"A Study On Brand Preferences of Mobile Phones Among Youth": Christ College (Autonomous), Irinjalakuda

“A STUDY ON BRAND PREFERENCES OF MOBILE
PHONES AMONG YOUTH”
Project report submitted to
CHRIST COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS), IRINJALAKUDA

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Commerce
Submitted by
AMAL VINCENT
(Reg No. CCATMCM003)
Under the Guidance of
Dr. JOSHEENA JOSE
POST GRADUATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

CHRIST COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS), IRINJALAKUDA
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
MARCH 2021
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project entitled ―A STUDY ON BRAND

PREFERENCE OF MOBILE PHONES AMONG YOUTH‖ by
Mr. Amal Vincent is a bona-fide record of work done under my
guidance and supervision in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the award of the degree in Master of Commerce.
Dr. JOSHEENA JOSE Dr. JOSHEENAJOSE

(Head of the department) (Project Guide)
DECLARATION
I, Amal Vincent, hereby declare that the bona-fide record of ―A

STUDY ON BRAND PREFERENCE OF MOBILE PHONES
AMONG YOUTH‖ done in partial fulfillment of the M.Com
degree program of Calicut University under the guidance of
Dr.Josheena Jose, Post Graduate Department of Commerce, Christ
College (Autonomous), Irinjalakuda.
I also declare that the project has not formed the basis of reward of
any degree or any other similar title to any other University.
Place: Irinjalakuda AMAL VINCENT
Date: 30-03-2021
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First, I praise and thank God Almighty who showers his plentiful
blessings upon me, who guide, shield and strengthen me all the
time.
I wish to express my profound gratitude and heart-felt thanks to our

Principal Fr. Dr. Jolly Andrews CMI for his encouragement and
forgiving me permission for the study.
I am thankful to Dr. Josheena Jose, our HOD and my Project Guide

without whose guidance and encouragement, I could not have
completed my Project work. Inspite of her busy schedule, she
spared some of her precious time to me for this work. Her moral
support besides the scholarly guidance in research is the foundation
of this Project. Thank you, for all the help and guidance. I‘m also
thankful to the other faculties of the department for their valuable
advices and co-operation, rendered for the successful completion of
my project.
I put forward my thankfulness to the Librarian and Non-Teaching

Staffs of Christ College Irinjalakuda (Autonomous) for their co-
operation. I also take this opportunity to thank my parents, friends
and classmates who have been a source of inspiration. Without
their encouragement, it would not have been possible for me to
complete my project successfully.
Place: Irinjalakuda AMAL VINCENT
Date: 30-03-2021
TABLE OF CONTENT
SL. PAGE
TITLE
NO NO.
1 LIST OF TABLES
2 LIST OF FIGURES
3 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 1-6
CHAPTER 2 – REVIEW OF
4 7 - 17
LITERATURE
CHAPTER 3 – THEORETICAL
5 18 - 24
FRAMEWORK
CHAPTER 4 – DATA ANALYSIS

6 25 - 78
& INTERPRETATION
CHAPTER 5 – FINDINGS,
7 79 - 85
SUGGESTIONS & CONCLUSIONS
8 BIBLIOGRAPHY 86
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
TITLE
NO. NO.
Classification of respondents on the basis of mobile
4.1 27
phone usage
Classification of respondents on the basis of Income

4.2 28
form Family
Classification of respondents on the basis of how long

4.3 29
they have been using mobile phones
Classification of respondents on the basis of who have

4.4 30
purchased the mobile phone
Classification of respondents on the basis of how much

4.5 31
a person can afford for a mobile phone
Classification of respondents on the basis brands

4.6 32
preferred
Classification of respondents on the basis of Phone size

4.7 35
preferred
Classification of respondents on the basis of weight

4.8 36
preferred
Classification of respondents on the basis of screen size

4.9 37
preferred
Classification of respondents on the basis influence of

4.10 39
social status on purchase of a brand
Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

4.11 40
of durability on purchase of brand

4.12 41
of performance on purchase of a brand
Classification of respondents on the basis of influence of

4.13 42
reliability on purchase of a brand
4.14 43
of self image on purchase of mobile phone
Classification of respondents on the basis of influence of

4.15 44
risk reduction of mobile phones

4.16 47
of price on purchase of mobile phones

4.17 48
of camera on purchase of mobile phones

4.18 49
of battery on purchase of mobile phones

4.19 50
of screen size on purchase of mobile phones

4.20 51
of Style/Looks on purchase of mobile phones

4.21 52
of security on purchase of mobile phones
Classification of respondents on the basis of volume of

4.22 53
speakers on purchase of mobile phones

4.23 54
of keypad on purchase of mobile phones

4.24 55
of Bluetooth on purchase of mobile phones
4.25 of wifi on purchase of mobile phones 56

4.26 57
of user friendliness on purchase of mobile phones

4.27 58
of dual sim on purchase of mobile phones

4.28 59
operating system on purchase of mobile phones
4.29 60
of 4G on purchase of mobile phones

4.30 61
of brand name on purchase of mobile phones
4.31 Case Processing Summary(a) 62
4.32 Gender* phone size cross tabulation(a) 63
4.33 Chi- Square Tests(a) 64
4.34 Case Processing Summary (b) 65
4.35 Gender* screen size cross tabulation(b) 65
4.36 Chi- Square Tests(b) 65
4.37 Case Processing Summary(c) 66
4.38 Gender * Weight Cross tabulation(c) 67
4.39 Chi Square test (c) 67
4.40 Factors for brand preferences 68
4.41 KMO and Bartlett‘s Test(a) 70
4.42 Communalities(a) 71
4.43 Total Variances Explained(a) 72

4.44 Factors which influence purchase of mobile phones 74
4.45 KMO and Bartlett‘s Test(b) 76
4.46 Communalities(b) 76
4.47 Total Variances Explained(b) 77

LIST OF FIGURES
FIG PAGE
TITLE
NO. NO.
Classification of respondents on the basis of mobile
4.1 27
phone usage
Classification of respondents on the basis of Income

4.2 28
form Family
Classification of respondents on the basis of how long

4.3 29
they have been using mobile phones
Classification of respondents on the basis of who have

4.4 30
purchased the mobile phone
Classification of respondents on the basis of how

4.5 31
much a person can afford for a mobile phone
Classification of respondents on the basis brands

4.6 33
preferred
Classification of respondents on the basis of Phone

4.7 35
size preferred
Classification of respondents on the basis of weight

4.8 36
preferred
Classification of respondents on the basis of screen

4.9 37
size preferred

4.10 39
social status on purchase of a brand

4.11 40
of durability on purchase of brand

4.12 41
of performance on purchase of a brand

4.13 42
of reliability on purchase of a brand
4.14 43
of self image on purchase of mobile phone

4.15 44
of risk reduction of mobile phones

4.16 47
of price on purchase of mobile phones

4.17 48
of camera on purchase of mobile phones

4.18 49
of battery on purchase of mobile phones

4.19 50
of screen size on purchase of mobile phones

4.20 51
of Style/Looks on purchase of mobile phones

4.21 52
of security on purchase of mobile phones
Classification of respondents on the basis of volume of

4.22 53
speakers on purchase of mobile phones

4.23 54
of keypad on purchase of mobile phones

4.24 55
of Bluetooth on purchase of mobile phones
4.25 of wifi on purchase of mobile phones 56

4.26 57
of user friendliness on purchase of mobile phones

4.27 58
of dual SIM on purchase of mobile phones

4.28 59
operating system on purchase of mobile phones
4.29 60
of 4G on purchase of mobile phones

4.30 61
of brand name on purchase of mobile phones
4.31 Total variance Explained (a) 73
4.32 Total variance Explained (b) 78

CHAPTER- 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Marketing is everywhere. Marketing touches every aspect of our lives,

from our very birth to our death. Our entire life, lifestyles and our existence
are continuously affected by marketing. If we examine our daily life,
commencing from getting up from bed in the morning to the time we go to the
bed in the night, we observe that we use number of product and services.
These product and services are provided to us through marketing.
The word marketing is derived from the word “Market”. The word
market is derived from the Latin word “Marcatus”. It means merchandise,
trade or a place where the business is conducted. Marketing is concerned with
satisfying customers‘ needs. It is anything that an organisation does in an
attempt to satisfy customers. According to H.L.Hansen defined marketing as
―the process of discovering and translating consumer needs and wants into
product and service specifications, creating demand for these products and
services and then in turn expanding this demand‖.
Branding is an important concept in market. The term brand is derived

from word “Brandr”. It means ―to burn‖. Each firm wants to identify its
products and distinguish them from their competitors in the market. A firm
does it by means of branding. Branding is the process of naming a product for
its identification and distinction. A product will gain its image and consumer
loyalty through its brand. When we think of ―Boost‖we might think of Sachin
Tendulkar, Virender Sehwag and now MS Dhoni and Virat Kohli or ―boost is
the secret of my energy‖. When we say ―Nirma‖, picture of a girl and a
washing powder comes to the mind. The fact is that we remember our brand
name and makes our product selection easier and enhances the value and
satisfaction we get from product.
1
Brand is defined by brand Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong as a
―name, term, sign, symbol that identifies the maker or seller of the product‖.
Brand is name, term, symbol, mark or design or a combination of them which
intended to identify goods or services of one seller or a group of sellers and to
differentiate them from those of competitors. A brand is not simply a name. It
corporate the logo, symbol, and design as well as the name. A brand is a
symbol of trust, value and loyalty. It is perceptual entity that lives in the
consumers mind.
Brand has two parts; brand name and brand mark. Brand name is that
part of brand that can be spoken including letters, words and numbers such as
HMT, 501 SOAPS etc. Brand mark is the part of the brand which appears in
the form of a symbol or design. It could be recognized only by sight, but cannot
be spoken.
Some of the most popular brand of consumer products has been popular
for decades, providing convincing evidence of strength of brand loyalty. Brand
loyalty simply means the loyalty of a buyer towards particular brand; it is
consistent preference for one brand over all others. Thus, brand loyalty is the
customers tendency to buy a particular brand repeatedly for example, if a
customer has a brand loyalty towards ‘Pears’ he will buy and use only that
soap.
Brands are the heart of marketing and business strategy. A brand is a

living thing in the sense that it either grows or adapts to a changing world or it
dies. A product may change, new features may be added or present features
may be upgraded. But a brand remains same brand is the most valued
possession of company. Take the Name ‗Maruthi‘ away from the car then the
car has no name and no goodwill. Then the people will face the problem of
purchasing car.
2
Today different brands of mobile phones are available to users. Mobile
phones are one of the modern telecommunication technologies that have
emerged over past decades to facilitate communication among people and
across countries (Dziwornu, 2013). According to the oxford dictionary the
word mobile is derived from the Latin phrase ‗mobile vulgus‘. Which means
excitable crowd. In human life there is the great change in standard of living by
the invention of mobile phones. As we all familiar cell phones did not just
happen overnight. They evolved just like us. Cell phones has evolved over five
different generations, the latest of which is still being adopted by users. By the
time most of us will have switched to 5G and there will be undoubtedly be yet
another standard to aspire.
As we all know that first mobile phone launched in India during 1990‘s
and first mobile company which was established is Nokia .In the year 1995, the
first service provider Modi group which was established in Kolkata. Now,
India is the second largest user of mobile phones that is accountable for
1,515,971,713 mobile phones. These figures indicates how widely mobile
phones are accepted here in India. There are many brands available to users
like Samsung, Micromax, Lenovo, Motorola, Intex, Lava , Xiaomi, Oppo,
Vivo, etc. As we know that youth is more attracted to mobile phone usage. The
current mobile market has close relationship with the youth. Whenever a new
multimedia or electronic gadget is launched, the traffic that is created in the
respective E-commerce sites is enormous and the outlets becomes crowded
with youngsters. This shows the growing popularity of mobile phones among
youngsters. This study seeks to analyze the brand preferences among youth.
1.2 Statement of Problem
During 19th century markets was not so competitive. There were very
few brands competing in the market and there were only few people using
mobile phones as they used to be very expensive. During 20th century many
3
new brands of mobile phones had been introduced in the market. Even in our
country new tele-communication companies had been established making the
service very cheaper so that the service can be utilised by every common
people of the country. Today mobile phones start from Rs.1,000 to Rs.1,50,000
because of which today people have lot of options regarding mobile phones.
Mobile phones have become very common to the people and life has become
almost impossible without mobile phone.
To compete in a market many cheaper mobile phones have been

