CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/33434/8...B: Washing Machine Brands Table 5.10 shows in column 4, respondents who purchased washing

102

CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION

To achieve the objectives of study, the responses obtained through the

questionnaire survey were analyzed using specific statistical tools for socio-

economic variables, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, customer

retention and perceptions by the customer.

5.1 DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

This study analyzed the demographic variables of the durable white

goods customers on various factors.

5.1.1 Socio-Economic Variables

This section deals with the socio-economic characteristics of the

consumer durable white goods customers in the city of Chennai. The data

presented in the table 5.1 -5.9 depicts the type of residence, age group,

educational level, gender, marital status, number of dependents, stages of the

life cycle and occupation of the respondents duly distributed.

Table: 5.1

Residential Wise Distribution of the Respondents

Sl. No Type of residence Frequency Percentage1. Owned 720 68.62. Rented 280 26.73. Leased 50 4.8

Total 1050 100.0

Source: Field Survey and Analysis of Data 2010

103

Out of the 1050 customers surveyed, 68.6 per cent of the respondents

having own house, 26.7 per cent who residing at rental houses and 4.8 per cent

are taken leased. It is found that majority (68.6 per cent) of the respondents are

residing in own house.

Table: 5.2

Age Wise Classification of the Respondents

Sl.No Age group in years Frequency Percentage

1. 20-30 410 39.0

2. 31-40 460 43.8

3. 41-50 110 10.5

4. 51-60 70 6.7

Total 1050 100.0


Table 5.2 shows the distribution of age group of the respondents. Out of

1050 surveyed 43.8 per cent of respondents are under the age group of 31-40

years, 39 per cent are under the age group of 20-30 years, 41-50 years age

group are 10.5 per cent and only 6.7 per cent falls under the age group of 51-

60 years.

720

280

500

100200300400500600700800

Num

ber

ofR

espo

nden

ts

Owned Rented LeasedType of Residence

Figure -5.1 Distributions of Residential Wise Respondents

Frequency

104

Table 5.3

Educational Qualification wise of the Respondents

Sl. No. Educational level Frequency Percentage

1. Higher secondary 150 14.3

2. Under graduate 350 33.3

3. Post graduate 430 41.0

4. Diploma holders 120 11.4

Total 1050 100.0


It is found that majority (41.0 percent) of the respondents are post at

graduate levels, 33.3 per cent who have completed under graduate levels, 14.3

per cent who completed higher secondary level and 11.4 per cent of the

respondents are diploma holders.

Figure -5.2 Age Group Wise Distributions

410460

11070

0

100

200

300

400

500

20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60

Num

ber

of

Res

pond

ents

Frequency

Age Group

105

Table.5.4

Gender Wise Distribution of the Respondents

Sl.No Gender Frequency Percentage

1. Male 740 70.5

2. Female 310 29.5

Total 1050 100.0


It is found that majority (70.5 percent) of the respondents are male,

remaining 29.5 per cent are female.

Figure 5.3 Educational Wise Distributions of the Respondents

150

350430

120

0

100

200

300

400

500

Highersecondary

Under graduate Post graduate Diploma

Educational level

Frequency

Num

ber o

resp

onde

nts

106

Table 5.5

Distribution of Respondents on Marital Status

Sl.No Marital status Frequency Percentage

1. Unmarried 518 49.3

2. Married 532 50.7

Total 1050 100.0


It is clear that 50.7 per cent of the respondents are married and 49.3 per

cent are unmarried.

Figure 5.4 Distribution of Gender

740

310

MaleFemale

107

Table 5.6

Respondents having Number of Dependents

Sl.No Number of dependents Frequency Percentage

1. 1 90 8.6

2. 2 368 35.0

3. 3 432 41.1

4. 4 112 10.7

5. 5 47 4.5

6. 6 1 0.1

Total 1050 100.0


Out of the 1050 surveyed, 41.1 per cent of the respondents having three

dependents, 35.0 per cent of the respondents having two dependents,

respondents who are having four dependents 10.7 per cent, 8.6 per cent are

having one dependent, and 0.1 per cent is six and more dependents.

518

532

510515520525530535

Number ofrespondents

Unmarried MarriedStatus

Figure 5.5 Marital Status of the Respondents

Frequency

108

Table 5.7

Stages of the Life Cycle of Respondents

Sl.No. Status of the life cycle Frequency Percentage

1. Newly married 54 10.2

2. Married no children 64 12.0

3. Married and have one or two children 342 64.3

4. Married and have more than two children 72 13.5

Total 532 100.0


Table 5.7 shows the respondent stages of their life cycle. It is found that

64.3 per cent are having one or two children, 13.5 per cent more than two

children, 12.0 per cent are married but no children, and 10.2 per cent of the

respondents are newly married couple.

Figure 5.6 Distribution of Dependents of the Respondents

90

368432

11247

10

100

200

300

400

500

1 2 3 4 5 6Number of Dependents

Frequency

109

Table 5.8

Income wise Classification of the Respondents

Sl.No Income group in ` annually Frequency Percentage

1. Under ` 1,00,000 250 23.8

2. `1,00,000 – ` 3,00,000 270 25.7

3. ` 3,00, 000 -` 5,00,000 320 30.5

4. ` 5,00,000 - ` 7,00,000 120 11.4

5. ` 7,00,000- ` 9,00,000 60 5.7

6. ` 9,00,000 and over 30 2.9

Total 1050 100.0


Table 5.8 shows the income group of respondents. It is found that out

of 1050 surveyed, 30.5 per cent of the respondents are ` 3,00,000 to

` 5,00,000 income group, 25.7 per cent are coming under the income level of

` 1,00,000 – ` 3,00,000, 23.8 per cent are grouped as under the ` 1,00,000 and

5.7 per cent of the respondents are under the income level of ` 7,00,000-

` 9,00,000, only 2.9 per cent are more than ` 9,00,000 of income annually.

Figure 5.7 Stages of Life Cycle of the Respondents

54

64

342

72

0 100 200 300 400

Newly married

Married no children

Married and have one or twochildren

Married and have more than twochildren

Life Cycle

Number of respondents

Frequency

110

Table 5.9

Occupational wise Distribution of the Respondents

Sl.No Occupation Frequency Percentage

1. Private employee 361 34.4

2. Government employee 270 25.7

3. Professionals 240 22.9

4. Business group 179 17.0

Total 1050 100.0


Table 5.9 shows that distribution of the respondents based on their

occupation, 34.4 per cent of the respondents are private employee, 25.7

percentages working as government employee, 22.9 per cent are working as

professional, 17.0 per cent are business people.

250 270320

12060 30

050

100150200250300350

Number ofrespondents

Income group

Figure .5.8 Distribution of Income of the Respondents

Frequency

111

5.2 PURCHASE BEHAVOUR

5.2.1 Various Brands of Durable White Goods Purchased

Table 5.10 shows that responses of various durable white goods brands

are given in column 2, respondents who had purchased their audio brands are

given in column 3, washing machine brands in column 4, air conditioner

brands in column 5 and refrigerator brands in column 6.

361

270240

179

050

100150200250300350400

Number of respondents

PrivateEmployee

GovernmentEmployee

Professionals BusinessGroup

Occupation

Figure 5.9 Occupational Wise Distribution of the Respondents

Frequency

112

Table 5.10

Response of Various Brands of Durable White Goods

Sl.No(1)

Brands(2)

Audio brands (A)(3)

Washing machinebrands(B)

(4)

Air conditionerbrands ( C)

(5)

Refrigeratorbrands( D)

(6)1. Samsung 80

(9.3)220

(24.2)100

(12.5)140

(14.9)

2. LG 70(8.1)

90(9.9)

330(41.2)

160(17.0)

3 Sony 280(32.6)

---

-

4 Aiwa 20(2.3)

-- -

5 Creative 130(15.1)

-- -

6 Philips 160(18.6)

-- -

7 BPL 50(5.8)

10(1.1) --

40(4.3)

8 Onida 30(3.5)

-30

(3.8) -

9 Bosch 20(2.3)

-- -

10 Akai 20(2.3)

-- -

11 Whirlpool--

320(35.2)

10(1.2)

280(29.8)

12. IFB-

160(17.6) - -

13 Videocon--

40(4.4) --

30(3.2)

14 TVS--

10(1.1) - -

15 Godrej--

50(5.5) --

180(19.1)

16 Voltas--

10(1.1)

140(17.5)

20(2.1)

17 General-- --

50(6.2)

-

18 Blue star-- --

70(8.8)

-

113

Table 5.10 continued

19 Carrier-- --

30(3.8)

-

20 Ken star--

--20

(2.5)-

21 National- -

10(1.2)

-

22 Haier- -

10(1.2)

-

23 Alwin-- --

-30

(3.2)

24 Kelvinator- --

--60

(6.4)

Source: Field Survey and Analysis of Data 2010 Values within brackets show percentage

A: Audio Brands

Table 5.10 shows in column 3, respondents who purchased audio

brands, out of the 1050 surveyed, 32.6 per cent of the respondents having

Sony and 18.6 per cent of the respondents having Philips and least numbers

are Akai and Bosch.

B: Washing Machine Brands

Table 5.10 shows in column 4, respondents who purchased washing

machine brands, it is found that 35.2 per cent of the respondents having

whirlpool and 24.2 percent having Samsung. Lesser number of respondents is

having BPL, TVS and Voltas.

C: Air Conditioner Brands

Table 5.10 shows in column 5, respondents who purchased air

conditioner brands, it is clear that majority (41.2 per cent) of the respondents

having LG, secondly Voltas (67.5 per cent) and least number of respondents is

having Whirlpool, National and Hairer.

114

D: Refrigerator Brands

Table 5.10 shows in column 6, respondents who purchased refrigerator

brands, it is found that 29.8 per cent of respondents having Whirlpool,

secondly having Godrej (19.1 per cent).

5.2.2 Factors Considered for Purchase of Durable White Goods

Table 5.11 shows relationship between durable white goods purchased

by the respondents and criteria of brands preference. Column 1 shows criteria.

Column 2 shows the various factors chosen by the respondents to buy the

various brand of white goods. Column 3, 4, 5 and 6 shows audio,washing

machine, air conditioner and refrigerator brands respectively.

Table 5.11

Various Factors Considered while Choosing Durable White Goods

Criteria(1)

Factors(2)

A: Audiobrands

(3)

B:Washingmachinebrands

(4)

C:Airconditioner

brands(5)

D:Refrige-rator

brands(6)

Source ofpurchase

Retail shops 550(64)

520(58.9)

510(63.8)

650(69.1)

Directly from thecompany

50(5.8)

180(20.0)

20(2.4)

40(4.3)

Company showroom 260(30.2)

190(21.1)

270(33.8)

250(26.6)

Source ofinformation

Advertising 350(40.7)

360(40.0)

220(27.4)

390(41.5)

Previous experience 290(33.7)

220(24.4)

290(36.2)

290(30.9)

Recommendations 160(18.6)

260(28.9)

220(27.5)

230(24.5)

Location 40(4.7)

10(1.1)

10(1.2)

10(1.1)

From the internet 20(2.4)

50(5.5)

60(7.55)

20(2.2)

115

Table 5.11 Continued

Enquiredabout thebrand

One shop 210(24.4)

190(21.1)

220(27.5)

300(31.9)

Two shop 270(31.4)

190(21.1)

230(28.85)

270(28.7)

Three shop 230(26.7)

340(37.8)

240(30.0)

230(24.5)

Four shop 90(10.5)

120(13.3)

100(12.5)

60(6.4)

Five shop 40(4.7)

30(3.3)

10(1.2)

50(5.3)

More than 5 20(2.3)

30(3.3)

0 30(3.2)


A: Audio Brands

Table 5.11 shows in column 3, 64 per cent of the respondents who

purchased their audio brands from the retail shops, 30.2 per cent are purchased

from the company show room and only 5.8 per cent of them are from the

company as the source of purchase. Regarding source of information 40.7 per

cent the respondents are influenced by advertising, 33.7 per cent of the

respondents are influenced by previous experience with the brand, 18.6 per

cent of the respondents are making purchase recommended by friends,

relatives and neighbors, 4.7 per cent are purchasing the audio brands, where it

is located nearby, only 2.4 per cent of the respondents through active source of

information from the internet. It is found that 31.4 per cent respondents

making enquiry about the audio brands in two shops before purchasing,

followed by 26.7 per cent are enquiring in three shops, 24.4 per cent made

only at one shop, 10.5 per cent of the respondents enquired in four shops, 4.7

per cent and 2.3 per cent have searched the information with more than five

shops.

116

B: Washing Machine Brands

In table 5.11 it is clear that in column 4, majority (58.9 per cent) of the

respondents are purchasing their washing machine brands from the retail

shops, 21.1 per cent are purchasing from the company show room, and only 20

per cent of the respondents directly from the company. It is found that 40.0 per

cent the respondents are influenced by advertising as the major source, 28.9

per cent of the respondents are recommendations from friends, relatives and

neighbors, 24.4 per cent of the respondents are with previous experience with

the brand, 5.5 per cent are purchasing the washing machine brands from active

source of internet and only 1.1 per cent are influenced by nearest location. It

is found that 37.8 per cent respondents making enquiry about the brands in

three shops before purchasing, followed by 21.1 per cent are enquired in two

shops, 21.1 percent are made in one shop, 13.3 per cent have enquired in four

shops , 3.3 per cent made purchase after enquiring in more than five shops.

C: Air Conditioner Brands

In table 5.11 it is clear that column 5, 63.8 per cent of the respondents

who purchased their air conditioner brands from the retail shops, 33.8 per cent

are purchased from the company show room, and only 2.4 per cent of them

purchased their brand from the company. Regarding source of information

36.2 per cent of the respondents are influenced by previous experience with

the air conditioners brand, 27.5 per cent of the respondents are recommended

by friends, relatives and neighbors, 27.4 per cent respondents are influenced to

make a purchase by advertising, 7.55 per cent are making purchase from the

internet, 1.2 per cent purchase from locations nearby. It is also found that 30

per cent respondents made enquiry about the brands in three shops before

purchasing, followed by 28.8 per cent enquired in two shops, 27.5 per cent

made in only one shop, 12.5per cent enquired in four shops, and 1.2 per cent

are in five shops , and no one enquired about more than five shops.

117

D: Refrigerator Brands

In table 5.11 it is clear that in column 6, 69.1 per cent of the

respondents are purchasing refrigerator brand from the retail shops, 26.6 per

cent are purchased from the company show room and only 4.3 per cent of

respondents directly from the company. Regarding source of information 41.5

per cent of the respondents are influenced to make a purchase by advertising,

30.9 per cent of the respondents are influenced by previous experience with

refrigerator brand, 24.5 per cent of the respondents are recommended by

friends, relatives and neighbors, 2.2 per cent are from the internet, 1.1 per cent

purchase by the refrigerator brand located nearby. It is found that 31.9 per cent

respondents making enquiry about the brand in only one shop before

purchasing, followed by 28.7 per cent enquired in two shops, 24.5 respondents

per cent made in three shops, 6.4 per cent enquired in four shops,5.3 per cent

respondents in five shops and only 3.2 per cent enquired in more than five.

Table 5.12 shows that relationship between income group and various

brands audio. Column 1 shows the income group of the respondents and

column 2 to 11 shows the various brands of audio.

Hypothesis 1

H0: There is no significant association between income group of the customers

and brand choice with respect to audio brands.

118

Table 5.12

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INCOME GROUP AND VARIOUS

BRANDS OF AUDIO

Incomegroup

(1)

Audio brandsTotalSamsung

(2)LG(3)

Sony(4)

Aiwa(5)

Creative(6)

Philips(7)

BPL(8)

Onida(9)

Bosch(10)

Akai(11)

Less than`.1,00,000

20 10 70 0 40 50 0 0 10 20 220

20.5 17.9 71.6 5.1 33.3 40.9 12.8 7.7 5.1 5.1 220.0

(9.1) (4.5) (31.8) 0 (18.2) (22.7) 0 0 (4.5) (9.1) (100)

`.1,00,000–

` 3,00,000

50 10 50 10 50 40 20 10 0 0 240

22.3 19.5 78.1 5.6 36.3 44.7 14.0 8.4 5.6 5.6 240.0

(20.8) (4.2) (20.8) (4.2) (20.8) (16.7) (8.3) (4.2) 0 0 (100)

`.3,00,000–

` 5,00,000

0 20 100 0 20 60 20 10 0 0 230

21.4 18.7 74.9 5.3 34.8 42.8 13.4 8.0 5.3 5.3 230.0

0 (8.7) (43.5) 0 (8.7) (26.1) (8.7) (4.3) 0 0 (100)

`.5,00,000–

`7,00,000

10 0 50 10 10 0 10 10 0 0 100

9.3 8.1 32.6 2.3 15.1 18.6 5.8 3.5 2.3 2.3 100.0

(10.0) 0 (50) (10) (10) 0 (10) (10) 0 0 (100)

`.7,00,000–

` 9,00,000

0 30 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 50

4.7 4.1 16.3 1.2 7.6 9.3 2.9 1.7 1.2 1.2 50.0

0 (60) (20) 0 0 0 0 0 (20) 0 (100)

Greaterthan

`.9,00,000

0 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 20

1.9 1.6 6.5 .5 3.0 3.7 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 20.0

0 0 0 0 (50) (50) 0 0 0 0 (100)

Total 80 70 280 20 130 160 50 30 20 20 860

(9.3) (8.1) (32.6) (2.3) (15.1) (18.6) (5.8) (3.5) (2.3) (2.3) (100)


119

Chi square value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Statistical inference

601.9958 45 0.001 P0.001 < 0.05

Significant

Table 5.12 indicates that the various brands of audio among 32.6 per

cent of respondents are having Sony, second Philips (18.6 per cent) and third

creative (15.1 per cent). Least preferred are Akai, Bosch and Aiwa.

The Pearson chi-square value is 601.9958. P- value is lesser than 0.05,

therefore Ho is rejected. Hence it is conclude that, there is a strong association

between the income groups of the customers and brand choice with respect to

audio brands.

Table 5.13 shows the relationship between various income groups of

durable white goods customers and brand choice of washing machine. Column

1 shows the income group of the respondents and column 2-10 are the various

brands of washing machine.

Hypothesis 2


and brand choice with respect to washing machine.

