6% 81.1% 75.8% 89.4% 83.7%

Yes Count 43 20 24 23 15 125

% wi thin

Income 15.2% 16.4% 18.9% 24.2% 10.6% 16.3%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

% within

Income 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

P value = 0.073


Thus Researcher concludes that Samsung is not significant with the Income of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SAMSUNG is independent of INCOME of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Reliance independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Reliance is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.4


phone(s) are you

presently using

Income Total

Reliance

Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 271 115 126 93 136 741

%

within

Income

95.8% 94.3% 99.2% 97.9% 96.5% 96.5%

Yes Count 12 7 1 2 5 27

%

within

Income

4.2% 5.7% .8% 2.1% 3.5% 3.5%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

%

within

Income

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0

%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.235


Thus Researcher concludes that Reliance is not significant with the Income of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand RELIANCE is independent of INCOME of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Blackberry independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Blackberry is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.5


phone(s) are you

presently using

Income Total

Blackberry Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 169 102 87 55 69 482

% within

Income 59.7% 83.6% 68.5% 57.9% 48.9% 62.8%

Yes Count 114 20 40 40 72 286

% within

Income 40.3% 16.4% 31.5% 42.1% 51.1% 37.2%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

% within

Income 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.000


Thus Researcher concludes that Blackberry is significant with the Income of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand BLACKBERRY is dependent of INCOME of User.

Preference of Brand Blackberry with Income

Fig. 6.1.4.5

From the above multiple Bar Graph, the researcher has noticed that the blackberry is

highly preferred by the dependent group and than by the income group of above 60,000.

Also the respondent whose income is between 20000 to 60000 also gives preference to this

brand.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Blackberry Yes

Blackberry No

H0 : Choice of Brand Apple independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Apple is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.6

Which brand of

mobile phone(s) are

you presently using

Income Total

Apple Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 252 120 115 78 113 678

%

within

Income

89.0% 98.4% 90.6% 82.1% 80.1% 88.3%

Yes Count 31 2 12 17 28 90

%

within

Income

11.0% 1.6% 9.4% 17.9% 19.9% 11.7%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

%

within

Income

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.000


Thus Researcher concludes that Apple

Therefore Choice of Brand APPLE is dependent of INCOME of User.

Preference of Brand

From the above diagram researcher came to a conclusion that there are 11.0% dependent,

1.6% up to 20000, 9.4% 20001 to 40000, 17.9% 40001 to 60000 and 19.9% above 60000

respondents who prefer the brand Apple.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


Apple is significant with the Income of the mobile phones users.

Choice of Brand APPLE is dependent of INCOME of User.

Preference of Brand Apple with Income

Fig. 6.1.4.6



respondents who prefer the brand Apple.

Apple No

Apple Yes

is significant with the Income of the mobile phones users.



H0 : Choice of Brand Motorola independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Motorola is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.7

Which brand of

mobile phone(s) are

you presently using

Income Total

Motorola Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 280 118 124 92 141 755

%

within

Income

98.9% 96.7% 97.6% 96.8% 100.0% 98.3%

Yes Count 3 4 3 3 0 13

%

within

Income

1.1% 3.3% 2.4% 3.2% .0% 1.7%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

%

within

Income

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear



.


P value = 0.164


Thus Researcher concludes that Motorola is not significant with the Income of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand MOTOROLA is independent of INCOME of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Sony independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Sony is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.8

Which brand of

mobile phone(s) are

you presently using

Income Total

Sony

Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 274 117 120 89 138 738

%

within

Income

96.8% 95.9% 94.5% 93.7% 97.9% 96.1%

Yes Count 9 5 7 6 3 30

%

within

Income

3.2% 4.1% 5.5% 6.3% 2.1% 3.9%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

%

within

Income

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.414


Thus Researcher concludes that Sony is not significant with the Income of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SONY is independent of INCOME of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Micromax independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Micromax is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.9


phone(s) are you

presently using

Micromax

Income Total

Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 276 117 125 95 141 754

%

within

Income

97.5% 95.9% 98.4% 100.0% 100.0% 98.2%

Yes Count 7 5 2 0 0 14

%

within

Income

2.5% 4.1% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.8%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

%

within

Income

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.071


Thus Researcher concludes that Micromax is not significant with the Income of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand MICROMAX is independent of INCOME of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Tata independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Tata is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.10

Which brand of

mobile phone(s) are

you presently using

TATA

Income Total

Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 281 120 125 94 141 761

%

within

Income

99.3% 98.4% 98.4% 98.9% 100.0% 99.1%

Yes Count 2 2 2 1 0 7

%

within

Income

.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.1% .0% .9%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

%

within

Income

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.595


Thus Researcher concludes that Tata is not significant with the Income of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand TATA is independent of INCOME of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand HTC independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand HTC is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.11


phone(s) are you

presently using

HTC

Income Total

Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 279 122 125 93 135 754

% within

Income 98.6% 100.0% 98.4% 97.9% 95.7% 98.2%

Yes Count 4 0 2 2 6 14

% within

Income 1.4% .0% 1.6% 2.1% 4.3% 1.8%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

% within

Income 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.122


Thus Researcher concludes that HTC is not significant with the Income of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand HTC is independent of INCOME of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Philips independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Philips is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.12

Which brand of

mobile phone(s) are

you presently using

Philips

Income Total

Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

%

within

Income

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

%

within

Income

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value



No statistics are computed because Philips is a constant

From Table 6.1.4.12 Researcher has concluded that none of the respondent like the brand

Philips.

H0 : Choice of Brand Spice independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Spice is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.13

Which brand of

mobile phone(s) are

you presently using

Spice

Income Total

Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 282 120 127 95 141 765

% within

Income 99.6% 98.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.6%

Yes Count 1 2 0 0 0 3

% within

Income .4% 1.6% .0% .0% .0% .4%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

% within

Income 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.176


Thus Researcher concludes that Spice is not significant with the Income of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SPICE is independent of INCOME of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Videocon independent of Income of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Videocon is dependent of Income of User.

Table 6.1.4.14

Which brand of

mobile phone(s) are

you presently using

Videocon

Income Total

Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000

No Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

%

within

Income

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0

%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

%

within

Income

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0

%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value




From Table 6.1.4.14 Researcher has concluded that none of the respondent like the brand

Videocon.

1.1.5 Demographic factor: EDUCATION

H0 : Choice of Brand Nokia independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Nokia is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.1



using

Education Total

Nokia

Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

No Count 51 108 37 207 97 500

% within

Education 63.0% 69.7% 84.1% 61.6% 63.0% 64.9%

Yes Count 30 47 7 129 57 270

% within

Education 37.0% 30.3% 15.9% 38.4% 37.0% 35.1%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0

%

100.0

%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests


Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear



P value = 0.031


Thus Researcher concludes that Nokia is not significant with the Education of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand NOKIA is independent of EDUCATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand LG independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand LG is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.2


phone(s) are you

presently using

LG

Education Total

Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

No Count 79 149 39 323 149 739

% within

Education 97.5% 96.1% 88.6% 96.1% 96.8% 96.0%

Yes Count 2 6 5 13 5 31

% within

Education 2.5% 3.9% 11.4% 3.9% 3.2% 4.0%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education

100.0

% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.141


Thus Researcher concludes that LG is not significant with the Education of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand LG is independent of EDUCATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Samsung independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Samsung is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.3


phone(s) are you

presently using

Samsung

Education Total

Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

No Count 66 130 38 280 133 647

% within

Education 81.5% 83.9% 86.4% 83.3% 86.4% 84.0%

Yes Count 15 25 6 56 21 123

% within

Education 18.5% 16.1% 13.6% 16.7% 13.6% 16.0%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0

% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.858


Thus Researcher concludes that Samsung is not significant with the Education of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SAMSUNG is independent of EDUCATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Reliance independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Reliance is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.4


phone(s) are you

presently using

Reliance

Education Total

Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

No Count 75 147 44 326 151 743

% within

Education 92.6% 94.8% 100.0% 97.0% 98.1% 96.5%

Yes Count 6 8 0 10 3 27

% within

Education 7.4% 5.2% .0% 3.0% 1.9% 3.5%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education

100.0

% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.096


Thus Researcher concludes that Reliance is not significant with the Education of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand RELIANCE is independent of EDUCATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Blackberry independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Blackberry is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.5


phone(s) are you

presently using

Blackberry

Education Total

Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

No Count 69 92 29 214 80 484

% within

Education 85.2% 59.4% 65.9% 63.7% 51.9% 62.9%

Yes Count 12 63 15 122 74 286

% within

Education 14.8% 40.6% 34.1% 36.3% 48.1% 37.1%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.000


Thus Researcher concludes that Blackberry is significant with the Education of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand BLACKBERRY is dependent of EDUCATION of User.

Preference of Brand Blackberry with Education

From the above pie diagram the researcher came to know that there are 14.8%

respondents Up to 10th, 40.6% respondents Up to 12th, 34.1% Graduate respondents,

36.3% Post Graduate respondents and 48.1% Other Qualification respondents who prefer

this brand.

Blackberry

Up to 10th

Up to 12th

Graduate

Post Graduate

Other Quali

H0 : Choice of Brand Apple independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Apple is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.6


phone(s) are you

presently using

Apple

Education Total

Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

No Count 78 140 38 288 137 681

% within

Educatio

n

96.3% 90.3% 86.4% 85.7% 89.0% 88.4%

Yes Count 3 15 6 48 17 89

% within

Educatio

n

3.7% 9.7% 13.6% 14.3% 11.0% 11.6%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Educatio

n

100.0% 100.0

% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.000



users.

Therefore Choice of Brand APPLE is dependent of EDUCATION of User.

Preference of Brand Apple

From the above multiple Bar diagram, the researcher came to know that there are 3.7%

respondents Up to 10th, 9.7% respondents Up to 12

Post Graduate respondents and 11.0% Other Qualifi

brand.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


Thus Researcher concludes that Apple is significant with the Education of the mobile phones

Choice of Brand APPLE is dependent of EDUCATION of User.

Apple with Education

Fig.6.1.5.6


, 9.7% respondents Up to 12th, 13.6% Graduate respondents, 14.3%

Post Graduate respondents and 11.0% Other Qualification respondents who prefer this

is significant with the Education of the mobile phones


, 13.6% Graduate respondents, 14.3%

cation respondents who prefer this

Apple No

Apple Yes

H0 : Choice of Brand Motorola independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Motorola is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.7


phone(s) are you

presently using

Motorola

Education Total

Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

Count 80 153 43 327 153 756

% within

Education 98.8% 98.7% 97.7% 97.3% 99.4% 98.2%

Yes Count 1 2 1 9 1 14

% within

Education 1.2% 1.3% 2.3% 2.7% .6% 1.8%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education

100.0

%

100.0

% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.555


Thus Researcher concludes that Motorola is not significant with the Education of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand MOTOROLA is independent of EDUCATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Sony independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Sony is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.8


phone(s) are you

presently using

Education Total

Sony Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

No Count 78 149 41 325 148 741

% within

Education 96.3% 96.1% 93.2% 96.7% 96.1% 96.2%

Yes Count 3 6 3 11 6 29

% within

Education 3.7% 3.9% 6.8% 3.3% 3.9% 3.8%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.850


Thus Researcher concludes that Sony is not significant with the Education of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SONY is independent of EDUCATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Micromax independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Micromax is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.9



using

Education Total

Micromax

Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

No Count 80 150 42 330 153 755

% within

Education 98.8% 96.8% 95.5% 98.2% 99.4% 98.1%

Yes Count 1 5 2 6 1 15

% within

Education 1.2% 3.2% 4.5% 1.8% .6% 1.9%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.342


Thus Researcher concludes that Micromax is not significant with the Education of the mobile

phones users.

Therefore Choice of Brand MICROMAX is independent of EDUCATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Tata independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Tata is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.10


phone(s) are you

presently using

Tata

Education Total

Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

No Count 77 155 43 334 154 763

% within

Education 95.1% 100.0% 97.7% 99.4% 100.0% 99.1%

Yes Count 4 0 1 2 0 7

% within

Education 4.9% .0% 2.3% .6% .0% .9%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0

%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.001

Since p= 0.001< 0.05 therefore Null hypothesis is Rejected by the Researcher.


users.

Therefore Choice of Brand TATA is dependent of EDUCATION of User.

Preference of Brand Tata with Education

From the above segmented Bar Graph the researcher came to a conclusion that this brand

is highly preferred those who are not much educated thus indicating their brand

awareness.

92%

93%

94%

95%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%


Thus Researcher concludes that Tata is significant with the Education of the mobile phones

Choice of Brand TATA is dependent of EDUCATION of User.

with Education

Fig. 6.1.5.10



Tata Yes

Tata No

is significant with the Education of the mobile phones



H0 : Choice of Brand HTC independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand HTC is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.11


phone(s) are you

presently using

Education Total

HTC Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

No Count 81 152 44 332 148 757

% within

Education 100.0% 98.1% 100.0% 98.8% 96.1% 98.3%

Yes Count 0 3 0 4 6 13

% wi thin

Education .0% 1.9% .0% 1.2% 3.9% 1.7%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.124


Thus Researcher concludes that HTC is not significant with the Education of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand HTC is independent of EDUCATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Philips independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Philips is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.12


phone(s) are you

presently using Education Total

Philips

Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

No Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education

100.0

% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education

100.0

% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value





Philips.