introduced in a market especially from India and China providing additional
accessories and feature to customers. But there is a question regarding selection
of brands by consumers and factors affecting them while purchasing mobile
phones. Therefore, this study is desirable to identify the brand preferences
among youth.
1.3 Scope and significance
The scope of research is based on mobile brands and it throws light on

brand preference on mobile phone. This study is highly significant and useful
to know the youth preference while purchasing mobile phones.
1.4 Objectives of the study
1.4.1 To analyze the factors influencing the purchase of mobile phone among
youth.
1.4.2 To analyze brand preference on mobile phone among youth
1.5 Hypothesis of the study
1.5.1 There is an association between gender and mobile phone size preferred
among youth.
4
1.5.2 There is an association between gender and mobile phone screen size
preferred among youth.
1.6 Research methodology
1.6.1 Research design
The study is descriptive in nature. It includes survey and fact finding

enquires of different kind. The major purpose of this research is on brand
preference of mobile phones among youth.
1.6.2 Sample design
Population: The study is conducted on brand preferences of mobile phones

among youth.
Sampling frame: To study the whole population and in order to arrive at

conclusion would be impractical, since it is not practical to include all
youngsters in the area of data collection. It was considered to draw the sample.
The sampling method is used in this study is purposive sampling under the
non-probability method of sampling.
1.6.3 Sample size
For the purpose of testing factor analysis and chi-square test, it requires
a minimum of 50 samples, therefore 60 respondents were to constitute the size
for the study. Among 60 samples, 30 samples represents males and 30 are
females.
1.6.4 Data collection
Source of data: Data were collected from both primary and secondary sources.
The primary data were collected through structured questionnaire based on
objectives. The secondary data were collected from books and websites.
5
1.7 Tools for analysis
The collected data has been analysed with the help of both relevant
descriptive and inferential statistics viz, mean, standard deviation, factor
analysis and chi-square test.
1.8 Limitations of the study

1. The study is confined to 60 samples.
2. The study only confined among youth.
3. Only 30 male and 30 females are selected.
4. Time period was short.
1.9 Chapter scheme
The report is presented in to;

Chapter I-Introduction, objectives, significance and scope of study, statement
of the problem, hypothesis, research methodology and limitations of the study.
Chapter II-Review of literature, History of mobile phone and mobile industry
mild stones in India, brief profile of mobile brands.
Chapter III- Theoretical frame work; Branding and types of preferences.
Chapter IV- Data analysis and interpretation.
Chapter V- Findings, suggestions, and conclusions.
6
CHAPTER- 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
7
2.1 Review of Literature
Review of literature presents the issues and factors, ideas and opinions
and results of research that others have undertaken in the study area.
Liu, C M (2002)1 the effects of promotional activities on brand decision in the

cellular telephone industry. The study analysed factors affecting brands in
mobile phone industry in Asia. They found that the choice of mobile is
characterised by distinct attitude such as attitude towards network and brands.
In-stat/MDR (2002)2 the world wide PDA market-the next generation of

mobile computing research report. The report indicates that the customer
demand for buying more for a colour display and it is expected that in 21st
century all cellular phones and PDA‘s are equipped with colour display.
Wilska T A (2003)3 mobile phone use as part of young people consumption

styles. The study revealed that lot of consumers‘ choice may be having both
rational features such as communication, time management and emotional
features such as games, music, camera and application .The study concluded
that youth prefer emotional features rather than that of rational features in
buying mobile phones.
Heikki, Jariet.al(2005)4 factors affecting consumer choice of mobile phones.

They used seven factors for the purpose of analysing the factors influencing
mobile phone choice viz pricing, reliability, outside influence, brand and basic
property, design, multimedia and innovative services. They found that most of
the users unaware about properties and services of new models.
Wang, Wen chenget.al (2009)5 research on brand recognition on mobile

phones. According to them brand recognition enjoys the advantage of
consumers when they go for shopping and second benefit that in any case it
will affect consumer choice. They concluded that brand recognition is often the
major driving force for purchase decisions.
8
2.2 History of mobile phones
Today mobile phones have moved beyond their primary role of voice
communications and have graduated to become an essential entertaining device
for mobile users. We are in an era where users buy mobile phones not just to be
in touch, today‗s youth use it to express their thoughts, for social networking,
to show their interests, play games, read news, surf on the internet, listen to
music, chat instantly with friends & families and even check their bank
balances. There are various phone manufacturers providing handsets.
The Indian mobile industry is the fastest growing in the world and India
continues to add more mobile connections every month than any other country
in the world. Martin Cooper, a former general manager for the systems division
at Motorola, is considered the inventor of the first modern portable handset.
Bell Laboratories introduced the idea of cell phone communications in 1947
with the police car technology. However, Motorola was the first to incorporate
the technology into a portable device that was designed for use outside an
automobile. By 1977, AT&T and Bell Laboratories had constructed a prototype
cellular system. A year later, public trials of the new system were started in
Chicago with over 2000 trial customers. In 1979, in a separate venture, the first
commercial cell phone system began its operation in Tokyo. In 1981, Motorola
and American Radio Telephone started a second U.S. cell phone radio-
telephone system test in the Washington/Baltimore area. By 1982, the slow-
moving FCC finally authorized commercial cellular service for USA. A year
later, the first American commercial analogue cell phone service or AMPS
(Advanced Mobile Phone Service) was made available in Chicago by
Ameritech. Despite the incredible demand, it took 37 years for cell phone
services to become commercially available in the United States. Consumer
demand quickly outstripped the 1982 system standards. By 1987, cell phone
subscribers exceeded one million and the airways were crowded. (COAI 2005)
9
2.2.1 History of mobile phones in India
A report of Cellular Operators Authority of India regarding the entry of

cell phones into India is listed below. This shows the improvement in cell
phone introduction over the years.
1992 – Telecommunication sector in India was liberalized to bridge the gap

through government spending and to provide additional resources for the
nations telecom target. Private sector was allowed participation.
1993 – The telecom industry got an annual foreign investment Rs. 20.6 million.
1994 – License for providing cell phone services was granted by the
government of India for the metropolitan cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and
Chennai. Cell phone service became duopoly (i.e. not more than two cell phone
operators could be licensed in each telecom circle) under a fixed license fee
regime for 10 years.
1995 – 19 more telecom circles got mobile licences 1995 - (August) Kolkata
became the first metro with a cell phone network.
1997- TRAI was set up.
1998 – Annual foreign investment in telecom stood at Rs. 17,756.4 million.
1999- FDI inflow into telecom sector fell by almost 90 per cent to Rs. 2126.7
million.
1999 – Tariff rebalancing exercise got initiated. 1999 (March) - National
Telecom Policy was announced.
2000 (June) - FDI inflow dropped further down to Rs. 918 millions.
2000(Jan) –Amendment of TRAI Act.
(Source: Cellular Operators Authority of India (COAI))
10
2.3 Brands of Mobile
2.3.1 Samsung
The Samsung Group is the world's largest conglomerate. It is South

Korea's largest chaebol and composed of numerous international businesses, all
united under the Samsung brand, including Samsung Electronics, the world's
largest electronics company, Samsung Heavy Industries, one of the world's
largest shipbuilders And Samsung Engineering & Construction, a major global
construction company. These three multinationals form the core of Samsung
Group and reflect its name-the meaning of the Korean Word Samsung is
"tristar" or "three stars‖. The Samsung brand is the best known South Korean
brand in the world and in 2005, Samsung over took Japanese rival Sony as the
world's leading consumer electronics Brand and became part of the top twenty
global brands overall. It is also the leader in many domestic industries, such as
the Financial, chemical, retail and entertainment Industries. Samsung became
the largest producer of memory chips in the world in 1992-Samsung, the
world's second-largest chipmaker after Intel, see Worldwide Top 20
Semiconductor Market Share Ranking Year by Year. In 1995, it built its first
liquid-crystal display screen. Ten years later, Samsung grew to be the world's
largest manufacturer of liquid-crystal display panels. Sony, which had not
invested in LCDs, contacted Samsung to cooperate. In 2006, S-LCD was
established as a joint venture between Samsung and Sony in order to provide a
stable supply of LCD panels for both manufacturers. S-LCD is owned by
Samsung and Sony 51% to 49% respectively and operates its factories and
facilities in Tangjung, South Korea. In 2008, Samsung became the largest
mobile phone maker in the United States and 2nd largest mobile phone maker
in the World.
11
2.3.2 L.G
The LG Group is South Korea's third largest chaebol and is a

multinational conglomerate that produces electronics, mobile phones, and
petrochemical products and operates subsidiaries like LG Electronics, LG
Telecom, Zenith Electronics and LG Chem in over 80 countries. LG Group
founder Koo In Hwoi established Lak Hui Chemical Industrial Corp. in 1947.
As the company expanded its plastics business, it established GoldStar Co.,
Ltd., (currently LG Electronics Inc.) in 1958.In 1959; Goldstar produced
Korea's first radio. Many consumer electronics were sold under the brand name
GoldStar, while some other household products (not available outside South
Korea) were sold under the brand name of Lucky. The Lucky brand was
famous for its hygiene products line such as soaps and Hi-Ti laundry
detergents, but most associated with its Lucky and Perioe toothpaste. In 1995,
it was renamed "LG", the abbreviation of "Lucky GoldStar". The GoldStar
brand is still perceived as a discount brand.
2.3.3 Apple
Apple was established on April 1, 1976, by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak

and Ronald Wayne to sell the Apple I personal computer kit. The Apple I kits
were computers single-handedly designed and hand-built by Wozniak and first
shown to the public at the Homebrew Computer Club. The Apple I was sold as
a motherboard (with CPU, RAM, and basic textual-video chips), which was
less than what is now considered a complete personal computer Apple is the
world's largest information technology company by revenue, the world's largest
technology company by total assets, and the world's second-largest mobile
phone manufacturer. In November 2014, in addition to being the largest
publicly traded corporation in the world by market capitalization, Apple
became the first U.S. company to be valued at over US$700 billion. The
12
company employs 115,000 permanent full-time employees as of July 2015 and
maintains 478 retail stores in seventeen countries as of March 2016. It operates
the online Apple Store and iTunes Store, the latter of which is the world's
largest music retailer. There are over one billion actively used Apple products
worldwide as of March 2016.
2.3.4 Microsoft Nokia
NOKIA is a Finnish multinational communications and information

technology company, founded in 1865. Nokia is headquartered in Espoo,
Uusimaa, in the greater Helsinki metropolitan area. In 2014, Nokia employed
61,656 people across 120 countries, did business in more than 150 countries
and reported annual revenues of around €12.73 billion the company has had
various industries in its 151-year history. It was founded as a pulp mill, and
now focuses on large-scale telecommunications infrastructures, and technology
development and licensing. Nokia is also a major contributor to the mobile
telephony industry, having assisted in development of the GSM and LTE
standards, and was, for a period, the largest vendor of mobile phones in the
world. Nokia eventually entered into a pact with Microsoft in 2011 to
exclusively use Microsoft's Windows Phone platform on future smart phones.
Its mobile phone business was eventually bought by Microsoft in an overall
deal totaling $7.17 billion. Stephen Elop, Nokia's former CEO, and several
other executives joined the new Microsoft Mobile subsidiary of Microsoft as
part of the deal, which was completed on 25 April 2014.After the sale of its
mobile phone business, Nokia began to focus more extensively on its
telecommunications infrastructure business, marked by the divestiture of its
Here Maps division, its foray in virtual reality, and the acquisitions of French
telecommunications company Alcatel-Lucent and digital health maker
Withings in 2016, whilst the Nokia name will return to the mobile phone
market through HMD Global.
13
2.3.5 Lava
Lava International was established in the year 2003 as Pacetel