120

Table 5.13


BRANDS OF WASHING MACHINE

Incomegroup

(1)

Washing machine brandsTotalWhirlpool

(2)LG(3)

IFB(4)

Samsung(5)

Videocon(6)

TVS(7)

Godrej(8)

Voltas(9)

BPL(10)

Less than`.1,00,000

80 30 70 30 0 10 10 0 0 230

80.9 22.7 40.4 55.6 10.1 2.5 12.6 2.5 2.5 230.0

(34.8) (13.0) (30.4) (13.0) 0 (4.3) (4.3) 0 0 (100)

`.1,00,000

– `3,00,000

60 10 70 70 10 0 20 0 0 240

84.4 23.7 42.2 58.0 10.5 2.6 13.2 2.6 2.6 240.0

(25.0) (4.2) (29.2) (29.2) (4.2) 0 (8.3) 0 0 (100)

`.3,00,000

– `5,00,000

110 30 20 60 20 0 10 0 0 250

87.9 24.7 44.0 60.4 11.0 2.7 13.7 2.7 2.7 250.0

(44.0) (12.0) (8.0) (24.0) (8.0) 0 (4.0) 0 0 (100)

`.5,00,000

– `7,00,000

40 20 0 40 10 0 0 0 0 110

38.7 10.9 19.3 26.6 4.8 1.2 6.0 1.2 1.2 110.0

(36.4) (18.2) 0 (36.4) (9.1) 0 0 0 0 (100)

`.7,00,000

– `9,00,000

30 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 60

21.1 5.9 10.5 14.5 2.6 .7 3.3 .7 .7 60.0

(50.0) 0 0 0 0 0 (16.7) (16.7) (16.7) (100)

Greaterthan

`.9,00,000

0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 20

7.0 2.0 3.5 4.8 .9 .2 1.1 .2 .2 20.0

0 0 0 (100) 0 0 0 0 0 (100)

Total320 90 160 220 40 10 50 10 10 910

(35.2) (9.9) (17.6) (24.2) (4.4) (1.1) (5.5) (1.1) (1.1) (100)

Source: Field Survey and Analysis of Data 2010. Values within brackets show percentage

121


585.1902 40 0.001 P0.001 < 0.05

Significant

Table 5.13 indicates the various brands of washing machine. Among

whirlpool having higher (35.2 per cent) respondents, second Samsung (24.26

per cent) and third IFB (17.6 per cent). The least preferred brands are TVS,

Voltas and BPL.

The Pearson chi-square value is 585.1902. P-value is lesser than 0.05,

therefore Ho is rejected. Hence it is conclude that, there is a significant

association between the income group of the customers and brand choice with

respect to washing machine brands.

Table 5.14 shows that relationship between the various income group

of the customers and brands choice of air conditioner. Column 1 shows the

income group of the respondents and column 2-10 shows the various brands of

air conditioner.

Hypothesis 3


and brand choice with respect to air conditioner.

122

Table.5.14


BRANDS OF AIR CONDITIONER.

Incomegroup

(1)

Air conditioner brands

TotalOnida(2)

Sam-sung(3)

LG(4)

Voltas(5)

General(6)

Bluestar(7)

Whirlpool(8)

Carrier(9)

Kenstar(10)

National(11)

Haier(12)

Less than

`.1,00,000

20 20 100 10 10 30 10 0 0 0 0 200

7.5 25.0 82.5 35.0 12.5 17.5 2.5 7.5 5.0 2.5 2.5 200.0

(10.0) (10.0) (50.0) (5.0) (5.0) (15.0) (5.0) 0 0 0 0 (100)

`.1,00,000–

`3,00,000

0 10 80 40 20 30 0 0 20 10 0 210

7.9 26.2 86.6 36.8 13.1 18.4 2.6 7.9 5.2 2.6 2.6 210.0

0 (4.8) (38.1) (19.0) (9.5) (14.3) 0 0 (9.5) (4.8) 0 (100)

` 3,00,000–

`5,00,000

0 50 110 50 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 230

8.6 28.8 94.9 40.2 14.4 20.1 2.9 8.6 5.8 2.9 2.9 230.0

0 (21.7) (47.8) (21.7) (4.3) 0 0 0 0 0 (4.3) (100)

`.5,00,000–

`7,00,000

10 10 20 10 10 10 0 10 0 0 0 80

3.0 10.0 33.0 14.0 5.0 7.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 80.0

(12.5) (12.5) (25.0) (12.5) (12.5) (12.5) 0 (12.5) 0 0 0 (100)

`.7,00,000–

`9,00,000

0 10 0 30 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 50

1.9 6.2 20.6 8.8 3.1 4.4 .6 1.9 1.2 .6 .6 50.0

0 (20) 0 (60) 0 0 0 (20) 0 0 0 (100)

Greaterthan

`.9,00,000

0 0 20 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 30

1.1 3.8 12.4 5.2 1.9 2.6 .4 1.1 .8 .4 .4 30.0

0 0 (66.7) 0 0 0 0 (33.3) 0 0 0 (100)

Total30 100 330 140 50 70 10 30 20 10 10 800

(3.8) (12.5) (41.2) (17.5) (6.2) (8.8) (1.2) (3.8) (2.5) (1.2) (1.2) (100)


123


549.764 50 0.001 P0.001 < 0.05

Significant

Table 5.14 indicates the various brands of air conditioners, among

which LG stood first (41.2 per cent) of the respondents purchased, second

Voltas (17.5 per cent) and third Samsung (12.5 per cent). The least preferred

are Whirlpool, National and Haier.



association between the income group of the respondents and brand choice

with respect to air conditioner brands.

Table 5.15 shows the relationship between the various income group of

the customers and brand choice of the refrigerator. Column 1 shows various

income groups of the respondents and column 2-10 are the various brands of

refrigerator.

Hypothesis 4


and brand choice with respect to refrigerator brand.

124

Table 5.15


BRANDS OF REFRIGERATOR

Incomegroup

(1)

Refrigerator brands

TotalGodrej

(2)Alwin

(3)Kelvinator(4)

Video-con(5)

Voltas(6)

Whirlpool(7) LG(8)

Sam-sung(9)

BPL(10)

Less than`.100000

40 0 10 0 10 60 60 50 0 230

44.0 7.3 14.7 7.3 4.9 68.5 39.1 34.3 9.8 230.0

(17.4) 0 (4.3) 0 (4.3) (26.10 (26.1) (21.7) 0 (100)

`.100000 -`300000

50 0 20 10 0 100 20 20 0 220

42.1 7.0 14.0 7.0 4.7 65.5 37.4 32.8 9.4 220.0

(22.7) 0 (9.1) (4.5) 0 (45.5) (9.1) (9.1) 0 (100)

`.300000 -`500000

70 30 0 0 10 90 40 50 0 290

55.5 9.3 18.5 9.3 6.2 86.4 49.4 43.2 12.3 290.0

(24.1) (10.3) 0 0 (3.4) (31.0) (13.8) (17.2) 0 (100)

`.500000 -`700000

10 0 10 0 0 30 20 20 20 110

21.1 3.5 7.0 3.5 2.3 32.8 18.7 16.4 4.7 110.0

(9.1) 0 (9.1) 0 0 (27.3) (18.2) (18.2) (18.2) (100)

`.700000 -`900000

0 0 20 10 0 0 10 0 20 60

11.5 1.9 3.8 1.9 1.3 17.9 10.2 8.9 2.6 60.0

0 0 (33.3) (16.7) 0 0 (16.7) 0 (33.3) (100)

Greater than`.900000

10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 30

5.7 1.0 1.9 1.0 .6 8.9 5.1 4.5 1.3 30.0

(33.3) 0 0 (33.3) 0 0 (33.3) 0 0 (100)

Total 180 30 60 30 20 280 160 140 40 940

(19.1) (3.2) (6.4) (3.2) (2.1) (29.8) (17.0) (14.9) (4.3) (100)


125


646.6183 40 0.001 P0.001 < 0.05

Significant

Table 5.15 indicates the various brands of refrigerators, among which

Whirlpool stood first (29.8 per cent) of the respondents purchased, second

Godrej (19.1 per cent) and third Samsung (14.9 per cent) followed by other

brands. The least preferred by the respondents is Voltas.



association between the income group of the customers and brand choice with

respect to refrigerator brands.

5.3 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Any customer regarding payments for the product is justified at least

between price of the product and utility, which is greater than what the

payment made by the consumer for the product is called ‘consumer surplus’.

This present analysis deals with how consumer satisfaction with various

attributes for the selective brands. The attributes are shown in column 2 and

column 3-7 shows in rating scales.

5.3.1 Expectations Criteria for Choosing Durable White goods

Table 5.16 to 5.19 represents what is dealt with expectations on various

attributes in availing consumer durable white goods customers.

5.3.1.1 Opinion on Various Criteria Considered for Choosing Audio Brands

Table 5.16 depicts how important the various criteria’s are while

selecting the durable white goods audio brands. Column 2 shows the various

126

criteria’s considered for choosing audio brands and column 3 to 7 shows in

importance scale.

Table 5.16

Opinion on Various Criteria for the Audio brands

SlNo(1)

Criteria (2)

Veryimportant

(3)

Important(4)

Undecided(5)

Lessimportant

(6)

Not at allimportant

(7)

Totalscore

Mean Rank

1 Overall quality 530(61.6)

260(30.2)

60(7.0)

10(1.2) 0 3890 4.52 1

2 Worthiness 380(44.2)

390(45.3)

70(8.1)

20(2.3) 0 3710 4.31 2

3 Responsiveness 230(26.7)

460(53.5)

140(16.3)

30(3.5) 0 3470 4.03 8

4 Warranty 300(34.9)

450(52.3)

40(4.7)

70(8.1) 0 3560 4.10 6

5 Pre –sales 230(26.7)

390(37.1)

110(10.5)

110(10.5)

20(2.3)

3280 3.81 12

6` After salesservice

340(39.5)

420(48.8)

40(4.7)

40(4.7)

20(2.3)

3600 4.18 4

7 Loyaltyprograms

190(22.1)

360(41.9)

190(22.1)

80(9.3)

40(4.7)

3080 3.58 13

8 Sales person’sbehavior

260(30.2)

400(46.5)

70(8.1)

70(8.1)

60(5.7)

3310 3.84 11

9 Repair 240(27.9)

470(54.7)

100(11.6)

50(5.8)

0 3480 4.04 7

10 Reliability 320(37.2)

400(46.5)

90(10.5)

50(5.8)

0 3570 4.15 5

11 Customerservice

510(59.3)

250(29.1)

10(1.2)

20(2.3)

70(8.1)

3690 4.29 3

12 Productcompatibility

240(27.9)

490(57.0)

70(8.1)

40(4.7)

20(2.3)

3470 4.03 8

13 Competitiveprice

240(27.9)

450(52.3)

90(10.5)

50(5.8)

30(3.5)

3400 3.95 10

Source: Field Survey and Analysis of Data 2010Values within brackets show percentage

The importance assigned to the various satisfactions attributes for

durable white goods audio brands are shown in table 5.16. It is understood that

‘overall quality’ is considered to be the prime importance followed by

‘worthiness’ and ‘customer service’. These occupy the second and third place

127

in importance of the audio brands. These are followed by ‘after sales service’,

’reliability’, ‘warranty’,’ repair’, ‘responsiveness’, ‘product compatibility’,

‘competitive price’, ‘sales person’s behavior’ and ‘pre-sales’. The ’loyalty

programs’ are found to be least in importance.

Hence, it is inferred that of all the attributes, importance to audio

brands is maximum for ‘overall quality’.

5.3.1.2 Opinion on Various Criteria Considered for Choosing Washing

Machine Brands

Table 5.17 depicts how important various criteria’s are while selecting

the durable white goods washing machine brands by the customers. Column 2

shows the various criteria’s considered for choosing washing machine brands

and column 3 to 7 shows importance scale.

Table: 5.17

Opinion on Various Criteria for the Washing Machine Brands

Sl.No(1)

Criteria(2)

Veryimpor-

tant(3)

Important(4)

Unde-cided

(5)

Lessimpor-

tant(6)

Not atall

important (7)

Totalscore Mean Rank

1 Overallquality

610(67.0)

280(30.8)

10(1.1)

10(1.1)

04220 4.63 1

2Worthiness

520(57.1)

350(38.5)

10(1.1)

30(3.3)

04090 4.49 3

3 Responsiveness

280(30.8)

520(57.1)

80(8.8)

30(3.3)

03780 4.15 9

4Warranty

460(50.5)

410(45.1)

20(2.2)

20(2.2)

04040 4.43 4

5Pre -sales

380(41.8)

320(35.2)

60(6.6)

130(14.3)

20(2.2)

3640 4.00 10


420(46.2)

410(45.1)

30(3.3)

30(3.3)

20(2.2)

3910 4.29 6

7 Loyaltyprograms

230(25.3)

350(38.5)

190(20.9)

100(11.0)

40(4.4)

3360 3.69 13

128

Table No.5.17 continued

8 Salesperson’sbehavior

390(42.8)

300(33.0)

70(7.7)

100(11.0)

50(5.5)

3610 3.96 12

9Repair

380(41.8)

450(49.5)

20(2.2)

60(6.6)

0 3880 4.26 7

10Reliability

470(40.7)

370(35.2)

50(5.5)

10(1.1)

10(1.1)

4010 4.40 5

11 Customerservice

570(62.6)

280(30.8)

50(5.5)

10(1.1)

0 4140 4.54 2


280(30.8)

250(57.1)

20(2.20

80(8.8)

10(1.1)

3790 4.16 8

13 Competitive price

320(35.2)

390(42.9)

70(7.7)

120(13.2)

10(1.1)

3620 3.97 11


The importance assigned to various satisfactions attributes for durable

white goods washing machine brands are shown in table 5.17. It is understood

that ‘overall quality’ is considered to be the prime importance followed by

‘customer service’ and ‘worthiness’. These occupy second and third place in

importance of washing machine brands. These are followed by ‘warranty’,

’reliability’, ‘after sales service’,’ repair’, ‘product compatibility’,

‘responsiveness’ and ‘pre-sales’, ‘competitive price’ and ‘sales person’s

behavior’, The ‘loyalty programs’ are found to be least in importance.

Hence, it is inferred that of all the attributes in the column 2,

importance in washing machine brands is maximum for ‘overall quality’.

5.3.1.3 Opinion on Various Criteria Considered for Choosing Air

Conditioner Brands

Table 5.18 depicts how important the various criteria’s are while

selecting the durable white goods air conditioner brands. Column 2 shows the

various criteria’s considered for choosing air conditioner brands and column 3

to 7 shows importance scale.

129

Table: 5.18

Opinion on Various Criteria for the Air conditioner brands

S. N(1)

Criteria(2)

Veryimpor-

tant(3)

Impor-tant(4)

Undecided

(5)

Lessimpor-

tant(6)

Notat all

impor-tant(7)


1 Overallquality

600(74.1)

180(22.2)

20(2.5)

10(1.2)

03800 4.69 1

2Worthiness

460(56.8)

290(35.8)

30(3.7)

30(3.7)

03610 4.45 2

3 Responsiveness

390(48.1)

350(43.2)

20(2.5)

40(4.9)

10(1.2)

3500 4.32 5

4Warranty

430(53.1)

300(37.0)

40(4.90

40(4.9)

03550 4.38 4

5Pre -sales

230(28.4)

370(45.7)

90(11.1)

100(12.3)

20(2.5)

3120 3.85 11


320(39.5)

400(49.4)

50(6.2)

10(1.2)

30(3.7)

3400 4.19 8

7 Loyaltyprograms

240(29.6)

280(34.6)

180(22.2)

70(8.6)

40(4.9)

3040 3.75 13


300(37.0)

330(40.7)

60(7.4)

50(6.2)

70(8.6)

3170 3.91 12

9Repair

360(44.4)

360(44.4)

30(3.7)

40(4.9)

20(2.5)

3430 4.23 7

10Reliability

350(43.2)

400(49.4)

40(4.9)

20(2.5)

0 3490 4.30 6

11 Customerservice

420(51.9)

360(44.4)

20(2.5)

10(1.2)

0 3610 4.45 2


260(32.1)

390(48.1)

70(8.6)

60(7.4)

30(3.7)

3220 3.97 10

13 Competitiveprice

350(43.2)

310(38.3)

60(7.4)

70(8.6)

20(2.5)

3330 4.11 9


130

The importance assigned to the various satisfactions attributes for white

goods air conditioner brands are shown in table 5.18. It is understood that

‘overall quality’ is considered to be the prime importance followed by

‘worthiness’ and ‘customer service’. These occupy the second and third place

in importance of air conditioner brands. These are followed by ‘warranty’,

‘responsiveness’, ’reliability’, ‘ repair’, ‘after sales service’, ’competitive

price’,’ product compatibility’, ’pre sales’ and ‘sales person’s behavior’. The

‘loyalty programs’ are found to be least important.

Hence, it is inferred that of all the attributes in column 2 ‘overall

quality’ is of maximum importance in the air conditioner brands.

5.3.1.4 Opinion on Various Criteria Considered for Choosing Refrigerator Brands

Table 5.19 depicts how important are various criteria’s while selecting

the durable white goods refrigerator brands. Column 2 shows the various

criteria’s considered for choosing refrigerator brands and column 3 to 7 shows

on importance scale.

Table: 5.19

Opinion on Various Criteria for the Refrigerator Brands

S.No(1)

Criteria(2)

Veryimpor-tant(3)

Impor-tant (4)

Undeci-ded(5)

Lessimpor-tant (6)

Not at allimpor-tant (7)


1 Overallquality

650(68.4)

250(26.3)

30(3.2)

10(1.1)

10(1.1)

4400 4.63 1

2Worthiness

540(56.8)

340(35.8)

10(1.1)

40(4.2)

20(2.1)

4190 4.41 2

3 Responsiveness

360(37.9)

480(50.5)

70(7.4)

30(3.2)

10(1.1)

4000 4.21 7

4Warranty

410(43.2)

480(50.5)

10(1.1)

40(4.2)

10(1.1)

4090 4.30 4

5Pre -sales

280(29.5)

450(42.9)

120(12.6)

70(7.4)

30(3.2)

3730 3.92 11


450(47.4)

400(42.1)

40(4.2)

10(1.1)

50(5.3)

4040 4.25 5

131


7 Loyaltyprograms

270(28.4)

370(38.9)

170(17.9)

80(8.4)

60(6.3)

3560 3.74 13


230(24.2)

480(50.5)

70(7.4)

120(12.6)

50(5.3)

3570 3.75 12

9Repair

410(43.2)

440(46.3)

20(2.1)

30(3.2)

50(5.3)

3980 4.18 8

10Reliability

370(38.9)

500(52.6)

50(5.3)

10(1.1)

20(2.1)

4040 4.25 5

11 Customerservice

440(46.3)

430(45.3)

40(4.2)

30(3.2)

10(1.1)

4110 4.32 3


320(33.7)

490(51.6)

40(4.2)

70(7.4)

30(3.2)

3850 4.05 9

13 Competitiveprice

330(34.7)

450(47.4)

70(7.4)

80(8.4)

20(2.1)

3840 4.04 10


The importance assigned to the various satisfactions attributes for white

goods refrigerator brands is shown in table 5.19. It is understood that ‘overall

quality ‘is considered to be the prime importance followed by ‘worthiness’

and ‘customer service’. These occupy the second and third place in importance

of the refrigerator brands .These are followed by ‘warranty’, ’reliability’,

‘after sales service’ ,’responsiveness’, ‘repair’, ‘product compatibility’,’

competitive price’ ,’pre- sales’ and sales person’s behavior’. A loyalty

program is found to be least in importance.

Hence, it is inferred that of all the attributes, importance in the

refrigerator brands is maximum for ‘overall quality’.

5.3.2 Various Factors Considered for Satisfaction of Durable White

Goods

Tables 5.20 to 5.23 represent in this section deals with customer

satisfaction on various attributes and their relative importance in availing

consumer durable white goods.

132

5.3.2.1 Level of Satisfaction on Various Attributes with Respect to Audio brands

Table 5.20 depicts the respondents are satisfied with the various

criteria’s by durable white goods audio brands. The various factors of the

satisfaction are shown in column 1 and column 2 to 6 shows rating scale.