H0 : Choice of Brand Spice independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Spice is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.13


phone(s) are you

presently using

Spice

Education Total

Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

No Count 81 155 43 334 154 767

% within

Education 100.0% 100.0% 97.7% 99.4% 100.0% 99.6%

Yes Count 0 0 1 2 0 3

% within

Education .0% .0% 2.3% .6% .0% .4%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



Linear -by-Linear




P value = 0.206


Thus Researcher concludes that Spice is not significant with the Education of the mobile phones

users.

Therefore Choice of Brand SPICE is independent of EDUCATION of User.

H0 : Choice of Brand Videocon independent of Education of User.

H1 : Choice of Brand Videocon is dependent of Education of User.

Table 6.1.5.14



using

Videocon

Education Total

Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail

No Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value





Videocon.

1.2 Brand Switching

To satisfy the second objective of the research the researcher had focused on demographic

factors of customers of Mobile phone and change of Mobile phone. The following

hypotheses were considered for the same.

6.2.1 Demographic factor: GENDER

H0: Brand switching is independent of Gender of customer.

H1: Brand switching is dependent of Gender of customer.

Table 6.2.1

How likely are you to change your mobile phone

brand in the near future

Gender Total

Male Female

Very Unlikely Count 91 52 143

% within

Gender 20.0% 15.3% 18.0%

Unlikely Count 119 112 231

% within

Gender 26.2% 33.0% 29.1%

Neither Likely nor

Unlikely

Count 104 75 179

% within

Gender 22.9% 22.1% 22.5%

Likely Count 113 86 199

% within

Gender 24.8% 25.4% 25.1%

Very Likely Count 28 14 42

% within

Gender 6.2% 4.1% 5.3%


% within

Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)



P value = 0.132

Since p= 0.132 > 0.05 therefore Null hypothesis is Accepted by the Researcher. Thus change

Your mobile phone brand is not significant with Gender of User.

Thus Researcher concludes that Brand switching is independent of Gender of customer.

6.2.2 Demographic factor: AGE

H0: Brand switching is independent of Age of customer.

H1: Brand choice is dependent of Age of customer.

Table 6.2.2

How likely are you to change your

mobile phone brand in the near

future

Age Total

18-28 29-39 40-50

51 &

above

Very Unlikely Count 55 38 36 13 142

% wi thin

Age 16.8% 18.3% 18.2% 26.5% 18.1%

Unlikely Count 100 54 56 16 226

% within

Age 30.5% 26.0% 28.3% 32.7% 28.9%

Neither Likely nor

Unlikely

Count 62 54 54 6 176

% within

Age 18.9% 26.0% 27.3% 12.2% 22.5%

Likely Count 85 53 45 14 197

% within

Age 25.9% 25.5% 22.7% 28.6% 25.2%

Very Likely Count 26 9 7 0 42

% within

Age 7.9% 4.3% 3.5% .0% 5.4%

Total Count 328 208 198 49 783

% within

Age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


The above hypothesis is tested at 5% LOS. P value = 0.071


Thus change your mobile phone brand is not significant with Age of User.

Thus Researcher concludes that Brand switching is independent of Age of customer.

6.2.3 Demographic factor: OCCUPATION

H0: Brand switching is independent of Occupation of customer.

H1: Brand choice is dependent of Occupation of customer.

Table 6.2.3

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)




future

Occupation Total


Very Unlikely Count 34 30 33 25 21 143

% within

Occupation 20.0% 19.2% 23.1% 15.2% 13.0% 18.0%

Unlikely Count 53 44 36 48 50 231

% within

Occupation 31.2% 28.2% 25.2% 29.3% 31.1% 29.1%

Neither Likely nor

Unlikely

Count 37 38 31 26 47 179

% within

Occupation 21.8% 24.4% 21.7% 15.9% 29.2% 22.5%

Likely Count 35 41 37 49 37 199

% within

Occupation 20.6% 26.3% 25.9% 29.9% 23.0% 25.1%

Very Likely Count 11 3 6 16 6 42

% within

Occupation 6.5% 1.9% 4.2% 9.8% 3.7% 5.3%

Total Count 170 156 143 164 161 794

% within

Occupation 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



Thus change your mobile phone brand is significant with Occupation of User.

Thus Researcher concludes that Brand switching is dependent of Occupation of customer.

6.2.4 Demographic factor: INCOME

H0: Brand switching is independent of income of customer.

H1: Brand switching is dependent of income of customer.

Table 6.2.4



future

Income Total

Dependent

Up to

20,000

20,001-

40,000

40,001-

60,000

Above

60,000


% within

Income 13.8% 19.7% 18.9% 33.7% 14.2% 18.1%

Unlikely Count 84 34 31 25 50 224

% within

Income 29.7% 27.9% 24.4% 26.3% 35.5% 29.2%

Neither Likely nor

Unlikely

Count 59 31 37 14 32 173

% within

Income 20.8% 25.4% 29.1% 14.7% 22.7% 22.5%

Likely Count 80 27 29 21 35 192

% within

Income 28.3% 22.1% 22.8% 22.1% 24.8% 25.0%


% within

Income 7.4% 4.9% 4.7% 3.2% 2.8% 5.2%

Total Count 283 122 127 95 141 768

% within

Income 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value do

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)




Thus change your mobile phone brand is significant with Occupation of User.

Thus Researcher concludes that Brand switching is dependent of Income of customer.

6.2.5 Demographic factor: EDUCATION

H0: Brand switching is independent of Education of customer.

H1: Brand choice is dependent of Education of customer.

Table 6.2.4



future

Education Total

Up to

10th

Up to

12th Graduate

Post

Graduate

Other

Quail


% within

Education 19.8% 14.8% 13.6% 19.9% 16.9% 17.9%

Unlikely Count 23 43 13 107 41 227

% within

Education 28.4% 27.7% 29.5% 31.8% 26.6% 29.5%

Neither Likely nor

Unlikely

Count 26 37 12 69 29 173

% within

Education 32.1% 23.9% 27.3% 20.5% 18.8% 22.5%

Likely Count 14 39 8 78 52 191

% within

Education 17.3% 25.2% 18.2% 23.2% 33.8% 24.8%


% within

Education 2.5% 8.4% 11.4% 4.5% 3.9% 5.3%

Total Count 81 155 44 336 154 770

% within

Education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0

%

Source: Survey

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)


Since p= 0.071 > 0.05 thus the researcher had concluded that change your mobile phone brand is

not significant with the Education of the mobile phones users.

Therefore researcher has Accept the Null hypothesis.

Therefore Brand switching is Independent of Education of customer.

6.3 Factors Influencing Purchase Decision

To satisfy the third objective, the researcher had made an attempt to find the impact of prominent

demographic variables on purchase and switching intensions of the users. To study the factors

which are significant for the purchase decision based on the demographic factors, the researcher

had used t test and ANOVA as the statistical tool to arrive at the desire result.

6.3.1 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR: GENDER

Rate the factors influencing your purchase decision

Table 6.3.1 Group Statistics

Gender N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Brand name Male 455 3.93 1.018 .048

Female 339 3.72 1.074 .058

Value for

Price

Male 455 4.04 .853 .040

Female 339 3.97 .977 .053

Reference Male 455 3.24 1.038 .049

Female 339 3.37 .998 .054

Shopkeepers

suggestions

Male 455 2.84 1.080 .051

Female 339 2.91 1.062 .058

Good battery

life

Male 455 4.18 .880 .041

Female 339 4.04 .911 .049

Brand

ambassador

Male 455 2.39 1.179 .055

Female 339 2.40 1.193 .065

Physical

appearance

Male 455 3.89 .967 .045

Female 339 3.90 .922 .050

Utility Male 455 4.20 .805 .038

Female 339 4.09 .855 .046

User friendly Male 455 4.19 .806 .038

Female 339 4.09 .871 .047

Dual SIM card Male 455 3.93 .971 .046

Female 339 3.81 1.038 .056

3G Male 455 3.97 .982 .046

Female 339 3.81 1.028 .056

Operating

system

Male 455 3.11 .610 .029

Female 339 3.17 .583 .032

Source: Survey

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Brand name 2.717 706.349 .007

Value for Price 1.028 669.865 .304

Reference -1.733 792 .084

Shopkeepers suggestions -.887 792 .375

Good battery life 2.053 792 .040

Brand ambassador -.022 792 .982

Physical appearance -.098 792 .922

Utility 1.855 792 .064

User friendly 1.802 792 .072

Dual SIM card 1.651 792 .099

3G 2.204 709.509 .028

Operating system -1.390 792 .165

The researcher has made an attempt to find the prominent factors which are responsible

for brand choice while gender is considered.

The first table gives mean ratings given to factors by males and females. The second table

gives significance of difference.

From the above table p value for brand name is 0.007 which is significant at 5% LOS.

Since p <= 0.05 the difference between ratings of males and females is significant.

Therefore Brand name is significant factor for choosing a brand.

Similarly Reference, Good battery Life, Utility, User friendly, Dual SIM card and 3G

shows significance difference between ratings given by males and females. In each of the

above factor males have higher ratings than females except for reference.

Whereas Value for Price, Shopkeepers suggestions, Brand ambassador, Physical

appearance and operating system doesn’t affect the purchase decision of the respondents.

6.3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR: AGE


Table 6.3.2 Descriptive

Age N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Brand name 18-28 328 3.87 1.087 .060

29-39 208 3.74 1.116 .077

40-50 198 3.93 .932 .066

51 &

above 49 3.73 .953 .136

Total 783 3.84 1.051 .038

Value for

Price

18-28 328 3.91 .976 .054

29-39 208 3.88 .877 .061

40-50 198 4.25 .804 .057

51 &

above 49 4.29 .816 .117

Total 783 4.01 .913 .033

Reference 18-28 328 3.32 1.013 .056

29-39 208 3.29 1.052 .073

40-50 198 3.32 .995 .071

51 &

above 49 3.12 1.166 .167

Total 783 3.30 1.028 .037

Shopkeepers

suggestions

18-28 328 2.83 1.076 .059

29-39 208 2.99 1.065 .074

40-50 198 2.88 1.050 .075

51 &

above 49 2.65 1.182 .169

Total 783 2.87 1.075 .038

Good battery

life

18-28 328 4.29 .848 .047

29-39 208 3.93 .951 .066

40-50 198 4.09 .865 .062

51 & 49 3.92 .932 .133

above

Total 783 4.12 .898 .032

Brand

ambassador

18-28 328 2.46 1.221 .067

29-39 208 2.59 1.180 .082

40-50 198 2.17 1.084 .077

51 &

above 49 2.10 1.141 .163

Total 783 2.40 1.183 .042

Physical

appearance

18-28 328 3.96 .947 .052

29-39 208 3.97 .876 .061

40-50 198 3.85 .960 .068

51 &

above 49 3.37 1.093 .156

Total 783 3.90 .951 .034

Utility 18-28 328 4.18 .839 .046

29-39 208 4.13 .833 .058

40-50 198 4.17 .831 .059

51 &

above 49 4.12 .754 .108

Total 783 4.16 .829 .030

User friendly 18-28 328 4.13 .820 .045

29-39 208 4.10 .868 .060

40-50 198 4.24 .824 .059

51 &

above 49 4.20 .790 .113

Total 783 4.15 .833 .030

Dual SIM card 18-28 328 3.81 1.049 .058

29-39 208 3.88 .912 .063

40-50 198 4.01 .979 .070

51 &

above 49 3.84 1.124 .161

Total 783 3.88 1.003 .036

3G 18-28 328 4.08 .874 .048

29-39 208 3.87 1.030 .071

40-50 198 3.79 1.050 .075

51 &

above 49 3.33 1.297 .185

Total 783 3.90 1.009 .036

Operating

system

18-28 328 3.14 .631 .035

29-39 208 3.17 .694 .048

40-50 198 3.12 .457 .032

51 &

above 49 2.92 .449 .064

Total 783 3.13 .602 .022

Source: Survey

ANOVA Table

Sum of

Squares Df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Brand name Between

Groups 4.514 3 1.505 1.364 .252

Within

Groups 859.164 779 1.103

Total 863.678 782

Value for

Price

Between

Groups 22.012 3 7.337 9.075 .000

Within

Groups 629.861 779 .809

Total 651.872 782

Reference Between

Groups 1.752 3 .584 .552 .647

Within

Groups 824.718 779 1.059

Total 826.470 782

Shopkeepers

suggestions

Between

Groups 5.640 3 1.880 1.632 .181

Within

Groups 897.589 779 1.152

Total 903.229 782

Good battery

life

Between

Groups 18.621 3 6.207 7.910 .000

Within

Groups 611.333 779 .785

Total 629.954 782

Brand

ambassador

Between

Groups 23.939 3 7.980 5.811 .001

Within 1069.739 779 1.373

Groups

Total 1093.678 782

Physical

appearance

Between

Groups 16.403 3 5.468 6.164 .000

Within

Groups 691.009 779 .887

Total 707.413 782

Utility Between

Groups .415 3 .138 .200 .896

Within

Groups 537.309 779 .690

Total 537.724 782

User friendly Between

Groups 2.324 3 .775 1.118 .341

Within

Groups 539.977 779 .693

Total 542.301 782

Dual SIM

card

Between

Groups 4.615 3 1.538 1.534 .204

Within

Groups 781.340 779 1.003

Total 785.954 782

3G Between

Groups 29.323 3 9.774 9.923 .000

Within

Groups 767.301 779 .985

Total 796.623 782

Operating

system

Between

Groups 2.652 3 .884 2.452 .062

Within

Groups 280.799 779 .360

Total 283.451 782


for brand choice while age is considered.