Communications. In 2009, the company was renamed Lava International. The
company launched the world‘s first Intel chip-based Smartphone. It was
founded by Hari Om Rai, Sunil Bhalla, Shailendra Nath Rai and Vishal Sehgal.
In 2012, chip-maker Intel tied up with Lava International to announce the first
Intel-powered Smartphone in India under the brand name XOLO.In the same
year, Lava entered the tablet business with E-Tab Z7H. In 2014, Lava launched
its flagship Smartphone, Iris Pro 30, the first in the Iris Pro series. Lava Iris X1
was among the earliest smart phones in India to use the Android Kitkat
operating system. In December 2014, the company launched its first Windows
Phone Smartphone, Iris Win1. In July 2016 lava launched X50 Smartphone
which runs on Android 5.1 lollipop. In February 2017, the company launched
its first feature phone Lava 4G Connect M1According to IDC Asia Pacific
Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker 2014, Lava Mobiles has 8% market share in
the Indian mobile phone market. In 2013, the company reported Rs 30 billion
($500 million) approximately in turnover. As of 2014, the company produced
about 1.5 million units of mobile devices every month.
Lava ranked as India‘s 5th most trusted mobile handset brand by The
Brand Trust Report 2014.In the same year, the company was ranked the 4th
largest Smartphone brand in India by IDC.
2.3.6 Asus
Asus was founded in Taipei in 1989 by T.H. Tung, Ted Hsu, Wayne
Hsieh and M.T. Liao, all four having previously worked at Acer as hardware
engineers. At this time, Taiwan had yet to establish a leading position in the
computer-hardware business. Intel Corporation would supply any new
processors to more established companies like IBM first, and Taiwanese
companies would have to wait for approximately six months after IBM
14
received their engineering prototypes. According to the legend, the company
created a prototype for a motherboard using an Intel 486, but it had to do so
without access to the actual processor. When Asus approached Intel to request
a processor to test it, Intel itself had a problem with their motherboard. Asus
solved Intel's problem and it turned out that Asus' own motherboard worked
correctly without the need for further modification. Since then, Asus was
receiving Intel engineering samples ahead of its competitors.
In January 2013, Asus officially ended production of its Eee PC series

due to declining sales caused by consumers increasingly switching to tablets
and Ultra books. Asus' products include 2-in-1s, laptops, tablet computers,
desktop computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), servers,
computer monitors, motherboards, graphics cards, sound cards, optical disc
drives, computer networking devices, computer cases, computer components
and computer cooling systems.
2.3.7 Xiaomi
Xiaomi is a privately owned Chinese electronics company

headquartered in Beijing. It is the world's 4th largest Smartphone maker.
Xiaomi designs, develops, and sells smart phones, mobile apps, laptops, and
related consumer electronics.
Since the release of its first Smartphone in August 2011, Xiaomi has
gained market share in mainland China and expanded into developing a wider
range of consumer electronics, including a smart home device ecosystem. The
company's founder and CEO is Lei Jun, China's 23rd richest person according
to Forbes. The company sold over 60 million smart phones in 2014.
The company has over 8,000 employees, mainly in mainland China,

India, Malaysia, and Singapore, and is expanding to other countries such as
Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, and Brazil. According to IDC, in
15
October 2014 Xiaomi was the third largest Smartphone maker in the world,
following Samsung and Apple Inc., and followed by Lenovo and LG. Xiaomi
became the largest Smartphone vendor in China in 2014, having overtaken
Samsung, according to an IDC report. Xiaomi is 4th world's most valuable
technology start-up after it received US$1.1 billion funding from investors,
making Xiaomi's valuation more than US$46 billion. Xiaomi entered the Indian
market in July 2014 via flip kart. Xiaomi was co-founded by eight partners on
6 April 2010.
2.3.8 Lenovo
Lenovo Group is a Chinese multinational technology company with

headquarters in Beijing, China, and Morrisville, North Carolina, United States.
It designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet
computers, Smartphone‘s, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices, IT
management software, and smart televisions. Lenovo has operations in more
than 60 countries and sells its products in around 160 countries. Lenovo's
principal facilities are in Beijing and Morrisville, with research centres in
Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Xiamen, Chengdu, Nanjing, and Wuhan in
China, Yamato in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan and Morrisville in the U.S. It
operates a joint venture with EMC called Lenovo EMC, which sells network-
attached storage solutions. It also has a joint venture with NEC, Lenovo NEC
Holdings, which produces personal computers for the Japanese market.
Lenovo was founded in Beijing in 1984 as Legend and was incorporated

in Hong Kong in 1988. Lenovo acquired IBM's personal computer business in
2005 and agreed to acquire its Intel-based server business in 2014. Lenovo
entered the Smartphone market in 2012 and as of 2014 was the largest vendor
of Smartphone‘s in Mainland China. In January 2014, Lenovo agreed to
acquire the mobile phone handset maker Motorola Mobility from Google, and
in October 2014 the deal was finalized.
16
2.3.9 Huawei
Huawei was founded in 1987 by Ren Zhengfei, a former engineer in the

People's Liberation Army. At the time of its establishment, Huawei was
focused on manufacturing phone switches, but has since expanded its business
to include: building telecommunications networks; providing operational and
consulting services and equipment to enterprises inside and outside of China;
and manufacturing communications devices for the consumer market. Huawei
has over 170,000 employees as of September 2015, around 76,000 of who are
engaged in research and development (R&D). In 2014, Huawei recorded a
profit of 34.2 billion CNY (5.5 billion USD).Its products and services have
been deployed in more than 140 countries and it currently serves 45 of the
world's 50 largest telecoms operators.
2.3.10 Micromax
Micromax is an Indian consumer electronics company headquartered in

Gurugram, Haryana. The company was established as an IT software company
operating in the embedded devices domain; it later entered the mobile handset
business. By 2010, it was one of the largest domestic companies making
handsets in the low-cost feature phone segment in India. As of Q3 2014,
Micromax was the tenth largest Smartphone vendor in the world. In Q4 2015,
Micromax's shipments fell by 12.1%, against growth of 15.4% for the mobile
sector. Micromax's share of the Smartphone market fell to 13% in Q4 2015
from 22% at its peak in 2014. The company is facing stiff competition from
Chinese companies entered in the Indian market.
17
CHAPTER-3
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
18
3.1 Introduction to Branding
Marketing means ―the process of discovering and translating consumer

needs and wants into product and service specifications, creating demand for
these products and services and then in turn expanding this demand‖. Branding
is important concept in marketing.
Branding is perhaps the most significant facet of any business--beyond

product, circulation, pricing, or location. A company's emblem is its definition
in the world, the name that recognizes it to itself and the marketplace. A brand
is more than just advocating and trading. It is not anything less that everything
any person conceives of when they glimpse your logo or discover your name.
At its most basic grade, branding is propelled by the human need to
differentiate one thing from another. An emblem is a promise about whom you
are and what benefits you consign that gets strengthened every time persons
come in communicate with any facet of you or your enterprise. Branding is the
process of construction a affirmative collection of insights in your customer‘s
brain. For a emblem to be thriving it should first differentiate itself from the
affray in the minds of consumers and this distinction must be relevant. Most
important, although, whatever it is that makes it different or applicable should
be easy to understand—to both the people‘s interior the emblem organization
and the persons out-of-doors. An emblem is not simply the message the
marketer intends to drive to a clientele. An emblem is the note the customer
perceives about the product, which may be certain thing altogether distinct than
the note the marketer proposed to drive. A brand is an exclusive and
identifiable emblem, association, title or trademark which serves to
differentiate vying goods or services. Both a personal and emotional trigger to
create a relationship between buyers and the product/service. An emblem is
certain thing that inhabits in your head. It‘s a pledge that connections a
merchandise or service to a consumer. A brand is a mixture of attributes,
19
tangible and intangible, symbolised in a trademark, which, if managed
properly, creates value and influence.
―Value‖ has different interpretations: from a marketing or consumer

perspective it is ―the promise and delivery of an experience‖; from a business
perspective it is ―the security of future earnings‖; from a legal perspective it is
―a separable piece of intellectual property.‖ Brands offer customers a means to
choose and enable recognition within cluttered markets.
3.2 Meaning & Definitions of brand
According to American Marketing Association defines brand as ―A

name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that identifies one seller‘s
good or service as distinct from those of other sellers. The legal term for brand
is trade mark. A brand may identify one item, a family of items, or all items of
that seller. If used for the firm as a whole, the preferred term is trade mark‖
According to Leo Burnett a brand symbol as ―anything that leaves a

mental picture of the brand‘s identity‖
3.3 Terms related to branding

3.3.1 Brand Equity
The sum of all distinguishing qualities of a brand, drawn from all

relevant stakeholders, that result in personal commitment to and demand for the
brand; these differentiating thoughts and feelings make the brand valued and
valuable.
3.3.2 Brand Experience
Brand Experience means by which a brand is created in the mind of a

stakeholder. Some experiences are controlled such as retail environments,
advertising, products/services, websites, etc. Some are uncontrolled like
journalistic comment and word of mouth. Strong brands arise from consistent
20
experiences which combine to form a clear, differentiated overall brand
experience.
3.3.3 Brand Harmonization
Brand Harmonization means ensuring that all products in a particular

brand range have a consistent name, visual identity and ideally, positioning
across a number of geographic or product/service markets.
3.3.4 Brand Identity
Brand Identity means outward expression of the brand, including its

name and visual appearance. The brand‘s identity is its fundamental means of
consumer recognition and symbolizes the brand‘s differentiation from
competitors.
3.3.5 Brand Image
The customer‘s net ―out-take‖ from the brand. For users this is based on
practical experience of the product or service concerned (informed
impressions) and how well this meets expectations; for non-users it is based
almost entirely upon uninformed impressions, attitudes and beliefs.
3.3.6 Brand Management
Practically this involves managing the tangible and intangible aspects of

the brand. For product brands the tangibles are the product itself, the
packaging, the price, etc. For service brands (see Service Brands), the tangibles
are to do with the customer experience – the retail environment, interface with
salespeople, overall satisfaction, etc. For product, service and corporate brands,
the intangibles are the same and refer to the emotional connections derived as a
result of experience, identity, communication and people. Intangibles are
therefore managed via the manipulation of identity, communication and people
skills.
21
3.3.7 Brand Personality
The attribution of human personality traits (seriousness, warmth,

imagination, etc) .to a brand as a way to achieve differentiation is termed as
brand personality. It is usually done through long-term above-the-line
advertising and appropriate packaging and graphics. These traits inform brand
behaviour through both prepared communication/packaging, etc., and through
the people who represent the brand – its employees.
3.3.8 Brand Positioning
Brand Positioning is distinctive position that a brand adopts in its

competitive environment to ensure that individuals in its target market can tell
the brand apart from others. Positioning involves the careful manipulation of
every element of the marketing mix
3.3.9 Rebranding
When a brand owner revisits the brand with the purpose of updating or
revising based on internal or external circumstances. Rebranding is often
necessary following a merger, acquisition, or if the brand has outgrown its
former identity.
3.4 Preferences
3.4.1 Brand Preference