Table 5.20

Level of Satisfaction on Various Attributes with Respect to Audio Brands

Factors(1)

Highlysatisfied

(2)

Satisfied(3)

Neutral(4)

Dissatisfied(5)

Highlydissatisfied

(6)


Overall quality440

(51.2)350

(40.7)60

(7.0) 010

(1.0)3790 4.40 1

Worthiness170

(19.8)510

(59.3)140

(16.3)30

(3.5)10

(1.2)3410 3.96 4

Responsiveness230

(26.7)370

(43.0)230

(26.7)20

(2.3)10

(1.2)3370 3.91 5

Warranty200

(23.2)450

(52.3)150

(17.4)60

(7.0) 03370 3.91 5

Usageexperience

240(27.9)

520(60.5)

70(8.1)

30(3.5) 0

3550 4.12 2

Pre –sales230

(26.7)370

(43.0)190

(30.2)60

(7.0)10

(1.2)3330 3.87 9

After salesservice

220(25.6)

410(47.7)

120(14.0)

80(9.3)

30(3.5)

3370 3.91 5

Loyaltyprograms

160(18.6)

400(46.5)

180(20.9)

120(14.0) 0

3180 3.69 14

Sales person’sbehavior

170(19.8)

460(53.5)

170(19.8)

50(4.8)

10(1.2)

3310 3.84 10

Repair180

(20.9)420

(48.8)160

(18.6)70

(8.1)30

(3.5)3230 3.75 13

Reliability240

(27.9)420

(48.8)150

(17.4)50

(5.8) 03430 3.98 3

Customerservice

210(24.4)

440(51.2)

100(11.6)

80(9.3)

30(3.5)

3300 3.83 11

Productcompatibility

150(17.4)

500(58.1)

180(20.9)

20(2.3)

10(1.2)

3340 3.88 8

Competitiveprice

180(20.9)

440(51.2)

160(18.6)

40(4.7)

40(4.7)

3260 3.79 12


133

Table 5.20 indicates that most of the respondents are primarily satisfied

with the ‘overall quality’ given by the durable white goods audio brands

followed by the ‘usage experience’, ‘reliability’, ‘worthiness’ which are

considered as a main criteria’s for selecting audio brands. Whereas it is

inferred that from the surveyed respondents they have lower level of

satisfaction with ‘responsiveness’, warranty’,’ after sales service’, ‘product

compatibility’, ‘pre sales’, ‘sale person behavior’, ‘customer service’ and

‘competitive price’. Customers are highly dissatisfied with’ loyalty programs’

offered by the audio brands.

Hence, it is inferred that of all attributes, satisfaction in the audio


5.3.2.1.1 Parameters Considered for Selective Brands of Audio

Table 5.21 shows certain parameters assigned for considering the

weighted mean score of audio brands as shown in the column 1 and selective

brands of audio are given in the column 2 to 6 such as Sony, Creative,

Samsung, LG and Philips.

Weighted Mean Score -Audio Brands

Table 5.21

BrandsParameters (1)

Sony(2)

Creative(3)

Samsung(4)

LG(5)

Philips(6)

Overall quality(P1) 4.25 4.38 4.37 5.00 4.56Usage experience(P2) 4.14 4.00 4.12 4.57 4.12Reliability(P3) 3.85 4.00 3.62 4.14 4.25Worthiness(P4) 3.64 3.76 4.00 4.28 4.00Responsiveness(P5) 3.67 3.92 3.85 4.28 3.87Warranty(P6) 3.85 3.84 3.87 4.42 4.18After sales service (P7) 3.67 3.76 3.87 4.28 4.06


134

Table 5.21 clearly indicates that the customers are highly satisfied with

the overall quality, usage experience, worthiness, responsiveness, warranty

and after sales service of LG. Philips is highly reliable to the customers

compared to LG, Samsung, Creative and Sony.

Table 5.21-1

BrandsParameters

Sony Creative Samsung LG Philips

Overall quality �

Usage experience �

Reliability �

Worthiness �

Responsiveness �

Warranty �

After sales service �

Figure 5.10

Parameters with Respect to Selective Audio Brands

135

5.3.2.2 Level of Satisfaction on Various Attributes with Respect to

Washing Machine Brands.

Table 5.22 depicts that the customers are satisfied with the various

criteria’s in washing machine brands. The various factors on satisfaction are

given by column 1 and columns 2 to 6 show rating scale.

Table 5.22

Level of Satisfaction on Various Attributes with respect toWashing Machine Brands

Factors(1)

Highlysatisfied

(2)

Satisfied(3)

Neutral(4)

Dissatis-fied(5)

Highlydissatis-

fied(6)


Overallquality

450(49.5)

360(39.6)

60(5.7)

30(3.3)

10(1.1)

3940 4.32 1

Worthiness 300(33.0)

420(46.2)

150(16.5)

30(3.3

10(1.1)

3700 4.06 3

Respon-siveness

240(26.4)

490(53.8)

140(15.4)

30(3.3)

10(1.1)

3650 4.01 5

Warranty 210(23.1)

550(60.4)

100(11.0)

40(4.4)

10(1.1)

3640 4.00 6

Usageexperience

250(27.5)

540(59.3)

80(8).

20(2.2)

20(2.2)

3710 4.07 2

Presales 220(24.2)

410(45.1)

180(17.1)

70(7.7)

30(3.3)

3450 3.79 13

After salesservice

290(31.9)

440(48.4)

90(8.6)

70(7.7)

20(2.2)

3640 4.00 6

Loyaltyprograms

190(20.9)

450(49.5)

160(17.6)

80(8.8)

30(3.3)

3420 3.75 14

Salesperson’sbehavior

200(22.0)

490(53.8)

100(11.0)

90(9.9)

30(3.3)

3470 3.81 11

Repair 280(30.8)

340(37.4)

160(17.6)

100(11.0)

30(3.3)

3470 3.81 11

Reliability 210(23.1)

490(53.8)

100(11.0)

90(9.9)

20(2.2)

3510 3.85 10

Customerservice

290(31.9)

400(44.0)

120(13.2)

40(4.4)

60(6.6)

3550 3.90 9


220(24.2)

550(60.4)

100(11.0)

30(3.3)

10(1.1)

3670 4.03 4

Competitiveprice

210(23.1)

530(58.2)

130(14.3)

10(1.1)

30(3.3)

3610 3.96 8


136

Table 5.22 indicates that respondents are primarily satisfied with the

‘overall quality’ given by durable white goods washing machine brands

followed by the ‘usage experience’, ‘worthiness’ also considered as a main

criteria for selecting washing machine brands. Whereas it is inferred that the

surveyed respondents have lower level of satisfaction on ‘after sales service’,

‘pre sales’, ‘sale person behavior’, ‘customer service’, ‘competitive price’

‘reliability’ and ‘repair’. They are highly dissatisfied with’ loyalty programs’

offered by washing machine brands.

Hence it is inferred that of all attributes of satisfaction for washing

machine brands ‘overall quality’ is maximum.

5.3.2.2.2 Various Parameters Considered for Washing Machine Brands

Table 5.23 shows certain parameters assigned for determining the

weighted mean score of washing machine brands in column 1 and selective

brands of washing machine are shows in column 2 to 6 such as Whirlpool, LG,

IFB, Samsung and Videocon.

Table 5.23

Washing Machine Brands- Weighted Mean Score


Whirlpool(2)

LG(3)

IFB(4)

Samsung(5)

Videocon(6)

Overall quality (P1) 4.12 4.66 4.46 4.22 5.00

Usage experience(P2) 4.12 4.22 4.46 3.72 4.75

Worthiness(P3) 3.84 4.11 4.53 3.90 5.00

Product compatibility(P4) 4.00 4.55 4.40 3.63 4.50

Responsiveness(P5) 3.81 4.11 4.40 4.00 4.00

Warranty(P6) 3.93 4.11 4.00 3.90 4.00

After sales service(P7) 3.84 4.55 4.86 4.09 4.25

137

Table 5.23 indicates that customers are highly satisfied with the overall

quality, usage experience and worthiness of Videocon. Product compatibility

and warranty is high in LG compared to other brands. Consumers feel more

responsive and after sales service for IFB compared to other.

Table 5.23-1

BrandsParameters

Whirlpool LG IFB Samsung Videocon

Overall quality �Usage experience �Worthiness �Product compatibility �Responsiveness �Warranty �After sales service �

Figure 5.11

Parameter with Respect to selective Washing machine Brands

5.3.2.3 Level of Satisfaction on Various Attributes with Respect to Air

Conditioner Brands.

Table 5.24 depicts respondents are satisfied with various criteria’s of

white goods air conditioner brands. The various factors on satisfaction by

respondents are given in column 1 and column 2 to 6 shows rating scale.

138

Table 5.24

Level of Satisfaction on Various Attributes with Respect to Air

Conditioner Brands

Factors(1)

Highlysatisfied

(2)

Satisfied(3)

Neutral(4)

Dissatis-fied(5)

Highlydissatis-fied(6)


Overall quality340

(42.0)320

(39.5)110

(13.6)20

(2.5)20

(2.5)3370 4.16 1

Worthiness 250(30.9)

380(46.9)

100(12.3)

40(4.9)

40(4.9)

3190 3.93 6

Responsiveness250

(30.9)410

(50.6)120

(14.8)0 30

(3.7)3280 4.04 3

Warranty 170(21.0)

500(61.7)

80(9.9)

40(4.9)

20(2.5)

3190 3.93 6

Usageexperience

180(22.2)

460(56.8)

110(13.6)

30(3.7)

30(3.7)

3160 3.90 8

Pre -sales 300(37.0)

260(32.1)

120(14.8)

60(7.4)

70(8.6)

3090 3.81 10

After salesservice

220(27.2)

380(46.9)

110(13.6)

40(4.9)

60(7.4)

3090 3.81 10

Loyaltyprograms

180(22.2)

350(43.2)

200(24.7)

40(4.9

40(4.9)

3020 3.72 13

Sales person’sbehavior

150(18.5)

400(49.4)

150(18.5)

90(11.1)

20(2.5)

3000 3.70 14

Repair 230(28.4)

350(43.2)

120(14.8)

100(12.3)

10(1.2)

3120 3.85 9

Reliability230

(28.4)400

(49.4)120

(14.8)40

(4.9)20

(2.5)3210 3.96 5

Customerservice

220(27.2)

360(44.4)

120(14.8)

30(3.7)

80(9.9)

3040 3.75 12


280(34.6)

390(48.1)

60(7.4)

60(7.4)

20(2.5)

3280 4.04 3

Competitiveprice

290(35.8)

420(51.9)

50(6.2)

10(1.2)

40(4.9)

3340 4.12 2


In table 5.24, it is found that ‘overall quality’ is the primary criteria for

selecting various brands in air conditioners. It is followed by ‘customer

service’,’ competitive price’, ‘product compatibility’ and ‘responsiveness’ is

139

in fourth place of the scale. It understands that sales person’s behavior is not

that much of a level to satisfy.

Hence, it is inferred that of all attributes on satisfaction for air

conditioner brands ‘overall quality’ is maximum.

5.3.2.3.3 Various Parameters Considered for Selective Brands of Air

Conditioner.


weighted score of air conditioner brands which is given in the column 1 and

selective brands of air conditioner is given in column 2 to 6 such as Samsung,

LG, Voltas, General and Carrier.

Table 5.25

Air Conditioner Brands –Weighted Mean score


Samsung(2)

LG(3)

Voltas(4)

General(5)

Carrier(6)


Competitive price(P2) 3.90 4.18 4.21 4.20 5.00

Productcompatibility(P3)

3.70 4.33 3.92 3.60 4.66

Responsiveness(P3) 3.00 4.15 4.21 4.00 4.33

Reliability(P4) 3.50 4.03 4.21 4.40 3.66

Worthiness(P5) 4.30 4.15 4.15 3.71 3.80

Warranty(P6) 4.10 3.96 3.78 3.80 4.33

Table 5.25 indicates that the customers are highly satisfied with the

overall quality, competitive price, product compatibility, responsiveness and

warranty of Carrier. There is a high reliability in General. Worthiness is more

in Samsung compare to other.

140

Table 5.25-1

BrandsParameters

Samsung LG Voltas General Carrier

Overall quality �

Competitive price �

Product compatibility �

Responsiveness �

Reliability �

Worthiness �

Warranty �

Figure 5.12

Parameters with Respect to Selective Brands of Air Conditioner

5.3.2.4 Level of Satisfaction on Various Attributes with Respect to

Refrigerator Brands.

Table 5.26 depicts that respondents are satisfied with various criteria’s

for refrigerator brands. The various factors on satisfaction are given in column

1 and column 2 to 6 shows rating scale.

141

Table 5.26

Level of Satisfaction on Various Attributes with Respect to

Refrigerator Brands

Factors(1)

Highlysatisfied

(2)

Satisfied(3)

Neutral(4)

Dissatis-fied(5)

Highlydissatis-fied(6)

Totalscore

Mean Rank

Overallquality

450(47.4)

400(42.1)

70(7.4)

10(1.1)

20(2.1)

4100 4.31 1

Worthiness350

(36.8)450

(47.4)110

(11.6)20

(2.1)20

(2.1)3940 4.14 2

Respon-siveness

200(21.1)

540(56.8)

170(17.9)

20(2.1)

20(2.1)

3730 3.92 11

Warranty270

(28.4)540

(56.8)70

(7.4)50

(5.3)20

(2.1)3840 4.04 6

Usageexperience

350(36.8)

430(45.3)

110(11.6)

30(3.2)

30(3.2)

3890 4.09 4

Pre –sales380

(40.0)330

(34.7)120

(12.6)60

(6.3)60

(6.3)3760 3.95 8

After salesservice

360(37.9)

440(46.3)

70(7. 4)

30(3.2)

50(5.3)

3880 4.08 5

Loyaltyprograms

240(25.3)

460(48.4)

160(16.8)

50(5.3)

40(4.2)

3660 3.85 13


180(18.9)

500(52.6)

130(13.7)

110(11.6)

30(3.2)

3540 3.72 14

Repair350

(36.8)370

(38.9)110

(11.6)70

(7.4)50

(5.3)3750 3.94 10

Reliability 350(36.8)

460(48.4)

90(9.5)

20(2.1)

30(3.2)

3930 4.13 3

Customerservice

340(35.8)

380(40.0)

100(1.5)

50(5.3)

80(8.4)

3700 3.89 12


240(25.3

550(57.9)

90(8.6)

40(3.8)

30(3.2)

3780 3.97 7

Competitiveprice

270(28.4

530(55.5)

50(5.3)

40(4.2)

60(6.3)

3760 3.95 8


Values within brackets show percentage

142

In table 5.26, it is found that ‘overall quality’ is the primary criteria for

selecting white goods refrigerator brands. It is followed by ‘worthiness’,

‘reliability’,’ usage experience’ and ’after sales service is in the fifth place of

the satisfaction scale. Followed with ‘warranty’, product compatibility’,

’competitive price’, ’repair’, responsiveness’ and customer service’. Loyalty

programs offered is highly dissatisfied with ‘sales person’s behavior’.

Hence, it is inferred that of all attributes, satisfaction in refrigerator


5.3.2.4.4 Parameters Considered for Selective Brands of Refrigerator.


weighted score of refrigerator brands is given in column 1 and selective brands

are given in column 2 to 6 such as Godrej, Kelvinator, Whirlpool, LG and

Samsung.

Refrigerator Brands-Weighted Mean Score

Table 5.27


Godrej(2)

Kelvinator(3)

Whirlpool(4)

LG(5)

Samsung(6)


Worthiness(P2) 4.44 4.33 3.96 4.06 4.28

Reliability(P3) 4.44 4.66 4.07 4.00 4.00

Usageexperience(P4)

4.33 3.83 4.07 3.87 4.28

After salesservice(P5)

4.44 4.00 4.00 4.12 4.14

Warranty(P6) 4.27 4.00 3.96 4.25 4.00

Productcompatibility(P7)

4.33 3.83 3.64 4.00 3.78

143

Table 5.27 clearly indicates that the customers are highly satisfied with

the overall quality and reliability of Kelvinator. Worthiness, usage experience,

after sales service, warranty period and product compatibility is higher for

Godrej when compared to other brands.

Table 5.27-1

BrandsParameters

Godrej Kelvinator Whirlpool LG Samsung

Overall quality �

Worthiness �

Reliability �

Usage experience �

After sales service �

Warranty �

Product compatibility �

Figure 5.13

Parameter with Respect to Selective Brands of Refrigerator

144

5.3.3 FACTOR ANALYSIS- CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

5.3.3.1 Factor Analysis on Audio Brands

The various attributes considered for factor analysis are overall quality,

worthiness, responsiveness, warranty, usage experience, pre –sales, after sales

service, loyalty programs, sales person’s behavior, repair, reliability, customer

service, product compatibility and competitive price

Factor Analysis –Customer Satisfaction - Audio Brands

Table: 5.28

KMO and Bartlett's test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy. 0.847

Bartlett's test ofsphericity

Approx. Chi-square 5108.59

df 91

Sig. 0.001

Total Variance Explained by Initial Eigen Values

Table 5.29

Component

Initial eigen values

Total Percentage ofvariance Cumulative percentage

1 5.694 40.669 40.669

2 1.375 9.822 50.491

3 1.051 7.509 58.000

Extraction method: Principal component analysis.

145

Table: 5.30

Component matrix ( Without rotation)

AttributesComponent

1 2 3

Overall quality .670 .409 -.069

Worthiness .733 .334 .047

Responsiveness .699 .314 .069

Warranty .538 .241 .610

Usage experience .526 .281 .159

Pre –sales .618 -.484 -.137

After sales service .653 -.351 .023

Loyalty programs .625 -.165 -.165

Sales person’s behavior .558 .182 .026

Repair .674 -.428 .361

Reliability .743 -.188 .108

customer service .584 -.423 -.048

Product compatibility .654 .143 -.577

Competitive price .605 .157 -.343

146

Table: 5.31Varimax Rotated Factor Loading Matrix

AttributesFactor loadings

Communalities(h2)F1 F2 F3

Pre –sales .751 .635

After sales service .685 .550

Loyalty programs .507 .445

Repair .786 .768

Reliability .623 .599

Customer service .690 .522

Overall quality .590 .621

Worthiness .653 .651

Responsiveness .634 .592

Warranty .808 .720

Usage experience .564 .381

Sales person’s behavior .451 .346

Product compatibility .836 .782

Competitive price .625 .508

Eigen values 3.092 2.828 2.200

Percentage of variance explained 22.084 20.199 15.717

Percentage of cumulativevariance explained 22.084 42.283 58.000


147

KMO is calculated using correlation and partial correlation to test

whether the variables in our sample are adequate to correlate. A general rule of

thumb is that KMO value should be greater than 0.5 for a satisfaction factor

analysis to proceed, by observing the above results from table 5.28 KMO

value is 0.847; therefore can proceed with factor analysis.

Bartlett’s test of sphericity is to find out the relationship between

variables. A p- value < 0.05 indicates that it makes sense to continue with the

factor analysis, it is found that P is < 0.001, therefore it is concluded that there

are relationships between our variables.

As evident from table 5.29, it is find that 3 factors extracted together

account for 58 per cent of total variance. Hence we have reduced the number

of variables from 14 to 3 underlying factors.