For age groups the test applied is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The first table gives

mean ratings by different age groups. The second table gives significance. The last column

in second table (Sig.) is P-value. If P<= 0.05 the difference between age groups is

significant.

Value for Price, Good battery life, Brand ambassador, Physical appearance and 3G are

significant or in other words the respondents give importance to Value for Price, Good

battery life, Brand ambassador, Physical appearance and 3G while making purchasing

decision when AGE factor is considered.

6.3.3 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR: OCCUPATION


Table 6.3.3

Descriptive

Occupation N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Brand name Service 170 3.68 1.122 .086

Business 156 4.02 .919 .074

Professional 143 3.99 .979 .082

Student 164 3.90 1.069 .084

Housewife 161 3.64 1.070 .084

Total 794 3.84 1.047 .037

Value for

Price

Service 170 4.05 .922 .071

Business 156 4.06 .756 .060

Professional 143 4.11 .840 .070

Student 164 3.87 .973 .076

Housewife 161 3.99 1.006 .079

Total 794 4.01 .908 .032

Reference Service 170 3.15 1.077 .083

Business 156 3.35 .942 .075

Professional 143 3.27 1.043 .087

Student 164 3.40 1.007 .079

Housewife 161 3.31 1.032 .081

Total 794 3.30 1.023 .036

Shopkeepers

suggestions

Service 170 2.93 1.064 .082

Business 156 2.86 1.044 .084

Professional 143 2.90 1.099 .092

Student 164 2.73 1.092 .085

Housewife 161 2.92 1.066 .084

Total 794 2.87 1.072 .038

Good battery

life

Service 170 4.01 .945 .072

Business 156 4.14 .905 .072

Professional 143 4.22 .865 .072

Student 164 4.34 .825 .064

Housewife 161 3.91 .872 .069

Total 794 4.12 .895 .032

Brand

ambassador

Service 170 2.42 1.180 .091

Business 156 2.51 1.194 .096

Professional 143 2.29 1.161 .097

Student 164 2.38 1.264 .099

Housewife 161 2.37 1.116 .088

Total 794 2.39 1.184 .042

Physical

appearance

Service 170 3.72 .974 .075

Business 156 3.94 .972 .078

Professional 143 3.90 .962 .080

Student 164 4.02 .903 .071

Housewife 161 3.90 .910 .072

Total 794 3.89 .947 .034

Utility Service 170 4.12 .841 .065

Business 156 4.24 .763 .061

Professional 143 4.27 .771 .064

Student 164 4.18 .838 .065

Housewife 161 3.99 .891 .070

Total 794 4.16 .828 .029

User friendly Service 170 4.15 .807 .062

Business 156 4.19 .858 .069

Professional 143 4.26 .738 .062

Student 164 4.21 .755 .059

Housewife 161 3.94 .966 .076

Total 794 4.15 .836 .030

Dual SIM card Service 170 3.83 1.003 .077

Business 156 3.96 .986 .079

Professional 143 3.93 .877 .073

Student 164 3.88 1.038 .081

Housewife 161 3.81 1.079 .085

Total 794 3.88 1.001 .036

3G Service 170 3.64 1.123 .086

Business 156 4.17 .864 .069

Professional 143 3.94 .973 .081

Student 164 4.15 .780 .061

Housewife 161 3.65 1.103 .087

Total 794 3.91 1.004 .036

Operating

system

Service 170 3.13 .701 .054

Business 156 3.12 .636 .051

Professional 143 3.13 .515 .043

Student 164 3.11 .554 .043

Housewife 161 3.17 .562 .044

Total 794 3.13 .599 .021

Source: Survey

ANOVA Table

Sum of

Squares Df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Brand name Between

Groups 19.380 4 4.845 4.501 .001

Within

Groups 849.306 789 1.076

Total 868.686 793

Value for

Price

Between

Groups 5.274 4 1.318 1.604 .171

Within

Groups 648.600 789 .822

Total 653.874 793

Reference Between

Groups 5.741 4 1.435 1.375 .241

Within

Groups 823.706 789 1.044

Total 829.447 793

Shopkeepers

suggestions

Between

Groups 4.226 4 1.057 .919 .452

Within

Groups 907.622 789 1.150

Total 911.849 793

Good battery

life

Between

Groups 18.982 4 4.745 6.072 .000

Within

Groups 616.652 789 .782

Total 635.634 793

Brand

ambassador

Between

Groups 3.929 4 .982 .700 .592

Within

Groups 1107.684 789 1.404

Total 1111.613 793

Physical

appearance

Between

Groups 8.191 4 2.048 2.296 .058

Within

Groups 703.709 789 .892

Total 711.901 793

Utility Between

Groups 7.580 4 1.895 2.791 .025

Within

Groups 535.741 789 .679

Total 543.321 793


Groups 9.748 4 2.437 3.535 .007

Within

Groups 544.011 789 .689

Total 553.759 793

Dual SIM

card

Between

Groups 2.382 4 .596 .593 .668

Within

Groups 792.010 789 1.004

Total 794.393 793

3G Between

Groups 42.993 4 10.748

11.20

4 .000

Within

Groups 756.923 789 .959

Total 799.916 793

Operating

system

Between

Groups .308 4 .077 .214 .931

Within

Groups 284.070 789 .360

Total 284.378 793


for brand choice while Occupation is considered.

For occupation groups the test applied is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The first table

gives mean ratings by different Occupation groups. The second table gives significance.

The last column in second table (Sig.) is P-value. If P<= 0.05 the difference between

occupation groups is significant.

Brand name, Good battery life, Utility, User friendly and 3G are significant for purchasing

decision when OCCUPATION is considered as one of the demographic factors.

In other words the respondents give importance to Brand name, Good battery life, Utility,

User friendly and 3G while making purchasing decision when OCCUPATION factor is

considered.

6.3.4 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR: INCOME


Table 6.3.4

Descriptive

Income N Mean

Std.

Deviatio

n

Std.

Error

Brand name Dependent 283 3.73 1.124 .067

Up to 20,000 122 3.52 1.180 .107

20,001-40,000 127 4.01 .913 .081

40,001-60,000 95 4.03 .973 .100

Above 60,000 141 4.01 .866 .073

Total 768 3.83 1.053 .038

Value for Price Dependent 283 3.93 1.012 .060

Up to 20,000 122 3.97 .970 .088

20,001-40,000 127 4.10 .834 .074

40,001-60,000 95 4.07 .775 .080

Above 60,000 141 4.11 .775 .065

Total 768 4.02 .910 .033

Reference Dependent 283 3.36 1.027 .061

Up to 20,000 122 3.27 .996 .090

20,001-40,000 127 3.19 .990 .088

40,001-60,000 95 3.29 1.119 .115

Above 60,000 141 3.30 .991 .083

Total 768 3.30 1.020 .037

Shopkeepers

suggestions

Dependent 283 2.78 1.067 .063

Up to 20,000 122 3.13 .995 .090

20,001-40,000 127 2.91 1.091 .097

40,001-60,000 95 2.79 1.030 .106

Above 60,000 141 2.82 1.154 .097

Total 768 2.87 1.077 .039

Good battery

life

Dependent 283 4.16 .878 .052

Up to 20,000 122 3.97 .979 .089

20,001-40,000 127 4.14 .852 .076

40,001-60,000 95 4.26 .853 .088

Above 60,000 141 4.07 .938 .079

Total 768 4.12 .900 .032

Brand

ambassador

Dependent 283 2.33 1.197 .071

Up to 20,000 122 2.48 1.166 .106

20,001-40,000 127 2.35 1.237 .110

40,001-60,000 95 2.51 1.147 .118

Above 60,000 141 2.38 1.132 .095

Total 768 2.39 1.180 .043

Physical

appearance

Dependent 283 3.92 .944 .056

Up to 20,000 122 3.81 1.007 .091

20,001-40,000 127 3.99 .821 .073

40,001-60,000 95 3.85 .967 .099

Above 60,000 141 3.84 1.009 .085

Total 768 3.89 .950 .034

Utility Dependent 283 4.07 .906 .054

Up to 20,000 122 4.11 .791 .072

20,001-40,000 127 4.31 .663 .059

40,001-60,000 95 4.20 .858 .088

Above 60,000 141 4.25 .785 .066

Total 768 4.16 .828 .030

User friendly Dependent 283 4.10 .853 .051

Up to 20,000 122 4.09 .813 .074

20,001-40,000 127 4.15 .836 .074

40,001-60,000 95 4.20 .858 .088

Above 60,000 141 4.31 .757 .064

Total 768 4.16 .830 .030

Dual SIM card Dependent 283 3.83 1.085 .064

Up to 20,000 122 3.77 .969 .088

20,001-40,000 127 3.86 1.074 .095

40,001-60,000 95 3.97 .831 .085

Above 60,000 141 4.05 .848 .071

Total 768 3.88 .998 .036

3G Dependent 283 3.88 1.005 .060

Up to 20,000 122 3.71 1.102 .100

20,001-40,000 127 3.87 1.054 .094

40,001-60,000 95 4.01 .940 .096

Above 60,000 141 4.06 .888 .075

Total 768 3.90 1.005 .036

Operating

system

Dependent 283 3.10 .521 .031

Up to 20,000 122 3.15 .735 .067

20,001-40,000 127 3.14 .721 .064

40,001-60,000 95 3.16 .532 .055

Above 60,000 141 3.08 .448 .038

Total 768 3.12 .585 .021

Source: Survey

ANOVA Table

Sum of

Squares Df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Brand name Between

Groups 26.629 4 6.657 6.169 .000

Within

Groups 823.366 763 1.079

Total 849.995 767

Value for

Price

Between

Groups 5.019 4 1.255 1.518 .195

Within

Groups 630.793 763 .827

Total 635.812 767

Reference Between

Groups 2.706 4 .676 .648 .628

Within

Groups 796.012 763 1.043

Total 798.717 767

Shopkeeper

s

suggestions

Between

Groups 11.905 4 2.976 2.589 .036

Within

Groups 877.281 763 1.150

Total 889.186 767

Good

battery life

Between

Groups 5.550 4 1.387 1.718 .144

Within

Groups 616.189 763 .808

Total 621.738 767

Brand

ambassador

Between

Groups 3.763 4 .941 .674 .610

Within

Groups 1064.382 763 1.395

Total 1068.145 767

Physical

appearance

Between

Groups 2.739 4 .685 .758 .553

Within

Groups 689.291 763 .903

Total 692.030 767

Utility Between

Groups 7.075 4 1.769 2.604 .035

Within

Groups 518.253 763 .679

Total 525.328 767


Groups 5.071 4 1.268 1.850 .117

Within

Groups 522.865 763 .685

Total 527.936 767

Dual SIM

card

Between

Groups 7.014 4 1.754 1.769 .133

Within

Groups 756.439 763 .991

Total 763.453 767

3G Between

Groups 9.450 4 2.362 2.356 .052

Within

Groups 765.030 763 1.003

Total 774.479 767

Operating

system

Between

Groups .696 4 .174 .506 .731

Within

Groups 261.991 763 .343

Total 262.686 767


for brand choice while Income is considered.

For Income groups the test applied is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The first table gives

mean ratings by different income groups. The second table gives significance. The last

column in second table (Sig.) is P-value. If P<= 0.05 the difference between income groups

is significant.

Thus Brand name, Shopkeepers suggestions and Utility are significant for purchasing

decision when INCOME is considered as one of the demographic factors. In other words

the respondents give importance to Brand name, Shopkeepers suggestions and Utility while

making purchasing decision when INCOME factor is considered.

6.3.5 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR: EDUCATION


Table 6.3.5 Descriptive

Education N Mean

Std.

Deviatio

n

Std.