Based on the previous experience with the product consumer will
choose it than competitors of its availability. Companies with products at the
brand preference Stages are in favourable position in competition their industry
since the brand preference results in brand loyalty companies more market
share.
22
3.4.2 Types of Preferences
The target audience might like the product but not prefer it to others. In
this case, the communicator must try to build customer preference by
promoting quality, value, performance and other features. The communicator
can check the campaign‘s success by measuring audience preference after the
campaign. The following are the types of preference.
 Homogeneous Preferences
 Diffused Preferences
 Clustered Preferences
 Heterogeneous Preferences
3.4.3 Homogeneous Preferences
It is the Market where the entire customer has roughly the same
preference. The market shows no natural segments. We would predict that
existing brands would be similar and cluster around the middle of the scale in
both sweetness and creaminess.
3.4.4 Diffused Preferences
At the other extreme, customers preferences may be scattered
throughout the space, indicating that customer vary greatly in their preferences.
The first brand to enter the market is likely to position in the centre to appeal to
the most people. A brand in the centre minimizes the sum of total customer
dissatisfaction. A second competitor could locate next to the first brand and
fight for market share or it could locate in a corner to attract a customer group
that was not satisfied with the centre brand. If several brands are in the market,
they are likely to position throughout the space and show real difference to
match customer preference differences.
3.4.5 Clustered Preferences
The market might reveal distinct preference clusters called natural
Market Segments. The first firm in this market has three options. It might
position in the centre hoping to appeal to all groups. It might position in the
23
largest market segment. It might develop several brands, each positioned in a
different segment if the first firm developed only one brand and competitors
would enter and introduce brands in the other segments.
3.4.6 Heterogeneous Preferences
Preference heterogeneity, perhaps the most important reason for
Segmentation in the customer preferences. Taste and preferences differ among
people. Some people are highly concerned about the appearance of a product,
whereas others are more concerned about functionality. As preference
heterogeneity increase the case for segmentation increases in strength
moreover; the greater the variability the large the number of profitable
segments present in a market.
24
CHAPTER – 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION
25
4.1 Data analysis and interpretation
Branding is perhaps the most significant facet of any business--beyond

product, circulation, pricing, or location. A company's emblem is its definition
in the world, the name that recognizes it to itself and the market place.
Data analysis and interpretation are an attempt to organise and

summarize data in order to increase usefulness to such a manner. The data
collected with the help of questionnaire is analyzed, sorted and tabulated. The
tabulated data is then represented with help of chart. Pie chart and column
graphs are used for representing the data in the table. By analyzing the table
and charts interpretations are done. They are closely related interpretation and
it is not possible without analysis. The most important objective of analysis is
to understand the brand preference among youth and factors influencing in
purchase of mobile phones.
4.2 Socio-economic analyses of mobile phone users
The socio-economic factors which are taken for analysis of mobile

phone brand preferences among youth viz Income of family, Amount prepared
to pay for mobile phones and gender, Time period of usage of mobile phone.
26
Table 4.1
Classification of respondents on basis of mobile phone usage

Response Female Percentage Male Percentage Total Percentage
Mobile phone
27 45% 30 50% 57 95%
users
Mobile phone
3 5% 0 0% 3 5%
non users
Total 30 50% 30 50% 60 100%
(Source: Survey data)
Table 4.1 shows 50% of males and 45% of females fall under the
category of mobile phone users and 5% of female respondents fall under the
category of mobile phone non users.
Fig 4.1
Classification of respondents on basis of mobile phone

usage
50%
50% 45%
40%
Percentage
30%
Female
20%
Male
10% 5%
0%
0%
Mobile phone users Mobile phone non users
Response
27
Table 4.2
Classification of respondents on basis of Income of family
Response Female Percentage male Percentage Total Percentage

Lessthan10000 9 16.67% 17 28.33% 27 45%
10000-20000 8 13.33% 7 11.67% 15 25%
20000-30000 7 11.67% 3 5% 10 16.67%
Above 30000 6 8.33% 3 5% 8 13.33%
Total 30 50% 30 52.63% 57 100%
(Source:Survey data)
Table 4.2 shows 16.67% female and 28.33% male of respondents have
family income lessthan 10000.13.33% females and 11.67% of malerespondents
have family income in between 10000 – 20000.11.67% female and 5% male
respondents in 20000-30000 category and 8.33% females nad 5% male
respondents in above 30000 category.
Fig 4.2
Classification of respondents on basis of Income of family
28.33%
30.00
25.00
16.67%
Percentage
20.00
13.33%
15.00 11.67% 11.67%
8.33%
10.00
5.00% 5.00% Female
5.00 Male
0.00
Response
28
Table 4.3
Classification of respondents on basis of years of mobile usage
Response Female percentage Male percentage Total Percentage

Less than 1
7 12.28% 6 10.23% 13 22.81%
years
1-2 Years 14 24.56% 11 19.3% 25 43.89%
2 -3Years 2 3.51% 10 19.3% 12 21.05%
Morethan 4
4 7.02% 3 5.26% 7 12.28%
years
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.3 shows 12.28% female and 10.53% male respondents are
using mobile phonesFor less than 1 year. 24.56% female and 19.3%
malerespondents are using mobile phones For 1-2 years. 3.51% female and
17.54% malerespondents are using mobile phones For 2-4 years. 7.02% female
and 5.26% male respondents are using mobile phones For more than 4 years.
Fig 4.3
Classification of respondents on basis of years of mobile

usage
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00 19.30%
Percentage
30.00
25.00
Male
20.00
10.53%
15.00 Female
24.56% 17.54%
10.00 5.26%
5.00 12.28%
3.51% 7.02%
0.00
Less than 1 1-2 Years 2 -3Years Morethan 4
years years
Response
29
Table 4.4
Classificationon the basis of who have bought the mobile phones
Response Female Percentage Male percentage Total percentage

Self 3 5.26% 8 14.04% 11 19.3%
Family
23 40.35% 22 38.6% 45 78.95%
members
Friends 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Others 1 1.75% 0 0% 1 1.75%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.4 indicates that 5.26% female and 14.04% malesrespondents
are purchased mobiles by themselves.majority of respondents that is 40.35%
female and 38.60 male possess mobile because their family members bought it.
1.75% (females) got mobiles by means of other sources .
Fig 4.4
Classification on the basis of who have bought the mobile

phones
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00 38.60%
percentage
50.00
Male
40.00
Female
30.00
20.00 40.35%
10.00 14.04%
0.00%
5.26% 0.00% 1.75%
0.00 0.00
self Family members friends others
Response
30
Table 4.5
Classification on the basis of amount prepared to pay for

mobile phones

Lessthan10000 20 35.09% 18 31.58% 38 66.67%
10000-20000 4 7.02% 10 17.54% 14 24.56%
20000-30000 1 1.75% 1 1.75% 2 3.51%
Above 30000 2 3.51% 1 1.75% 3 5.26%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
Source: Survey data
The table 4.5 indicates that 35.09% female and 31.58% male
respondents are prepared to pay less than 10000 for mobile phones.7.02%
female and 17.54% male respondents are prepared to pay 10000-20000 for
mobile phones.1.75% female and 1.75% male respondents are prepared to pay
20000-30000 for mobile phones.3.51% female and 1.75% male respondents are
prepared to pay more than 30000 for mobile phones.
Fig 4.5
Classification on the basis of amount prepared to pay for

mobile phones
60.00
50.00 31.58%
Percentage
40.00
30.00
Male
20.00 Female
35.09% 17.54%
10.00
1.75%
7.02% 1.75%
0.00 1.75% 3.51%
Lessthan10000 10000-20000 20000-30000 Above 30000
Response
31
Table 4.6
Classification respondents on the basis of brand prefered

Samsung 10 17.54% 8 14.04% 18 32.58%
Apple 2 3.51% 1 1.75% 3 5.26%
Lava 0 0.00% 1 1.75% 1 1.75%
LG 1 1.75% 1 1.75% 2 3.51%
Micromax 2 3.51% 2 3.51% 4 7.02%
Microsoft 4 7.02% 1 1.75% 5 8.77%
Lenovo 5 8.77% 8 14.04% 13 22.81%
Huawei 0 0.00% 2 3.51% 2 3.51%
Xiaomi 0 0.00% 1 1.75% 1 1.75%
Asus 0 0.00% 1 1.75% 1 1.75%
Others 3 5.26% 4 7.02% 7 12.28%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.6 indicates that 17.54% female and 14.04% malerespondents
are preferred samsung mobile phones. 3.51% femals and 1.75%
malerespondents are preferred Apple mobile phones. 1.75% malerespondents
are preferred Lava mobile phones. 1.75% female and 1.75% malerespondents
are preferred LGmobile phones. 3.51% female and 3.51% malesrespondents
are preferred Micromax mobile phones. 7.02% female and 1.75% male
respondents are preferred Microsoft nokia mobile phones. 8.77% female and
14.04% malerespondents are preferred Lenovo mobile phones. 3.51% male
respondents are preferred Huawei mobile phones. 1.75% male respondents are
preferred Xiaomi mobile phones. 1.75% malerespondents are preferred Asus
mobile phones. 5.26% female and 7.02% malerespondents are preferred other
mobile phones.other phones preferred namely Gionee, vivo and oppo etc.
32
Fig 4.6
Classification on the basis of brand prefered by users

35.00
30.00
25.00 14.04%
20.00
percentage
14.04%
15.00 Male
Female
10.00
17.54% 7.02%
1.75%
5.00 3.51%
1.75% 8.77%
7.02%
1.75% 5.26%
3.51% 3.51% 3.51%1.75%1.75%
1.75%1.75%
0.00 0.00 0.00%0.00%0.00%
Response
33
4.3 Physical features of mobile phones
Physical features of mobile phones include weight, phone size and
screen size of mobile phone.
4.3.1 Phone size- it is the length of mobile phones. People may prefer small,
medium or large size mobile phones.
4.3.2 Weight- preference of mobile phones differs from person to person.

People may prefer light weight, medium weight or heavy weight mobile
phones.
4.3.3 Screen size- it is the length of mobile display, it can be small size,
medium or large one
34
Table 4.7
Classification of respondents on basis of Phone size preferred
Slim 19 33.33% 21 36.84% 40 70.18%
Medium 8 14.04% 9 15.7% 17 29.82%
Thick 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.7 shows 33.33% female and 36.84% male respondents
are in preference of slim phone.14.04% female and 15.79% male
respondents are in preference of medium size mobile phones.
Fig 4.7
Classification of respondents basis of Phone size preferred

80.00
70.00
60.00
36.84%
Percentage
50.00
40.00
Male
30.00
15.79% Female
20.00
33.33%
10.00
14.04%
0.00 0.00%
0.00
Slim Medium Thick
Response
35
Table 4.8
Classification of respondents on basis of Weight preferred

Light 22 38.6% 16 28.07% 38 66.67%
Medium 5 8.77% 14 24.26% 19 33.33%
Heavy 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.8shows 38.6% females and 28.07% male respondents

are in preference of light weight mobile phone.8.77% female and 24.56%
male respondents are in preference of medium weight mobile phones.
Fig 4.8
Classification of respondents basis of Weight preferred
80.00
70.00
60.00
28.07%
Percentage
50.00
40.00
30.00 Male
20.00 24.56% Female

38.60%
10.00
8.77% 0.00%
0.00 0.00
Light Medium Heavy
Response
36
Table 4.9
Classification of respondents on basis Screen size preferred

Small 0 0% 1 1.75% 1 1.75%
Medium 13 22.81% 21 36.84% 34 59.65%
Large 14 24.56% 8 14.04% 22 38.6%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.9 shows 1.75% male respondents are in preference of

small screen size mobile phone.22.81% female and 36.84% male
respondents are in preference of medium screen size.24.56% female and
14.04% male respondents are in preference of large screen size.
Fig 4.9
Classification of respondents on basis Screen size preferred