From table 5.31, variables repair loaded as (0.786), pre sales (0.751),

after sales service (0.685), customer service (0.690) and reliability (0.623) on

factor 1. Thus factor 1 can be named as ‘service attributes’.

As for factor 2, it is evident that warranty has the highest load of 0.808

and worthiness be loaded as 0.653, this factor can be termed as ‘product

attributes’.

It is evident that from the table product compatibility has the highest

load of 0.836 and competitive price 0.625, hence this factor can be interpreted

as ‘customer attributes’.

5.3.3.2 Factor Analysis on Washing Machine Brands.


worthiness, responsiveness, warranty, usage experience, pre–sales, after sales


service, product compatibility and competitive price

148

Factor Analysis –Customer Satisfaction – Washing Machine Brands

Table 5.32


Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy. .893

Bartlett's test of sphericity Approx. Chi-square 7110.005df 91

Sig. .001

Table 5.33


ComponentInitial eigen values

Total Percentage of variance Cumulative percentage

1 6.980 49.858 49.858

2 1.122 8.012 57.870


Table 5.34

Component matrix ( Without rotation)Attributes 1 2


Worthiness .708 .156Responsiveness .758 -.228

Warranty .560 .070

Usage experience .680 .488Pre –sales .795 -.096

After sales service .716 -.346Loyalty programs .751 -.073

Sales person’s behavior .655 -.240

Repair .663 -.452Reliability .817 -.144

customer service .659 .251Product compatibility .698 .311

Competitive price .756 -.043

149

Table 5.35

Varimax Rotated Factor Loading Matrix

Attributes

Factor Loadings

Communalities(h2)F1 F2


Warranty .373 .318

Pre -sales .660 .641




Repair .796 .644






customer service .624 .497


Eigen values 4.418 3.684

Percentage of variance explained 31.555 26.315

percentage of cumulative variance

explained31.555 57.870




thumb is that KMO value should greater than 0.5 for a satisfaction factor


value is 0.893; therefore we can proceed with factor analysis.

150

Bartlett’s test of sphericity is to find out the relationship between the

variables. A p- value is < 0.05 indicates that it makes sense to continue with

the factor analysis, it is found that P is < 0.001, therefore it is concluded that

there are relationships between our variables.

As evident from table 5.33, found that 2 factors extracted together

account for 57.87 per cent of total variance. Hence we have reduced the

number of variables from 14 to 2 underlying factors.

From table 5.35, variables repair loaded as (0.796), reliability (0.708),

responsiveness (0.720), after sales service (0.766) and sales person’s behavior

on factor 1. Thus factor 1 can be named as ‘service attributes’.

As for factor 2, it is evident that usage experience has the highest load

of 0.815 and overall quality’ be loaded as 0.769 and product compatibility

(0.695), this factor can be termed as ‘customer experience’.

5.3.3.3 Factor Analysis on Air Conditioner Brands.




service, product compatibility and competitive price.

Factor Analysis –Customer Satisfaction – Air Conditioner Brands

Table: 5.36



Bartlett's test of sphericity Approx. Chi-square 7719.045

Df 91

Sig. .001

151

Table: 5.37




1 7.202 51.442 51.442

2 1.432 10.226 61.669

3 1.029 7.350 69.019


Table 5.38


Attributes 1 2 3

Overall quality .610 .669 .122

Worthiness .747 .480 .208

Responsiveness .687 .181 -.165

Warranty .745 .185 -.255

Usage experience .723 .470 .165

Pre –sales .765 -.236 -.059

After sales service .839 -.131 -.114

Loyalty programs .716 -.060 -.524

Sales person’s behavior .660 -.131 -.289

Repair .775 -.275 -.240

Reliability .673 -.298 .266

customer service .687 -.206 .189

Product compatibility .715 -.252 .329

Competitive Price .671 -.320 .452

152

Table: 5.39


Attributes

Factor loadings

Communalities(h2)F1 F2 F3


Warranty .626 .655

Pre -sales .568 .644




Repair .718 .733


Customer service .629 .550






Eigen values 3.470 3.282 2.911


Percentage of cumulative variance 24.783 48.224 60.019


153








factor analysis, we found that P is < 0.001, therefore it is concluded that there


As evident from table 5.37, we find that 3 factors extracted together



From table 5.39, variables loyalty programs loaded as (0.857), repair

(0.718), sales person behavior (0.656), and after sale service (0.636) on factor

1. Thus factor 1 can be named as ‘customer loyalty’.

As for factor 2, it is evident that competitive price has the highest load

of 0.841, product compatibility’ (0.756) and reliability be loaded as 0.715, this

factor can be termed as ‘price attributes’.

It is evident that from the table, that overall quality has the highest load

of 0.894, worthiness 0.826,and usage experience 0.796, hence this factor can

be interpreted as ‘product attributes’.

5.3.3.4 Factor Analysis on Refrigerator Brands




service, product compatibility and competitive price.

154

Factor Analysis –Customer Satisfaction - Refrigerator BrandsTable 5.40




Df 91

Sig. .001

Table 5.41


Component Initial eigen values


1 7.988 57.060 57.060

2 1.004 7.171 64.231


Table 5.42


Attributes 1 2Overall quality .681 .422


Responsiveness .705 .403Warranty .760 -.091

Usage experience .762 -.053Pre –sales .731 .183


Loyalty programs .775 .090Sales person’s behavior .790 -.114

Repair .732 -.321

Reliability .773 .007csutomer service .794 .141

Product compatibility .779 -.372Competitive price .717 -.524

155

Table 5.43




1 2Overall quality .784 .642Worthiness .724 .645Responsiveness .787 .658Reliability .563 .597Customer service .671 .651Pre –sales .654 .568After sales service .595 .643Loyalty programs .622 .608Warranty .592 .586Usage Experience .566 .583Sales person’s behavior .629 .638Repair .738 .639Product compatibility .807 .745Competitive Price .874 .789Eigen values 4.646 4.346Percentage of variance explained 33.185 31.045Percentage of Cumulative varianceexplained 33.185 64.231









156

factor analysis, it is found that P is < 0.001, therefore it is concluded that there


As evident from table 5.41, it is found that 2 factors extracted together



From table 5.43, variables responsiveness loaded as (0.787), overall

quality (0.784), worthiness (0.724) and customer service (0.671) on factor 1.

Thus factor 1 can be named as ‘customers response attributes’.

As for factor 2, it is evident that competitive price has the highest load

of 0.874 and product compatibility’ be loaded as 0.807 and repair 0.738, this

factor can be termed as ‘product attributes’.

5.3.4 REGRESSION MODEL ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION OF

CONSUMER DURABLE WHITE GOODS

An in-depth study of satisfaction would not be complete without the

identification of key indicators of customer’s satisfaction.

Assuming the existence of linear relationship between the independent

variables and dependent variable, multiple regression analysis is done between

level satisfaction of different predictor variables of satisfaction and overall

satisfaction of service.

5.3.4.1 Regression Model on Satisfaction Audio Brands

This study attempted to develop a model to analyze satisfaction of

audio brands. Enter method of regression analysis of satisfaction (Y) is

performed with the variables X1- overall quality ; X2- worthiness, X3-

responsiveness; X4- warranty ; X5- usage experience; X6- pre-sales;X7-after

sales service;X8- loyalty programs; X9-sales persons behaviour;X10-

repair,X11- reliability;X12- customer service X13-product compatibility X14-

competitive price for the audio brands.

157

Table 5.44

Regression Model-Satisfaction-Audio Brands

Model R R square Adjusted R Square Std. error of the estimate

1 .829 .687 .681 .230

ANOVAModel Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

1 Regression 97.709 14 6.979 132.182 .001

Residual 44.616 845 .053

Total 142.326 859

Coefficients

ModelUn standardized

coefficientsStandardizedcoefficients t Sig.

(P value)B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 3.519 .064 54.958 .001

Overall quality -.103 .017 -.183 -6.212 .001

Worthiness -.020 .016 -.038 -1.238 .216

Responsiveness -.031 .013 -.064 -2.321 .020

Warranty .008 .012 .016 .655 .512

Usage experience -.071 .014 -.122 -5.274 .001

Pre -sales -.033 .012 -.074 -2.846 .005

After sales service -.038 .011 -.095 -3.510 .001

Loyalty programs .002 .011 .004 .167 .867

Sales person’s behavior -.074 .011 -.153 -6.686 .001

Repair -.043 .012 -.104 -3.479 .001

Reliability -.097 .014 -.198 -6.921 .001

Customer service -.114 .010 -.284 -10.917 .001

Product compatibility .043 .016 .079 2.740 .006

Competitive price -.006 .011 -.016 -.589 .556

Source: Field Survey and Analysis of Data 2010 Level of significance (0.05%)

158

The R value (0.829) indicates multiple correlation coefficients between

all the entered independent variables and dependent variables.

The R square value in model summary table shows the portion of

variance accounted for by the independent variables that are approximately 69

per cent of variance in satisfaction accounted for.

The ANOVA table indicates p-level to be 0.001.This indicates that the

model is statistically significant at a confidence level of 99.999. The P-level

indicates the significance of the F- value.

Also note that t- tests significance of individual independent variables

indicate that overall quality, usage experience, pre sales, after sales service,

sales person’s behavior, repair, reliability, customer service and product

compatibility are independent variables which are statistically significant in

this model.

The standardized coefficients Beta column, gives the coefficients of

independent variables in the regression equation including all predictor

variables.

Satisfaction Y = -0.183X1 -0.038X2-0.064 X3+0.016X4-0.122 X5-0.074X6-

0.095X7+0.004X8-.153X9-.104X10-0.198X11-0.284X12+0.079X13-0.016X14. (5.1)

5.3.4.2 Regression Model on Satisfaction Washing Machine Brands

This study attempted to develop a model to analyze satisfaction of

washing machine brands. Enter method of regression analysis of satisfaction

(Y) is performed with the variables X1- overall quality ; X2- worthiness, X3-




competitive price for the washing machine brands.

159

Table 5.45

Regression Model-Satisfaction Washing Machine Brands

Model R R squareAdjusted R

squareStd. error of the estimate

1 .810 .656 .650 .261

ANOVA

Model Sum ofsquares df Mean square F Sig.

1 Regression 115.829 14 8.274 121.642 .001

Residual 60.874 895 .068

Total 176.703 909

Coefficients


coefficientsStandardizedcoefficients t Sig.(P value)

B Std. error Beta

1 (Constant) 2.898 .064 45.098 .001

Overall quality .010 .015 .018 .658 .510

Worthiness -.014 .015 -.027 -.948 .343

Responsiveness -.057 .017 -.104 -3.249 .001

Warranty .094 .014 .167 6.737 .001


Pre-sales -.035 .014 -.080 -2.449 .015

After sales service -.005 .013 -.011 -.375 .708

Loyalty program -.054 .014 -.120 -3.869 .001


.007 .012 .016 .599 .549

Repair -.049 .011 -.121 -4.342 .001

Reliability -.152 .016 -.330 -9.344 .001

customer service -.119 .011 -.296 -11.079 .001


-.051 .017 -.088 -2.942 .003

Competitive price .019 .017 .036 1.083 .279


160

The R value (0.810) indicates multiple correlation coefficients between

all the entered independent variables and dependent variables.

The R square value in the model summary table shows the portion of

variance accounted for by the independent variables that is approximately 66

per cent of variance in satisfaction is accounted for.

The ANOVA table indicates the p-level to be 0.001.this indicates that

the model is statistically significant at a confidence level of 99.999. The P-

level indicates the significance of the F- value.


indicate that responsiveness, warranty, loyalty program, repair, reliability,

customer service, product compatibility are the independent variables which

are statistically significant in the model.



variables.

Satisfaction Y =.018X1-.027X2-.104X3+.167X4-.032X5-.080X6-.011X7-.120X8+.016X9-

.121X10-.330X11-.296X12-.088X13+.036X14 (5.2)

5.3.4.3Regression Model on Satisfaction for the Air Conditioner brands

This study also attempted to develop a model to analyze satisfaction of

air conditioner brands. Enter method of regression analysis of satisfaction (Y)

is performed with the variables X1- overall quality ; X2- worthiness, X3-




competitive price for the air conditioner brands.

161

Table 5.46

Regression model- Satisfaction-Air conditioner Brands

Model R R square Adjusted R square Std. error of the estimate1 .892 .796 .792 .208

ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares dfMean

Square F Sig.

1 Regression 134.444 14 9.603 221.648 .001

Residual 34.444 795 .043Total 168.889 809

Coefficients

ModelUn standardized coefficients Standardized

coefficients t Sig.(pvalue)

B Std. Error Beta1 (Constant) 2.983 .050 60.163 .001

Overall quality .029 .014 .059 2.166 .031

Worthiness -.054 .014 -.121 -3.935 .001Responsiveness .042 .013 .083 3.275 .001

Warranty -.018 .014 -.033 -1.287 .198Usage experience -.003 .015 -.005 -.185 .853

Pre-sales -.048 .009 -.130 -5.125 .001

After sales service -.047 .014 -.115 -3.398 .001Loyalty program -.108 .014 -.240 -7.939 .001Salesperson’sbehavior .032 .012 .068 2.610 .009

Repair -.049 .013 -.108 -3.830 .001

Reliability -.098 .011 -.198 -8.695 .001

Customer service -.150 .009 -.388 -16.146 .001Productcompatibility -.088 .012 -.186 -7.356 .001



The R value (0.892) indicates the multiple correlation coefficients

between all the entered independent variables and dependent variables.

162


variance accounted for by the independent variable that is approximately 80

per cent of variance in satisfaction which is accounted for.



level indicates the significance of the F- value.


indicate that worthiness, responsiveness, pre-sales, after sales service, loyalty

programs, repair, customer service, product compatibility, competitive price

are the independent variables which are statistically significant in the model.



variables.

Y =.059 X1-.121 X2+.083 X3-.033X4-.005X5-.130X6-.115X7-.240X8+.068X9-.108X10-

.198X11-.388X12-.186X13+.227X14 (5.3)

5.3.4.4 Regression Model on Satisfaction Refrigerator brands

The study also attempted to develop a model to analyze satisfaction of

refrigerator brands. Enter method of regression analysis of satisfaction (Y) is

performed with the variables X1- overall quality ; X2- worthiness, X3-




competitive price for the refrigerator brands.

163

Table 5.47

Regression Model-Satisfaction-Refrigerator Brands

Model R R square Adjusted Rsquare Std. error of the estimate

1 .456 .208 .196 .546

ANOVA

ModelSum ofsquares

dfMeansquare

F Sig.

1 Regression 73.096 14 5.221 17.490 .001

Residual 279.114 935 .299

Total 352.211 949

Coefficients


coefficientsStandardizedcoefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.662 .114 14.633 .001

Overall quality .073 .031 .099 2.349 .019

Worthiness -.088 .033 -.124 -2.701 .007

Responsiveness -.121 .032 -.162 -3.749 .001

Warranty .157 .031 .224 5.105 .001


Pre-sales .019 .024 .037 .807 .420

After sales service -.108 .033 -.182 -3.261 .001

Loyalty program .194 .031 .317 6.304 .001

Salesperson’s behavior -.031 .030 -.050 -1.026 .305

Repair -.209 .024 -.384 -8.631 .001

Reliability .026 .033 .039 .802 .423

Customer service -.102 .026 -.200 -3.980 .001

Product compatibility .104 .037 .153 2.800 .005



164




the variance accounted for by the independent variable that is approximately

21 per cent of variance in satisfaction which is accounted for.


the model is statistically significant at a confidence level of 99.999. The

P-level indicates the significance of the F- value.


indicates that Worthiness, responsiveness, warranty, usage experience, after

sale service, loyalty programs and repair are the independent variables which

are statistically significant in the model.



variables.

Y=.099X1-.124X2-.162X3+.224X4-.198X5+.037X6-.182X7+.317X8-.050X9-384X10+.039X11-

.200X12+.153X13+.138X14 (5.4)

5.4 FACTORS CONSIDERED FOR CUSTOMER LOYALTY

Loyalty factors should be developed over time, if the parameters for the

relationship are planned and implemented by the firm in a proper manner. As

the time period of relationship between a customer and business firm

increases, the profit accruing from such a customer towards the company also

makes a corresponding increase. The economic consequences of losing mature

customers and replacing them with new one are not the neutral processes.

5.4.1 Factors Considered for Loyalty White goods Audio Brands

The various factors considered for loyalty on durable white goods audio

brands are given in column 1 and rating scales are given in column 2 to 6. The

rank assigned the weighted mean score are in column 9.

165

Table 5.48

Loyalty Factors Considered on Various Audio Brands

Factors(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)

Totalscore

(7)

Mean(8)

Rank(9)

Deliver onpromises

200(23.5)

470(55.3)

120(14.1)

20(2.4)

40(4.7)

3320 3.86 5

Providesaccurate

brandinformation

210(24.4)

420(48.8)

150(17.4)

80(9.3)

0 3340 3.88 4

Value for me 190(22.1)

450(52.3)

170(19.8)

40(4.7)

10(1.2)

3350 3.89 3

Good brandchoice

180(20.9)

540(62.8)

90(10.5)

50(5.8)

0 3430 3.98 2

Handlescritical

problem well

150(17.4)

410(47.7)

200(23.3)

60(7.0)

40(4.7)

3150 3.66 9

Consistencein service

210(24.4)

380(44.2)

190(22.1)

30(3.5)

50(5.8)

3250 3.77 7

Lowest price 110(12.8)

450(52.3)

160(18.6)

90(10.5)

50(5.8)

3060 3.55 11

Lesstransaction

time

170

(19.8)

450(52.3)

140(16.3)

60(7.0)

40(4.7)

3230 3.75 8

Needsfulfillment

270(31.4)

400(46.5)

150(17.4)

10(1.2)

30(3.5)

3450 4.01 1

Rewardsprograms

240(27.9)

370(43.0)

140(16.3)

70(8.1)

40(4.7)

3280 3.81 6

Properlysettled

complaints

170

(19.8)

390(45.3)

140(16.3)

80(9.3)

80(9.3)

3070 3.56 10

Mean 3.79


166

Table 5.48 indicates the level of loyalty as expressed by audio brand

respondents towards their respective brand. In this table various factors

determining loyalty in audio brands are ranked in descending order given in

column 9. It is understood that the audio brands fulfill the needs of

respondents for the selection of their brands. The audio also scored well on

offering better product choice. As it stands, nature of consumer durable white

goods are being different, providing variety is difficult for this product. The

audio are rated high on making the respondents feel important (valuing their

respective customers). The audio provides accurate brand information to

respondents for the selection of consumer durable white goods. The

companies are found to deliver the service in tune with the promises made to

its valuable customers. Apparently audio brands did not do too well on reward

programs, consistency in service, time taken for each transaction and handles

critical problem for all respondents which are properly settled complaints.

Finally, audio brands do not deliver goods at lowest price.

Clearly, audio brands have scored well on the items that ‘needs

fulfillments’,’ good brand choice’, ‘value’,’ provide accurate brand

information’, and ‘deliver on promises’.

5.4.1.1Various Loyalty Parameters Considered Audio Brands


weighted score of audio brands which are given in the column 1 and selective

brands of audio are given in column 2 to 6 such as Sony, Creative, Samsung

LG and Philips.