Error

Brand name Up to 10 th 81 3.62 1.091 .121

Up to 12 th 155 3.70 1.100 .088

Graduate 44 3.84 .963 .145

Post Graduate 336 3.88 1.040 .057

Other Quail 154 4.02 .980 .079

Total 770 3.84 1.047 .038

Value for

Price

Up to 10 th 81 3.98 .922 .102

Up to 12 th 155 3.85 1.005 .081

Graduate 44 3.91 1.007 .152

Post Graduate 336 4.06 .884 .048

Other Quail 154 4.16 .793 .064

Total 770 4.02 .908 .033

Reference Up to 10 th 81 3.28 .965 .107

Up to 12 th 155 3.34 1.028 .083

Graduate 44 3.30 1.047 .158

Post Graduate 336 3.28 1.027 .056

Other Quail 154 3.29 1.027 .083

Total 770 3.29 1.020 .037

Shopkeepers

suggestions

Up to 10 th 81 3.22 1.061 .118

Up to 12th 155 2.85 1.039 .083

Graduate 44 2.82 1.167 .176

Post Graduate 336 2.82 1.057 .058

Other Quail 154 2.84 1.099 .089

Total 770 2.87 1.073 .039

Good battery

life

Up to 10th 81 3.84 1.030 .114

Up to 12th 155 4.12 .914 .073

Graduate 44 3.84 .914 .138

Post Graduate 336 4.19 .818 .045

Other Quail 154 4.19 .920 .074

Total 770 4.12 .895 .032

Brand

ambassador

Up to 10th 81 2.73 1.215 .135

Up to 12th 155 2.50 1.336 .107

Graduate 44 2.39 1.125 .170

Post Graduate 336 2.31 1.133 .062

Other Quail 154 2.31 1.105 .089

Total 770 2.40 1.184 .043

Physical

appearance

Up to 10th 81 3.91 .938 .104

Up to 12th 155 3.81 .992 .080

Graduate 44 3.75 1.037 .156

Post Graduate 336 3.95 .926 .051

Other Quail 154 3.82 .944 .076

Total 770 3.88 .951 .034

Utility Up to 10th 81 3.99 .929 .103

Up to 12th 155 4.04 .867 .070

Graduate 44 3.93 .900 .136

Post Graduate 336 4.22 .817 .045

Other Quail 154 4.32 .675 .054

Total 770 4.16 .827 .030

User friendly Up to 10th 81 3.91 .951 .106

Up to 12th 155 4.06 .803 .065

Graduate 44 4.07 .873 .132

Post Graduate 336 4.16 .839 .046

Other Quail 154 4.33 .750 .060

Total 770 4.15 .836 .030

Dual SIM

card

Up to 10th 81 3.73 1.000 .111

Up to 12th 155 3.90 1.070 .086

Graduate 44 3.82 .922 .139

Post Graduate 336 3.90 1.015 .055

Other Quail 154 3.96 .885 .071

Total 770 3.89 .995 .036

3G Up to 10th 81 3.67 1.037 .115

Up to 12th 155 3.85 .972 .078

Graduate 44 3.59 .996 .150

Post Graduate 336 4.00 1.013 .055

Other Quail 154 3.99 .939 .076

Total 770 3.91 .999 .036

Operating

system

Up to 10th 81 3.05 .773 .086

Up to 12th 155 3.12 .585 .047

Graduate 44 3.18 .657 .099

Post Graduate 336 3.14 .538 .029

Other Quail 154 3.16 .577 .046

Total 770 3.14 .590 .021

Source: Survey

ANOVA Table

Sum of

Squares Df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Brand name Between

Groups 12.361 4 3.090 2.847 .023

Within

Groups 830.309 765 1.085

Total 842.670 769

Value for

Price

Between

Groups 8.386 4 2.097 2.565 .037

Within

Groups 625.359 765 .817

Total 633.745 769

Reference Between

Groups .474 4 .119 .114 .978

Within

Groups 799.193 765 1.045

Total 799.668 769

Shopkeepers

suggestions

Between

Groups 11.422 4 2.855 2.498 .041

Within

Groups 874.330 765 1.143

Total 885.752 769

Good battery

life

Between

Groups 12.332 4 3.083 3.908 .004

Within

Groups 603.435 765 .789

Total 615.768 769

Brand

ambassador

Between

Groups 14.347 4 3.587 2.579 .036

Within

Groups 1064.048 765 1.391

Total 1078.395 769

Physical

appearance

Between

Groups 3.757 4 .939 1.039 .386

Within

Groups 691.724 765 .904

Total 695.481 769

Utility Between

Groups 12.362 4 3.091 4.609 .001

Within

Groups 513.019 765 .671

Total 525.382 769


Groups 11.056 4 2.764 4.015 .003

Within

Groups 526.653 765 .688

Total 537.709 769

Dual SIM

card

Between

Groups 3.199 4 .800 .808 .520

Within

Groups 757.637 765 .990

Total 760.836 769

3G Between

Groups 13.600 4 3.400 3.453 .008

Within

Groups 753.217 765 .985

Total 766.817 769

Operating

system

Between

Groups .850 4 .212 .609 .657

Within

Groups 267.103 765 .349

Total 267.953 769


for brand choice while Education is considered.

For Education groups the test applied is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The first table

gives mean ratings by different education groups. The second table gives significance. The

last column in second table (Sig.) is P-value. If P<= 0.05 the difference between education

groups is significant.

Thus Brand name, Value for Price, Good battery life, Brand ambassador, Shopkeepers

suggestions, Utility, User friendly and 3G are significant for purchasing decision when

EDUCATION is considered as one of the demographic factors.

6.4 Factors Influencing Switching Decision

6.4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR: GENDER

Reasons for changing current mobile phone - influencing your switching decision

Table 6.4.1

Group Statis tics

Gender N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Mean

Brand name Male 361 2.93 1.246 .066

Female 267 2.86 1.217 .074

No value Male 358 3.01 1.157 .061

Female 265 2.86 1.172 .072

Ref Male 355 2.82 1.030 .055

Female 263 2.86 1.155 .071

Suggestion Male 360 2.54 1.057 .056

Female 262 2.54 1.092 .067

Poor

features

Male 358 3.05 1.236 .065

Female 262 2.91 1.258 .078

Battery Male 359 3.31 1.290 .068

Female 266 3.23 1.282 .079

Brand amb Male 353 2.35 1.172 .062

Female 261 2.27 1.118 .069

Appearance Male 358 2.88 1.233 .065

Female 261 2.81 1.174 .073

Ltd utility Male 355 3.07 1.230 .065

Female 262 3.02 1.187 .073

Small

Display

Male 359 3.13 1.290 .068

Female 266 3.10 1.288 .079

Not user

friendly

Male 356 2.84 1.296 .069

Female 260 2.73 1.188 .074

No Dual

sum

Male 358 2.57 1.274 .067

Female 264 2.51 1.230 .076

for 3G Male 355 2.98 1.269 .067

Female 261 2.84 1.287 .080

O/S Male 355 2.99 1.222 .065

Female 260 2.74 1.271 .079

No ext mem Male 352 2.92 1.262 .067

Female 262 2.74 1.236 .076

No social

net

Male 357 2.84 1.263 .067

Female 261 2.66 1.292 .080

No internet Male 354 2.84 1.230 .065

Female 258 2.63 1.270 .079

No games Male 351 2.61 1.175 .063

Female 263 2.50 1.198 .074

No

multimedia

Male 354 2.77 1.285 .068

Female 258 2.62 1.258 .078

No digicam Male 353 2.85 1.328 .071

Female 258 2.72 1.244 .077

No WAP Male 348 2.66 1.254 .067

Female 262 2.55 1.179 .073

No IM Male 356 2.79 1.323 .070

Female 262 2.69 1.283 .079

Poor App Male 356 2.98 1.262 .067

Female 263 2.90 1.240 .076

No Wifi &

Bluetooth

Male 351 2.89 1.376 .073

Female 261 2.69 1.332 .082

Other Male 112 2.75 1.305 .123

Female 64 2.98 1.291 .161

Source: Survey

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

T do

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Sig. (1-

tailed)

Brand name .696 626 .487 0.2435

No value 1.580 621 .115 0.0575

Ref -.410 526.407 .682 0.341

Suggestion .028 620 .977 0.4885

Poor features 1.364 618 .173 0.0865

Battery .785 623 .433 0.2165

Brand amb .825 612 .410 0.205

Appearance .755 617 .451 0.2255

Ltd utility .559 615 .576 0.288

Small Display .291 623 .771 0.3855

Not user

friendly 1.107 614 .269 0.1345

No Dual sum .574 620 .566 0.283

for 3G 1.293 614 .197 0.0985

O/S 2.439 613 .015 0.0075

No ext mem 1.773 612 .077 0.0385

No social net 1.709 616 .088 0.044

No internet 2.068 610 .039 0.0195

No games 1.145 612 .253 0.1265

No multimedia 1.384 610 .167 0.0835

No digicam 1.217 609 .224 0.112

No WAP 1.113 608 .266 0.133

No IM .900 616 .369 0.1845

Poor App .713 617 .476 0.238

No Wifi &

Bluetooth 1.812 610 .070 0.035

Other -1.151 174 .251 0.1255


for brand switching while gender is considered. The first table gives mean ratings given to

factors by males and females. The second table gives significance of difference. The

significance is tested at 5% LOS. Thus from the second table the researcher came to a

conclusion that the significant factors which leads to brand switching are O/S, No extended

memory, No social net, No internet, No Wi-Fi & Bluetooth when gender is considered as

the demographic factor.