70.00
60.00
50.00
Percentage
40.00 36.84%
30.00 14.04% Male

Female
20.00
10.00 22.81% 24.56%

1.75%
0.00 0.00%
Small Medium Large
Response
37
4.4 Factors influencing brand
Brand is such factor which differentiates an entity from the competitors.
A name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that identifies one seller‘s
good or service as distinct from those of other sellers.
Six factors have been used to analyse the factors influencing brand
preference among youth viz; social status, self image, reliability, risk reduction,
durability and performance.
 Social status – It means a person‘s standing or importance in

relation to other people within a society.
 Self image – Self image is how you see yourself. This may be how
you see yourself physically or your opinion of who and what you
are which is normally called self concept. It is important as it
affects tour self esteem and confidence.
 Reliability – The quality of being trustworthy or of performing
consistently well is termed as reliability.
 Risk reduction – Risk reduction means reducing the likelihood of a
loss, or to reduce the severity of possible loss.
 Durability – Assurance or probability that an equipment, machine
or material will have a relatively long continuous useful life,
without requiring an inordinate degree of maintenance.
 Performance – In relation to a equipment, means the speed,
accuracy and completeness of a activity carried by that equipment.
38
Table 4.10
Influence of social status on purchase of brand

Strongly
2 3.51% 4 7.02% 6 10.83%
agree
Agree 9 15% 6 10.53% 15 26.32%
Neutral 12 21.05% 5 8.77% 17 29.82%
Disagree 4 7.02% 6 10.53% 10 17.54%
Strongly 15.79%
0 0% 9 15.59% 9
disagree
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.10 shows that 3.51% of female and 7.02% of male and
15.79% of female and 10.53% of male respondents respectively strongly agree
and agree with statement. While 21.05% of female and 8.77% of male
respondents indicated that they neither agree nor disagree with the
statement.7.02% of female and 10.53% of male respondents disagree that they
see that they will gain status while purchasing branded mobile phones and
15.79 % of male respondents strongly disagree with statement.
Fig 4.10
Influence of social status on purchase of brand

35.00
30.00
percentage
25.00 8.77%
20.00 10.53%
15.00 Male
10.53%
10.00 21.05% Female
7.02% 15.79% 15.79%
5.00
7.02%
3.51%
0.00 0.00%
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
agree disagree
Response
39
Table 4.11
Influence of durability on purchase of brand

Strongly
6 10.53% 11 19.3% 17 29.82%
agree
Agree 20 35.09% 15 26.32% 35 61.4%
Neutral 0 0% 3 5.26% 3 5.26%
Disagree 0 0% 1 1.75% 1 1.75%
Strongly
1 1.75% 0 0% 1 1.75%
disagree
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.11 shows that 10.53 % female & 19.3% male and 35.09%
female & 26.32% male respondents respectively strongly agree and agree with
statement. While 5.26% male respondents indicated that they neither agree nor
disagree with the statement.1.75% male respondents disagree that they see for
durability while purchasing branded mobile phones and 1.75% (female) of the
respondents strongly disagree with statement.
Fig 4.11
Influence of durability on purchase of brand

70.00
60.00
50.00 26.32%
Percentage
40.00
30.00 Male
20.00 19.30% Female
35.09%
10.00 0.00%
10.53% 5.26%
1.75%
0.00 0.00% 0.00 1.75%
agree disagree
Response
40
Table 4.12
Influence of performance on purchase of brand
Strongly
8 14.04% 19 33.33% 27 47.37%
agree
Agree 16 28.07% 7 12.28% 23 40.35%
Neutral 2 3.51% 4 7.02% 6 10.53%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly
1 1.75% 0 0% 1 1.75%
disagree
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
female & 12.28% male respondents respectively strongly agree and agree with
statement. While 3.51% female & 7.02% male of the respondent indicated that
they neither agree nor disagree with the statement. 1.75% (females)
respondents strongly disagree with statement.
Fig 4.12
50.00
Influence of performance on purchase of brand
45.00 33.33%
40.00
12.28%
35.00
Percentage
30.00
25.00 28.07%
Male
20.00
Female
15.00
10.00 14.04%
7.02%
5.00
0.00 3.51% 0.00%
1.75%
Strongly Agree Neutral 0.00
Disagree Strongly
agree Response disagree
41
Table 4.13
Influence of reliability on purchase of brand

Strongly
5 8.77% 13 22.81% 18 31.58%
agree
Agree 16 28.07 8 14.04% 24 42.11%
Neutral 5 8.77% 7 12.28% 12 21.02%
Disagree 1 1.75% 1 1.75% 2 3.51%
Strongly
0 0% 1 1.75% 1 1.75%
disagree
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
female & 14.04% male of the respondents respectively strongly agree and
agree with statement. While 8.77% female & 12.28% male respondents
indicated that they neither agree nor disagree with the statement. 1.75% female
& 1.75% male respondents disagree that they see for reliability while
purchasing branded mobile phones and 1.75 % (males) of the respondents
strongly disagree with statement.
Fig 4.13
45.00 Influence of reliability on purchase of brand

40.00
35.00 14.04
30.00
Percentage
25.00
20.00 22.81
Male
15.00 28.07 12.28
Female
10.00
5.00 8.77 8.77
1.75
0.00 1.75 1.75
0.00
agree Response disagree
42
Table 4.14
Influence of self image on purchase of mobile phone

Strongly
0 0% 7 12.28% 7 12.28%
agree
Agree 9 15.79% 5 8.77% 14 24.56%
Neutral 11 19.3% 5 8.77% 16 28.07%
Disagree 6 10.53% 9 15.79% 15 26.32%
Strongly
1 1.75% 4 7.02% 5 8.77%
disagree
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.14 shows that 12.28% male and 15.09% female & 8.77%
male of the respondents respectively strongly agree and agree with statement.
While 19.3% female & 8.77% male respondents indicated that they neither
agree nor disagree with the statement. 10.53 Female & 15.79% male
respondents disagree that they see for self image while purchasing branded
mobile phones and 1.75 % female & 7.02 male of the respondents strongly
disagree with statement.
Fig 4.14
Influence of self image on purchase of mobile phone

30.00
25.00
8.77%
20.00 8.77%
Percentage
15.79%
15.00
Male
10.00 19.30% Female
15.79%
12.28% 10.53% 7.02%
5.00
0.00 0.00% 1.75%

Strongly agree Agree Neutral DisagreeStrongly disagree
Response
43
Table 4.15
Influence of risk reduction on purchase of phone

Strongly
5 8.77% 12 21.05% 17 29.82%
agree
Agree 10 17.54% 10 17.54% 20 35.09%
Neutral 8 14.04% 6 10.53% 14 24.56%
Disagree 3 5.26% 2 3.51% 5 8.77%
Strongly
1 1.75% 0 0% 1 1.75%
disagree
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.15 shows that 8.77% female and 21.05% male and 17.54%
female and 17.54% male respondents respectively strongly agree and agree
with statement. While 14.04% female and 10.53% male of the respondents
indicated that they neither agree nor disagree with the statement. 5.26% female
and 3.51% male respondents disagree that they see for risk reduction while
purchasing branded mobile phones and 1.75 % female respondents strongly
disagree with statement.
Fig 4.15
40.00
Influence of risk reduction on purchase of mobile phone
35.00
30.00
17.54%
Percentage
25.00
20.00 21.05% 10.53%
15.00 male
10.00 17.54%
14.04% 3.51% female
5.00 8.77% 0.00%
5.26%
0.00 1.75%
agree disagree
Response
44
4.5 Factors affecting purchase of mobile phone
Purchase of a mobile phone may be affected from number of factors, so

15 factors were taken to analyse their influence on purchase of mobile phones.
Factors include viz;
 Price – The amount of money expected, required or given as payment of

something.
 Camera – It is a feature for recording visual image in the form of
photographs, film or video.
 Battery – A container consisting of one or more cells, in which
chemical energy is converted into electricity and used as a source of
power of mobile phone.
 Screen size – It means the length and width of display screen.
 Style/looks – It includes aggregate of phones colour, shape, and layout
of mobile phones.
 Security – It means protection from software and hardware attacks.
 Volume of speaker – It is the loudness of the speaker.
 Keypad – It is the set of buttons arranged in a block or ―pad‖ which
bears digits, symbols, or alphabetical letters.
 Bluetooth – It is a wireless technology for exchanging data over short
distance from fixed and mobile devices, and building personal area
networks.
 Wi-Fi – It means wireless fidelity. It is a facility allowing computers,
Smart phones or other devices to connect it internet or communicate
with one another wirelessly within a particular area.
 User friendly – It means easy to learn, use, understand or deal with
device.
 Dual SIM - The word SIM means subscriber identity module. It is an
integrated circuit that is intended to security store the international
45
mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) number and its related key, which are
used to identity and authentic subscribers on mobile telephony devices.
 Operating system – It is system software that manages hardware and
software resources and provides common services for applications.
 4G – It is the fourth generation of wireless mobile telecommunication
technology, succeeding 3G. A 4G system provide capabilities defined.
 Brand name - A name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that
identifies one seller‘s good or service as distinct from those of other
sellers.
46
Table 4.16
Influence of Price on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
17 29.82% 18 31.58% 35 61.4%
Important
10 17.54% 7 12.28% 17 29.82%
Neutral
0 0% 5 8.77% 5 8.77%
Less important
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Not important
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.16 indicates 29.82% of female and 31.58% male

respondents‘ value price very important in purchase of mobile phone. 17.54%
female and 12.28% male respondents stating that price is important. 8.77%
male respondents are neutral in this regard.
Fig 4.16
Influence of Price on purchase of mobile phones

70.00
60.00
50.00
31.58%
Percentage
40.00
30.00 Male
12.28% Female
20.00
29.82%
10.00 17.54% 8.77%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00
Very Important Netural Less Not
important important important
Response
47
Table 4.17
Influence Camera on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
15 26.32% 17 29.82% 32 56.14%
Important
8 14.02% 8 14.02% 16 28.07%
Neutral
4 7.02% 4 7.02% 8 14.04%
Less important
0 0% 1 1.75% 1 1.75%
Not important
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%

respondents‘ value camera very important in purchase of mobile phone.
14.04% female and 14.04% male respondents stating that brand name is
important. 7.02% female and 7.02% male respondents are neutral in this
regard. 1.75% male respondents stated it is less important.
Fig 4.17
Influence Camera on purchase of mobile phones

60.00
50.00
29.82%
Percentage
40.00
30.00
Male
20.00 14.04%
Female
26.32%
10.00 7.02%
14.04%
7.02% 1.75% 0.00%
0.00 0.00 0.00
Very importantImportant Netural Less important
Not important
Response
48
Table 4.18
Influence of Battery on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
17 29.82% 18 31.58% 35 61.4%
Important
10 17.54% 9 15.79% 19 33.33%
Neutral
0 0% 2 3.51% 2 3.51%
Less important
0 0% 1 1.75% 1 1.75%
Not important
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%

respondents‘ value battery very important in purchase of mobile phone.17.54%
female and 15.79% male respondents stating that battery is important. 3.51%
male respondents are neutral in this regard. 1.75% male respondents stated it
is less important.
Fig 4.18
70.00
Influence of Battery on purchase of mobile phones
60.00
50.00
31.58%
Percentage
40.00
30.00 Male
15.79% Female
20.00
29.82%
10.00 17.54%
3.51% 1.75% 0.00%
0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Very Important Netural Less Not important
important important
Response
49
Table 4.19
Influence of Screen size on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
6 10.53% 10 17.54% 16 28.07%
Important
16 28.07% 10 17.54% 26 45.61%
Neutral
5 8.77% 8 14.04% 13 22.81%
Less important
0 0% 2 3.51% 2 3.51%
Not important
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%

respondents valued screen size very important in purchase of mobile phone.
28.07% female and 17.54% male respondents stating that screen size is
important. 8.77% females and 14.04% male respondents are neutral in this
regard. 3.51% male respondents stated it is less important.
Fig 4.19
Influence of Screen size on purchase of mobile phones