167

Table 5.49

Loyalty- Audio Brands-Weighed Mean Score

BrandsParameters(1)

Sony(2)

Creative(3)

Samsung(4)

LG(5)

Philips(6)

Understand needs(P1) 3.78 4.15 3.85 4.14 4.25

Good brand choice(P2) 3.96 4.00 3.50 4.14 4.06

Value for me(P3) 3.14 4.00 4.00 4.71 3.81

Provide accurate brandinformation(P4)

3.64 4.23 4.00 4.14 3.87

Deliver on promises(P5) 3.82 4.00 4.00 4.14 3.93

Reward programs(P6) 3.42 4.00 4.00 4.28 4.00

Table 5.49 indicates that customers are highly loyal to the firm by

fulfilling needs of audio brands rated high for the brand of Philips. In terms of

good brand choice, value, promise on delivery and reward programs is more in

LG. Highly loyal to customer in providing accurate brand information by

creative.

Table 5.49-1

BrandsParameters


Understand needs �

Good brand choice �

Value for me �

Provide accurate brand information �

Deliver on promises �

Reward programs �

168

Figure 5.14

Loyalty Parameters with Respect to Selective Audio Brands

5.4.2 Factors Considered for Loyalty Washing Machine Brands

The various factors considered for loyalty white goods washing

machine brands are given in column 1 and rating scales are given in columns 2

to 6. The rank assigned on the weighted score is given in column 9.

Table 5.50

LOYALTY FACTORS CONSIDERED ON VARIOUS WASHING

MACHINE BRANDS

Factors(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)


Deliver onpromises

380(41.3)

380(41.3)

90(9.8)

40(4.3)

20(2.2)

3840 4.21 2

Providesaccurate

brandinformation

300(33.0)

460(50.5)

100(11.0)

40(4.4)

10(1.1)

3730 4.09 4


470(51.6)

110(12.1)

40(4.4)

0 3740 4.10 3

169

Table 5.50 Continue

Good brandchoice

410(45.1)

330(36.3)

150(16.5)

20(2.2)

0 3860 4.24 1

Handlescritical

problem well

250(27.5)

410(45.1)

150(16.5)

70(7.7)

30(3.3)

3510 3.85 8


260(28.6)

440(48.4)

100(11.0)

60(6.6)

50(5.5)

3530 3.87 6


410(45.1)

220(24.2)

50(5.5)

50(5.5)

3350 3.68 10

Lesstransaction

time

240(26.4)

430(47.3)

150(16.5)

70(7.7)

20(2.2)

3530 3.87 6

Needsfulfillment

270(29.7)

470(51.6)

110(12.1)

40(4.4)

20(2.2)

3660 4.02 5

Rewardsprograms

220(24.2)

410(45.1)

120(13.2)

110(12.1)

50(5.5)

3370 3.70 9

Properlysettled

complaints

210(23.1)

390(42.9)

150(16.5)

110(12.1)

50(5.5)

3330 3.65 11

Mean 3.93



Table 5.50 expresses the ranking of responses of washing machine

brands respondents on various criteria’s of loyalty. In this table various factors

determining loyalty washing machine are ranked in descending order of their

loyalty. It is evident that washing machine brands have been given good brand

choice while selecting the brands by the respondents is given the first position.

Secondly it has been successful in delivering the goods as promised to its

customers. Third the company has provided personalized service to its

customers. It has also delivered correct product information to its customers,

who, by and large, would not have had much idea about the white goods

products or their differentiation. Fifthly, the company has understood the

170

needs of customers, but white goods washing machine seem to have slackened

on’ service consistency’, ‘less in traction time’, ‘handles critical problem ‘and’

rewards programs’.

5.4.2.1 Various Parameters Considered on White Goods –Loyalty-

Washing machine Brands.

Table 5.51 shows various parameters assigned for determining the

weighted score of washing machine brands which are given in column 1 and

selective brands of washing machine are given in columns 2 to 6 such as

Whirlpool, LG, IFB, Samsung and Videocon.

Table 5.51WASHING MACHINE BRANDS-LOYALTY-WEIGHTED MEAN SCORE

Brands

Parameters(1)

Whirlpool

(2)

LG

(3)

IFB

(4)

Samsung

(5)

Videocon

(6)

Good brand choice (P1) 3.90 4.11 4.33 3.72 4.50

Deliver on promises(P2) 4.37 4.55 4.20 3.95 4.25

Value for me( P3 ) 4.34 4.33 4.00 3.86 4.00

Provide accurate brandinformation (P4)

4.15 4.44 4.20 3.72 4.50

Need fulfillment (P5) 4.28 4.44 4.40 3.77 3.75

Consistence in service (P6) 3.81 3.55 3.80 3.45 3.25

Table 5.51 indicates that most of the customers are highly loyal in providing good

brand choice and providing accurate brand information to the customer’s by

Videocon. In terms of deliver promises and need fulfillment stands first by LG.

Whirlpool provides consistence service and value.

171

Table 5-51-1

Brands

Parameters




Value for me �

Provide accurate brandinformation

�

Need fulfillment �

Consistence in service �

Figure 5.15

Loyalty parameters with respect to Selective Brands of washing machine

172

5.4.3 Loyalty Factors considered for Air conditioner Brands

Table 5.52 shows various factors considered on the loyalty for air

conditioner brands and are given in column 1 and rating scales are given in

columns 2 to 6.

Table 5.52

Loyalty Factors on Various Air conditioner Brands

Factors(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)

Totalscore mean Rank

Deliver onpromises

330(40.7)

320(39.5)

80(9.9)

50(6.2)

30(3.7)

3300 4.07 1

Providesaccuratebrandinformation

210(25.9)

390(48.1)

110(13.6)

70(8.6)

30(2.9)

3110 3.83 7


400(49.4)

160(19.8)

50(6.2)

10(1.2)

3140 3.87 4

Good brandchoice

330(40.7)

310(38.3)

100(12.3)

40(4.9)

30(3.7)

3300 4.07 1

Handlescriticalproblem well

160(19.8)

420(40.0)

120(14.8)

60(7.4)

50(6.2)

3010 3.71 11


170(21.0)

460(56.8)

90(11.1)

30(3.7)

60(7.4)

3080 3.80 8


400(49.4)

140(17.3)

30(3.7)

40(4.9)

3120 3.85 5

Lesstransactiontime

230(28.4)

390(48.1)

120(14.8)

30(2.9)

40(4.9)

3170 3.91 3

Needfulfillment

220(27.2)

370(45.7)

130(16.0)

60(7.4)

30(3.7)

3120 3.85 5

Rewardsprograms

250(30.9)

320(39.5)

100(12.3)

70(8.6)

70(8.6)

3040 3.75 10

Properlysettledcomplaints

260(32.1)

270(33.3)

160(19.8)

80(9.9)

40(4.9)

3060 3.77 9

Mean 3.86


173

Table 5.52 indicates the level of loyalty expressed by air conditioner

brand respondents towards their respective brands. The table shows various

factors considered for loyalty in air conditioner brands and are ranked in the

descending order as are given in column 9. It is to be understood that the air

conditioner brands scored well on offering better product choice to the

customers. The companies are found to deliver the service in tune with the

promises made to its customers. The time taken for each transaction to

customers is found satisfactory. Air conditioner brands are also rated high on

making the customers feel important (valuing the respective customers).

Companies also do well on delivering the air conditioner brands at lowest

price. Finally handling the critical problems is found not satisfactory.

5.4.3.1Various Parameters Considered on the White goods –Loyalty-Air

conditioner Brands.

Table 5.53 shows various parameters assigned for considering the

weighted score of air conditioner brands which given in column 1 and

selective brands of air conditioner are shown in columns 2 to 6 such as

Samsung, LG, Voltas, General and Carrier.

Table 5.53

Air conditioner Brands-Loyalty-Weighted mean score


Samsung(2)

LG(3)

Voltas(4)

General(5)

Carrier(6)

Good brand choice(P1) 4.00 4.21 4.14 4.20 3.66Deliver on promises(P2) 3.90 4.06 3.92 4.80 4.33Less transactiontime(P3)

3.80 4.00 3.5 4.00 4.00

Value for me(P4) 3.70 3.96 3.85 3.60 4.00Lowest price(P5) 3.20 3.90 3.71 4.00 4.00Need fulfillment(P6) 4.10 3.78 3.50 3.60 4.33

Table 5.53 indicates that the customers are highly loyal LG by

providing good brand choice and less transaction time. Delivery promises, less

174

transaction time and price is the parameters bring the customers loyal to

General. Carrier stands first in loyal of less transaction time, value, price and

fulfillment of need.

Table 5.53-1

BrandsParameters




Less transaction time � � �

Value for me �

Lowest price � �

Need fulfillment �

Figure 5.16

Loyalty Parameters with respect to Selective brands

Air Conditioner

175

5.4.4 Loyalty factors considered for Refrigerator Brands

Table 5.54 shows various factors considered on loyalty for refrigerator

brands as given in column 1 and rating scales are given in columns 2 to 6.

Table 5.54

LOYALTY FACTORS CONSIDERED ON VARIOUS

REFRIGERATOR BRANDS

Factors(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)Agree

(3)Neutral

(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)


Deliver onpromises

410(43.2)

39.(41.1)

90(9.5)

40(4.2)

20(2.1)

3980 4.18 1

Providesaccuratebrandinformation

330(34.7)

480(50.5)

60(6.3)

70(7.4)

10(1.1)

3900 4.10 2


500(52.6)

80(8.4)

70(7.4)

10(1.1)

3840 4.04 4

Good brandchoice

370(38.9)

380(40.0)

130(13.7)

60(6.3)

10(1.1)

3890 4.09 3

Handlescriticalproblem well

200(21.1)

500(52.6)

190(20.0)

40(4.2)

20(2.1)

3670 3.86 9


280(29.5)

430(45.3)

140(14.7)

80(8.4)

20(2.1)

3720 3.91 7


380(40.0)

160(16.8)

60(6.3)

40(4.2)

3710 3.90 8

Lesstransactiontime

310(32.6)

430(45.3)

150(15.8)

40(4.2)

20(2.1)

3820 4.02 5

Needfulfillment

210(22.1)

560(58.9)

140(14.7)

30(3.2)

10(1.1)

3780 3.97 6

Rewardsprograms

210(22.1)

470(49.5)

120(12.6)

80(8.4)

70(7.4)

3520 3.70 11

Properlysettledcomplaints

230(24.2)

470(49.5)

150(15.8)

60(6.3)

40(4.2)

3640 3.83 10

Mean 3.96


176

Table 5.54 shows the ranking of responses to refrigerator brands

respondents on the various criteria’s of loyalty. It is evident that the

refrigerator brands have been successful in delivering promises made to its

customers. This factor is given the first position. Secondly it also provides

accurate brand information to its customers, who by and large, would not have

mach idea about white goods –refrigerator or their differentiation. Refrigerator

companies have seen that they are able to offer good brand choices to the

customers. The companies are rated high on making the customers feels

important (valuing their respective customers). The refrigerator companies

took comparatively less transaction time to complete the process. The

company has been providing personalized service to needs of customers. But

at the same time refrigerator companies seem to have blackened on ‘service

consistency’, ‘lowest price’, ‘handles critical problem’, ‘properly settled

complaints’ and ‘reward programs’.

It is understand that refrigerator companies are rated high on

relationship factors. To be more specific, the factors rated high are ‘deliver on

promise’, provide accurate brand information’ and ‘value ’. The first two

being relationship drivers, this means refrigerator brands should pay more

attention to’ rewards programs’.

5.4.4.1Various parameters considered on loyalty-Refrigerator Brands


weighted score of refrigerator brands as given in column 1 and selective

brands of refrigerator are shown in columns 2 to 6 such as Godrej, Kelvinator,

Whirlpool, LG and Samsung.

177

Table 5.55

Refrigerator Brands-Loyalty-Weighted Mean score

BrandsParameters(1)

Godrej(2)

Kelvinator(3)

Whirlpool(4)

LG(5)

Samsung(6)

Deliver on promises(P1)

4.22 4.5 4.35 4.00 4.00

Provides accurate brandinformation(P2)

4.33 3.83 4.07 4.25 4.07

Good brand choice (P3) 4.27 3.66 4.25 3.87 3.92

Value for me (P4) 4.11 4.50 4.17 4.00 3.78

Less transactiontime(P5)

4.22 4.50 3.96 4.12 3.85

Need fulfillment(P6) 4.00 3.83 4.07 3.87 4.07

Table 5.55 indicates that the customers are highly loyal to promise on

delivery, value and less transaction time in Kelvinator. Providing accurate

brand information and good brand choice are more loyal to Godrej. Whirlpool

and Samsung fulfills the needs of the customer.

Table 5.55-1

BrandsParameters



Provides accurate brandinformation

�


Value for me �

Less transaction time �

Need fulfillment � �

178

Figure 5.17

Loyalty Parameters with Respect to Selective Refrigerator Brands

5.4.5 CUSTOMER LOYALTY– FACTOR ANALYSIS-AUDIO

BRANDS

Table 5.56- depicts the distribution of customer loyalty on various

criteria’s of audio brands. The criteria is to deliver on promises, provides

accurate brand information, value for me, good brand choice, handles critical

problem well, consistence in service, lowest price, less transaction time, need

fulfillment, rewards programs and properly settled complaints

Table 5.56

Factor analysis-Loyalty-Audio Brands




Df 55

Sig. .001


179

Table 5.57



1 5.092 46.287 46.287

2 1.256 11.418 57.704


Table 5.58


Criteria 1 2

Deliver on promises .555 -.002

Provides accurate brand information .806 -.021

Value for me .686 -.350

Good brand choice .580 -.627

Handles critical problem well .777 -.064

Consistence in service .585 .303

Lowest price .554 .644

Less transaction time .663 .261

Need fulfillment .674 -.292

Rewards programs .787 -.053

Properly settled complaints .748 .272


180

Table 5.59



Deliver on promises .400 .308

Provides accurate brand information .593 .649

Value for me .735 .593

Good brand choice .853 .730

Handles critical problem well .602 .608

Need fulfillment .687 .540

Rewards programs .601 .621







Percentage of cumulative variance explained 29.358 57.704




thumb is that KMO value should greater than 0.5 for a loyalty factor analysis

to proceed, by observing the above results from the table 5.56 KMO value is

0.827; therefore we can proceed with factor analysis.



factor analysis, we found that P-value is < 0.001, therefore it is concluded that

there are relationship between our variables.

181


account for 57.7 per cent of total variance. Hence we have reduced the number


From table 5.59, variable good brands choice loaded as (0.853), value

for me (0.735) and need fulfillments (0.687) on factor 1. Thus factor 1 can be

named as ‘brand equity’.

As for factor 2, it is evident that lowest price has the highest load of

0.848, properly settled complaints (0.716) and less transaction time be loaded

as 0.649, this factor can be termed as ‘price attributes’.

5.4.6 CUSTOMER LOYALTY– FACTOR ANALYSIS-WASHING

MACHINE BRANDS

Table 5.60 depicts the distribution of customer loyalty on various

criteria’s of washing machine brands. The criteria’s are to deliver the

promises, provide accurate brand information, value for me, good brand

choice, handles critical problem well, consistence in service, lowest price, less

transaction time, need fulfillment, rewards programs and properly settled

complaints

Factor analysis-Loyalty-Washing machine Brands

Table 5.60




df 55

Sig. .001


182

Table 5.61


Total percentage of variance Cumulative percentage

1 5.728 52.076 52.076

2 1.150 10.455 62.531


Table 5.62


Attributes 1 2





Handles critical problem well .798 -.007

Consistence in service .637 -.210

Lowest price .592 -.301

Less transaction time .665 -.419

Need fulfillment .800 -.346



183


Table 5.63


Communalities(h2)F1 F2Value for me .583 .529













Percentage of cumulative varianceexplained

37.032 62.531




thumb is that KMO value should greater than 0.5 for a loyalty factor analysis

to proceed, by observing the above results from the table 5.60 KMO value is

0.875; therefore we can proceed with factor analysis.





184




From table 5.63, variables needs fulfillment loaded as (0.847), less

traction time (0.784), and reward programs (0.682) on factor 1. Thus factor 1

can be named as ‘need fulfillments’.

As for factor 2, it is evident that good brand choice has the highest load

of 0.852, deliver on promises (0.804) be loaded as, this factor can be termed as

‘brand promises’.

5.4.7 CUSTOMER LOYALTY– FACTOR ANALYSIS- AIR

CONDITIONER BRANDS

Table 5.64 -5.67 depicts the distribution of loyalty factors of durable

white goods air conditioner brands. The criteria’s are to deliver the promises,

provides accurate brand information, value for me, good brand choice, handles

critical problem well, consistence in service, lowest price, less transaction

time, need fulfillment, rewards programs and properly settled complaints.

Factor Analysis-Loyalty-Air conditioner Brands

Table 5.64




df 55

Sig. .001


185

Table 5.65

Component

Initial eigen values

Total Percentage ofvariance

Cumulativepercentage

1 5.814 52.858 52.858

2 1.196 10.869 63.728


Table 5.66


1 2

Deliver on promises .511 -.615

Provides accurate brand information .846 -.130





Lowest price .708 -.028




Properly settled complaints .817 -.001


186

Table 5.67

Criteria

Factor Loadings












Good brand choice 706 .740



Percentage of cumulative varianceexplained 37.032 62.531



thumb is that KMO value should be greater than 0.5 for a loyalty factor







187




From table 5.67, variables reward programs loaded as (0.885), provide

accurate brand information (0.829), need fulfillment (0.814), properly settled

complaints (0.813), handles critical problem well (0.777) on factor 1. Thus

factor 1 can be named as ‘pre sale attributes’.

As for factor 2, it is evident that good brand choice is the highest load

of 0.706, deliver on promises’ (0.663), this factor can be termed as ‘brand

value’.

5.4.8 CUSTOMER LOYALTY– FACTOR ANALYSIS-

REFRIGERATOR BRANDS.

Table 5.68-5.71 depicts the distribution of loyalty factors on

refrigerator brands. The criteria is to deliver promises, provides accurate brand

information, value for me, good brand choice, handles critical problem well,

consistence in service, lowest price, less transaction time, need fulfillment ,

rewards programs and properly settled complaints.

Factor Analysis-Loyalty-Refrigerator Brands

Table 5.68



Bartlett's test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-square 4328.116

df 55

Sig. .001


188

Table 5. 69



1 5.061 46.007 46.007

2 1.030 9.366 55.373

3 1.006 9.147 64.520


Table 5.70

component Matrix ( Without rotation)

AttributesComponent

1 2 3

Deliver on promises .571 .550 .392

Provides accurate brand information .730 .132 -.294

Value for me .685 .352 -.160

Good brand choice .605 .294 -.237

Handles critical problem well .701 -.203 -.297

Consistence in service .614 .050 .243

Lowest price .527 -.387 .612

Less transaction time .657 -.526 -.155

Need fulfillment .742 -.120 -.216

Rewards programs .814 -.121 .015

Properly settled complaints .759 .028 .303


189

Table 5.71

CriteriaFactor Loadings

CommunalitiesF1 F2 F3Less transaction time .780 .733




Handles critical problem well .735 . .620





Lowest price . .876 .803


Eigen values 2.830 2.388 1.880


Percentage of cumulative variance

explained25.725 47.432 64.520



thumb is that KMO value should be greater than 0.5 for a loyalty factor





factor analysis, we found that p value is < 0.001, therefore it is concluded that

there are relationships between our variables.