6.4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR: AGE


Table 6.2.4

Discriptive

Age N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Brand

name

18-28 270 2.84 1.223 .074 2.69 2.99

29-39 168 3.10 1.241 .096 2.91 3.29

40-50 148 2.76 1.187 .098 2.56 2.95

51 &

above 35 2.89 1.388 .235 2.41 3.36

Total 621 2.89 1.233 .049 2.80 2.99

No value 18-28 268 2.91 1.172 .072 2.77 3.05

29-39 169 2.95 1.151 .089 2.77 3.12

40-50 145 2.97 1.154 .096 2.78 3.16

51 &

above 34 2.88 1.200 .206 2.46 3.30

Total 616 2.93 1.161 .047 2.84 3.02

Ref 18-28 266 2.81 1.167 .072 2.67 2.95

29-39 164 2.86 1.008 .079 2.70 3.02

40-50 147 2.77 1.021 .084 2.60 2.94

51 &

above 34 3.03 1.058 .182 2.66 3.40

Total 611 2.83 1.085 .044 2.74 2.91

Suggestion 18-28 266 2.47 1.106 .068 2.34 2.61

29-39 167 2.57 1.073 .083 2.40 2.73

40-50 147 2.57 .993 .082 2.41 2.73

51 &

above 35 2.63 1.060 .179 2.26 2.99

Total 615 2.53 1.067 .043 2.45 2.62

Poor

features

18-28 267 2.96 1.277 .078 2.80 3.11

29-39 166 3.07 1.227 .095 2.88 3.25

40-50 145 2.97 1.204 .100 2.77 3.16

51 &

above 35 2.86 1.309 .221 2.41 3.31

Total 613 2.98 1.246 .050 2.88 3.08

Battery 18-28 269 3.28 1.308 .080 3.13 3.44

29-39 165 3.37 1.246 .097 3.18 3.56

40-50 149 3.19 1.272 .104 2.99 3.40

51 &

above 35 3.11 1.388 .235 2.64 3.59

Total 618 3.28 1.287 .052 3.17 3.38

Brand

amb

18-28 264 2.32 1.166 .072 2.18 2.46

29-39 163 2.30 1.177 .092 2.12 2.48

40-50 146 2.30 1.110 .092 2.12 2.48

51 &

above 34 2.29 1.115 .191 1.90 2.68

Total 607 2.31 1.150 .047 2.22 2.40

Appearan

ce

18-28 265 2.85 1.216 .075 2.70 2.99

29-39 166 2.90 1.239 .096 2.71 3.09

40-50 147 2.85 1.149 .095 2.66 3.04

51 &

above 34 2.59 1.158 .199 2.18 2.99

Total 612 2.85 1.203 .049 2.75 2.94

Ltd utility 18-28 268 3.01 1.242 .076 2.86 3.16

29-39 163 3.18 1.151 .090 3.01 3.36

40-50 145 3.01 1.181 .098 2.81 3.20

51 &

above 34 2.79 1.366 .234 2.32 3.27

Total 610 3.04 1.212 .049 2.95 3.14

Small

Display

18-28 269 3.11 1.282 .078 2.96 3.27

29-39 166 3.31 1.259 .098 3.11 3.50

40-50 149 2.95 1.278 .105 2.74 3.15

51 &

above 34 2.82 1.403 .241 2.33 3.31

Total 618 3.11 1.287 .052 3.01 3.21

Not user

friendly

18-28 266 2.78 1.276 .078 2.63 2.94

29-39 165 2.87 1.235 .096 2.68 3.06

40-50 145 2.78 1.199 .100 2.58 2.98

51 &

above 33 2.42 1.251 .218 1.98 2.87

Total 609 2.79 1.246 .050 2.69 2.89

No Dual

sum

18-28 268 2.47 1.276 .078 2.31 2.62

29-39 165 2.73 1.290 .100 2.53 2.93

40-50 147 2.56 1.189 .098 2.36 2.75

51 &

above 35 2.23 1.031 .174 1.87 2.58

Total 615 2.54 1.251 .050 2.45 2.64

for 3G 18-28 264 3.00 1.320 .081 2.84 3.16

29-39 164 2.82 1.264 .099 2.62 3.01

40-50 146 2.90 1.228 .102 2.70 3.10

51 &

above 35 2.86 1.264 .214 2.42 3.29

Total 609 2.92 1.279 .052 2.82 3.02

O/S 18-28 264 2.86 1.242 .076 2.71 3.01

29-39 166 2.91 1.259 .098 2.72 3.10

40-50 144 2.81 1.236 .103 2.60 3.01

51 &

above 34 3.03 1.291 .221 2.58 3.48

Total 608 2.87 1.246 .051 2.77 2.97

No ext

memory

18-28 265 2.75 1.223 .075 2.61 2.90

29-39 165 2.90 1.236 .096 2.71 3.09

40-50 145 2.89 1.308 .109 2.68 3.10

51 &

above 33 2.88 1.409 .245 2.38 3.38

Total 608 2.83 1.256 .051 2.73 2.93

No social

net

18-28 264 2.80 1.300 .080 2.64 2.96

29-39 165 2.69 1.277 .099 2.49 2.89

40-50 147 2.79 1.223 .101 2.59 2.99

51 &

above 35 2.80 1.324 .224 2.35 3.25

Total 611 2.77 1.275 .052 2.67 2.87

No

internet

18-28 263 2.82 1.265 .078 2.66 2.97

29-39 165 2.79 1.295 .101 2.59 2.99

40-50 143 2.66 1.156 .097 2.47 2.86

51 &

above 34 2.47 1.261 .216 2.03 2.91

Total 605 2.76 1.249 .051 2.66 2.86

No games 18-28 265 2.60 1.211 .074 2.46 2.75

29-39 163 2.56 1.233 .097 2.37 2.75

40-50 145 2.54 1.067 .089 2.36 2.71

51 &

above 34 2.41 1.158 .199 2.01 2.82

Total 607 2.57 1.180 .048 2.47 2.66

No multi

media

18-28 263 2.71 1.319 .081 2.55 2.87

29-39 165 2.76 1.306 .102 2.56 2.96

40-50 143 2.72 1.171 .098 2.53 2.91

51 &

above 34 2.41 1.131 .194 2.02 2.81

Total 605 2.71 1.271 .052 2.61 2.81

No

Digicam

18-28 264 2.75 1.290 .079 2.59 2.91

29-39 162 2.86 1.302 .102 2.66 3.07

40-50 144 2.82 1.261 .105 2.61 3.03

51 &

above 34 2.62 1.393 .239 2.13 3.10

Total 604 2.79 1.291 .053 2.69 2.89

No WAP 18-28 265 2.56 1.230 .076 2.41 2.71

29-39 161 2.69 1.276 .101 2.49 2.89

40-50 144 2.62 1.147 .096 2.43 2.81

51 &

above 33 2.73 1.232 .214 2.29 3.16

Total 603 2.62 1.222 .050 2.52 2.71

No IM 18-28 264 2.73 1.332 .082 2.57 2.89

29-39 166 2.78 1.323 .103 2.57 2.98

40-50 146 2.78 1.246 .103 2.58 2.98

51 &

above 35 2.63 1.308 .221 2.18 3.08

Total 611 2.75 1.305 .053 2.64 2.85

Poor App 18-28 266 2.92 1.258 .077 2.77 3.07

29-39 165 3.05 1.231 .096 2.87 3.24

40-50 146 2.90 1.250 .103 2.70 3.11

51 &

above 35 2.74 1.336 .226 2.28 3.20

Total 612 2.94 1.253 .051 2.84 3.04

No Wifi & 18-28 265 2.73 1.393 .086 2.56 2.90

Bluetooth

29-39 161 2.94 1.336 .105 2.73 3.15

40-50 144 2.84 1.331 .111 2.62 3.06

51 &

above 35 2.66 1.371 .232 2.19 3.13

Total 605 2.81 1.362 .055 2.70 2.92

Other 18-28 80 2.75 1.317 .147 2.46 3.04

29-39 51 2.96 1.371 .192 2.58 3.35

40-50 35 2.97 1.175 .199 2.57 3.38

51 &

above 7 2.14 1.069 .404 1.15 3.13

Total 173 2.83 1.299 .099 2.64 3.03

Source: Survey

ANOVA

Sum of

Squares do

Mean

Square F Sig.

Brand name Between Groups 10.768 3 3.589 2.376 .069

Within Groups 932.218 617 1.511

Total 942.986 620

No value Between Groups .529 3 .176 .130 .942

Within Groups 828.608 612 1.354

Total 829.136 615

Ref Between Groups 2.128 3 .709 .602 .614

Within Groups 715.483 607 1.179

Total 717.610 610

Suggestion Between Groups 1.686 3 .562 .492 .688

Within Groups 697.445 611 1.141

Total 699.132 614

Poor

features

Between Groups 1.958 3 .653 .419 .740

Within Groups 948.845 609 1.558

Total 950.803 612

Battery Between Groups 3.361 3 1.120 .676 .567

Within Groups 1017.875 614 1.658

Total 1021.236 617

Brand amb Between Groups .049 3 .016 .012 .998

Within Groups 801.341 603 1.329

Total 801.390 606

Appearance Between Groups 2.704 3 .901 .622 .601

Within Groups 880.858 608 1.449

Total 883.562 611

Ltd utility Between Groups 5.876 3 1.959 1.335 .262

Within Groups 889.016 606 1.467

Total 894.892 609

Small

Display

Between Groups 13.239 3 4.413 2.687 .046

Within Groups 1008.497 614 1.643

Total 1021.736 617

Not user

friendly

Between Groups 5.570 3 1.857 1.197 .310

Within Groups 938.679 605 1.552

Total 944.250 608

No Dual

sum

Between Groups 10.665 3 3.555 2.287 .078

Within Groups 949.855 611 1.555

Total 960.520 614

for 3G Between Groups 3.602 3 1.201 .733 .533

Within Groups 991.455 605 1.639

Total 995.057 608

O/S Between Groups 1.750 3 .583 .374 .771

Within Groups 940.985 604 1.558

Total 942.735 607

No ext mem Between Groups 2.967 3 .989 .625 .599

Within Groups 955.255 604 1.582

Total 958.222 607

No social

net

Between Groups 1.340 3 .447 .274 .844

Within Groups 989.659 607 1.630

Total 990.998 610

No internet Between Groups 5.203 3 1.734 1.113 .343

Within Groups 936.592 601 1.558

Total 941.795 604

No games Between Groups 1.310 3 .437 .313 .816

Within Groups 841.869 603 1.396

Total 843.180 606

No

multimedia

Between Groups 3.517 3 1.172 .724 .538

Within Groups 972.440 601 1.618

Total 975.957 604

No digicam Between Groups 2.449 3 .816 .489 .690

Within Groups 1001.847 600 1.670

Total 1004.296 603

No WAP Between Groups 2.154 3 .718 .480 .697

Within Groups 896.354 599 1.496

Total 898.507 602

No IM Between Groups .911 3 .304 .177 .912

Within Groups 1038.274 607 1.711

Total 1039.185 610

Poor App Between Groups 3.804 3 1.268 .807 .490

Within Groups 955.194 608 1.571

Total 958.998 611

No Wifi &

Bluetooth

Between Groups 5.345 3 1.782 .960 .411

Within Groups 1115.029 601 1.855

Total 1120.374 604

Other Between Groups 5.389 3 1.796 1.066 .365

Within Groups 284.750 169 1.685

Total 290.139 172


for brand switching while age is considered. For age groups the test applied is Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA). The first table gives mean ratings by different age groups. The second

table gives significance. The last column in second table (Sig.) is P-value. If P<= 0.05 the

difference between age groups is significant in brand switching. Since p= 0.046 < 0.05 for

Small Display, thus Small Display is significant for brand switching when age is considered

as demographic factor.