50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00 17.54%
Percentage
30.00
25.00
20.00 Male
17.54%
15.00 28.07% 14.04% Female
10.00
5.00 10.53% 8.77% 3.51% 0.00%
0.00 0.00% 0.00
Response
50
Table 4.20
Influence of Style/looks on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
9 15.79% 6 10.53% 15 26.32%
Important
15 26.32% 12 21.05% 27 47.37%
Neutral
3 5.26% 9 15.79% 12 21.05%
Less important
0 0% 3 5.26% 3 5.26%
Not important
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%

respondents valued style/looks very important in purchase of mobile phone.
26.32% female and 21.05% male respondents stating that style/looks is
important. 5.26% females and 15.79% male respondents are neutral in this
regard. 5.26% male respondents stating it is less important
Fig 4.20
Influence of Style/looks on purchase of mobile phones
50.00
40.00
21.05%
Percentage
30.00
10.53% Male
20.00
26.32% 15.79% Female
10.00 15.79%
5.26% 0.00%
5.26%
0.00 0.00 0.00
Very important Important Netural Less important
Not important
Response
51
Table 4.21
Influence of Security on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
20 35.09% 11 19.3% 31 54.39%
Important
7 12.28% 11 19.3% 18 31.58%
Neutral
0 0% 8 14.04% 8 14.04%
Less important
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Not important
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.21 indicates 35.09% female and 22.81% male respondents
valued security very important in purchase of mobile phone.12.28% female and
19.3% male respondents stating that security is important. 14.04% male
respondents are neutral in this regard.
Fig 4.21
Influence of Security on purchase of mobile phones

60.00
50.00
19.30%
Percentage
40.00
30.00
Male
20.00 19.30%
35.09% Female
10.00
12.28% 14.04%
0.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00
Response
52
Table 4.22
Influence of Volume of speaker on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
11 19.3% 8 14.04% 19 33.33%
Important
12 21.05% 13 22.81% 25 43.86%
Neutral
3 5.26% 8 14.04% 11 19.3%
Less important
0 0% 1 1.75% 1 1.75%
Not important 1.75%
1 1.75% 0 0% 1
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.22 indicates 19.3% of female and 14.04% male respondents
valued volume of speaker very important in purchase of mobile phone. 21.05%
female and 22.81 male respondents stating that brand name is important. 5.26%
female and 14.04% male respondents are neutral in this regard. 1.75% male
and 1.75% female respondents stated it is less important and not important
respectively
Fig 4.22
Influence of Volume of speaker on purchase of mobile
phones
50.00
40.00
Percentage
30.00 22.81%
14.04%
20.00 Male
14.04% Female
10.00 19.30% 21.05%
5.26% 1.75% 0.00%
0.00 0.00% 1.75%
Not important
Response
53
Table 4.23
Influence of Keypad on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
6 10.53% 8 14.04% 14 24.26%
Important
15 26.32% 11 19.3% 26 45.61%
Neutral
4 7.02% 7 12.28% 11 19.3%
Less important
1 1.75% 4 7.02% 5 8.77%
Not important
1 1.75% 0 0% 1 1.75%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%

respondents valued keypad very important in purchase of mobile phone.
26.32% female and 19.3% male respondents stating that keypad is important.
7.02% female and 12.28% male respondents are neutral in this regard. 1.75%
female and 7.02% male and 1.75% female respondents stated it is less
important and not important respectively
Fig 4.23
Influence of Keypad on purchase of mobile phones

50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00 19.30%
Percentage
30.00
25.00
Male
20.00
14.04% Female
15.00 26.32% 12.28%
10.00
5.00 10.53% 7.02% 7.02% 0.00%
0.00 1.75% 1.75%
Response
54
Table 4.24
Influence of Bluetooth on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
3 5.26% 11 19.3% 14 24.56%
Important
14 24.56% 5 8.77% 19 33.33%
Neutral
7 12.28% 4 7.02% 11 19.3%
Less important
3 5.26% 5 8.77% 8 14.04%
Not important
0 0% 5 8.77% 5 8.77%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%
The table 4.24 indicates 5.26% of female and 19.3% male respondent‘s
value blue tooth very important in purchase of mobile phone. 24.56% female
and 8.77% male respondents stating that blue tooth is important. 12.28%
females and 7.02% male respondents are neutral in this regard. 5.26% female
and 8.77% male and 8.77% male respondents stated it is less important and not
important respectively
Fig 4.24
Influence of Bluetooth on purchase of mobile phones

35.00
30.00 8.77%
25.00
Percentage
20.00
15.00 19.30% 7.02% Male
24.56%
10.00 8.77% Female
5.00 12.28%
8.77%
5.26% 5.26%
0.00 0.00%
Not important
Response
55
Table 4.25
Influence of Wi-Fi on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
12 21.05% 16 28.07% 28 49.12%
Important
12 21.05% 11 19.3% 23 40.35%
Neutral
3 5.26% 3 5.26% 6 10.53%
Less important
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Not important
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%

respondents value Wi-Fi very important in purchase of mobile phone.21.05%
female and 19.3% male respondents stating that Wi-Fi is important. 5.26%
female and 5.26% male respondents are neutral in this regard.
Fig 4.25
Influence of Wi-Fi on purchase of mobile phones

60.00
50.00
40.00
Percentage
28.07%
30.00 19.30% Male
20.00 Female
10.00 21.05% 21.05%

5.26%
5.26%
0.00 0.00%
0.00 0.00%
0.00
Response
56
Table 4.26
Influence of User friendly on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
20 35.09% 19 33.33% 39 68.42%
Important
7 12.28% 8 14.04% 15 26.32%
Neutral
0 0% 2 3.51% 2 3.51%
Less important
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Not important
0 0% 1 1.75% 1 1.75%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%

respondents valued user friendly very important in purchase of mobile phone.
12.28% female and 14.04% male respondents stating that user friendly feature
is important. 3.51% male respondents are neutral in this regard. 1.75% male
respondents stated it is not important
Fig 4.26
Influence of User friendly on purchase of mobile phones

80.00
70.00
60.00
Percentage
50.00 33.33%
40.00
Male
30.00
Female
20.00 35.09% 14.04%
10.00
12.28% 3.51% 1.75%
0.00 0.00% 0.00%
0.00 0.00%
Not important
Response
57
Table 4.27
Influence of Dual SIM on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
9 15.79% 10 17.54% 19 33.33%
Important
10 17.54% 9 15.79% 19 33.33%
Neutral
7 12.28% 6 10.53% 13 22.81%
Less important
0 0% 2 3.51% 2 3.51%
Not important
1 1.75% 3 5.26% 4 7.02%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%

respondents value dual sim very important in purchase of mobile phone.
17.54% female and 15.79% male respondents stating that dual sim is important.
12.28% female and 10.53% male respondents are neutral in this regard. 3.51%
male and 1.75% female & 5.26% male respondents stated it is less important
and not important respectively
Fig 4.27
Influence of Dual sim on purchase of mobile phones

35.00
30.00
25.00 17.54% 15.79%
Percentage
20.00
10.53%
15.00 Male
10.00 17.54% Female
15.79%
5.00 12.28%
3.51% 5.26%
0.00 0.00% 1.75%
Very important Important Netural Less importantNot important
Response
58
Table 4.28
Influence of Operating system on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
13 22.81% 19 33.33% 32 56.14%
Important
10 17.54% 7 12.28% 17 29.82%
Neutral
4 7.02% 3 5.26% 7 12.28%
Less important
0 0% 1 1.75% 1 1.75%
Not important
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%

respondents valued operating system very important in purchase of mobile
phone. 17.54% female and 12.28% male respondents stating that operating
system is important. 7.02% female and 5.26% male respondents are neutral in
this regard. 1.75% male respondents stated it is not important.
Fig 4.28
Influence of Operating system on purchase of mobile

60.00 phones
50.00
Percentage
40.00 33.33%
30.00
12.28% Male
20.00
Female
10.00 22.81% 17.54% 5.26%
7.02% 1.75% 0.00%
0.00 0.00% 0.00%
Not important
Response
59
Table 4.29
Influence of 4G on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
9 15.79% 20 35.09% 29 50.88%
Important
9 15.79% 6 10.53% 15 26.32%
Neutral
7 12.28% 3 5.26% 10 17.54%
Less important
1 1.75% 1 1.75% 2 3.51%
Not important
1 1.75% 0 0% 1 1.75%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%

respondents valued brand 4G very important in purchase of mobile phone.
15.79% females and 10.53% male respondents stating that 4G is
important.12.28% female and 5.26% male respondents are neutral in this
regard. 5.26% female and 1.75% male and 1.75% female respondents stated it
is less important and not important respectively.
Fig 4.29
Influence of 4G on purchase of mobile phones

60.00
50.00
40.00
Percentage
35.09%
30.00
Male
20.00 10.53%
5.26% Female
10.00 15.79% 15.79% 12.28% 1.75% 0.00%
0.00 1.75% 1.75%
Response
60
Table 4.30
Influence of brand name on purchase of mobile phones

Very important
6 10.53% 13 22.81% 19 33.33%
Important
16 28.07% 4 7.02% 20 35.09%
Neutral
2 3.51% 11 19.3% 13 22.81%
Less important 5.26%
3 5026% 0 0% 3
Not important
0 0% 2 3.51% 2 3.51%
Total 27 47.37% 30 52.63% 57 100%

respondents valued brand name very important in purchase of mobile phone.
28.07% female and 7.02% male respondents stating that brand name is
important. 3.51% female and 19.3% male respondents are neutral in this
regard. 5.26% female and 3.51% male respondents stated it is less important
and not important respectively.
Fig 4.30
Influence of brand name on purchase of mobile phones
40.00
35.00
30.00 7.02%
Percentage
25.00
22.81%
20.00 Male
15.00 28.07% Female
19.30%
10.00
5.00 10.53% 0.00% 3.51%
3.51% 5.26%
0.00 0.00%
important Response important important
61
4.6 Test of hypothesis
Chi-Square Test: The Chi-Square Test of Independence determines whether

there is an association between categorical variables (i.e., whether the variables
are independent or related). It is a nonparametric test. This test is also known
as: Chi-Square Test of Association. This test utilizes a contingency table to
analyze the data. A contingency table (also known as a cross-
tabulation, crosstab, or two-way table) is an arrangement in which data is
classified according to two categorical variables. The categories for one
variable appear in the rows, and the categories for the other variable appear in
columns. Each variable must have two or more categories. Each cell reflects
the total count of cases for a specific pair of categories.
H1: There is an association between gender and mobile phone size

Table 4.31
Case Processing Summary (a)
Cases
Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent
Gender * Phone
57 100.0% 0 0.0% 57 100.0%
size
(Source:spss output)
62
Table 4.32
Gender * Phone size Cross tabulation (a)
Phone size
Total
Slim Medium
Count 21 9 30
Expected Count 21.1 8.9 30.0
% within gender 70.0% 30.0% 100.0%
Male
% within phone size 52.5% 52.9% 52.6%
% of Total 36.8% 15.8% 52.6%
Std. Residual .0 .0
Gender
Count 19 8 27
% within gender 70.4% 29.6% 100.0%
Female
% of Total 33.3% 14.0% 47.4%
Std. Residual .0 .0
Count 40 17 57
Total % within gender 70.2% 29.8% 100.0%

% of Total 70.2% 29.8% 100.0%
(Source: spss output)
63
Table 4.33
Chi-Square Tests (a)

Asymp.
Exact Sig. Exact Sig.
Value df Sig. (2-
(2-sided) (1-sided)
sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square .001 1 .976
Continuity
.000 1 1.000
Correctionb
Likelihood Ratio .001 1 .976
Fisher's Exact Test 1.000 .603
Linear-by-Linear
.001 1 .976
Association
N of Valid Cases 57
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 8.05.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Three tables Case Processing Summary, Gender * Phone size Cross

tabulation, Chi-Square Tests are generated under the heading cross tabs on
executing the command for chi-square test.
Case Processing Summary table gives the summary information

(number of cases and missing values) of the variables.
Gender * Phone size Cross tabulation is given in the table no. 4.32 It
shows that out of 30 males 21male respondents prefer slim category and the
remaining (9) under the medium category. Out of 27 females 19 respondents
prefer slim phone size while others (8) prefer medium category. In order to
examine the statistical significance of this result, the researcher test chi-square
test statistic. It is given below table no.4.33 the value of Pearson Chi-Square is
0.001 and associated significance value is 0.976 which is greater than
0.05.Therefore null hypothesis is accepted. It means that there is no association
between gender and phone size preferred among the youth.
64
H1 There is an association between gender and mobile phone screen size
Table 4.34
Case Processing Summary (b)