190




From table 5.71, variables less transaction time loaded as (0.780),

handles critical problem well (0.735), and need fulfillment (0.677) on factor 1.

Thus factor 1 can be named as ‘process attributes’.

As for factor 2, it is evident that delivering promises has the highest

load of 0.778, value for me be loaded as 0.685, this factor can be termed as

‘delivering attributes’.

It is evident that from the table that lowest price has the highest load of

0.876, hence this factor can be interpreted as ‘price attributes’.

5.4.9 REGRESSION MODEL ON CUSTOMER LOYALTY

An in depth study of loyalty would not be complete without the

identification of the key indicators of customer loyalty.

Assuming the existence of linear relationship between the independent

variables and dependent variable, multiple regression analysis has done

between the level customer loyalty of the different predictor variables of

loyalty and overall loyalty of the service.

5.4.9.1 Regression Model on Loyalty Audio Brands.

This study attempted to develop a model to analyze loyalty of audio

brand. Enter method regression analysis of loyalty (Y) is performed with the

variables X1- deliver on promises; X2-provides accurate brand information ,

X3- value for me; X4- good brand choice; X5-handles critical problem well;

X6- consistence in service;X7- lowest price;X8- Less transaction time; X9-need

fulfillment;X10- rewards programs,X11- properly settled complaints for the

audio brand.

191

Table 5.72

Regression Model-Customer Loyalty-Audio Brands

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .776a .602 .596 .227

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.1 Regression 65.335 11 5.940 114.994 .001a

Residual 43.283 838 .052Total 108.618 849

Coefficientsa


CoefficientsStandardizedCoefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta(Constant) 2.799 .055 51.149 .000Deliver on promises -.054 .010 -.143 -5.250 .001Provides accurate brandinformation -.065 .014 -.159 -4.480 .001

Value for me -.017 .013 -.040 -1.335 .182Good brand choice -.108 .015 -.222 -7.298 .001Handles critical problemwell -.031 .012 -.085 -2.643 .008

Consistence in service -.011 .010 -.033 -1.118 .264Lowest price .028 .011 .081 2.639 .008Less transaction time -.085 .012 -.239 -7.395 .001Need fulfillment -.036 .012 -.093 -3.132 .002Rewards programs -.048 .012 -.146 -4.075 .001

Properly settled complaints .004 .010 .014 .408 .683a. Dependent Variable: overall audio loyalty

Source: Field Survey and Analysis of Data 2010. Level of significance (0.05%)



192


the variance accounted for by the independent variables that is approximately

60 percent of variance in loyalty is accounted for by.

The ANOVA table indicates the p-level to be 0.001.This indicates that

the model is statistically significant at a confidence level of 99.999. The

P-level indicates the significance of the F value.


indicate that deliver on promises, provides accurate brand information, good

brand choice, handles critical problem well, lowest price, less transaction time,

need fulfillment, rewards programs for the audio brands are the independent

variables which are statistically significant in the model.


independent variables in the regression equation including all the predictor

variables.

Loyalty Y = -0.143X1-0.159X2 -0.040X3 -0.222X4 -0.085X5 -0.033X6 +0.081X7 -

0.239X8 -.093 X9 -0.146X10 +0.014X11 (5.5)

5.4.9.2 Regression Model on Customer Loyalty Washing machine Brand.

This study attempted to develop a model to analyze loyalty of washing

machine brands. Enter method regression analysis of loyalty (Y) is performed

with the variables X1- deliver on promises; X2- provides accurate brand

information , X3-value for me; X4- good brand choice; X5- handles critical

problem well; X6- consistence in service;X7- lowest price;X8- less transaction

time; X9-need fulfillment;X10- rewards programs,X11- properly settled

complaints for the washing machine brands.

193

Table 5.73

Regression Model-Loyalty-Washing machine Brands

Model Summary


1 .842a .710 .706 .206

ANOVAb

ModelSum of

Squaresdf Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 93.595 11 8.509 199.637 .000a

Residual 38.273 898 .043

Total 131.868 909

Coefficientsa

ModelUnstandardized


B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 3.141 .054 57.991 .000

Deliver on promises -.042 .011 -.103 -3.963 .001

Provides accurate brandinformation

-.181 .012 -.400 -14.588 .001

Value for me -.066 .013 -.134 -5.031 .001

Good brand choice -.039 .012 -.081 -3.306 .001

Handles critical problem well .020 .011 .054 1.824 .069

Consistence in service -.036 .008 -.101 -4.386 .001

Lowest price -.014 .008 -.037 -1.662 .097

Less transaction time -.070 .010 -.177 -6.752 .001

Need fulfillment -.018 .014 -.041 -1.297 .195

Rewards programs -.033 .012 -.097 -2.759 .006

Properly settled complaints -.009 .011 -.027 -.841 .401

a. Dependent Variable: overall washing machine loyalty


194








level indicates the significance of the F value.


indicates that delivery on promises, provides accurate brand information,

value for me, good brand choice, consistence in service, less transaction time,

rewards programs, properly settled complaints are the independent variables

which are statistically significant in the model.



variables.

Loyalty Y = -0.103X1 -0.400X2 -0.134X3 -0.081X 4 +.054X5 -0.101X6 -0.037X7 -

0.177X 8 -0.041X9 -0.097 X10 -0.027 X11. (5.6)

5.4.9.3 Regression model on Customer Loyalty Air conditioner Brands.

This study attempted to develop a model to analyze loyalty of air

conditioner brands. Enter method regression analysis of loyalty (Y) is

performed with the variables X1-deliver on promises;X2-provides accurate

brand information;X3-value for me; X4- good brand choice; X5- handles

critical problem well; X6- consistence in service;X7- lowest price;X8-less

transaction time; X9-need fulfillment;X10- rewards programs;X11- properly

settled complaints for the air conditioner brands.

195

Table 5.74

Regression Model-Customer Loyalty-Air conditioner Brands

Model Summary


1 .865a .748 .745 .213

ANOVAb

Model Sum ofSquares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 107.297 11 9.754 215.344 .001a

Residual 36.146 798 .045

Total 143.443 809

Coefficientsa

Model

UnstandardizedCoefficients

StandardizedCoefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 2.706 .048 56.926 .001


Provides accurate brandinformation -.016 .014 -.040 -1.149 .251

Value for me -.017 .014 -.036 -1.199 .231

Good brand choice -.029 .003 -.158 -8.332 .001

Handles critical problem well .024 .011 .061 2.299 .022

Consistence in service -.076 .010 -.189 -7.683 .001

Lowest price .031 .011 .074 2.794 .005

Less transaction time -.009 .011 -.022 -.845 .399

Need fulfillment -.022 .012 -.054 -1.847 .065


Properly settled complaints -.013 .012 -.036 -1.121 .263

a. Dependent Variable: overall ac loyalty


196










indicates that deliver on promises, good brand choice, consistence in service,

lowest price, rewards programs are the independent variables which are

statistically significant in the model.



variables.

Loyalty Y = -0.115X1 -0.040X2 -0.036X3-0.158X4+0.061X 5-0.189X6+0.074X7-

0.022 X8 -0.054X9 -0.615 X10 -0.036 X11 ( 5.7 )

5.4.9.4 Regression model on Customer Loyalty Refrigerator Brands.

This study attempted to develop a model to analyze loyalty of audio

brands. Stepwise regression analysis of loyalty (Y) is performed with the

variables X1-deliver on promises; X2-provides accurate brand information ,

X3-value for me; X4-good brand choice; X5-handles critical problem well; X6-

consistence in service;X7-lowest price;X8- less transaction time; X9-need

fulfillment;X10-rewards programs;X11-properly settled complaints for the

refrigerator brands.

197

Table 5.75

Regression Model-Loyalty-Refrigerator Brands

Model Summary


1 .820a .673 .669 .192

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 71.369 11 6.488 175.262 .001a

Residual 34.724 938 .037

Total 106.094 949

Coefficientsa

ModelUnstandardized


B Std. Error Beta(Constant) 2.403 .046 52.091 .000


Provides accurate brandinformation -.009 .010 -.024 -.871 .384

Value for me -.038 .010 -.100 -3.959 .001

Good brand choice -.032 .008 -.089 -3.916 .001Handles critical problemwell -.092 .010 -.238 -9.196 .001

Consistence in service .062 .008 .182 7.767 .001

Lowest price .070 .007 .222 9.534 .001Less transaction time -.080 .009 -.220 -8.661 .001

Need fulfillment .041 .012 .094 3.470 .001


Properly settledcomplaints -.014 .009 -.041 -1.481 .139

Source: Field Survey and Analysis of Data 2010.

Level of significance (0.05%)

198










indicates that deliver on promises, value for me, good brand choice, handles

critical problem well, consistence in service, lowest price, less transaction

time, need fulfillment, rewards programs are the independent variables are

statistically significant in the model.



variables.

Loyalty Y = -0.250X1- 0.024X2 -0.100 X3 -0.089X4 -0.238X5 +0.182X6 +0.222 X7 -

0.220 X8 +0.094X9 -0.477X10 -0.041 X11. (5.8)

5.5 CUSTOMER RETENTION

The consumer durable white goods sector is analyzed using ten

independent variables relevant for retaining customers. Table 5.76, 5.78, 5.80,

5.82 gives the responses measured on likert’s scale.

5.5.1 Opinion on Customer Retention of Audio Brands

Table 5.76 shows various factors to retain the white goods audio brands

respondents and is given in column 1 and columns 2 to 6 are shown with the

rating scales.

199

Table 5.76

OPINION ON CUSTOMER RETENTION OF AUDIO BRANDS

Factors(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Dis-agree

(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)

Totalscore

Averagemean Rank

Eliminateserviceirritants

290(33.7)

320(37.2)

180(20.9)

40(4.7)

30(3.5) 3380 3.93 2

Provideloyaltybenefits

170(19.8)

460(53.5)

170(19.8)

40(4.7)

20(2.3) 3300 3.83 5

Assistcustomer inmakingbrand choice

220(25.6)

400(46.5)

160(18.6)

60(7.0)

20(2.3) 3320 3.86 3

Provideservicebeyondexpectations

210(24.4)

420(48.8)

130(15.1)

80(9.3)

20(2.3) 3300 3.83 5

Provide thebenefitsoffered bycompetitors

180(20.9)

440(51.2)

150(17.4)

30(3.5)

60(7.0) 3230 3.75 9

Satisfactorilysettled allservicerelatedproblems

190(22.1)

480(55.8)

80(9.3)

80(9.3)

30(3.5) 3300 3.83 5

Sellingvariousproductitems

160(18.6)

490(57.0)

140(16.3)

60(7.0)

10(1.2) 3310 3.84 4

Buildemotionalcommitmentin therelationship

200(23.3)

390(45.3)

180(20.9)

60(7.0)

30(3.5) 3250 3.77 8

Buildingcompanyimage

250(29.1)

410(47.7)

120(14.0)

70(8.1)

10(1.0) 3400 3.95 1

Maintainregularinteractionwithcustomers

160(18.6)

500(58.1)

60(7.0)

80(9.3)

60(7.0) 3200 3.72 10


200

Table 5.76 shows that respondents’ opinion on various factors is

necessary for retaining customers in audio brands. The main factors which

could help retain customers is found to be ’building company image’. Majority

(33.7 percent) of the respondent’s opinion that firm could be bound to

eliminate is the service irritants. This was followed by ‘assist customers in

making brand choice’, ‘selling various product items’, ‘provide loyalty

benefits’,’ provide service beyond expectations’ in that order,’ maintaining

regular interaction with the customer’, ‘satisfactorily settled all service related

problems respectively. Contrary to general belief,’ maintain regular interaction

with customers ‘are found to be not important for improving customer

retention. Similarly building emotional commitment in the relationship is also

not much relevant, but the customers are very keen on providing loyalty

benefits. Thus, it is to be believed audio companies could improve the

retention levels if they could ‘build company image’ to their customers.

5.5.1.1 Parameters considered for White Goods –Retention-Audio brands.

Table 5.77 shows certain parameters assigned for considering the

weighted score of audio brands which is given in column 1 and selective

brands of audio are given in columns 2 to 6 such as Sony, Creative, Samsung,

LG and Philips.

Table 5.77AUDIO BRANDS-RETENTION-WEIGHTED MEAN SCORE


Sony(2)

Creative(3)

Samsung(4)

LG(5)

Philips(6)

Building company image (P1) 3.75 4.30 4.25 3.71 3.87

Eliminate service irritants(P2) 3.60 4.23 3.87 4.00 4.25

Assist customers making brandchoice(P3)

3.64 4.07 3.87 4.00 4.06

Selling various product items (P4) 3.67 4.00 3.85 4.57 3.75

Provide loyalty benefits(P5) 3.67 3.84 3.62 3.85 4.12

201

Table 5.77 clearly indicates that the customers retains in creative by

company image and assisting the customer making brands choice. The service

irritants eliminate and loyalty benefits that retains the customer by Philips.

Selling various products items retains by LG.

Table 5.77-1

Brands

Parameters


Building company image �

Eliminate service irritants �

Assist customer making brand choice �

Selling various product items �

Provide loyalty benefits �

Figure 5.18

Retention Parameters with Respect to Audio Brands

202

5.5.2 Opinion On Customer Retention Of Washing Machine Brands

Table 5.78 shows various factors considering the respondents in order

to retain the washing machine brands are given in column 1 and in columns 2

to 6 are given in rating scales.

Table 5.78

OPINION ON CUSTOMER RETENTION OF WASHING

MACHINE BRANDS

Factors(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)

Totalscore

Averagemean Rank


370(41.1)

250(27.8)

210(23.3)

30(3.3)

40(4.4) 3580 3.97 3

Provide loyaltybenefits

210(23.3)

460(51.1)

90(10.0)

140(15.6) 0 3440 3.82 10

Assistcustomers inmaking brandchoice

150(16.7)

600(66.7)

80(8.9)

50(5.6)

20(2.2) 3510 3.90 6

Provideservice beyondexpectations

170(18.9)

530(58.9)

120(13.3)

60(6.7)

20(2.2) 3470 3.85 8


300(33.3)

410(45.6)

110(12.2)

70(7.8)

10(1.1) 3620 4.02 2

Satisfactorilysettled allservice relatedproblems

250(27.8)

430(47.8)

160(17.8)

50(5.6)

10(1.1) 3560 3.95 4

Selling variousproduct items

200(22.2)

490(54.4)

170(18.9)

20(2.2)

20(2.2) 3530 3.92 5

Buildemotionalcommitment intherelationship

260(28.9)

380(42.2) 140

(15.6)90

(8.6)30

(3.3) 3450 3.83 9


250(27.8)

510(56.7)

90(10.0)

40(4.4)

10(1.1) 3650 4.05 1

Maintainregularinteractionwith customers

250(27.8)

460(51.1)

70(7.8)

80(8.9)

40(4.4) 3500 3.88 7


203

Table 5.78 shows respondents’ opinion on various factors necessary for

retaining the customers in washing machine brands. The main factors which

could help to retain customers are found to be’ building company image’.

Respondent’s opinion that provide the benefits are offered by competitors.

This is followed by ‘eliminating service irritants’, ‘satisfactorily settled all

service related problems’ selling various product items to the customers, assist

customers in making brand choice in that order. Contrary to general belief,

‘provide loyalty benefits ‘ ‘build emotional commitment in the relationship’,

‘provide service beyond expectations’ is found to be not important for

improving customer retention. Thus, it is to be believed that the washing

machine companies could improve the retention levels if they could’ build

company image’ to their customer.

5.5.2.1Various parameters considered for durable white goods –

Retention-Washing Machine brands.


weighted mean score of washing machine brands given in column 1 and

selective brands of washing machine shown are given in columns 2 to 6 such

as Whirlpool, LG, IFB, Samsung and Videocon.

Table 5.79

Washing Machine Brands-Weighted Mean Score


Whirlpool(2)

LG(3)

IFB(4)

Samsung(5)

Videocon(6)


Provide the benefits offered bycompetitors(P2)

4.06 4.33 4.00 3.72 4.50

Eliminate service irritants (P3) 4.06 3.77 4.13 3.72 5.00

Satisfactorily settled all servicerelated problems (P4)

4.03 4.55 3.80 3.74 4.52

Selling various product items(P5) 3.83 4.22 4.00 4.09 3.50

204

Table 5.79 indicates that customers retains in Videocon by company

image, same benefits offered by competitors and eliminating the service

irritants. Settling all service related problems and selling various product items

retains the customer by LG.

Table 5.79-1

BrandsParameters



Provide the benefits offered bycompetitors

�


Satisfactorily settled all servicerelated problems

�

Selling various products items �

Figure 5.19

Retention Parameters with Respect to Washing Machine Brands

205

5.5.3 OPINION ON CUSTOMER RETENTION AIR CONDITIONER

BRANDS

Table 5.80 shows various factors on the customers retaining the air

conditioner brands are given in column 1 and in columns 2 to 6 are given the

rating scales.

Table 5.80

OPINION ON CUSTOMER RETENTION AIR CONDITIONER BRANDS

Factors(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)

Totalscore

Averagemean Rank

Eliminateservice irritants

350(43.2)

260(32.1)

130(16.0)

30(3.7)

40(4.9) 3280 4.04 2

Provide loyaltybenefits

260(32.1)

350(43.2)

110(13.6)

40(4.9)

50(6.2)

3160 3.90 8

Assist customerin making brandchoice

210(25.9)

430(53.1)

90(11.1)

70(8.6)

10(1.2) 3190 3.93 5

Provide servicebeyondexpectations

170(21.0)

490(60.5)

80(9.9)

50(6.2)

20(5.2) 3170 3.91 7

Provide thebenefits offeredby competitors

230(28.4)

420(51.9)

100(12.3)

40(4.9)

20(2.5) 3230 3.98 4


280(34.6)

380(46.9)

70(8.6)

40(4.9)

40(4.9) 3250 4.01 3


190(23.5)

450(55.6)

100(12.3)

70(8.6) 0 3190 3.93 6

Build emotionalcommitment inthe relationship

250(30.9)

330(40.7)

120(14.8)

50(6.2) 60

(7.4) 3090 3.81 10

Buildingcompany image

270(33.3)

390(48.1)

90(11.1)

50(6.2)

10(1.1) 3290 4.06 1

Maintainregularinteraction withcustomer

190(23.5)

440(54.3)

70(8.6)

80(9.9)

30(3.7) 3110 3.83 9


206

In table 5.80, the respondent’s opinion on various factors is necessary

for retaining the customers for air conditioner brands. The main factor which

could help retain customers is found to be’ building company image’. Majority

of the respondents are in the opinion that ‘eliminate the service irritants,

‘satisfactorily settled all service related problems’ ‘assist respondents in

making brand choice’, ‘selling various product items to the customer’,

‘provide loyalty benefits ‘ in that order. Contrary to general belief provide the

benefits offered by competitors’ ,’build emotional commitment in the

relationship’ and ‘maintain regular interaction with customer’ is found to be

not important for improving customer retention. Thus, it is to be believed that

the air conditioner companies could improve the retention levels if they could’

build company image’ to their customers.