6.4.3 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR: OCCUPATION


Table 6.4.3

Discriptive

Occupation N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95%

Confidence

Interval for

Mean

Lower

Boun

d

Upper

Boun

d

Brand name Service 137 2.88 1.245 .106 2.67 3.09

Business 116 2.98 1.251 .116 2.75 3.21

Professional 114 2.92 1.198 .112 2.70 3.14

Student 139 2.81 1.219 .103 2.61 3.02

Housewife 122 2.93 1.265 .114 2.71 3.16

Total 628 2.90 1.233 .049 2.80 3.00

No value Service 136 3.01 1.186 .102 2.81 3.22

Business 116 3.03 1.233 .115 2.80 3.25

Professional 111 2.83 1.078 .102 2.63 3.03

Student 138 2.92 1.153 .098 2.73 3.11

Housewife 122 2.91 1.171 .106 2.70 3.12

Total 623 2.94 1.165 .047 2.85 3.03

Ref Service 134 2.96 1.100 .095 2.77 3.15

Business 115 2.90 .986 .092 2.71 3.08

Professional 112 2.81 .991 .094 2.63 3.00

Student 137 2.66 1.166 .100 2.46 2.85

Housewife 120 2.88 1.134 .104 2.67 3.08

Total 618 2.84 1.085 .044 2.75 2.92

Suggestion Service 137 2.67 1.125 .096 2.48 2.86

Business 116 2.63 .965 .090 2.45 2.81

Professional 112 2.53 .958 .091 2.35 2.71

Student 137 2.36 1.117 .095 2.18 2.55

Housewife 120 2.53 1.137 .104 2.33 2.74

Total 622 2.54 1.071 .043 2.46 2.63

Poor

features

Service 136 3.04 1.256 .108 2.82 3.25

Business 115 3.03 1.213 .113 2.81 3.26

Professional 113 3.09 1.214 .114 2.86 3.31

Student 138 2.90 1.280 .109 2.68 3.11

Housewife 118 2.92 1.265 .116 2.68 3.15

Total 620 2.99 1.246 .050 2.89 3.09

Battery Service 135 3.35 1.329 .114 3.12 3.57

Business 118 3.31 1.245 .115 3.09 3.54

Professional 113 3.13 1.271 .120 2.90 3.37

Student 138 3.30 1.275 .109 3.08 3.51

Housewife 121 3.29 1.313 .119 3.05 3.53

Total 625 3.28 1.286 .051 3.18 3.38

Brand amb Service 135 2.41 1.224 .105 2.21 2.62

Business 112 2.35 1.105 .104 2.14 2.56

Professional 112 2.28 1.092 .103 2.07 2.48

Student 137 2.26 1.152 .098 2.07 2.46

Housewife 118 2.25 1.163 .107 2.04 2.47

Total 614 2.31 1.149 .046 2.22 2.40

Appearance Service 135 2.83 1.213 .104 2.62 3.04

Business 116 2.91 1.241 .115 2.69 3.14

Professional 113 2.84 1.146 .108 2.63 3.05

Student 136 2.76 1.255 .108 2.55 2.98

Housewife 119 2.92 1.187 .109 2.71 3.14

Total 619 2.85 1.208 .049 2.76 2.95

Ltd utility Service 135 3.02 1.187 .102 2.82 3.22

Business 113 3.14 1.224 .115 2.91 3.37

Professional 113 3.10 1.180 .111 2.88 3.32

Student 137 2.91 1.271 .109 2.69 3.12

Housewife 119 3.10 1.189 .109 2.89 3.32

Total 617 3.05 1.211 .049 2.95 3.14

Small

Display

Service 137 3.11 1.241 .106 2.90 3.32

Business 116 3.05 1.324 .123 2.81 3.30

Professional 115 3.36 1.244 .116 3.13 3.59

Student 137 2.94 1.333 .114 2.72 3.17

Housewife 120 3.15 1.281 .117 2.92 3.38

Total 625 3.12 1.288 .052 3.01 3.22

Not user

friendly

Service 136 2.88 1.238 .106 2.67 3.08

Business 114 2.93 1.302 .122 2.69 3.17

Professional 112 2.84 1.270 .120 2.60 3.08

Student 136 2.63 1.288 .110 2.41 2.84

Housewife 118 2.71 1.148 .106 2.50 2.92

Total 616 2.79 1.252 .050 2.69 2.89

No Dual

sum

Service 137 2.85 1.260 .108 2.63 3.06

Business 116 2.64 1.281 .119 2.40 2.87

Professional 112 2.46 1.114 .105 2.26 2.67

Student 137 2.15 1.222 .104 1.94 2.35

Housewife 120 2.64 1.282 .117 2.41 2.87

Total 622 2.55 1.255 .050 2.45 2.64

for 3G Service 135 2.99 1.258 .108 2.77 3.20

Business 116 3.10 1.288 .120 2.87 3.34

Professional 114 2.89 1.185 .111 2.67 3.11

Student 133 2.88 1.376 .119 2.64 3.12

Housewife 118 2.74 1.250 .115 2.51 2.97

Total 616 2.92 1.277 .051 2.82 3.02

O/S Service 136 2.89 1.239 .106 2.68 3.10

Business 115 3.14 1.235 .115 2.91 3.37

Professional 112 2.84 1.270 .120 2.60 3.08

Student 136 2.83 1.208 .104 2.63 3.04

Housewife 116 2.72 1.277 .119 2.48 2.95

Total 615 2.88 1.248 .050 2.78 2.98

No ext mem Service 134 2.99 1.265 .109 2.78 3.21

Business 114 3.03 1.327 .124 2.78 3.27

Professional 112 2.94 1.195 .113 2.71 3.16

Student 136 2.59 1.195 .103 2.39 2.79

Housewife 118 2.69 1.238 .114 2.46 2.91

Total 614 2.84 1.253 .051 2.74 2.94

No social

net

Service 136 2.84 1.295 .111 2.62 3.06

Business 117 2.88 1.261 .117 2.65 3.11

Professional 112 2.84 1.249 .118 2.61 3.07

Student 135 2.64 1.307 .112 2.42 2.87

Housewife 118 2.64 1.265 .116 2.40 2.87

Total 618 2.77 1.278 .051 2.66 2.87

No internet Service 135 2.81 1.198 .103 2.61 3.02

Business 116 2.88 1.259 .117 2.65 3.11

Professional 112 2.79 1.288 .122 2.55 3.04

Student 133 2.74 1.295 .112 2.52 2.97

Housewife 116 2.51 1.198 .111 2.29 2.73

Total 612 2.75 1.250 .051 2.65 2.85

No games Service 133 2.69 1.188 .103 2.49 2.90

Business 116 2.74 1.128 .105 2.53 2.95

Professional 110 2.55 1.201 .115 2.32 2.77

Student 136 2.46 1.235 .106 2.25 2.67

Housewife 119 2.39 1.143 .105 2.18 2.59

Total 614 2.57 1.185 .048 2.47 2.66

No

multimedia

Service 136 2.90 1.313 .113 2.67 3.12

Business 115 2.80 1.208 .113 2.58 3.02

Professional 112 2.61 1.247 .118 2.37 2.84

Student 134 2.65 1.361 .118 2.42 2.88

Housewife 115 2.56 1.201 .112 2.33 2.78

Total 612 2.71 1.275 .052 2.61 2.81

No digicam Service 134 2.84 1.308 .113 2.62 3.07

Business 114 2.92 1.338 .125 2.67 3.17

Professional 111 2.81 1.297 .123 2.57 3.05

Student 136 2.71 1.312 .112 2.48 2.93

Housewife 116 2.71 1.216 .113 2.48 2.93

Total 611 2.80 1.294 .052 2.69 2.90

No WAP Service 135 2.65 1.266 .109 2.44 2.87

Business 113 2.88 1.237 .116 2.65 3.12

Professional 109 2.57 1.181 .113 2.34 2.79

Student 135 2.42 1.225 .105 2.21 2.63

Housewife 118 2.57 1.166 .107 2.36 2.78

Total 610 2.61 1.223 .050 2.52 2.71

No IM Service 136 2.81 1.297 .111 2.59 3.03

Business 118 2.96 1.310 .121 2.72 3.20

Professional 113 2.60 1.257 .118 2.37 2.84

Student 134 2.59 1.333 .115 2.36 2.82

Housewife 117 2.78 1.314 .121 2.54 3.02

Total 618 2.75 1.306 .053 2.64 2.85

Poor App Service 136 3.01 1.202 .103 2.80 3.21

Business 115 3.09 1.315 .123 2.84 3.33

Professional 112 2.83 1.215 .115 2.60 3.06

Student 137 2.80 1.265 .108 2.59 3.02

Housewife 119 3.02 1.262 .116 2.79 3.25

Total 619 2.95 1.252 .050 2.85 3.05

No Wifi &

Bluetooth

Service 133 2.98 1.323 .115 2.75 3.20

Business 113 2.94 1.397 .131 2.68 3.20

Professional 111 2.75 1.352 .128 2.49 3.00

Student 136 2.62 1.420 .122 2.38 2.86

Housewife 119 2.77 1.292 .118 2.54 3.01

Total 612 2.81 1.360 .055 2.70 2.92

Other Service 50 2.92 1.291 .183 2.55 3.29

Business 39 2.54 1.189 .190 2.15 2.92

Professional 25 3.12 1.364 .273 2.56 3.68

Student 36 2.50 1.320 .220 2.05 2.95

Housewife 26 3.31 1.258 .247 2.80 3.82

Total 176 2.84 1.301 .098 2.64 3.03

Source: Survey

ANOVA

Sum of

Squares Df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Brand name Between

Groups 2.121 4 .530 .347 .846

Within Groups 951.758 623 1.528

Total 953.879 627

No value Between

Groups 3.148 4 .787 .578 .678

Within Groups 840.772 618 1.360

Total 843.920 622

Ref Between

Groups 7.194 4 1.799 1.534 .191

Within Groups 718.625 613 1.172

Total 725.819 617

Suggestion Between

Groups 7.511 4 1.878 1.644 .162

Within Groups 704.817 617 1.142

Total 712.328 621

Poor

features

Between

Groups 3.435 4 .859 .552 .698

Within Groups 957.524 615 1.557

Total 960.960 619

Battery Between

Groups 3.261 4 .815 .491 .742

Within Groups 1028.739 620 1.659

Total 1032.000 624

Brand amb Between

Groups 2.438 4 .610 .460 .765

Within Groups 807.523 609 1.326

Total 809.961 613

Appearance Between

Groups 2.184 4 .546 .372 .828

Within Groups 900.142 614 1.466

Total 902.326 618

Ltd utility Between

Groups 4.484 4 1.121 .763 .550

Within Groups 899.153 612 1.469

Total 903.637 616

Small

Display

Between

Groups 11.443 4 2.861 1.732 .141

Within Groups 1024.263 620 1.652

Total 1035.706 624

Not user

friendly

Between

Groups 7.903 4 1.976 1.263 .283

Within Groups 955.499 611 1.564

Total 963.403 615

No Dual

sum

Between

Groups 37.136 4 9.284 6.087 .000

Within Groups 941.103 617 1.525

Total 978.240 621

for 3G Between

Groups 8.705 4 2.176 1.337 .255

Within Groups 994.397 611 1.627

Total 1003.102 615

O/S Between

Groups 11.386 4 2.846 1.838 .120

Within Groups 944.949 610 1.549

Total 956.335 614

No ext mem Between

Groups 19.543 4 4.886 3.156 .014

Within Groups 942.816 609 1.548

Total 962.358 613

No social

net

Between

Groups 6.842 4 1.711 1.048 .381

Within Groups 1000.137 613 1.632

Total 1006.979 617

No internet Between

Groups 9.493 4 2.373 1.524 .194

Within Groups 945.257 607 1.557

Total 954.750 611

No games Between

Groups 10.984 4 2.746 1.968 .098

Within Groups 849.910 609 1.396

Total 860.894 613

No

multimedia

Between

Groups 10.075 4 2.519 1.556 .185

Within Groups 982.571 607 1.619

Total 992.645 611

No digicam Between

Groups 4.132 4 1.033 .615 .652

Within Groups 1017.295 606 1.679

Total 1021.427 610

No WAP Between

Groups 13.929 4 3.482 2.349 .053

Within Groups 896.766 605 1.482

Total 910.695 609

No IM Between

Groups 11.570 4 2.893 1.702 .148

Within Groups 1041.545 613 1.699

Total 1053.115 617

Poor App Between

Groups 7.696 4 1.924 1.229 .297

Within Groups 961.545 614 1.566

Total 969.241 618

No Wifi &

Bluetooth

Between

Groups 11.205 4 2.801 1.519 .195

Within Groups 1119.427 607 1.844

Total 1130.632 611

Other Between

Groups 15.671 4 3.918 2.388 .053

Within Groups 280.551 171 1.641

Total 296.222 175


for brand switching while Occupation is considered. For occupation groups the test applied

is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The first table gives mean ratings by different

Occupation groups. The second table gives significance. The last column in second table

(Sig.) is P-value. If P<= 0.05 the difference between occupation groups is significant in

brand switching. Since p value for No Dual Sims and no extended memory < 0.05 thus

researcher concludes that No Dual Sims and no extended memory are significant factors

for brand switching when occupation is considered.