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Gender * Screen size 57 100.0% 0 0.0% 57 100.0%
Table 4.35
Gender * Screen size Cross tabulation(b)

Screen size
Total
Medium Large
Male Count 22 8 30
Gender
Female Count 13 14 27
Total Count 35 22 57
Table 4.36
Chi-Square Tests (b)

Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig.
Value df
(2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.803a 1 .051
Continuity
2.815 1 .093
Correctionb
Likelihood Ratio 3.840 1 .050
Fisher's Exact Test .062 .046
Linear-by-Linear
3.737 1 .053
Association
N of Valid Cases 57
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 10.42.
65
Three tables Case Processing Summary, Gender * Screen size Cross

Gender * screen size Cross tabulation is given in the table no. 4.35 It
shows that out of 30 males 22male respondents prefer medium category and the
remaining (8) under the large category. Out of 27 females 13 respondents
prefer medium screen size while others (14) prefer large category.
In order to examine the statistical significance of this result, the

researcher test chi-square test statistic. It is given below table no.4.36 the value
of Pearson Chi-Square is 3.803 and associated significance value is 0.051
which is greater than 0.05.Therefore null hypothesis is accepted. It means that
there is no association between gender and screen size preferred among the
youth.
H1: There is an association between gender and mobile phone weight

Table 4.37
Case Processing Summary (c)
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Gender * 57 100.0% 0 0.0% 57 100.0%
Weight
66
Table 4.38
Gender * Weight Cross tabulation (c)

Weight Total
Light Medium
Male Count 16 14 30
Gender
Female Count 22 5 27
Total Count 38 19 57
Table 4.39
Chi-Square Tests (c)

Value Df Asymp. Exact Exact
Sig. (2- Sig. (2- Sig. (1-
sided) sided) sided)
Pearson 5.067a 1 .024
Chi-Square
Continuity 3.879 1 .049
Correctionb
Likelihood 5.232 1 .022
Ratio
Fisher's .029 .023
Exact Test
Linear-by- 4.978 1 .026
Linear
Association
N of Valid 57
Cases
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 9.00.
Three tables Case Processing Summary, Gender * weight Cross

67
Gender * weight Cross tabulation is given in the table no. 4.38 It shows
that out of 30 males 16 male respondents prefer light weight category and the
remaining (14) under the medium category. Out of 27 females 22 respondents
prefer light weight while others (5) prefer medium category.
In order to examine the statistical significance of this result, the
researcher test chi-square test statistic. It is given below table no.4.39 the value
of Pearson Chi-Square is 5.067 and associated significance value is 0.024
which is less than 0.05.Therefore null hypothesis is rejected. It means that there
is an association between gender and weight preferred among the youth.
4.7 Factor Analysis

Factor analysis is a statistical method for reducing large number of
variables to a small number of components or factors and used to describe the
variability among observed, correlated variables in terms of potentially lower
number of unobserved variables called factors. It is used as a data reduction
method. It may be used to uncover and establish the cause and effect
relationship between variables or to confirm a hypothesis.
Table 4.40 (a)

Factors for brand preferences
Descriptive Statistics (a)
Analysis
Mean Std. Deviation
N
VAR00001 2.9667 1.33996 60
VAR00002 3.9500 1.21327 60
VAR00003 4.0500 1.29438 60
68
VAR00004 3.7833 1.23634 60
VAR00005 2.8500 1.31259 60
VAR00006 3.6333 1.30146 60

The first output from the analysis is a table of descriptive statistics for
all the variables under investigation. The mean, standard deviation and number
of respondents (N) who participated in the survey are given. In case of mean,
we can conclude that among the factors for preferring the brand, performance
is the most important variable that influences more in their preference to
selecting a brand. It has the highest mean of 4.0500 (Table 4.40a).
The normal varimax solution is not obtained directly from a correlation
matrix. It is obtained by rotating other types of factor solutions to the varimax
form. In the present study it was considered desirable to use the highest factor
loading criterion to select the factors related to brand preference. This criterion
was uniformly used in the factor analysis carried out on the total sample of the
study
Principle Component Analysis

Factor analysis was adopted to capture the factors on preferring the
brand among the youth
The principle component analysis through extraction method used for
identifying the most important factors leading to brand preference. For the
purpose of extracting the important factors assuming the concept of Eigen
value = 1
The following 6 variables are taken for analysis status, durability,
performance, reliability, myself image and risk reduction. With the objective is
to reduce the variables in to fewer number of factors the table 4.40a.showed the
69
extracted value of 6 variables. Table 4.40.b showed the cumulative percentage
column that the 1 factor is extracted together account for 67.399% of total
variance.
KMO and Bartlett’s Test

The KMO and Bartlett‘s test table display the results for interpreting the
adequacy of data for factor analysis.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures the sampling adequacy and
its value should be greater than 0.6 for our sample to be adequate for
undertaking factor analysis. Also, the p-value of Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
should be less than 0.05.The off-diagonal elements should all be very small
(close to zero) in a good model. In the table the KMO measure is .820.There is
universal agreement that factor analysis is inappropriate when sample size is
below 50. Kaisen (1974) recommend 0.5 as minimum (barely accepted), values
between 0.7-0.8 acceptable, and values above 0.9 are superb.
Table 4.41
KMO and Bartlett's Test (a)
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
.820
Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square 254.188
Bartlett's Test of
df 15
Sphericity
Sig. .000
Bartlett‘s test of Sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures

are adopted to determine the appropriateness of data set for factor analysis
.High value (between 0.5 to 1) Of KMO indicates that factor analysis is
70
appropriate. In this study, the result of Bartlett‘s test of Sphericity (0.000) sig
and KMO (0.820 indicates that the data are appropriate for factor analysis.
Communalities
The proportion of variance in any one of the original variables which is
captured by extracted factor is communalities. Communalities help estimate the
variance that is unique to each variables; this uniqueness is calculated by total
variance explained by the variable minus the communality of that variable.
Table 4.42
Communalities (a)
Initial Extraction
VAR00001 1.000 .389
VAR00002 1.000 .772
VAR00003 1.000 .839
VAR00004 1.000 .803
VAR00005 1.000 .506
VAR00006 1.000 .735
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
As per table 4.42 (b) shows how the variance (i.e. the communality
value which should be more than 0.5 to be considered for further analysis). In
this study, factor analysis was carried out in two stages. In stage one; known as
the factor extraction process, objective was to identify the number of factors to
be extracted from the data.
71
Table 4.43
Total Variance Explained (a)
Extraction Sums of Squared
Initial Eigen values
Loadings
Component
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Total Total
Variance % Variance %
1 4.044 67.399 67.399 4.044 67.399 67.399
2 .848 14.125 81.525
3 .522 8.707 90.232
4 .297 4.950 95.182
5 .168 2.793 97.975
6 .121 2.025 100.000
(Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis)
Using principle component analysis, 6 variables were extracted by 1

factor. Only the factor ‗social status‘ having latent roots or Eigen values greater
than 1 were considered significant and all factors having eigen value less than 1
were considered insignificant and were discarded. Only one component was
extracted. The solution cannot be rotated.
72
Fig 4.31
73
Table 4.44
Factors which influencing purchase mobile phone
Descriptive Statistics(b)
Mean Std. Deviation Analysis N
VAR00001 4.3000 1.18322 60

VAR00002 4.1500 1.27326 60
VAR00003 4.2833 1.22255 60
VAR00004 3.7667 1.18417 60
VAR00005 3.7167 1.24997 60
VAR00006 4.1167 1.23634 60
VAR00007 3.9500 1.18501 60
VAR00008 3.5167 1.29525 60
VAR00009 3.4333 1.39450 60
VAR00010 4.2000 1.16153 60
VAR00011 4.3500 1.27326 60
VAR00012 3.5667 1.39450 60
VAR00013 4.1167 1.29001 60
VAR00014 3.9500 1.38301 60
VAR00015 3.6167 1.35411 60
The first output from the analysis is a table of descriptive statistics for
all the variables under investigation. The mean, standard deviation and number
of respondents (N) who participated in the survey are given. In case of mean,
we can conclude that among the factors for purchase of mobile phone, user-
friendly is the most important variable that influences more in their preference
to purchase a mobile phone. It has the highest mean of 4.35(Table 4.44(b)).
The normal varimax solution is not obtained directly from a correlation

matrix. It is obtained by rotating other types of factor solutions to the varimax
form. In the present study it was considered desirable to use the highest factor
74
loading criterion to select the factors influence you to purchase mobile phone.
This criterion was uniformly used in the factor analysis carried out on the total
sample of the study.
Principle Component Analysis
Factor analysis was adopted to capture the factors influence you to purchase
mobile phone among the youth.
The principle component analysis through extraction method used for

identifying the most important factors leading to brand preference. For the
purpose of extracting the important factors assuming the concept of Eigen
value = 1
The following 15 variables are taken for analysis Price, Camera,

Battery, Screen size, Security option Volume of speaker, Key pad, Wi-Fi, User
friendly, Dual SIM card, 4G and Brand name. With the objective is to reduce
the variables in to fewer number of factors the table 4.44(b) showed the
extracted value of 15 variables. Table 4.44.b showed the cumulative percentage
column that the 1 factor (price) is extracted together account for 66.399% of
total variance.
KMO and Bartlett’s Test
The KMO and Bartlet‘s test table display the results for interpreting the
adequacy of data for factor analysis.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures the sampling adequacy and

its value should be greater than 0.6 for our sample to be adequate for
undertaking factor analysis. Also, the p-value of Bartlett‘s Test of Sphericity
should be less than 0.05.The off-diagonal elements should all be very small
(close to zero) in a good model. In the table the KMO measure is .820.There is
universal agreement that factor analysis is inappropriate when sample size is
75
below 50. Kaisen (1974) recommend 0.5 as minimum (barely accepted), values
between 0.7-0.8 acceptable, and values above 0.9 are superb.
Table 4.45
KMO and Bartlett's Test (b)
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .907
Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square 812.787
Bartlett's Test of
Df 105
Sphericity
Sig. .000
Bartlett‘s test of Sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures

are adopted to determine the appropriateness of data set for factor analysis.
High value (between 0.5 to 1) Of KMO indicates that factor analysis is
appropriate. In this study, the result of Bartlett‘s test of Sphericity (0.000) sig
and KMO (0.907) indicates that the data are appropriate for factor analysis.
Communalities
The proportion of variance in any one of the original variables which is
captured by extracted factor is communalities. Communalities help estimate the
variance that is unique to each variables; this uniqueness is calculated by total
variance explained by the variable minus the communality of that variable.
Table 4.46
Communalities (b)
Initial Extraction
VAR00001 1.000 .618
VAR00002 1.000 .693
VAR00003 1.000 .781
VAR00004 1.000 .733
VAR00005 1.000 .663
VAR00006 1.000 .731
VAR00007 1.000 .751
VAR00008 1.000 .518
VAR00009 1.000 .416
76
VAR00010 1.000 .800
VAR00011 1.000 .770
VAR00012 1.000 .538
VAR00013 1.000 .743
VAR00014 1.000 .640
VAR00015 1.000 .563
As per table 4.46 (b) Shows how the variance (i.e. the communality
value which should be more than 0.5 to be considered for further analysis). In
this study, factor analysis was carried out in two stages. In stage one; known as
the factor extraction process, objective was to identify the number of factors to
be extracted from the data.
Table 4.47
Total Variance Explained (b)