5.5.3.1 Parameters considered for white goods –Retention-Air conditioner

brands.


weighted score of air conditioner brands which is given in column 1 and

selective brands of air conditioner are shown in columns 2 to 6 such as

Samsung, LG, Voltas, General and Carrier.

Air Conditioner Brands-Weighted Mean Score

Table 5.81


Samsung(2)

LG(3)

Voltas(4)

General(5)

Carrier(6)


Eliminate service irritants (P2) 3.90 4.06 4.71 4.60 3.33

Satisfactorily settled all servicerelated problems(P3)

4.10 3.72 4.21 4.20 4.66

Provide the benefits offered bycompetitors (P4)

4.00 3.84 4.21 4.20 4.33

Assist customers in making brandchoice(P5)

3.80 3.81 4.00 4.00 3.66

207

Table 5.81 clearly indicates that customers who retains by Voltas

building company image, eliminating the service irritants and assisting the

customers in making brand choice. The parameter of assisting customers in

making brand choice stands only to retain general. Carrier retains the customer

by solving all service related problems and providing the benefits offered by

competitors

Table 5.81-1

BrandsParameters




Satisfactorily settled all servicerelated problems

�

Provide the benefits offered bycompetitors

�

Assist customer in making brandchoice

� �

Figure 5.20

Retention Parameters with Respect to Air Conditioner Brands

208

5.5.4 OPINION ON RETENTION OF REFRIGERATOR BRANDS

Table 5.82 shows various factors considering retention of customers to

white goods refrigerator brands which are given in column 1 and columns 2 to

6 shows the rating scales.

OPINION ON CUSTOMER RETENTION OF REFRIGERATORBRANDS

Table 5.82

Factors(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)

Totalscore

Averagemean Rank


440(46.3)

300(31.6)

110(11.6)

40(4.2)

60(6.3) 3780 3.97 6

Provideloyaltybenefits

270(28.4)

500(52.6)

80(8.4)

90(9.5)

10(1.1) 3720 3.91 7

Assistcustomer inmaking brandchoice

230(24.2)

490(51.6)

160(16.8)

60(6.3)

10(1.1) 3660 3.85 9

Provideservice beyondexpectations

260(27.4)

480(50.5)

50(5.3)

130(13.7)

30(3.2) 3870 4.07 3


300(31.6)

490(51.6)

100(10.5)

50(5.3)

10(1.1) 3910 4.11 1


340(35.8)

430(45.3)

140(14.7)

30(3.2)

10(1.1) 3780 3.97 4


270(28.4)

470(49.5)

140(14.7)

60(6.3)

10(1.1) 3780 3.97 4

Buildemotionalcommitmentin therelationship

250(26.3)

420(44.2)

160(16.8)

60(6.3)

60(6.3) 3590 3.77 10


340(35.8)

460(48.4)

90(9.5)

40(4.2)

20(2.1) 3910 4.11 1

Maintainregularinteractionwith customer

300(31.6)

440(46.3)

60(6.3)

90(9.5)

60(6.3) 3680 3.87 8


209

Table 5.82 shows respondents’ opinion on various factors necessary for

retaining customers in refrigerator brands. The main factor which could help

retain customers is found to be’ building company image’. Majority of

respondents are of the opinion that, provide the ‘benefits offered by

competitors, ‘provide service beyond their expectations’. This is followed by

‘satisfactorily settled service related problems,’ ‘selling various product items

to the customer,’ eliminate the service irritants’, ‘provide loyalty benefits’ in

that order. Contrary to general belief, ‘assist customers in making brand

choice’, ‘build emotional commitment in the relationship’ and ‘maintain

regular interaction with customer’ are found to be not important for improving

customer retention. Thus, it is to be believed that the refrigerator brands could

improve the retention levels if they could ‘build company image’ to their

customers.

5.5.4.1Parameters considered for the white goods –Retention-Refrigerator

Brands

Table 5.83 shows various parameters assigned for determining the

weighted score of refrigerator brands as given in column 1 and selective

brands of refrigerator are given in columns 2 to 6 which show Godrej,

Kelvinator, Whirlpool, LG and Samsung.

Table 5.83

Retention-Refrigerator brands-Weighted Mean Score


Godrej(2)

Kelvinator(3)

Whirlpool(4)

LG(5)

Samsung(6)

Building company image (P1) 4.05 3.83 4.32 4.06 4.50Provide the benefits offered bythe competitors (P2)

4.33 4.5 4.00 4.06 4.07

Provide service beyondexpectations (P3)

3.94 4.16 3.64 3.93 4.35

Satisfactorily settled all servicerelated problems (P4)

4.27 4.5 4.17 4.12 3.92

Selling various product items(P5)

4.05 3.83 4.28 3.93 3.85

210

Table 5.83 clearly indicates that the customer retains in kelvinator by

providing same benefits and solving all service problems. Whirlpool retains

the customer by selling various product items. Samsung creates image and

service beyond expectations retains the customers.

Table 5.83-1

BrandsParameters



Provide the benefits offeredby the competitors

�

Provide service beyondexpectations

�

Satisfactorily settled allservice related problems

�

Selling various product items �

Figure 5.21

Retention Parameters with Respect to Refrigerator Brands

211

5.5.1 POST PURCHASE BEHAVIOUR (CUSTOMER SWITCHING)

5.5.1.1Factor Considered While Switching over to other White Goods

Audio Brands

Table 5.84 shows various factors that are considered to switch over to

other white goods audio brands as given in column 1 and columns 2 to 6 show

rating scales.

REASONS FOR SWITCHING AMONG THE AUDIO BRANDS

Table 5.84

Factors(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)

Totalscore

Averagemean Rank

Unsettledcustomercomplaints

280(32.6)

330(38.4)

120(14.0)

40(4.7)

90(10.5)

3250 3.77 7

Undesirablestaff attitudes

170(19.8)

380(44.2)

160(18.6)

110(12.8)

40(4.7)

3110 3.61 11

Not making thecustomer feelvalued

190(22.1)

440(51.2)

130(15.1)

60(7.0)

40(4.7)

3260 3.79 5

Poorrespondentsservice

210(24.4)

450(52.3)

80(9.3)

50(5.8)

70(8.1)

3260 3.79 5

Locationchange

220(25.6)

390(45.3)

150(17.4)

80(9.3)

20(2.3)

3290 3.82 4

Wrong productinformation

160(18.6)

440(51.2)

120(14.0)

100(11.6)

40(4.7)

3160 3.67 10

Ineffectivecommunicationon productsrenewal

100(11.5)

440(50.6)

230(26.4)

60(6.9)

30(3.8)

3100 3.60 12

Poor rewardprograms forloyalty

240(27.9)

380(44.2)

110(12.8)

30(3.5)

100(11.6)

3210 3.73 8

High cost 170(19.8)

540(62.8)

90(10.5)

40(4.7)

20(2.3)

3380 3.93 2

212


Nonavailability ofsuitableproducts

220(25.6)

450(52.3)

120(14.0)

30(3.5)

40(4.7)

3360 3.90 3

Better productsby competitor

270(31.4)

440(51.2)

80(9.3)

40(4.7)

30(3.5)

3460 4.02 1

Residence shift 140(16.3)

440(51.2)

200(23.3)

50(5.8)

30(3.5)

3190 3.70 9

Need does notexist anymore

100(11.6)

520(60.5)

90(10.5)

100(11.6)

50(5.8)

3100 3.60 12


Table 5.84 provides responses of respondents switching among audio

brands. It is clear that the primary reasons for customers switching among

audio brands are better products by competitor, followed by highly

charged(cost), ‘non availability of suitable products which customer want,

location change by the companies and poor customer service were attributes

are more. Similarly not making the customer feel valued, ‘unsettled customer

complaints, poor reward programs for loyalty are secondary reasons for

switching. Finally wrong product information, undesirable staff and attitude,

ineffective communication on products and need does not exist anymore was

found to the other reasons to switch. It is expressed that better products by

competitors are the primary reason for audio brands respondents shifting from

their brands.

5.5.1.2 Factor Considered while Switching over to other Washing

machines Brands

Table 5.85 shows various factors that are considered for respondents to

switch over to other washing machine brands are given in column 1 and

columns 2 to 6 shows rating scales.

213

REASONS FOR SWITCHING AMONG WASHING MACHINE

BRANDS

Table 5.85

Factors(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)

Totalscore

Averagemean Rank


410(45.1)

260(28.6)

180(19.8)

30(3.3)

30(3.3)

3530 4.35 1


270(29.7)

300(33.0)

210(23.1)

100(11.0)

30(3.3)

3150 3.88 8

Not making thecustomers feelvalued

340(37.4)

400(44.0)

100(11.0)

50(5.5)

20(2.2)

3270 4.03 2


290(31.9)

490(53.8)

30(3.3)

50(5.5)

50(5.5)

3220 3.97 4

Locationchange

190(20.9)

460(50.5)

180(19.8)

40(4.4)

40)(4.4)

3010 3.71 12


230(25.3)

440(48.4)

90(9.9)

120(13.2)

30(3.3)

3180 3.92 7


250(27.5)

370(40.7)

170(18.7)

60(6.6)

60(6.6)

3140 3.87 9


290(31.9)

360(39.6)

100(11.0)

80(8.8)

80(8.8)

2960 3.65 13

High cost 370(40.7)

330(36.3)

120(13.2)

60(5.7)

30(3.3)

3210 3.96 5


290(31.9)

400(44.0)

120(13.2)

40(4.4)

60(6.6)

3200 3.95 6


270(29.7)

490(53.8)

120(13.2)

20(2.2)

10(1.1)

3260 4.02 3


400(44.0)

190(20.9)

40(4.4)

100(11.0)

3140 3.87 9


170(18.7)

450(49.5)

130(14.3)

100(11.0)

60(6.6)

3070 3.79 11



214

Table 5.85 provides responses of respondents for washing machine

brands. It is clear that the primary reasons for respondents switching among

washing machine brands were ‘unsettled customer complaints, followed by

not making the customer feel valued, better products by competitors, poor

customer service, highly charged(cost) and attributes are more. Secondly ‘non

availability of suitable products which customer wants, wrong product

information, undesirable staff attitude, residence shift was found as reasons.

Finally, ineffective communication on products, location change by the

customer, poor reward programs for loyalty and need do not exist anymore is

found to be the other reasons to switch. It is expressed that better products by

competitors are the primary reasons for washing machine brands respondents

‘unsettled customer complaints ‘shifting from their companies.

5.5.1.3 Factor Considered while Switching over to other White Goods Air

conditioner Brands

Table 5.86 shows various factors for respondents to switch over to

other air conditioner brands which is given in column 1 and columns 2 to 6

show rating scales

REASONS FOR SWITCHING AMONG AIR CONDITIONER BRANDS

Table 5.86

Factors(1)

Stronglyagree(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)

Totalscore

Averagemean

Rank


420(51.9)

300(37.0)

50(6.2)

40(4.9)

0 4040 4.25 1


230(28.4)

390(48.1)

90(8.6)

70(8.6)

30(3.7)

3670 3.86 6

Not making thecustomer feelvalued

250(30.9)

430(53.1)

60(7.4)

50(6.2)

20(2.5)

3830 4.03 2


240(29.6)

430(53.1)

60(7.4)

40(4.9)

40(4.9)

3720 3.91 4

215


Locationchange

160(19.8)

430(53.1)

100(12.3)

70(8.6)

50(6.2)

3540 3.72 11


250(30.9)

350(43.2)

140(17.3)

40(4.9)

30(3.7)

3630 3.82 8


230(28.4)

350(43.2)

160(19.8)

40(4.9)

30(3.7)

3570 3.75 10


200(24.7)

350(43.2)

100(12.3)

100(12.3)

60(7.4)

3590 3.77 9

High cost 230(28.4)

420(40.0)

90(11.1)

40(4.9)

30(3.7)

3540 3.72 11


220(27.2)

450(55.6)

50(6.2)

60(7.4)

30(3.7)

3680 3.87 5


240(29.6)

430(53.1)

60(7.4)

80(9.9)

0 3790 3.98 3


470(58.0)

100(12.3)

40(4.9)

30(3.7)

3540 3.72 11


230(28.4)

360(44.4)

100(12.3)

60(7.4)

60(7.4)

3640 3.83 7


Table 5.86 provides responses of respondents switching over air

conditioner brands among other brands. It is clears that the primary reasons for

respondents switching among air conditioners are ‘unsettled customer

complaints, followed by not making the customer feel valued, better products

by competitor, poor customer service, non availability of suitable products

which customer want and undesirable staff attitude were more, secondly need

does not exist anymore, wrong product information, poor reward programs for

loyalty is found to be the reasons. Finally, ineffective communication on

products, location change by the customer, highly charged (cost),’ residence

shift’ is found to be the other reasons to switch. It is expressed that better

products by competitors was also the primary reason for air conditioner

respondents ‘unsettled customer complaints shifting from their companies.

216

5.5.1.4Factor Considered to Switching over to other Refrigerator Brands

Table 5.87 shows various factors that were considered for customer to

switch over to other white goods refrigerator brands as given in the column 1

and columns 2 to 6 show rating scales.

REASONS FOR SWITCHING AMONG REFRIGERATOR BRANDS

Table 5.87

Factors(1)

Stronglyagree(20

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)

Totalscore

Averagemean Rank

Unsettledcustomerscomplaints

460(48.4)

340(35.8)

90(9.5)

50(5.3)

10(1.1)

3720 4.08 1


300(31.6)

380(40.0)

160(16.8)

60(6.3)

50(5.3)

3410 3.74 11

Not making thecustomers feelvalued

330(34.7)

450(47.4)

90(9.5)

30(3.2)

50(5.3)

3720 4.08 2


270(28.4)

500(52.6)

80(8.4)

30(3.2)

70(7.4)

3650 4.01 5

Locationchange

210(22.1)

430(45.3)

180(18.9)

100(10.5)

30(3.2)

3450 3.79 7


180(18.9)

570(60.0)

100(10.5)

50(5.3)

50(5.3)

3450 3.79 7


260(27.4)

410(43.2)

150(15.8)

50(5.3)

80(8.4)

3420 3.75 10


240(25.3)

460(48.4)

120(12.6)

60(6.3)

70(7.4)

3430 3.76 9

High cost 200(21.1)

470(49.5)

170(17.9)

40(4.2)

70(7.4)

3680 4.04 4


270(28.4)

460(48.4)

100(10.5)

70(7.4)

50(5.3)

3550 3.90 6


320(33.7)

450(47.4)

90(9.5)

30(3.2)

60(6.3)

3720 4.08 2


390(41.1)

160(16.8)

100(10.5)

50(5.3)

3250 3.57 13


270(28.4)

440(46.3)

120(12.6)

50(5.3)

70(7.4)

3300 3.62 12


217

Table 5.87 provides responses for refrigerator brands respondents

switching among other brands. It is clears that the primary reasons for

respondents switching among other brands are ‘unsettled customer complaints,

followed by not making the customer feel valued, better products by

competitor, highly charged (cost), poor customer service, non availability of

suitable products which customer want, where attributes are more, Secondly

location change by the customer, wrong product information, poor reward

programs for loyalty is found to be the reasons. Finally, ineffective

communication on products, undesirable staff attitudes need does exist

anymore, residence shift was also found to be the other reasons to switch. It is

expressed that better products by competitors is the primary reason for

refrigerator brands customer ‘unsettled customer complaints shifting from

their companies

5.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION,

CUSTOMER LOYALTY AND CUSTOMER RETENTION: GAP

ANANLYSIS – SLR MODEL

To understand the CRM practices on consumer durable white goods,

this study attempted to identify the extent to which satisfaction influences

loyalty and whether there exists any relationship between satisfaction and

retention and also what type of relationship exists. In other words, if customers

are satisfied, would that lead to loyalty towards the service provider and

whether the service provider would succeed in retaining them?

Table 5.88

Gap Analysis between Expectations and Satisfaction

Factors

Audio brandsMean

difference

Washing machine brands Meandiffere

nce

Air conditionerbrands

MdiffeExpectations

meansatisfaction

meanExpectations

meansatisfaction

mean

Expectationsmean

satisfactionmean

Overall quality 4.52 4.41 -0.11 4.63 4.33 -0.30 4.69 4.16 -0Worthiness 4.31 3.93 -0.38 4.49 4.07 -0.42 4.46 3.94 -0Responsiveness 4.03 3.92 -0.11 4.15 4.01 -0.14 4.32 4.05 -0Warranty 4.14 3.92 -0.22 4.44 4.33 -0.11 4.38 3.94 -0Pre-sales 3.81 3.87 +0.06 4.00 3.79 -0.21 3.85 3.81 -0After sales service 4.19 3.83 -0.36 4.30 4.00 -0.30 4.20 3.81 -0Loyalty program 3.67 3.70 +0.03 3.69 3.76 +0.07 3.75 3.73 -0Salesperson 3.85 3.85 -0.00 4.18 3.81 -0.37 3.91 3.70 -0Repair 4.05 3.76 -0.29 4.26 3.81 -0.45 4.23 3.85 -0Reliability 4.15 3.99 -0.16 4.41 3.86 -0.55 4.31 3.96 -0customers service 4.29 3.84 -0.45 4.55 3.90 -0.65 4.47 3.75 -0Productcompatibility 4.03 3.88 -0.15 4.08 4.03 -0.05 3.98 4.05 +0Competitive price 3.95 3.79 -0.16 3.98 3.97 -0.01 4.11 4.12 +0

219

It is found that, mean difference between the expectations and

satisfaction do not match in many factors except pre-sales (+0.06), loyalty

program (+0.03), the expectations are high but satisfaction in audio brands are

comparatively lesser and in the washing machine brands except loyalty

programs (+0.07) all other factor are not up to the expectations of respondents

in satisfying the customers. Product compatibility (+0.07) and competitive

price (+0.01), are the two factors higher than their expectations, other factors

are not up to the mark to fulfill the customer needs. In refrigerator brands pre-

sales (+0.03) and loyalty programs (+0.10) are more than what they expect and

other factors unfulfilled the customer’s satisfaction. There is a general

perception that out of 14 factors pre-sales and loyalty programs are the two

factors just above the expectations and all other factors in white goods are not

up to their expectations.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION AND EXPECTATIONS FORAUDIO BRANDS

Figure 5.22

The chart 5.22 shows expectations associated with various criteria’s. It

is observed from the findings, satisfaction on various criteria does not match

the expectations of the respondents. This could lead to reduction in satisfaction

with a tendency towards dissatisfaction. The audio brand providers should

wake up to potential threat.

0123456789

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Mean value

Expectation meanSatisfaction mean

220

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION AND EXPECTATIONS

FOR WASHING MACHINE BRANDS

Figure 5.23


is observed from the findings that satisfaction on various criteria’s does not

match the expectations of the respondents. This could lead to reduction in

satisfaction with a tendency towards dissatisfaction. The washing machine

brands providers should wake up to potential threat

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Mean value

Para

met

ers

Satisfaction meanExpectation mean

221

Figure 5.24

RELATIOSNHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION AND EXPECTATIONS

FOR AIR CONDITIONER BRANDS


is observed from the findings satisfaction on various criteria’s does not match


with a tendency towards dissatisfaction. The air conditioner brands providers

should wake up to potential threat

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Mean value

ParametersSatisfaction meanExpectationsmean

222

Figure 5.25

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION AND EXPECTATIONS

FOR REFRIGERATOR BRANDS


is observed from the findings satisfaction on various criteria’s does not match


with a tendency towards dissatisfaction. The refrigerator brands providers

should wake up to potential threat

5.7 CORRELATION BETWEEN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION &

CUSTOMER LOYALTY

5.7.1 Relationship between the Satisfaction and Loyalty for Consumer

Durable White goods

Table 5.89 depicted results of Pearson’s correlation between customer

satisfaction and loyalty towards various criteria’s considered in the decision

making process of selecting a durable white good, Pearson’s correlation’s are

used to test the hypotheses.