6.4.4 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR: INCOME


Table 6.4.4

Descriptive

Income N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Brand

name

Dependent 228 2.83 1.234 .082 2.67 2.99

Up to 20,000 99 2.95 1.240 .125 2.70 3.20

20,001-40,000 98 2.96 1.276 .129 2.70 3.21

40,001-60,000 76 3.05 1.285 .147 2.76 3.35

Above 60,000 108 2.90 1.160 .112 2.68 3.12

Total 609 2.91 1.234 .050 2.81 3.01

No value Dependent 227 2.90 1.169 .078 2.75 3.05

Up to 20,000 99 3.01 1.138 .114 2.78 3.24

20,001-40,000 97 2.92 1.256 .127 2.66 3.17

40,001-60,000 76 3.04 1.148 .132 2.78 3.30

Above 60,000 105 2.93 1.154 .113 2.71 3.16

Total 604 2.94 1.170 .048 2.85 3.04

Ref Dependent 224 2.75 1.168 .078 2.60 2.90

Up to 20,000 97 2.97 1.035 .105 2.76 3.18

20,001-40,000 96 3.00 1.036 .106 2.79 3.21

40,001-60,000 75 2.73 1.070 .124 2.49 2.98

Above 60,000 107 2.85 1.008 .097 2.66 3.04

Total 599 2.84 1.088 .044 2.75 2.93

Suggestion Dependent 225 2.47 1.138 .076 2.32 2.62

Up to 20,000 98 2.55 1.104 .112 2.33 2.77

20,001-40,000 97 2.68 1.076 .109 2.46 2.90

40,001-60,000 76 2.49 1.000 .115 2.26 2.72

Above 60,000 108 2.61 .946 .091 2.43 2.79

Total 604 2.54 1.073 .044 2.46 2.63

Poor

features

Dependent 223 2.90 1.264 .085 2.73 3.06

Up to 20,000 98 2.94 1.242 .125 2.69 3.19

20,001-40,000 98 3.13 1.181 .119 2.90 3.37

40,001-60,000 74 2.86 1.253 .146 2.57 3.16

Above 60,000 108 3.17 1.257 .121 2.93 3.41

Total 601 2.99 1.246 .051 2.89 3.09

Battery Dependent 226 3.28 1.302 .087 3.11 3.45

Up to 20,000 98 3.24 1.378 .139 2.97 3.52

20,001-40,000 96 3.36 1.162 .119 3.13 3.60

40,001-60,000 75 3.00 1.230 .142 2.72 3.28

Above 60,000 111 3.38 1.328 .126 3.13 3.63

Total 606 3.27 1.291 .052 3.17 3.37

Brand amb Dependent 222 2.27 1.156 .078 2.11 2.42

Up to 20,000 97 2.37 1.261 .128 2.12 2.63

20,001-40,000 97 2.41 1.068 .108 2.20 2.63

40,001-60,000 74 2.18 1.139 .132 1.91 2.44

Above 60,000 105 2.39 1.114 .109 2.17 2.61

Total 595 2.32 1.150 .047 2.23 2.41

Appearanc

e

Dependent 222 2.84 1.232 .083 2.68 3.01

Up to 20,000 98 2.85 1.221 .123 2.60 3.09

20,001-40,000 98 3.00 1.227 .124 2.75 3.25

40,001-60,000 76 2.63 1.141 .131 2.37 2.89

Above 60,000 106 2.89 1.190 .116 2.66 3.12

Total 600 2.85 1.211 .049 2.75 2.95

Ltd utility Dependent 223 2.97 1.193 .080 2.82 3.13

Up to 20,000 99 3.06 1.185 .119 2.82 3.30

20,001-40,000 96 3.18 1.196 .122 2.93 3.42

40,001-60,000 74 2.91 1.241 .144 2.62 3.19

Above 60,000 106 3.12 1.255 .122 2.88 3.36

Total 598 3.04 1.209 .049 2.94 3.14

Small

Display

Dependent 224 2.97 1.303 .087 2.80 3.14

Up to 20,000 99 3.18 1.312 .132 2.92 3.44

20,001-40,000 99 3.35 1.163 .117 3.12 3.59

40,001-60,000 76 2.91 1.298 .149 2.61 3.20

Above 60,000 108 3.23 1.323 .127 2.98 3.48

Total 606 3.11 1.292 .052 3.00 3.21

Not user

friendly

Dependent 221 2.64 1.219 .082 2.48 2.80

Up to 20,000 98 2.83 1.316 .133 2.56 3.09

20,001-40,000 96 2.93 1.207 .123 2.68 3.17

40,001-60,000 75 2.88 1.304 .151 2.58 3.18

Above 60,000 107 2.85 1.250 .121 2.61 3.09

Total 597 2.78 1.251 .051 2.68 2.88

No Dual

sum

Dependent 224 2.37 1.271 .085 2.20 2.53

Up to 20,000 99 2.89 1.324 .133 2.62 3.15

20,001-40,000 96 2.73 1.252 .128 2.48 2.98

40,001-60,000 76 2.49 1.160 .133 2.22 2.75

Above 60,000 108 2.53 1.203 .116 2.30 2.76

Total 603 2.55 1.262 .051 2.45 2.65

for 3G Dependent 218 2.84 1.314 .089 2.67 3.02

Up to 20,000 97 3.01 1.319 .134 2.74 3.28

20,001-40,000 98 2.99 1.180 .119 2.75 3.23

40,001-60,000 76 2.87 1.310 .150 2.57 3.17

Above 60,000 108 2.99 1.204 .116 2.76 3.22

Total 597 2.92 1.272 .052 2.82 3.03

O/S Dependent 220 2.83 1.238 .083 2.66 2.99

Up to 20,000 98 2.83 1.252 .126 2.58 3.08

20,001-40,000 97 2.90 1.220 .124 2.65 3.14

40,001-60,000 74 2.95 1.270 .148 2.65 3.24

Above 60,000 107 3.02 1.274 .123 2.77 3.26

Total 596 2.89 1.246 .051 2.79 2.99

No ext

mem

Dependent 221 2.64 1.223 .082 2.48 2.80

Up to 20,000 97 2.81 1.228 .125 2.57 3.06

20,001-40,000 95 3.15 1.255 .129 2.89 3.40

40,001-60,000 75 2.80 1.219 .141 2.52 3.08

Above 60,000 107 3.04 1.303 .126 2.79 3.29

Total 595 2.84 1.254 .051 2.74 2.94

No social

net

Dependent 220 2.65 1.292 .087 2.48 2.83

Up to 20,000 98 2.74 1.254 .127 2.49 3.00

20,001-40,000 96 2.93 1.300 .133 2.66 3.19

40,001-60,000 76 2.70 1.255 .144 2.41 2.98

Above 60,000 109 2.91 1.273 .122 2.67 3.15

Total 599 2.76 1.280 .052 2.66 2.87

No internet Dependent 216 2.65 1.271 .086 2.48 2.82

Up to 20,000 98 2.80 1.166 .118 2.56 3.03

20,001-40,000 95 2.93 1.290 .132 2.66 3.19

40,001-60,000 76 2.68 1.257 .144 2.40 2.97

Above 60,000 108 2.81 1.279 .123 2.56 3.05

Total 593 2.75 1.257 .052 2.65 2.85

No games Dependent 222 2.43 1.196 .080 2.27 2.59

Up to 20,000 97 2.59 1.197 .122 2.35 2.83

20,001-40,000 94 2.76 1.206 .124 2.51 3.00

40,001-60,000 76 2.62 1.188 .136 2.35 2.89

Above 60,000 107 2.57 1.125 .109 2.35 2.79

Total 596 2.56 1.186 .049 2.46 2.65

No

multimedia

Dependent 217 2.60 1.284 .087 2.43 2.77

Up to 20,000 97 2.72 1.344 .136 2.45 2.99

20,001-40,000 96 2.84 1.308 .134 2.58 3.11

40,001-60,000 75 2.72 1.214 .140 2.44 3.00

Above 60,000 108 2.73 1.197 .115 2.50 2.96

Total 593 2.70 1.273 .052 2.60 2.80

No digicam Dependent 220 2.72 1.286 .087 2.55 2.89

Up to 20,000 98 2.71 1.300 .131 2.45 2.97

20,001-40,000 94 3.03 1.307 .135 2.76 3.30

40,001-60,000 75 2.73 1.256 .145 2.44 3.02

Above 60,000 106 2.81 1.339 .130 2.55 3.07

Total 593 2.79 1.298 .053 2.68 2.89

No WAP Dependent 220 2.49 1.184 .080 2.33 2.65

Up to 20,000 97 2.54 1.182 .120 2.30 2.77

20,001-40,000 94 2.76 1.365 .141 2.48 3.03

40,001-60,000 74 2.73 1.185 .138 2.46 3.00

Above 60,000 106 2.72 1.225 .119 2.48 2.95

Total 591 2.61 1.223 .050 2.51 2.71

No IM Dependent 218 2.64 1.337 .091 2.46 2.82

Up to 20,000 98 2.80 1.218 .123 2.55 3.04

20,001-40,000 96 2.75 1.353 .138 2.48 3.02

40,001-60,000 76 2.78 1.302 .149 2.48 3.07

Above 60,000 111 2.86 1.313 .125 2.61 3.10

Total 599 2.74 1.310 .054 2.64 2.85

Poor App Dependent 223 2.89 1.252 .084 2.72 3.05

Up to 20,000 98 2.83 1.193 .121 2.59 3.07

20,001-40,000 95 2.97 1.224 .126 2.72 3.22

40,001-60,000 76 3.14 1.324 .152 2.84 3.45

Above 60,000 108 2.99 1.293 .124 2.74 3.24

Total 600 2.94 1.255 .051 2.84 3.04

No Wifi &

Bluetooth

Dependent 222 2.67 1.374 .092 2.49 2.85

Up to 20,000 97 2.81 1.357 .138 2.54 3.09

20,001-40,000 94 2.82 1.383 .143 2.54 3.10

40,001-60,000 75 3.01 1.236 .143 2.73 3.30

Above 60,000 105 2.87 1.394 .136 2.60 3.14

Total 593 2.80 1.360 .056 2.69 2.91

Other Dependent 53 2.83 1.369 .188 2.45 3.21

Up to 20,000 39 2.62 1.161 .186 2.24 2.99

20,001-40,000 29 3.10 1.263 .235 2.62 3.58

40,001-60,000 29 3.10 1.448 .269 2.55 3.65

Above 60,000 22 2.64 1.177 .251 2.11 3.16

Total 172 2.85 1.298 .099 2.65 3.04

Source: Survey

ANOVA

Sum of

Squares do

Mean

Square F Sig.

Brand name Between Groups 3.292 4 .823 .539 .707

Within Groups 921.920 604 1.526

Total 925.212 608

No value Between Groups 1.671 4 .418 .304 .876

Within Groups 824.415 599 1.376

Total 826.086 603

Ref Between Groups 6.752 4 1.688 1.430 .223

Within Groups 701.181 594 1.180

Total 707.933 598

Suggestion Between Groups 3.740 4 .935 .812 .518

Within Groups 690.053 599 1.152

Total 693.793 603

Poor features Between Groups 8.709 4 2.177 1.406 .231

Within Groups 923.185 596 1.549

Total 931.894 600

Battery Between Groups 7.709 4 1.927 1.158 .328

Within Groups 999.908 601 1.664

Total 1007.617 605

Brand amb Between Groups 3.794 4 .948 .716 .581

Within Groups 781.171 590 1.324

Total 784.965 594

Appearance Between Groups 5.988 4 1.497 1.021 .396

Within Groups 872.512 595 1.466

Total 878.500 599

Ltd utility Between Groups 4.907 4 1.227 .839 .501

Within Groups 867.208 593 1.462

Total 872.115 597

Small Display Between Groups 15.538 4 3.884 2.349 .053

Within Groups 993.703 601 1.653

Total 1009.241 605

Not user

friendly

Between Groups 8.017 4 2.004 1.283 .276

Within Groups 925.109 592 1.563

Total 933.126 596

No Dual sum Between Groups 22.377 4 5.594 3.572 .007

Within Groups 936.622 598 1.566

Total 958.998 602

for 3G Between Groups 3.256 4 .814 .502 .734

Within Groups 960.352 592 1.622

Total 963.608 596

O/S Between Groups 3.265 4 .816 .524 .718

Within Groups 920.203 591 1.557

Total 923.468 595

No ext mem Between Groups 22.344 4 5.586 3.616 .006

Within Groups 911.488 590 1.545

Total 933.832 594

No social net Between Groups 7.830 4 1.958 1.196 .311

Within Groups 971.980 594 1.636

Total 979.810 598

No internet Between Groups 6.063 4 1.516 .959 .429

Within Groups 929.000 588 1.580

Total 935.062 592

No games Between Groups 7.790 4 1.947 1.388 .237

Within Groups 829.383 591 1.403

Total 837.173 595

No multimedia Between Groups 4.374 4 1.094 .674 .610

Within Groups 954.594 588 1.623

Total 958.968 592

No digicam Between Groups 7.344 4 1.836 1.091 .360

Within Groups 989.884 588 1.683

Total 997.228 592

No WAP Between Groups 7.909 4 1.977 1.325 .259

Within Groups 874.582 586 1.492

Total 882.491 590

No IM Between Groups 3.990 4 .998 .579 .678

Within Groups 1022.901 594 1.722

Total 1026.891 598

Poor App Between Groups 5.406 4 1.352 .858 .489

Within Groups 937.552 595 1.576

Total 942.958 599

No Wifi &

Bluetooth

Between Groups 7.609 4 1.902 1.029 .391

Within Groups 1086.701 588 1.848

Total 1094.310 592

Other Between Groups 6.897 4 1.724 1.024 .396

Within Groups 281.173 167 1.684

Total 288.070 171


for brand switching while Income is considered.

For income groups the test applied is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The first table gives

mean ratings by different age groups. The second table gives significance. The last column

in second table (Sig.) is P-value. If P<= 0.05 the difference between income groups is

significant in brand switching.

Since p value for No Dual Sims and no extended memory < 0.05 thus the researcher

concludes that No Dual Sims and no extended memory are significant factors for brand

switching when Income is considered as demographic factors.