Extraction Sums of Squared
Initial Eigen values
Loadings
Component
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Total Total
Variance % Variance %
1 9.959 66.390 66.390 9.959 66.390 66.390
2 .832 5.544 71.934
3 .678 4.520 76.454
4 .578 3.856 80.310
5 .546 3.643 83.953
6 .494 3.292 87.246
7 .382 2.543 89.789
8 .343 2.289 92.078
9 .277 1.850 93.928
10 .229 1.526 95.454
11 .204 1.360 96.814
12 .178 1.185 97.999
13 .130 .863 98.862
14 .109 .729 99.592
15 .061 .408 100.000
77
Using principle component analysis, 15 variables were extracted by 1
factor. Only one factor i.e., ‗price‘ having latent roots or Eigen values greater
than 1 were considered significant and all factors having Eigen value less than
1 were considered insignificant and were discarded. Only one component was
extracted. The solution cannot be rotated.
Fig 4.32
78
CHAPTER- 5
FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS
AND CONCLUSION
79
5.1 Findings
 95% of respondents fall under the category of mobile phone users and
3% of female respondents fall under the category of non mobile phone
users.
 45% of respondents come under the category of family income of less
than 10000
 Most of respondents including male (19.3%) and female (24.56%) are
using mobile phones 1-2 years.
 Respondents including male (38.3%) and female (40.35%) are bought
mobile phones by their family members
 Respondents including male (31.58%) and female (35.09%) are willing
to pay less than 10000 for mobile phones.
 Samsung is most preferred brand among respondents while male
respondents show same preferences to Lenovo also.
 Respondents including male (36.84%) and female (33.33%) prefer slim
mobile phone
 Respondents including male (28.07%) and female (38.6%) prefer light
weight mobile phone.
 Male respondents (36.84%) show preference to medium screen size of
mobile phone and female respondents (24.56%) prefer large screened
mobile phone.
 Female (21.05%) respondents are neutral and most of male (15.79%)
respondents are strongly disagree about the statement that social status
influence purchase of brand.
 Female (35.09%) and male (26.32%) respondents are agreeing about the
statement that durability influence purchase of brand.
80
 Female (28.07%) respondents are agreeing and most of male (33.33%)
respondents are strongly agree about the statement that performance
 Female (28.07%) respondents are agreeing and most of male (22.81)
respondents are strongly agree about the statement that reliability
 Female (19.3%) respondents are neutral and most of male (15.79%)
respondents are disagree about the statement that self image influence
purchase of brand.
 Female (17.54%) and male (17.54%) respondents are agreed about the
statement that risk reduction influence purchase of brand.
 Female (29.82%) and male (31.58%) stated that price is very important
factor on the purchase of mobile phones.
 Female (26.2%) and male (29.82%) stated that camera is very important
 Female (29.82%) and male (31.58%) stated that battery is very important
factor on the purchase of mobile phones
 Female (28.07%) and male (17.54%) stated that screen size is important
 Female (26.32%) and male (21.05%) stated that style/looks are important
 Female (35.09%) and male (19.3%) stated that security is very important
 Female (21.05%) and male (22.81%) stated that volume of speaker is
important factor on the purchase of mobile phones.
 Female (26.32%) and male (19.3%) stated that key pad is important
 Female (24.56%) stated Bluetooth as important and male (19.3%) stated
that Bluetooth is important factor on the purchase of mobile phones.
81
 Female (21.05%) and male (28.07%) stated that Wi-Fi size is very
 Female (35.09%) and male (33.33%) stated that user friendliness is very
 Female (17.54%) stated dual sim is important factor and male (17.54%)
stated that dual sim is very important factor on the purchase of mobile
phones.
 Female (22.81%) and male (33.33%) stated that operating system is very
 Female (15.79%) and male (35.09%) stated that 4G is very important
 Female (28.07%) stated is important and male (17.54%) stated that brand
name is very important factor on the purchase of mobile phones.
 The value of Pearson Chi-Square is 0.001 and associated significance
value is 0.976 which is greater than 0.05.Therefore null hypothesis is
accepted. It means that there is no association between gender and phone
size preferred among the youth. Therefore no gender difference in
preference of phone size among youth.
 The value of Pearson chi-square is 3.803 and associated significance
value is 0.051 which is greater than 0.05, Therefore null hypothesis is
accepted. it means that there is no association between gender and
preference of screen size. Therefore no gender difference in preference of
screen size among youth.
 The value of Pearson Chi-Square is 5.067 and associated significance
value is 0.024 which is less than 0.05.Therefore null hypothesis is
rejected. It means that there is an association between gender and weight
preferred among the youth. That is there is a difference in gender
regarding preference of weight of mobile phone.
82
 Among six factors selected to study influence its impact on brand
preference ―social status‖ is the factor which most influence the on brand
preference of mobile phone as revealed in factor analysis.
 Among 15 factors selected to study influence on purchase of mobile
phone ―price‖ is the factor which most influence the purchase of mobile
phone as revealed in factor analysis.
83
5.2 Suggestions
 Samsung should provide better service and try to avoid hanging

problem related with the mobile phone.
 Companies should offer more mobile phones within the range of less
than 10000.
 Companies should offer a slim, large screened and medium sized
mobile phone.
 Asus should try to avoid heating problem of mobile phone.
 Battery life is most respondents dissatisfied about, companies should
take special care in this regard.
 Innovative features are expected by respondents
 Company should focus on inbuilt free games, quality sound quality and
video quality
 More featured, user friendly and at reasonable prices cell phones are
expected by customers. Thus this perceived quality with reasonable
prices must be fulfilled by the players in the industry.
84
5.3 Conclusion
The research study explores brand preference on mobile phone among

the youth having analysed the data obtained from survey of 60 youngsters.
The study revealed that Samsung has strong brand preference among
respondents on the other hand male respondents shows same preferences
towards Lenovo also. The mobile phone is bought to majority of respondents
by their family members. Majority of respondents fall under the class of family
income less than 10000. Respondents prefer light slim, large screened and light
weight mobile phones. The study shows that Price, camera, battery, security,
Wi-Fi, user-friendly, operating system, 4G are considered as very important
factors in purchase of mobile phones and Screen size, style/looks, volume of
speaker, key pad, blue tooth, brand name, are considered as important factors
in purchase of mobile phones. Dual sim card is considered as very important
and important factor in purchase of mobile phone. The study revealed that
―social status‖ has most influence on brand preference. Among fifteen factors
taken to analysis factors influencing purchase of mobile phones ―price‖ has
most influence on purchase of mobile phones. The study also revealed that
there is no gender difference regarding preference of phone size and screen size
of mobile phones. But there is gender difference in preference of weight of
mobile phone.
85
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Journals
I. Liu, C M (2002) the effects of promotional activities on brand decision

in the cellular telephone industry. The journal of product and Brand
management. 11(1), pp 42-51.
II. In stat/MDR (2002) the world wide PDA market. The next generation of
mobile computing research report. 7th august 2002.
III. Wilsk T A(2003) mobile phone use as part of young people‘s
consumption styles. Journal of consumer policy. 26(4), pp 442-464.
IV. Heikki, jariet.al (2005) factors affecting consumer choice of mobile
phones, journal of Euro marketing, volume14 (3).
V. Wang, Wen cheng et al (2009) consuming research on brand recognition
on mobile phones. Journal if international management studies, 4(2),
august 2009.
Websites
I. https://oberlo.in
II. https://allresearchjournal.com
III. https://www.jetir.org
86
Questionnaire
Name:
1. Gender: Male Female

2. Family Income level (per month)
Less than 10000
10000-20000
20000-30000
Above 30000
3. Do you have mobile phone?
Yes No
If yes answer the following
4. Who bought the mobile phone for you
Self
Family members
Friends
Others
5. If it is bought by you ,which was source of information
Advertisement Salesman Sample
Reference group Self learning
6. How much you would be prepared to pay for mobile phone?
Less than 10000
10000-20000
20000-30000
Above 30000
7. Do you prefer mobile phones to be
feature
Phone size slim medium thick
Weight light medium heavy
Screen size small medium large
87
8. How many mobiles do you have?
One Two Three More than three
9. Which brand of mobile phone/phones are you using?
Samsung LG Lenovo Xiaomi
Apple Sony Huawei Asus
Lava Microsoft Others specify:
10. How long you are using mobile phones?

Less than 1 year
1-2 years
2-4 years
Above 4years
11. Where do you often see mobile phone advertisement?
TV News paper
Magazine Online
Outdoor Leaflets
12. Considering the advertisement you like –which brand is promoting (put
tick mark on it)
Samsung Sony Huwei Xiaomi
Apple LG Lenovo Asus
Lava Microsoft Others specify
88
13. Following questions are designed to investigate factors for preferring the
brand
SD: Strongly disagree D: Disagree N: Neutral
A: Agree SA: Strongly agree
SD D N A SA
A I prefer brand because of my status
B I prefer brand because of the durability
C I prefer brand because of performance
D I prefer brand because reliability
E I prefer brand to put myself image
F I prefer brand for risk reduction
14. Rate the factors which influence you to purchase mobile phone
(1. Very important 2. Important 3. Neutral 4. Less important

5. Not important)
1 2 3 4 5
a. Price
b. Camera
c. Battery
d. Screen size
e. Styles/Looks
f. Security option
g. Volume of speaker
h. Key pad
i. Bluetooth
j. Wi-Fi
k. User friendly
89
l. Dual SIM card
m. Operating system
n. 4G
o. Brand name
Others specify:
15. Are you satisfied with your present mobile phone?

Highly satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Highly dissatisfied
16. Would you recommend your current phone to anyone?
Yes No
17. If NO why?
18. Do you like to change your current mobile brand in near future?
Yes No
19. If YES reason
20. Are there any comments you would make about what you like /dislike
about your mobile phone?
90
91

"A Study On Brand Preferences of Mobile Phones Among Youth": Christ College (Autonomous), Irinjalakuda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

"A Study On Brand Preferences of Mobile Phones Among Youth": Christ College (Autonomous), Irinjalakuda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

"A Study On Brand Preferences of Mobile Phones Among Youth": Christ College (Autonomous), Irinjalakuda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“A STUDY ON BRAND PREFERENCES OF MOBILE

PHONES AMONG YOUTH”

Project report submitted to

CHRIST COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS), IRINJALAKUDA

Under the Guidance of

Dr. JOSHEENA JOSE

POST GRADUATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

This is to certify that the project entitled ―A STUDY ON BRAND

Dr. JOSHEENA JOSE Dr. JOSHEENAJOSE

I, Amal Vincent, hereby declare that the bona-fide record of ―A

Place: Irinjalakuda AMAL VINCENT

I wish to express my profound gratitude and heart-felt thanks to our

I am thankful to Dr. Josheena Jose, our HOD and my Project Guide

I put forward my thankfulness to the Librarian and Non-Teaching

Place: Irinjalakuda AMAL VINCENT

3 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 1-6

CHAPTER 4 – DATA ANALYSIS

Classification of respondents on the basis of Income

Classification of respondents on the basis of how long

Classification of respondents on the basis of who have

Classification of respondents on the basis of how much

Classification of respondents on the basis brands

Classification of respondents on the basis of Phone size

Classification of respondents on the basis of weight

Classification of respondents on the basis of screen size

Classification of respondents on the basis influence of

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence of

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence of

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

Classification of respondents on the basis of volume of

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

Classification of respondents on the basis influence of

Classification of respondents on the basis of influence

4.31 Case Processing Summary(a) 62

4.32 Gender* phone size cross tabulation(a) 63

4.33 Chi- Square Tests(a) 64

4.34 Case Processing Summary (b) 65

4.35 Gender* screen size cross tabulation(b) 65

4.36 Chi- Square Tests(b) 65

4.37 Case Processing Summary(c) 66

4.38 Gender * Weight Cross tabulation(c) 67

4.39 Chi Square test (c) 67

4.40 Factors for brand preferences 68

4.41 KMO and Bartlett‘s Test(a) 70

4.43 Total Variances Explained(a) 72

4.45 KMO and Bartlett‘s Test(b) 76

4.47 Total Variances Explained(b) 77

Classification of respondents on the basis of Income

Classification of respondents on the basis of how long