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Mean value

ParameterSatisfaction meanExpectations mean

223

Hypothesis 5

H0: There is no significant relationship between the level of satisfaction and

loyalty of various attributes of white goods.

Table 5.89

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION &

LOYALTY

CustomerSatisfaction &

Loyalty

Audio brands Washing machinebrands


Refrigeratorbrands

Satisfactionvalue

Loyaltyvalue

Satisfactionvalue

Loyaltyvalue

Satisfactionvalue

Loyaltyvalue

Satisfactionvalue

Loyaltyvalue

Satisfactionvalue

Pearsoncorrelation 1.000 .955** 1.000 .920** 1.000 .947** 1.000 .361**

Sig.(2-tailed) .001 .001 .001 .001

N (1050)

Loyaltyvalue

Pearsoncorrelation .955** 1.000 .920** 1.000 .947** 1.000 .361** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .001 .001 .001

N (1050)

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

In table 5.89 it is seen that, there is a strong positive relationship

between customer satisfaction and loyalty attached to various criteria’s while

selecting consumer durable white goods for repeat purchases. Pearson’s

correlation indicated high relationship between all predictor variables of

satisfaction and their relative loyalty except refrigerator brands. This implied a

high degree of positive correlation between loyalty and satisfaction ratings in

the audio, washing machine and air conditioner brands and low degree

positive correlation in the refrigerator brands. Therefore hypotheses Ho is

224

rejected. Hence there is a significant relationship between the level of

satisfaction and loyalty of various attributes of white goods.

CORRELATION BETWEEN SATISFACTION & RETENTION

5.7.2 The Relationship between the Satisfaction and Retention for

Durable White goods


satisfaction and retention towards various criteria’s considered in the decision

making process of selecting a consumer durable white good, Pearson’s

correlation’s are used to test the hypotheses.

Hypothesis 6

H0: There is no significant relationship between the level of satisfaction and

retention of various attributes.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION & RETEN

Table 5.90

Customer Satisfaction &Retention

Audio brands Washing machine brands Air conditioner b

Satisfactionvalue

Retentionvalue

Satisfactionvalue

Retentionvalue

Satisfactionvalue

Reteva

Satisfaction value Pearsoncorrelation 1000 .964** 1.000 .961** 1.000 .9

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .001 .0

N (1050)

Retentionvalue

Pearsoncorrelation .964** 1.000 .961** 1.000 .977** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .001 .001

N (1050) 1050**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

226

In table 5.90 it is seen that, there is a strong positive relationship

between satisfaction and retention attached to various criteria’s while selecting

white goods for repeat purchases. Pearson’s correlation indicated high degree

positive relationship between all the predictor variables of satisfaction and

their relative retention. This implied a high degree of relationship between the

retention and satisfaction ratings in audio, washing machine and air

conditioner brands and low degree positive relationship in the refrigerator

brands. Therefore Ho is rejected. Hence there is a significant positive

relationship between satisfaction and retention

CORRELATION BETWEEN LOYALTY & RETENTION

5.7.3 The Relationship between the Loyalty and Retention for Consumer

Durable White goods


loyalty and retention towards various criteria’s considered in the decision

making process of selecting a durable white good, pearson’s correlation’s are

used to test the hypotheses.

Hypothesis 5

H7: There is no significant relationship between the retention and loyalty of

various attributes.

227

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUSTOMER LOYALTY AND RETENTION

Table 5.91

In table 5.91 it is seen that, there is a high degree of positive

relationship between customer’s retention and loyalty to various criteria’s

while selecting the durable goods for repeat purchases. Pearson’s correlation

indicated high degree of positive relationship between all predictor variables

of retention and loyalty. This implied a high degree of positive relationship

between loyalty and retention ratings in the audio, washing machine, air

conditioner and refrigerator brands. Therefore Ho is rejected. Hence there is a

significant relationship between loyalty and retention of various attributes.

Customerloyalty & retention

Audio brands Washing machinebrands


Refrigeratorbrands

Loyaltyvalue

Retentionvalue

Loyaltyvalue

Retentionvalue

Loyaltyvalue

Retentionvalue

Loyaltyvalue

Retentionvalue

Loyaltyvalue

Pearsoncorrelation 1.000 .967** 1.000 .915** 1.000 .963** 1.000 .955**

Sig.(2-tailed) .001 .001 .001 .001

N

Retentionvalue

Pearsoncorrelation .967** 1.000 .915** 1.000 .963** 1.000 .955** 1.000

Sig.(2-tailed) .001 .001 .001 .001

N 1050

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

228

5.8 PERCEPTION ON CONSUMER DURABLE WHITE GOODS

With a view of understanding better the role of CRM in the consumer

durable white goods services, this study felt the need to know the perception

of consumer durable white goods customer on some accepted beliefs. Table

5.92-5.98 indicates the perception of respondents on consumer durable white

goods.

5.8.1 Perception of Respondents on Various Criteria for Audio Brands

The customer’s perception on various criteria’s for audio brands is

given in column 1 and ratings shown in columns 2 to 6.

Table: 5.92

PERCEPTION CRITERIA ON VARIOUS BRANDS OF AUDIO

S.NCriteria(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)

Totalscore

Mean Rank

1 Directinteractionwith thecompany isbetter thandealingthroughretailers.

350(40.7)

260(30.2)

170(19.8)

40(4.7)

40(4.7) 3420 3.97 1

2 customeralwaysspeak outtheirproblems

160(18.6)

510(59.3)

110(12.8)

70(8.1)

10(1.2)

3320 3.86 2

3 Mostdissatisfiedcustomerleave thebrandswithoutcomplaining

110(12.8)

520(60.5)

140(16.3)

50(5.8)

40(4.7)

3190 3.70 6

229


4 customerremain dueto high costof shifting

180(20.9)

470(54.7)

120(14.0)

60(7.0)

30(3.5)

3290 3.82 3

5 Satisfiedcustomerwill notdefect

190(22.1)

400(46.5)

200(23.3)

60(7.0)

10(1.2)

3280 3.81 4

6 One singlecomplaintcan makecustomermove toother brands

110(12.8)

480(55.8)

150(17.4)

70(8.1)

50(5.8)

3110 3.61 7

7 Retailersinfluencesto select thebrands

170(19.8)

460(53.5)

160(18.6)

40(4.7)

30(3.5)

3280 3.81 4


Table 5.92 shows the responses of white goods audio brands. From this

respondents perceived ‘direct interaction with the company is better than

dealing through retailers’. It is understood that customers always speak out

their problems. A large majority also feel that ‘customer remains silent due to

high cost of shifting”. Again as predicted there is a strong opinion that

“satisfied customers will not defect”. It is also felt that by a considerable

percentage of durable white goods respondents whom are influenced to select

the brands by retailers. Taking into consideration the perception of all the

respondents, the general conclusion is that ’direct interaction with the

company is better than dealing through retailers” which in turn would lead to

customer loyalty

230

5.8.2 Perception of Respondents on Various Criteria for Washing

machine Brands

Customer’s perceptions on various criteria’s of white goods washing

machine brands are given in column 1 and ratings are given in columns 2 to 6.

Table: 5.93

PERCEPTION ON VARIOUS BRANDS OF WASHING MACHINE

S.N Criteria(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)



410(44.6)

350(38)

80(8.7)

30(3.3)

50(5.4) 3750 4.12 1

2 Customeralways speakout theirproblems

330(36.3)

370(40.7)

120(13.2)

80(8.8)

10(1.1) 3660 4.02 2

3 Mostdissatisfiedcustomersleave thebrands withoutcomplaining

260(28.6)

470(51.6)

100(11.0)

50(5.5)

30(3.3) 3610 3.96 3

4 Customersremain due tohigh cost ofshifting

150(16.5)

470(51.6)

200(22.0)

80(8.8)

10(1.1) 3400 3.73 7

5 Satisfiedcustomers willnot defect

240(26.4)

440(48.4)

180(19.8)

50(5.5) 0 3600 3.95 4

6` One singlecomplaint canmakecustomermove to otherbrands

190(20.9)

470(51.6)

130(14.3)

80(8.8)

40(4.4) 3420 3.75 6

7 Retailersinfluences toselect thebrands

220(24.2)

450(49.5)

100(11.0)

90(9.9)

50(5.5) 3430 3.76 5


231

Table 5.93 gives responses of respondents for white goods washing

machine brands. Respondents feel that ‘direct interaction with the company is

better than dealing through retailers’, customer always speak out their

problems”. But at the same time these are found to be top in total scores

ranking. A large majority also felt that ‘most dissatisfied customer leave the

brands without complaining, It is also felt that by a considerable percentage

that satisfied customers will not defect and influence to select the brands by

retailers. Finally the general perception is that, ‘one single complaint can make

customer move to other brands’. Taking into consideration the overall

perception of all the respondents, the general conclusion is that “direct

interaction with the company is better than dealing through retailers” which

would in turn lead to loyalty.

5.8.3 Perception of the Respondents on Various Criteria for Air

conditioner Brands

Customer’s perception on various criteria’s for white goods air

conditioner brands are given in column 1 and ratings are given in columns 2

to 6.

TABLE 5.94

PERCEPTION ON VARIOUS BRANDS OF AIR CONDITIONER

S.N Criteria(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

Totalscore Mean rank


350(43.8)

290(36.2)

110(13.8)

30(3.8)

20(2.5) 3320 4.15 1

2 customersalwaysspeak outtheirproblems

250(31.2)

360(45.0)

90(11.2)

80(10.0)

20(2.6) 3140 3.92 4

232


3 Mostdissatisfiedcustomersleave thebrandswithoutcomplaining

210(26.2)

410(51.2)

140(17.5)

30(3.8)

10(1.2) 3180 3.97 3

4 Respondentsremain dueto high costof shifting

120(15.0)

490(61.2)

130(16.2)

30(3.8)

30(3.8) 3040 3.80 5

5 Satisfiedcustomerswill notdefect

230(28.8)

400(50.0)

110(13.8)

60(7.5) 0 3200 4.00 2

6` One singlecomplaintcan makecustomerss move toother brands

170(21.2)

400(38.1)

150(18.8)

40(5.0)

40(5.0) 3020 3.77 6

7 Retailersinfluencesto select thebrands

200(25.0)

320(40.0)

190(23.8)

50(6.2)

40(5.0) 2990 3.73 7



Table 5.94 gives the responses of air conditioner brands. It is found

that’ direct interaction with the company is better than dealing through

retailers.’ A large majority also felt that “customers remain due to high cost of

shifting”. Again as predicted there is a strong opinion that “most dissatisfied

customers leave the brands without complaining. It is also felt that by a

considerable percentage that consumer durable white goods respondents that

‘one single complaint can make customers move to other brands’, and’

retailers influences to select the brands’. Taking in to consideration the overall

perception of all the respondents, the general conclusion is that “direct

interaction with the company is better than dealing through retailers”.

233

5.8.4 Perception of the Respondents on Various Criteria for Refrigerator

Brands

Customer’s perception on the various criteria’s for consumer durable

white goods refrigerator brands are given in column 1 and ratings are given in

columns 2 to 6.

TABLE: 5.95

PERCEPTION ON VARIOUS BRANDS OF REFRIGERATOR

S.N Criteria(1)

Stronglyagree

(2)

Agree(3)

Neutral(4)

Disagree(5)

Stronglydisagree

(6)


1 Directinteraction withthe company isbetter thandealing throughretailers.

330(35.1)

410(43.6)

90(9.6)

40(4.3) 70

(7.4) 3710 3.94 2

2 Respondentsalways speakout theirproblems

300(31.9)

430(45.7)

140(14.9)

60(6.4)

10(1.1) 3770 4.01 1

3 Mostdissatisfiedcustomersleave thebrands withoutcomplaining

220(23.4)

480(51.1)

180(19.1)

40(4.3)

20(2.1) 3660 3.89 3

4 Respondentsremain due tohigh cost ofshifting

120(12.8)

570(60.6)

150(16.0)

80(8.5)

20(2.1) 3510 3.73 6

5 Satisfiedcustomerswill not defect

220(23.4)

440(46.8)

180(19.1)

70(7.4)

30(3.2) 3570 3.79 5

6` One singlecomplaint canmakerespondentsmove to otherbrands

220(23.4)

410(43.6)

170(18.1)

100(10.6)

40(4.3) 3490 3.71 7

7 Retailersinfluences toselect thebrands

250(26.6)

420(44.7)

170(18.1)

70(7.4)

30(3.2) 3610 3.84 4


234

Table 5.95 gives responses of the consumer durable goods refrigerator

brands. Customer’s perception is that ‘direct interaction with the company is

better than dealing through retailers, customer always speak out their

problems. But at the same time these are found to be the top in total scores

ranking. A large majority also felt that “customers always speak out their

problems”, Again as predicted there is a strong opinion that “most dissatisfied

customers leave the brands without complaining ‘retailers influence to select

the brands. It is also felt that by a considerable percentage that satisfied

customers will not defect. One single complaint can make customers move to

other brands. Taking into consideration the overall perception of all the

respondents, the general conclusion is that “direct interaction with the

company is better than dealing through retailers”.

Surprisingly, General perceptions of white goods is that, one single

complaint can make customers move to other brands are not perceived as high.

The Indian customers appear to be more resilient. They do not seem to agree

that one single complaint makes customers move to other companies. There

are not many takers for the view that customers stay back with the company

due to high cost of shifting. It is found that most dissatisfied customers leave

the brands without complaining. The general perception is that retailers

influence to select the brands, there is also a feeling that single product holders

shift company more easily than multiple product holders and that satisfied

product would not defect easily. It is also found that customers always speak

out their problems.

5.9 CUSTOMERS SERVICE

Table 5.96 shows the problem faced by the white goods respondents.

235

Table 5.96

OPINION ON SERVICE

Responses Audiobrands

Washingmachine brands

Airconditioner

brands

Refrigeratorbrands

Experiencedwith problem

Yes 590

(69.4)

660

(72.5)

590

(74.6)

700

(75.3)

No 260

(30.6)

250

(27.5)

200

(25.4)

230

(24.7)

Total (1050) (100) (100) (100) (100)


Table 5.96 indicates that in audio brands respondents having service

related problem of 69.4 per cent. 72.5 per cent of the respondents have service

related problem with washing machine brands, air conditioner respondents

have 74.6 per cent problem in service and refrigerator brand respondents have

75.3 per cent. More than one fourth (25 to 30 percent) of all white goods

respondents feels that problems is not found.

Table 5.97 shows how the respondents were rectified under service

related problem with different factors.

236

Table 5.97

RELATIONSHIP ON CUSTOMER SERVICE OF

VARIOUS WHITE GOODS

Customers ServiceAudiobrands

Washingmachinebrands

Airconditioner

brands

Refrigeratorbrands

Mode of contactpreferred most

In person 100(16.9)

110(16.7)

90(15.3)

240(34.3)

Throughcustomerscare

380(64.4)

220(40.9)

240(40.6)

280(40.0)

Internet 60(10.2)

100(15.2)

90(15.3)

80(11.4)

Dealer/retailerby telephone

50(8.5)

230(34.8)

180(30.5)

100(14.3)

Problem resolved

Immediate 50(8.5)

130(19.7)

90(15.3)

290(41.4)

Less than aday

110(18.6)

230(34.8)

230(39.0)

150(21.4)

Between 2and 3 days

280(47.5)

80(12.1)

50(8.5)

90(12.9)

Between 3and 5 days

60(10.2).

20(3.0)

90(15.3)

60(8.6)

More than aweek

90(15.3)

200(30.3)

130(22.0)

110(15.7)

Number of timescontacted

Once 60(10.2)

250(37.9)

100(16.9)

290(41.4)

Twice 260(44.1)

210(31.8)

290(49.2)

120(17.1)

Three times 100(16.9)

110(16.7)

80(13.6)

150(21.4)

More than 3 170(28.8)

90(13.6)

120(20.3)

140(20.0)


237

A: AUDIO BRANDS

Out of 1,050 surveyed, 64.4 per cent of the respondent’s contacting

through customer care to register brand complaints and 8.5 per cent of the

respondents are contacting through retailers/dealers. Nearly half (47.5 per

cent) of the respondents problems are resolved between 2 to 3 days and it is

observed that only 8.5 per cent problems are solved immediately by the

companies. It is observed that 44.1 per cent of the respondents make contact

with customers care in 2 different times. But (10.2 percent) of the respondents

are contacting company for service related problems in one time.

B: WASHING MACHINE BRANDS

More than two fifth (40.9 per cent) of the respondents are contacting

through customer care to register their service problem and 15.2 per cent are

contacting through internet (i.e. sending massage through electronic-

mail).More than one third (34.8 per cent) of the respondents feel problems

resolved less than a day and only 3.0 per cent problems solved between 3 and

5 days. It is observed that (37.9 per cent) of the respondents feel quit enough

to contact customer care or company one time. (13.6 percent) of the

respondents contacting the service related problems are more than 3 times.

C: AIR CONDITIONER BRANDS

It is found that two fifth (40.6 per cent) of the respondents contacting

through customer care to register service problem and 15.2 per cent are

contacting through internet and in person. It is observed that problems

resolved by the air conditioner brands by a day (39.0 per cent) and only 8.5

per cent respondents problems are solved between 2 and 3 days. Nearly half

(49.2 per cent) of the respondents think twice to contact customer care to

register the problems. (13.6 percent) of the respondents are contacting

customer care with service related problems 3 times.

238

D: REFRIGERATOR BRANDS

It is found that, 40.0 per cent of the respondents are contacting through

customer care to register their problems and 11.4 per cent are contacting

through internet. More than one third (41.4 per cent) of the respondents

problems are resolved immediately and 8.6 per cent of the respondents

problems are solved between 3 and 5 days. More than one third (41.4 per cent)

of the respondents are contacting customer care to register their problems one

time, (17.1 percent) of the respondents contacting the service related problems

twice.

5.10 OPINION ON MARKETERS APPROACH

Table 5.98 shows the different modes of contacts preferred by the

respondents.

Table 5.98

OPINION ON MARKETERS APPROACH

SL.No Mode Frequency Percentage

1. SMS 263 25.12

2. Electronic mail 195 18.62

3. Telephone 157 14.99

4. Post 432 41.27

Total 1047 100.00


239

Table 5.98 shows the opinion on marketers approach, 41.27 per cent of

the respondents feel that the firm can update their new offer, new product,

promotional schemes through post. Second was found that through SMS

(25.12 per cent), the firm can reach the customer, electronic-mail (18.62 per

cent) is the ultimate new method to reach the customers and only 14.99 per

cent like to make calls over telephone.

Documents

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/33434/8...B: Washing Machine Brands Table 5.10 shows in column 4, respondents who purchased washing