PRESENTED BY- edited

8/6/2019 PRESENTED BY- edited

1/41

PRESENTED BY-Srinivas

AMAJOR PROJECT PRESENTATION

ON

A STUDY ON BRAND PREFERENCE OFDIFFERENT MOBILE PHONES(with reference to NOKIA, SAMSUNG, LG, MICROMAX and Other local

manufacturers)


2/41


3/41

Measure o f brand loyalty in which a consumer will choose aparticular brand in presence of competing brands, but will

acce

pt sub

stitute

s if

thatb

rand is no

t availab

le.

In an attempt to build brand preference advertising, theadvertising must persuade a target audience to consider theadvantages of a brand, often by building its reputation as a long-

established and trusted name in the industry.

BRAND PREFERENCE


4/41

Nokia Corporation is a Finnish multinational communicationscorporation a city neighboring Finland's capital Helsinki. Nokia is

engaged in the manufacturing of mobile devices and in

converging Internet and communications industries, with over132,000 employees in 120 countries, sales in more than 150

countries and global annual revenue of over 42 billion and

operating profit of 2 billion as of 2010.

Company profiles


5/41

Micromax is a telecommunications company basedin Gurgaon, Haryana, India. It is a manufacturer of wireless

telephone handsets. Micromax has 23 domestic offices acrossthe country and international offices in Hong Kong, USA, Dubai

and now in Nepal. Micromax is the largest Indian domestic

mobile handsets company in terms of units shipped during the

quarter ended March 31, 2010 and the third largest mobile

handset seller in India as at March 31, 2010


6/41

Mobile Brand Market Share

Nokia 54.1%

Others ( Local Manufacturers) 17.5%

Samsung 9.7%

LG 6.4%

Top India Mobile BrandsAccording to a recent survey conducted by 'VoiceAndData " the top Mobile Brands in

India were ranked as follows;


7/41

Toknow about the student preference level associatedwith different mobile phones.

Tofind out the students satisfaction towards the variousmobile phones.

Factors that influence decision-making in purchasing amobile phone.

Toknow which advertisement media puts more impacton thebuying decision of students.

Objectives of the study


8/41

Sample size 250

Sample Unit Students of Graduation and the Post Graduation havebeen taken as sample unit.

Universe Bilaspur city

Research type Descriptive Research

Test applied Chi Square test

Primary data source Structured Questionnaire

Secondary data source Internet

Research Methodology


9/41

H

YPOTH

ESIS:

Ho; there is no significant relationship between thegender and time period of using the mobile phone.

H1; there is a significant relationship between the genderand time period of using the mobile phone.


10/41

Ho; there is no significant relationship between theincome and spending on the mobile phones.

Ha; there is a significant relationship between the incomeand spending on the mobile phones.


11/41

Ho; there is no significant relationship between the incomeand frequency of changing the mobile phones.

Ha; there is a significant relationship between the incomeand frequency of changing the mobile phones.


12/41

DATA ANALYSIS

ANDINTERPRETATION


13/41

Q-1 Sex ratioof the respondents

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Male Female

Number of the

Respondents

139

111


14/41

Q.2- occupation of the Respondents Family


15/41

Interpretation

The graphical representation of the table shows that out of the 250 respondents, 109respondents belong to the service family, 76 were from business, 34 were from theprofessional and 31 were from the others family.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Service Professional Business Others

Number of theRespondents


16/41

Q- 3Income level of the respondents family


17/41

Interpretation

The graphical representation of the table shows that out of the 250 respondents, 101 respondents werefrom the family whose income is less than 15,000, 61 respondents were from the family whose incomeis between the 15,001 25,000, 52 respondents were from the family whose income is between 25,001-35,000 and rest were from the family whose income is above 35,001.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Less than

15,000

15,001-

25,000

25,001-

35,000

35,001 &

above

Number ofthe Respondents


18/41

Q-4 - Which mobile phoneyou are using?

52%

16%

10%

9%13%

Respondents

Nokia

Samsung

Micromax

LG

Others


19/41

Q.5 - How long you are using the mobile phones?


20/41

Number of the Respondents on thebasis of usage time period

0

10

2030

40

50

60

70

80

Less than 1year

1-2year 2-4year Above 4 year

Number ofthe Respondents

InterpretationOut of the 250 respondents 48 are using for less than year, 75 are using for 1-2years, 56 are using for 2-

4 years, 71 are using for above 4 years.


21/41

Q.6-H

ow often doyou changeyour mobile phone?


22/41

Number of the Respondents on thebasis offrequencyof

changing the mobile phones

0

10

20

30

4050

60

70

80

90

100

Less than 1

year

1-2year 2-4year Above 4 year

Number of the Respondents

InterpretationOut of the250 respondents 59 are using for less than year, 88 are using for 1-2years, 48 areusing for 2-4 years, 60 are using for above 4 years.


23/41

Q.7 what will you be willing to payfor a mobile phone


24/41

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Less than10,000

10,001-20,000

20,001-40,000

anyamount

Number of theRespondents

Interpretation:The graphical representation shows that out of the 250 respondents, 142 respondents werewilling to spend less than 10,000, 86 were willing to spend between 10,001 to 20,000, 15were willing to pay between 20,001 to 40,000 and rest were ready to pay any amount.