6.4.4 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR: EDUCATION


Table 6.4.5

Descriptive

Education N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Brand

name

Up to 10th 70 2.77 1.119 .134 2.50 3.04

Up to 12th 129 2.95 1.207 .106 2.74 3.16

Graduate 38 2.66 1.236 .201 2.25 3.06

Post

Graduate 248 2.92 1.260 .080 2.76 3.08

Other Quail 124 2.96 1.271 .114 2.73 3.19

Total 609 2.90 1.233 .050 2.80 3.00

No value Up to 10th 70 2.93 1.081 .129 2.67 3.19

Up to 12th 129 2.96 1.182 .104 2.76 3.17

Graduate 38 2.89 1.203 .195 2.50 3.29

Post

Graduate 246 2.97 1.169 .075 2.82 3.12

Other Quail 121 2.89 1.196 .109 2.68 3.11

Total 604 2.94 1.166 .047 2.85 3.04

Ref Up to 10th 69 2.71 .909 .109 2.49 2.93

Up to 12th 128 2.73 1.126 .100 2.54 2.93

Graduate 37 2.59 1.092 .180 2.23 2.96

Post

Graduate 243 2.87 1.089 .070 2.73 3.01

Other Quail 122 2.99 1.102 .100 2.79 3.19

Total 599 2.83 1.083 .044 2.74 2.92

Suggestion Up to 10th 70 2.56 1.030 .123 2.31 2.80

Up to 12th 128 2.49 1.079 .095 2.30 2.68

Graduate 37 2.27 .962 .158 1.95 2.59

Post

Graduate 246 2.56 1.141 .073 2.41 2.70

Other Quail 122 2.64 .971 .088 2.47 2.81

Total 603 2.54 1.072 .044 2.46 2.63

Poor

features

Up to 10th 69 2.94 1.235 .149 2.65 3.24

Up to 12th 127 2.94 1.271 .113 2.71 3.16

Graduate 37 2.95 1.104 .182 2.58 3.31

Post

Graduate 245 2.97 1.269 .081 2.81 3.13

Other Quail 123 3.08 1.252 .113 2.86 3.30

Total 601 2.98 1.250 .051 2.88 3.08

Battery Up to 10th 69 3.30 1.287 .155 3.00 3.61

Up to 12th 128 3.23 1.233 .109 3.02 3.45

Graduate 37 3.70 1.077 .177 3.34 4.06

Post

Graduate 249 3.23 1.327 .084 3.07 3.40

Other Quail 123 3.27 1.331 .120 3.03 3.51

Total 606 3.28 1.290 .052 3.17 3.38

Brand amb Up to 10th 69 2.26 1.133 .136 1.99 2.53

Up to 12th 128 2.39 1.172 .104 2.19 2.60

Graduate 36 2.17 1.108 .185 1.79 2.54

Post

Graduate 240 2.25 1.125 .073 2.10 2.39

Other Quail 122 2.37 1.180 .107 2.16 2.58

Total 595 2.30 1.145 .047 2.21 2.39

Appearanc

e

Up to 10th 70 3.00 1.216 .145 2.71 3.29

Up to 12th 126 2.87 1.220 .109 2.66 3.09

Graduate 37 2.86 1.206 .198 2.46 3.27

Post

Graduate 245 2.77 1.200 .077 2.62 2.92

Other Quail 122 2.84 1.233 .112 2.62 3.07

Total 600 2.84 1.211 .049 2.74 2.94

Ltd utility Up to 10th 70 3.10 1.169 .140 2.82 3.38

Up to 12th 127 3.07 1.183 .105 2.86 3.28

Graduate 36 3.06 1.194 .199 2.65 3.46

Post

Graduate 243 2.99 1.216 .078 2.84 3.15

Other Quail 122 3.05 1.265 .115 2.82 3.28

Total 598 3.04 1.209 .049 2.94 3.13

Small

Display

Up to 10th 70 3.09 1.189 .142 2.80 3.37

Up to 12th 127 3.06 1.311 .116 2.82 3.29

Graduate 37 3.00 1.202 .198 2.60 3.40

Post 248 3.12 1.317 .084 2.96 3.29

Graduate

Other Quail 124 3.15 1.344 .121 2.91 3.39

Total 606 3.10 1.297 .053 3.00 3.21

Not user

friendly

Up to 10th 70 2.63 1.119 .134 2.36 2.90

Up to 12th 124 2.72 1.213 .109 2.50 2.93

Graduate 37 2.70 1.244 .205 2.29 3.12

Post

Graduate 243 2.86 1.322 .085 2.69 3.03

Other Quail 123 2.80 1.206 .109 2.59 3.02

Total 597 2.78 1.248 .051 2.68 2.88

No Dual

sum

Up to 10th 70 2.53 1.224 .146 2.24 2.82

Up to 12th 128 2.49 1.261 .111 2.27 2.71

Graduate 37 2.41 1.363 .224 1.95 2.86

Post

Graduate 246 2.57 1.269 .081 2.41 2.73

Other Quail 122 2.52 1.221 .111 2.31 2.74

Total 603 2.53 1.255 .051 2.43 2.63

for 3G Up to 10th 70 2.67 1.213 .145 2.38 2.96

Up to 12th 125 2.95 1.319 .118 2.72 3.19

Graduate 36 2.58 1.180 .197 2.18 2.98

Post

Graduate 243 3.02 1.258 .081 2.86 3.18

Other Quail 123 2.91 1.318 .119 2.68 3.15

Total 597 2.92 1.277 .052 2.81 3.02

O/S Up to 10th 69 2.68 1.131 .136 2.41 2.95

Up to 12th 127 2.92 1.179 .105 2.71 3.13

Graduate 37 2.57 1.259 .207 2.15 2.99

Post

Graduate 241 2.94 1.286 .083 2.78 3.11

Other Quail 122 2.90 1.301 .118 2.67 3.13

Total 596 2.88 1.249 .051 2.78 2.98

No ext

mem

Up to 10th 68 2.63 1.105 .134 2.36 2.90

Up to 12th 125 2.82 1.187 .106 2.61 3.03

Graduate 37 2.76 1.188 .195 2.36 3.15

Post

Graduate 243 2.84 1.329 .085 2.67 3.00

Other Quail 122 2.95 1.272 .115 2.72 3.18

Total 595 2.83 1.255 .051 2.73 2.93

No social

net

Up to 10th 69 2.52 1.133 .136 2.25 2.79

Up to 12th 127 2.76 1.281 .114 2.54 2.99

Graduate 37 2.78 1.250 .206 2.37 3.20

Post

Graduate 244 2.74 1.306 .084 2.58 2.91

Other Quail 122 2.85 1.271 .115 2.62 3.08

Total 599 2.75 1.271 .052 2.64 2.85

No internet Up to 10th 68 2.44 1.084 .131 2.18 2.70

Up to 12th 123 2.99 1.284 .116 2.76 3.22

Graduate 37 2.73 1.170 .192 2.34 3.12

Post

Graduate 243 2.65 1.238 .079 2.50 2.81

Other Quail 123 2.84 1.321 .119 2.60 3.07

Total 594 2.74 1.252 .051 2.64 2.84

No games Up to 10th 68 2.24 1.053 .128 1.98 2.49

Up to 12th 127 2.74 1.223 .109 2.53 2.95

Graduate 37 2.51 1.044 .172 2.17 2.86

Post

Graduate 243 2.55 1.185 .076 2.40 2.70

Other Quail 120 2.59 1.206 .110 2.37 2.81

Total 595 2.56 1.180 .048 2.47 2.66

No

multimedia

Up to 10th 68 2.46 1.215 .147 2.16 2.75

Up to 12th 122 2.89 1.287 .117 2.65 3.12

Graduate 37 2.78 1.205 .198 2.38 3.19

Post

Graduate 244 2.62 1.301 .083 2.46 2.79

Other Quail 122 2.79 1.235 .112 2.57 3.01

Total 593 2.70 1.272 .052 2.60 2.80

No digicam Up to 10th 68 2.65 1.194 .145 2.36 2.94

Up to 12th 126 2.83 1.265 .113 2.60 3.05

Graduate 37 2.81 1.221 .201 2.40 3.22

Post

Graduate 241 2.78 1.331 .086 2.61 2.95

Other Quail 121 2.88 1.339 .122 2.64 3.12

Total 593 2.80 1.295 .053 2.69 2.90

No WAP Up to 10th 69 2.38 1.072 .129 2.12 2.63

Up to 12th 126 2.73 1.196 .107 2.52 2.94

Graduate 35 2.66 1.162 .196 2.26 3.06

Post

Graduate 242 2.50 1.230 .079 2.34 2.66

Other Quail 120 2.85 1.301 .119 2.61 3.09

Total 592 2.61 1.223 .050 2.52 2.71

No IM Up to 10th 69 2.59 1.089 .131 2.33 2.86

Up to 12th 124 2.81 1.321 .119 2.58 3.05

Graduate 37 2.62 1.255 .206 2.20 3.04

Post

Graduate 246 2.71 1.329 .085 2.54 2.87

Other Quail 123 2.81 1.351 .122 2.57 3.05

Total 599 2.73 1.300 .053 2.63 2.84

Poor App Up to 10th 69 2.81 1.128 .136 2.54 3.08

Up to 12th 128 3.10 1.196 .106 2.89 3.31

Graduate 37 2.95 1.268 .208 2.52 3.37

Post

Graduate 245 2.85 1.270 .081 2.69 3.01

Other Quail 122 3.03 1.336 .121 2.79 3.27

Total 601 2.94 1.254 .051 2.84 3.04

No Wifi &

Bluetooth

Up to 10th 68 2.76 1.259 .153 2.46 3.07

Up to 12th 127 2.79 1.319 .117 2.56 3.02

Graduate 36 2.83 1.404 .234 2.36 3.31

Post

Graduate 241 2.76 1.372 .088 2.59 2.93

Other Quail 121 2.89 1.407 .128 2.64 3.15

Total 593 2.80 1.354 .056 2.69 2.91

Other Up to 10th 25 2.36 1.036 .207 1.93 2.79

Up to 12th 40 2.93 1.289 .204 2.51 3.34

Graduate 6 3.17 1.169 .477 1.94 4.39

Post

Graduate 72 2.93 1.314 .155 2.62 3.24

Other Quail 26 2.96 1.483 .291 2.36 3.56

Total 169 2.86 1.297 .100 2.66 3.05

Source: Survey

ANOVA

Sum of

Squares do

Mean

Square F Sig.

Brand name Between

Groups 4.189 4 1.047 .687 .601

Within Groups 920.701 604 1.524

Total 924.890 608

No value Between

Groups .654 4 .163 .120 .976

Within Groups 819.432 599 1.368

Total 820.086 603

Ref Between

Groups 7.842 4 1.961

1.67

8 .154

Within Groups 694.128 594 1.169

Total 701.970 598

Suggestion Between

Groups 4.276 4 1.069 .930 .446

Within Groups 687.395 598 1.149

Total 691.672 602

Poor

features

Between

Groups 1.656 4 .414 .264 .901

Within Groups 935.143 596 1.569

Total 936.799 600

Battery Between

Groups 7.482 4 1.871

1.12

4 .344

Within Groups 999.943 601 1.664

Total 1007.426 605

Brand amb Between

Groups 3.079 4 .770 .585 .673

Within Groups 775.671 590 1.315

Total 778.750 594

Appearance Between

Groups 3.106 4 .777 .528 .715

Within Groups 875.534 595 1.471

Total 878.640 599

Ltd utility Between

Groups .951 4 .238 .162 .958

Within Groups 872.240 593 1.471

Total 873.191 597

Small

Display

Between

Groups 1.097 4 .274 .162 .957

Within Groups 1016.560 601 1.691

Total 1017.657 605

Not user

friendly

Between

Groups 3.938 4 .985 .631 .641

Within Groups 923.753 592 1.560

Total 927.692 596

No Dual

sum

Between

Groups 1.137 4 .284 .179 .949

Within Groups 947.105 598 1.584

Total 948.242 602

for 3G Between

Groups 10.994 4 2.749

1.69

3 .150

Within Groups 960.818 592 1.623

Total 971.812 596

O/S Between

Groups 7.526 4 1.882

1.20

7 .307

Within Groups 921.286 591 1.559

Total 928.812 595

No ext mem Between

Groups 4.662 4 1.165 .739 .566

Within Groups 930.508 590 1.577

Total 935.170 594

No social

net

Between

Groups 4.950 4 1.238 .765 .548

Within Groups 960.479 594 1.617

Total 965.429 598

No internet Between

Groups 16.826 4 4.207

2.71

4 .029

Within Groups 912.765 589 1.550

Total 929.591 593

No games Between

Groups 11.509 4 2.877

2.08

3 .082

Within Groups 815.002 590 1.381

Total 826.511 594

No

multimedia

Between

Groups 10.867 4 2.717

1.68

6 .152

Within Groups 947.302 588 1.611

Total 958.169 592

No digicam Between

Groups 2.462 4 .615 .366 .833

Within Groups 989.849 588 1.683

Total 992.310 592

No WAP Between

Groups 15.475 4 3.869

2.61

4 .034

Within Groups 868.714 587 1.480

Total 884.189 591

No IM Between

Groups 3.562 4 .890 .525 .717

Within Groups 1007.700 594 1.696

Total 1011.262 598

Poor App Between

Groups 7.558 4 1.890

1.20

4 .308

Within Groups 935.403 596 1.569

Total 942.962 600

No Wifi &

Bluetooth

Between

Groups 1.577 4 .394 .214 .931

Within Groups 1084.140 588 1.844

Total 1085.717 592

Other Between

Groups 7.609 4 1.902

1.13

5 .342

Within Groups 274.983 164 1.677

Total 282.592 168

For Education groups the test applied is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The first table

gives mean ratings by different age groups. The second table gives significance. The last

column in second table (Sig.) is P-value. If P<= 0.05 the difference between Education

groups is significant in brand switching or in other words income affects the switching

decision.

Since p value for No Internet and No WAP < 0.05 thus they are significant factors for

brand switching when Education is considered as demographic factor.

6.5 Factors influencing your purchase decision (In descending order of

Means) Overall Ratings

The researcher has made an attempt to find out the overall factors influencing the

purchase decision.

Table 6.5

Factors influencing

your purchase decision N Mean Std. Deviation

Utility 794 4.16 .828

User friendly 794 4.15 .836

Good battery life 794 4.12 .895

Value for Price 794 4.01 .908

3G 794 3.91 1.004

Physical appearance 794 3.89 .947

Dual SIM card 794 3.88 1.001

Brand name 794 3.84 1.047

Reference 794 3.30 1.023

Operating system 794 3.13 .599

Shopkeepers suggestions 794 2.87 1.072

Brand ambassador 794 2.39 1.184

Source: Survey

6.6 Preferred features for mobile handset (In descending order of Means)

Overall Ratings

The researcher has made an attempt to find prominent features preferred for buying mobile

handset.

Table 6.6

Preferred features N Mean Std. Deviation

Good Battery 794 4.41 .985

vol.speaker 794 4.06 1.076

Wi-fi,Bluetooth 794 4.02 1.259

HD Camera 794 3.92 1.203

Keypad 794 3.91 1.155

fm/Radio 794 3.91 1.224

Ext.mem 794 3.76 1.208

Conf.call 794 3.67 1.281

O/s 794 3.65 1.273

Multi player 794 3.64 1.299

PC compt 794 3.63 1.316

Sec.option 794 3.58 1.318

IM 794 3.57 1.382

Soc. Net 794 3.46 1.411

Dict & Spell chk 794 3.39 1.368

GPS/GPRS 794 3.38 1.427

3G 794 3.35 1.432

Call Rec. 794 3.23 1.328

WAP enabled 794 3.15 1.379

Games 794 3.11 1.384

Others 794 3.09 .767

Doc Editor 794 2.96 1.414

Games 794 2.77 1.381

Dual Sims 794 2.59 1.389

Source: Survey

6.7 Reasons for changing current mobile phone (In descending order of mean)

Overall Rating

The researcher has made an attempt to find prominent factors for changing mobile

handset.

Table 6.7 Reasons for changing current

mobile phone

N Mean Std. Deviation

Battery

625 3.28 1.286

Small Display 625 3.12 1.288

Ltd utility 617 3.05 1.211

Poor features 620 2.99 1.246

Poor App 619 2.95 1.252

No value 623 2.94 1.165

for 3G 616 2.92 1.277

Brand name 628 2.90 1.233

O/S 615 2.88 1.248

Appearance 619 2.85 1.208

No ext mem 614 2.84 1.253

Ref 618 2.84 1.085

Other 176 2.84 1.301

No Wifi & Bluetooth 612 2.81 1.360

No digicam 611 2.80 1.294

Not user friendly 616 2.79 1.252

No social net 618 2.77 1.278

No internet 612 2.75 1.250

No IM 618 2.75 1.306

No multimedia 612 2.71 1.275

No WAP 610 2.61 1.223

No games 614 2.57 1.185

No Dual sum 622 2.55 1.255

Suggestion 622 2.54 1.071

Brand amb 614 2.31 1.149

Source: Survey

Documents

6.0 Data Analysis and Interpretation 1.1.1 Demographic ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/21293/14/14_chapter 6.pdf · 6.0 Data Analysis and Interpretation ... phone(s)