25/41

Q-8. Consider the TV advertisement you like most what brand is it

promoting


26/41

Chi square test

GENDER LESS THEN

1 YEAR

1-2 YEAR 2-4 YEAR ABOVE 4

YEAR

Total

MALE 23 38 32 45 139

FEMALE 25 36 25 26 111

TOTAL 48 74 57 71 250

Chi- square analysis on therelationship between gender and timeperiod of usage the mobile phone.


27/41

O E (O-E)2 (O-E)2/E

23 26.5 12.25 .462

25 40.8 7.84 .192

38 31.4 .36 .01136 39.2 33.64 .858

32 21.5 12.25 .570

25 33.2 7.84 .236

45 25.5 .25 .00926 31.9 34.81 1.091

E 3.429


28/41

X2 = (O-E) 2 / E = 3.429

N.df = (row-1) (column 1)

= (2-1) (4-1)= 3

Table value of X2 at 5% level of significance = 7.815

Conclusion :

Thus calculated X is less than the tabulated X. X calculated =3.429


29/41

Income/SpendingAmount

Less than10,000

10,000- 20,000 20,000- 40,00040,000 &

aboveTotal

Less than15,000 66 27 4 4 101

15,000 25,000 35 23 3 - 61

25,000- 35,000 29 20 1 2 52

35,000 & above 10 18 7 1 36

Total 140 88 15 7 250

CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENINCOME AND SPENDING ON MOBILE PHONES


30/41

O E (O-E)2 (O-E)2/E

66 56.66 89.11 1.57

35 34.16 .70 .02

29 29.12 .01 .00

10 20.16 103.2 5.11

27 35.55 73.10 2.05

23 21.47 2.34 .1120 18.30 2.89 .16

18 12.67 28.40 2.24

4 6.06 4.24 .70

3 3.66 .435 .12

1 3.12 4.49 1-44

7 2.16 23.42 10.84

4 2.82 1.39 .50

- 1.70 2.89 1.7

2 1.45 .30 .21

1 1 0 0


31/41

X2 = (O-E) 2/ E =26.77

Number of degreeoffreedom:Ndf= (row-1) (column 1)

= (4-1) (4-1)

= 9

Table valueofX2 at 5% level of significant =16.919

Conclusion:

HO is rejected since the calculated valueofX2 (26.77) more than the table valueofX2 (16.919) hence there is a significant relationship between income and spendingon mobile phones.


32/41

GENDER LESS THEN 1YEAR

1-2 YEAR 2-4 YEAR ABOVE 4YEAR

Total

MALE 38 45 23 33 139

FEMALE 21 43 20 27 111

TOTAL 59 88 43 60 250

CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENGender AND Frequencyof changing theMOBILE PHONES


33/41

O E (O-E)2 (O-E)2/E

38 32.80 27.04 .82

45 48.92 15.36 .31

23 23.90 1 .0433 33.36 .13 .00

21 26.20 27.04 1.03

43 39.07 15.44 .40

20 19.09 .82 .04

27 26.64 .13 .00

E 2.6


34/41

X2 = (O-E) 2 / E = 2.64

Number of degree of freedom:Ndf = (row-1) (column 1)

= (2-1) (4-1)

= 3

Table value of X2 at 1% level of significant = 7.815

Conclusion:HO

is acce

pte

d since

the

calculate

d value of X2

(2.

64) le

ss than the

tab

le

value of X2

(7.815) hence there is no significant relationship between gender and frequency ofchanging the mobile phones.


35/41

Nokia is the most favorite brand of the college student.

35% student change their mobile phones within 1to2 years

30% students are using the mobile phones since last 1 to 2 years

51% students are ready to pay for a mobile phone less than 10,000and they spend according to their family income.

49% students like the Nokia advertisement most.

Mostly students use the mobile phones for talking, SMS and for

using the GPRS function. Mostly students have hands free, Bluetooth and memory card.

Findings


36/41

Almost all students are aware about the GPRS, Bluetooth and

MMS service but least students are aware about the 3G function.

Most favorite brand among the college students is Nokia

Appearance, Price, Brand Image and advertisement are theimportant factors for the students while purchasing mobilephones.

Mostly students see advertisement on television

Mostly students have the hanging and service problem with the

Nokia.


37/41

Recommendations Nokia should provide better service and try to solve the hanging

problem

Cellular companies should increase the awareness about the 3G service.

Companies should offer more range of Rs. 10,000 or less than 10,000.

LG and Samsung should try to expand its market share and also should

try to increase the awareness through the television advertisement.


38/41

A small sample sizeof250 students is taken, so we cannot drawinferences about the population from this sample size.

Time period is short and resource constraints.

The scopeof the project is limited to the cityof Bilaspur City.So, we cannot say that the same response will exist throughout

India.

This study is based on the prevailing students satisfaction. But thestudents satisfaction may change according to

Limitations of the Study


39/41

THANK YOU


40/41


41/41

PRESENTED BY- edited

Documents